Ming's diary is Private Eye'd

Ming Campbell's Diary gets the Craig Brown treatment in the latest issue of Private Eye. It's hilarious. You'll have to get hold of a copy to read it.

Things would have been so much easier if Charles had been a rubbish leader

I haven't bought the Mail on Sunday, I feel duty-bound to point out. But I have just read, via the web, the first elements of their serialisation of Ming's forthcoming auto-biography. You can pre-order it via Liberal Democrat Voice here with some spondoolicks going to the party.

The segment serialised today certainly offers useful perspective on the Charles Kennedy leadership. I say "useful" in the following sense: As Ming says, his father had a drink problem. By writing this article, I think Ming helps to put together another piece of the jigsaw in understanding alcoholism. Several times, his narrative returns to this essential dichotomy: Charles was a superb LibDem leader, but those close around him saw things in a different light.

If Charles had been a rubbish leader, then his passing would not have been too painful. But he was a superb leader. Ming's rather "so-so" leadership demonstrated that by sharp contrast.

There is also some interesting stuff about Ming and Elspeth.

I still haven't decided whether to buy the book. Previous experience of politicians' auto-biographies is that they are interesting up until the point they get into power or leadership. They then tend to become rather sanctimonious exercises in retrospective self-justification. Alan Clark's Diaries were a shining exception to that general rule.

Ming's treatment bemoaned by John Mortimer

Rumpole creator John Mortimer says the contrast between the popularity of John McCain in the States and the treatment of Ming Campbell is emblematic of Britain's old being 'ignored':

One of the few figures who acted like a statesman was Sir Ming Campbell. A life at the Scottish Bar had trained him in the art of asking apparently simple questions which could pierce and deflate pomposity.

But Sir Ming had committed a serious crime; nothing to do with alcohol or dangerous drugs or rent boys, he had knowingly achieved the age of 66. Alarmed whispers spread through the Liberal party: 'Do you know that Ming is 66?' It was vital to get rid of this embarrassing old-ager and to hustle him off the scene as though he was deaf, dumb and doubly incontinent. It is no use being an accomplished statesman in our world if you cannot at least pretend to be young.

Ming voted for Nick Clegg to be leader

It was a delight to see a very fit and relaxed Ming on Sunday AM. He dropped into the conversation that he voted for Nick Clegg in the leadership election, which is interesting. He obviously kept quiet about this during the campaign, as all immediate-past leaders do. But I think he is the first one to say, after the election, who he voted for.

Letter from Ming

I received this letter from Ming today. It now has pride of place in the gallery at Burble Towers. (Click on it to enlarge)

Ming's masterstroke

David Cameron has now hoisted himself by his own petard. He's had to admit that once Brown/Parliament have ratified the latest EU Treaty, it will be 'too difficult' to hold a retrospective referendum.

So, that's that issue neutralised, in that Cameron will be unable to use it as a campaigning issue in the run-up to the general election. Also he is now under fire from the Europhobes in his party for this latest admission. Marvellous! I love it when a plan falls apart.

So, the Liberal Democrats are now the only party proposing any form of referendum on the EU. That is on the whole issue of our membership of the EU - out or in. Yes or no.

By the way, I think this position is subject to ratification by the whole party. But certainly Ming, Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg have all rejected a referendum on the EU Treaty and proposed a referendum on membership. The latter two confirmed this on Sunday on The Andrew Marr Show thus:

ANDREW MARR: Would either of you give this country a referendum on the European Treaty?
NICK CLEGG: No.
CHRIS HUHNE: No, but I do think we need a referendum on the big issues.
NICK CLEGG: Absolutely.

So, perhaps Ming should be thanked for a masterstroke here, after all, bless him. It's turned out that (once the treaty is ratified) Cameron hasn't got anything to campaign on, and has been left with Europhobes in his party fuming at him, while the LibDems emerge as the only party, post ratification, proposing a referendum on the EU.

Oh, actually, perhaps Cameron has got something to campaign on. He could campaign as the leader of the party who refused Britain a referendum when it actually mattered (i.e on Common Market entry in the first place, on the Single European Act and on the Maastricht treaty) but instead promised us a faux-referendum on a revising treaty which was only significant when you add it as an increment to all the other treaties since Rome.

World thrown into crisis as Menzies Campbell resigns

Well it made me laugh.

Surprise? Really?

The BBC and others have described Ming's decision as a "surprise".

While I am gratified that the description "surprise" at least gives some leeway for Ming's decision to be regarded as his own in respect, at least, to its precise timing, I am surprised that the "media" are surprised.

In Brighton at the conference last month, Ming gave 70 media interviews and was asked about his age in every single one of those interviews. (I might add that when Ming was interviewed by the LibDem Blogger of the Year shortlisters, none of us asked him about his age - according to my notes and recollection).

So, why the "surprise"?

In their last 70 interviews with the press, have the media challenged Delia Smith, Dick Cheney, Nick Nolte or Bob Dylan about their age? They are, you guessed it, the same age as Ming.

