Matters like sexual orientation are just a non-issue for his generation. That instinctive tolerance, that instinctive pluralism, is what he hopes to exemplify in himself as leader, and what he hopes will draw minority votes to us.

Exemplifying is MUCH better than stating. And successfully carrying it off relies heavily on the listener’s perception of authenticity. That’s where Cameron has been failing, with all his little rhetorical tricks (and, yes, INauthentic policies, to be sure). IMHO, our man is the genuine article. That fast instinctive and honest “no” on the Beeb yesterday (on the god question) was a superb example. And I suspect he’s being rewarded in most people’s perceptions. More of that and less “hang on a minute” will pay major dividends.

No, all right, a perfectly good point.

I suppose what I am really saying, whilst inadvertantly slagging off the population, is that I think we need to be completely uncompromising – even intolerant – in rejecting the comparisons for the nonsense they are. The very fact that the Torygrph was able to say this morning that Clegg intends to challenge Cameron by “overhauling” Lib Dem policy is the ridiculous bit we’ve got to drive the wedge into. We don’t do policy on the way to work, Cameron does. The more we can make that clear, and the more publicly, the more difficult (to an order of magnitude) it will be for the media to peddle that line.

Having spouted off all that, Andy H at Wouldn’t it be scarier… has a far subtler take that is probably more of a winner:

http://mindrobber.blogspot.com/2007/12/lib-connery.html

Look (another rhetorical flourish I don’t much like) — it’s not brain-shortedness which leads to comparisons with Cameron, who in his turn was compared with Blair. Of course, content trumps style for activists. But not for the media and, I would argue, not for most voters, though few would admit it. After all, Ming was first class on content. Under Clegg, we’ve an opportunity to present — market even – our content appealingly to the whole universe of future voters. Incidentally, some of them will have been attracted initially to Cameron (or Blair). I don’t think we want to call them terminally facile.

However, I am aware that the terminally facile and short of brain will make the comparison, which is why I asked Clegg the other day what he had to say about it. I suggest you go to my blog to see what he said, because I really can’t put it better than he did.

I quite like the “hang on” tag, but it’s just a matter of opinion I guess.

I think he’s going to get compared to Cameron whatever he does and doesn’t say – we don’t need to start getting paranoid about turns of phrase. We need to attack the whole ridiculous notion for what it is, not even entertain the comparison. Sorry to state the obvious, but Cameron’s a vapid, unprincipled joke trying ineffectively to breathe life into dead ideas. And, as a wise facebooker on his hate group pointed out, he looks like a thumb.

Elizabeth,

Start a blog.

Mention it.

Ask why.

Bloggers aren’t performing seals, we’re not told what to write about, we don’t abide by some hidden journalistic credo on what we should be writing about. If you think important things aren’t being said, you need to say them. And incidentally I don’t think you do a good point any favours by incorporating it into an attack on someone else for saying what *they* think.

Have you considered writing an LDV piece about this, if a blog is too bothersome?

“The national party membership wants you to be different, edgy, radical:”
I think that’s true, but is that what the Lib Dem MPs want from a Leader? Too many appear to have been infected by the Westminster Bug! Nick says he wants to get our more, so should the other 62.

“…fear itself: in your case, it (occasionally) manifests itself as waffle in interviews”. It did on Newsnight yesterday, Nick kept asking Paxman to’hang on a minute’ then waffling for another 3 or 4.

Its not enought just to tell evryone you’re the great communicator, you must show it.

“And no bloggers have mentioned the 20,000 who didn’t vote, or asked why.”

Elizabeth, I’m one of the 20,000 who didn’t vote, and I’ve been talking to a bunch of others. There are many reasons for not voting, and a large number of them aren’t disillusionment before we even start down that road.

Nick is the new leader, democratically elected. Would I have preferred more candidates? Yes. Were they there? Not my choice.

In a two way race, it is FPTP, and Nick won by a whisker, that it was so close shows is a good thing: we had two very strong (and similar) candidates, and I for one, and I know a lot of others felt this, couldn’t decide and would’ve been happy with either candidate.

Chris running last time both made the race and got me to join the party, but both candidates are damn fine, and I’m sure Nick’ll be great.

As for ‘patronising’? Hardly, we’re a liberal party, our leader speaks on our behalf, he doesn’t tell us what to do or think. The purpose of this sort of site is to give opinions and discuss them, that’s what Stephen’s done.

We need to put the past behind us
Regardless of ‘blame’, and look forward. I want us to have 100+ MPs after the next general election, and the party has elected Nick to be the leader to do that for us. So regardless of who I’d have liked to see, Nick’s the guy now.

Even a patronising letter from Stephen Tall before he has bothered to make polite reference to the “defeated” candidate.
This is all the more significant in a party that purports to believe in Fair Votes and PR, but in this case is happy to declare a whisker majority as a “mandate”.
Only some 250 people in 41,000 need have voted the other way for a different result. Apparently FPTP is OK in some circumstances.

And no bloggers have mentioned the 20,000 who didn’t vote, or asked why.
Judging from the You Gov survey, where Charles had the top vote of leadership candidates if neither of the above were standing, the answer lies in resentment at the manner in which the parliamentary party ditched Charles.
I think before we rush to extol our new leader and deluge him with our own plans, we should have a hard look at the election figures.
Elizabeth.

If he had won by a huge margin, it may have led to some slight complacency. Whereas, I think that this will mean that he needs to go out there, work hard, and prove himself to those who didnt vote for him. This is no bad thing at all, and I am convinced he will do it.

But, y’know, if you want to think you’ve actually created an original idea, that’s fine

“your under-performance as a leadership candidate has served to tamper down the over-hype some of your more enthusiastic supporters wilfully indulged. A better campaign might have led to deferred disappointment; your disappointing campaign must now result in deferred joy.”

I agree with this, he ran a safe campaign because he knew he was ahead—it was too safe in many respects. Now he’s got to go out there and make some real noise.

Hmmm….

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com