If you missed it yesterday, you can catch up on Danny Alexander’s speech to the Lib Dem spring conference below. Listening to it, and trying to gauge the reaction of the audience of fellow Lib Dems, a couple of things struck me.
First, Danny has definitely improved as a public speaker. After almost four years in the cabinet as chief secretary to the treasury, he’s much more confident. Perhaps his best line yesterday was when he fended off Tory attempts to steal the credit for the Lib Dems’ tax-cuts for low-earners by saying, “There’s a big difference between doing something because you have to and doing something because you want to. They had to because we wanted to.”
Secondly, that improvement in Danny’s speaking only goes so far. Too much of the speech sounded like read-out versions of the e-mailed lists of Lib Dem achievements party members regularly receive. That’s fine in an email and we all need to have some handy facts to back up our doorstep conversations. But a speech needs also to tell a story, to engage. Can’t say Danny’s did it for me. Am I being too harsh? Well, judge for yourselves below…
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Plans for horse laundry facility at farm approved
Big money should not buy elections
The infected blood scandal highlights the siloed nature of Whitehall
Reality hits the Burnham agenda
Reading Ulysses
Newcastle Pride - the video
Matt Wardman
Pawel Urbanski
Jana
Nonconformistradical
Peter Martin
One Comment
I’m not a fan of Danny Alexander, his record in Coalition or his political positions. However, it is in my a opinion and error to judge any politician by the standard of their public speaking. Being a poor public speaker should be no bar on becoming a Councillor, MP or a Minister.
Even if this weren’t the case, surely representatives of Liberal Democrats, gathered at a conference, should judge a speaker by what they believe and have to say on an issue rather than how they say it?