Comments on: Deal or No Deal?

By: Liberal Democrat Voice » Top of the Blogs: the Golden Dozen #3

Liberal Democrat Voice » Top of the Blogs: the Golden Dozen #3 — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:04:38 +0000

[...] â€˜Deal or No Deal?â€™ on James Grahamâ€™s â€˜Quaequam Blog!â€™ blog. Ming should have stuck to his simple line of [...]

By: Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:57:45 +0000

“Perhaps his five tests were uttered more out of sorrow than of hope.”

Hear hear.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:10:07 +0000

I broadly agree, although I question the implication that the passage I quoted above doesn’t qualify as a hint to his overall position.

I have no doubt that Ming would prefer coalition with a Labour Party which espoused the ideals that it did in the mid-90s. The problem is, that party doesn’t appear to exist any more. Perhaps his five tests were uttered more out of sorrow than of hope.

By: Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:59:41 +0000

Granted, the rhetorical devices Ming used to attack each party were asymmetrical – but nevertheless he did attack both and made the points he needed to make. I just wouldn’t use it to read too much into his state of mind, especially given that we don’t know how much if any of the speech he wrote himself!

The only person who can tell us what his post-election strategy is is Ming himself, and he’s gone to great pains thus far not to offer any hints. The bottom line is that Ming would be foolish indeed to rule in or out any options at this stage. I don’t happen to believe that he’s a fool, and I think attempts to portray otherwise are a cynical ploy from sections of the media that simply do not like him. Including, apparently, most of the BBC…

By: James Graham

James Graham — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:59:19 +0000

I have to admit to not having read the speech, but I was quite careful to state that I thought the problem was not the speech itself but the spin (which seems to have been an official briefing so I can understand why the media is roasting the party over the coals at the moment). With that said, you’ve forced me to read – or at least skim – through the speech and it doesn’t reassure me. Specifically:

So, these are the five tests for Mr Brown if he is going to make the change of direction that Britain needs.

And if he meets these five tests he will have changed direction.

He will have changed direction, and embraced liberal democracy.

Are the Conservatives up to this same challenge?

Of course not.

If that isn’t an explicit abandonment of equidistance, I don’t know what is.

By: Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:37:57 +0000

“Campbell should have stuck with his far more useful rhetoric of maximum seats and maximum votes.”

If you read the speech, that is precisely the rhetoric he uses:

“People keep asking me what my objectives for the next elections are.

So let me tell you now.

More votes, more seats, more influence.

And at these next elections â€“ on May 3rd â€“ that is what this party must aim for.

More votes across the country.

More seats in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

And more influence in more councils across Britain.”

I think if you read the speech as a whole you’ll find it “not guilty” in terms of coalition talk. The “five tests” segment is throwing down the gauntlet to Brown, no more. Ming is scathing about Brown and Labour – even if he secretly does have a poster of Gordon Brown in his bedroom you wouldn’t know it from that speech:

“This Chancellor of the Exchequer has had more control over the direction of government policy than any Chancellor in living memory.

This man, who has written the cheques since 1997, has had unparalleled influence within Whitehall.

Why on earth should we believe that Britain will be better governed if he moves from No 11 Downing Street to No. 10?

Why should we believe that more of the same is what Britain needs?”

The fault here lies squarely with the mainstream media and their perception of British politics entirely through the red vs. blue prism – although a special mention goes to whichever jumped-up “insider” gave that anonymous briefing…