We do need a set of core beliefs and specific policies, all of which hang together in a believable story or narrative. The one thing that was missing from James’ narrative was the set of core beliefs that tell the electorate who we are and where we come from. I think that ‘core belief’ is empowerment, power to the people, call it what you like, but a principle that helps define what our response should be in any set of circumstances, for example decentralisation and devolution of government decision making.

I am old enough to remember the ‘People Count’ slogan of the Liberal Party. It represented a concern for ordinary people, it implied that our party would not take them or their votes for grantedand it reflected our core belief in individual liberty.

I do think an effective slogan forms a key part – an essential part – of the overall narrative.

Thanks for the compliment!

The point is that it has to be a story – incuding set-up, conflict, resolution, characters, logic.

See the discussion of the Thatcher narrative in the MTC consultation paper. Also, the Liberal Party
manifestos of the 1970s all started with a brief “story of post-war Britain”.

I concur with James, that when we choose a new leader, we will also be choosing, in large degree,
a narrative/story. This is because a lot of the party’s brand and image are summed in the leader – not just in his views, and
the story he tells (more than anyone else in the party) but
also in the way he tells it — his appearance, outlook, demeanour, clothes, everything. Though I think you
sum up parts of the candidates’ images, you don’t quite get the narrative. Perhaps that because they’re
all still early in the process of telling it to the party.

It may well be less of a problem than the media present it as, but it is still what they are saying and Ming needs to address this. Thus far, I haven’t seen him do so and I remain very, very anxious about it since it is the leader of my party that we’re talking about.

My problem with Ming in this campaign so far is that he has looked complacent and saying that image problems simply don’t exist doesn’t instill me with confidence.

If his age is likely to impair his ability to do the job, then fine. But there is little reason to believe that is the case.

John Prescott is four years older than Ming, but no-one says he is too old for the job. The reason being that Prescott has a full head of dark-brown hair.

The same applied to Ronald Reagan. He was 70 when he took office and 78 when he left it. His age was never very much of an issue because he retained a full head of black hair (and the USA is less ageist than the UK).

Concerns about age are largely issues of perception. Ming is bald and the hair he has left is grey. He “looks” old. So people worry about his ability to do the job. Can you not see how irrational this is?

A party which rejects ageism is a party which attracts people of all ages. If we elect a leader who is 64, then by the same token we should also be selecting candidates in winnable seats who are still in their twenties.

An older man is perceived as having wisdom and experience. Those are attributes which Ming projects. And they are a counterbalance to David Cameron who tries to project energy and enthusiasm.

Moreover, people of Ming’s age and older are a growing segment of the population. If people in that age brakcet are excluded from public office, then they are to a large degree disenfranchised.

One of the reasons the Nationwide Buiding Society recently took the decision to employ people up to the age of 75 is that older customers often like to deal with staff of their own generation.

Where we have perhaps been weak in the past is in adding to the negatives of our opponents. We managed it against labout in last year’s election, but mainly due to their own stupidity. We didn’t really manage it against the Tories at all.

In response to Stephen, I think it is important that we look at each candidates record as well as what they put in their speeches during the campaign. All four of them will play the game of adjusting their message in order to maximise their support. I am far more interested in what each of them actually believes, as evidences by their record, and also how each of them actually goes about things, again based on how they have actually behaved in the past, not on how they now claim they will behave.