Liberal England’s Jonathan Calder points Lib Dems to the article by leader Sir Menzies Campbell on the Beijing Olympics in the Grauniad.
Mr. Calder thinks it’s a bit weak, and judging by the user comments most of the paper’s website readers agree. Personally, I’m surprised that Ming did not use his new ‘spikiness’ to take a stronger line. Freer markets must be aided in making lives freer for people in communist state.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Could Andy Burnham rival William Beveridge in impact? (Katharine Pindar)
World Suicide Prevention Day, 10th September (Ron Aitken)
What can we really do to influence the situation in the West Bank? (Alan Juriansz)
Welcome to Lib Dem Friends of Gaelic Language and Culture (Caron Lindsay)
Going for four in a row in Scotland (Grant Toghill)
Richard O'Sullivan's This is Your Life from 1974
The Death of Stalin: Armando Iannucci's 2017 black comedy
Lib Dems gain majority control of Oxfordshire County Council
In which I agree with Kemi Badenoch
Sarah Olney: I would like to be next Lib Dem London Mayor candidate
Lisa Smart calls for police to investigate Reform's James Orr
That Channel 4 News report on Reform UK and illicit funding in full
Charles Masterman and Charles Dickens on 19th-century poverty
The Joy of Six 1571
Council by-election results scorecard 2026-2027
Mick Taylor 
Simon 
Toby 
Suzanne Fletcher 
Matt Wardman 
5 Comments
Whilst I share a disappointment that the article isn’t spikier, I don’t think that “freer markets” are really the key word for a Guardian audience. Like Jonathan said, “Ming” would have done better simply to sound angrier about the human rights issues, and not to try to paint an optimistic picture where there isn’t much of one to be had.
I’ve given my take on the article too. I’m not impressed either I have to say. If it was done by a ghost writer then they should not be used again. If it was Ming then some work needs doing on sharpening up our China policy PDQ.
1 – Andy: yeah, I was meaning that China can’t expect to enjoy the benefits of free trade without conceding freedom to the populace. It was more of a comment from me than a suggestion of how the article could have been spikier.
Yes, if this is the “new Ming,” then I don’t know what to say. But there’s more bad stuff in the Guardian today.
China simply proves once again that free markets does not equate to individual liberty and human rights.
Liberals should stop deceiving themselves otherwise. In fact governments like China create a demand that free markets are only too happy to fulfill, to produce the implements of oppression, as we see with the arms trade, or with Yahoo cooperating with the Chinese government over internet censorship.
Blair and Bush thought that introducing a free market economy to Iraq would lead to greater human rights, but in fact what we are witnessing there today is the opposite.
Lets continue supporting human rights as liberals, but lets not be so starry eyed about free markets.