Many individual members of the media are hugely intelligent and discerning. But, and I don't judge whether this is good or bad, there is a "pack behaviour" thing with the media these days related to the "narrative" which it collectively attaches to any given subject at any given time. This pack behaviour can be, at times, described as absolutely brainless.

If anything ended Ming's leadership career, it was the "narrative". Political death by narrative.

Thank you Ming

Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it - Shakespeare, Macbeth

Charles Anglin used this quote on the comments at LibDem Voice and I couldn't think of any quote more fitting (relating, of course, to political party leadership 'life') for Ming's departure.

Paddy put it most eloquently on Today this morning. This is Ming's day.

Amidst the bundle of emotions of the last few days (including, frankly, feeling a bit unworthy myself) my respect for Ming is overwhelming and increased by the courageous manner of his departure.

Of all the various political figures of whom I have knowledge, I know of no figure with such high integrity, unswerving decency and noble dignity.

He has been, and will no doubt continue to be, an outstanding and remarkably selfless servant of British Liberalism.

...As the burnished chariot of fate is wheel-clamped by the traffic warden of eternity....

(Humphrey Lyttelton, 26 Nov 1994 "I'm sorry I haven't a clue")

Today I have sent this open letter to Ming.


Dear Ming

Following my private note to you on Friday, I am writing this open letter to you, after much reflection and listening.

I believe it is time for you to stand down as Liberal Democrat leader and allow a calm handover to a new leader.

To explain this, it is best to borrow an athletic allegory with which you will be familiar. I remember seeing an old black and white film of you running in a relay race. The thing about relay races is that each runner has his or her own length to run, they are part of the team, they have to hand over the baton carefully to the next runner and all the runners get medals and share in the glory, if they win. Each runner is chosen to run each distance based on his or her particular abilities.

That’s where we are. We are at the time, I believe, where there needs to be a handover to the next leader. This is not, in my opinion, any reflection on how you have conducted yourself. I believe you have been superb leader. I am particularly appreciative of the way you have built up our policy platform. You have negotiated the development of our policies with remarkable skill. Today we have our best tax policies for several generations. It is just time for a change.

I make no criticism of your leadership. In fact, I have nothing but praise for you. Your two conference speeches have been electrifying. You have done very well on your public appearances. You have reminded us all of the importance of integrity, decency, dignity and honesty in British politics. For that I am most grateful to you.

With best wishes
Paul

Telegraph rowlocks on the cowardly custard

It's pronounced "rollocks" - for non-maritime types.

If they can't even get the name of Liberal Democrat Voice right - they repeatedly call it "Liberal Voice" and they don't name the "senior frontbencher" or the "senior LibDem" quoted, and they don't quote many of the NAMED positive comments about Ming on LibDem blogs - only the unnamed or pseudonymous negative ones, why in the name of Sam Hill should anyone take a blind bit of notice of their article?

Look it's very simple. Whoever this "senior frontbencher" is should either have the guts to come out and be named criticising Ming or SHUT UP!

This won't be quoted in the Independent

Stephen Tall on LibDem Voice has highlighted an article in today's Independent just above the motif saying "Now wash your hands". I don't blame journalists. They have editors on their back and they are lazy just like the rest of us. Why actually try to work out what is going on when you can just quote a blog which fits what your editor wants? Why try to get your head around policy? It's boring rubbish, isn't it?

Jo Hayes wrote a posting called Time to take stock. The salient passage, relative to Ming's skills, read:

The truth is that in the hard world of national politics Ming has had 18 months to gain acceptance as a potential Prime Minister by the general public, but he has not gained it. And I do not believe he is going to gain it by doing a bit of work on his approval ratings. We can argue until we are blue in the face that it is ageist to criticise Ming, but it is not a question of his age. It is a question of his energy levels, of his charisma or lack of it, of whether people are at ease with him, whether they feel he understands the country's problems and their own problems, above all whether he has the mix of qualities to run the country well, the toughness to withstand the sustained stress and pressure of the job, to be good in a crisis or in the series of crises that it is part of the job to cope with. It is a question of the whole man, the whole image, whole myth, even, of a human being considered by others as their potential leader.

I have to resort to that old quote which was, perhaps tentatively, attributed to Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it".

In more normal language I think Jo is repeating what is always said about Ming and has always been said. I speak from a different viewpoint. I think he has shown great energy. He works 18 hour days some days. He is extremely sparky in interviews and on the telly, as anyone who has bothered to watch him recently will testify. He is a liberal through and through. A man of great integrity with a track record of leadership (he was a PPC and won in what was a no-hopish seat). He has actually shown great leadership skill in the last year in steering us through big debates such as green taxes and Trident. He has not made any significant mistakes. He has brought on a great team - which is a feat unheard of previously in LibDem leaders. He is well able to act in a crisis as several crises have shown.

He does have charisma and he is very authoritative. He doesn't talk cobblers and people respond to him well (see last week's Question Time). His opinion poll ratings have been increasingly good and at one time, when he had exposure, he was more popular than Cameron. He does have toughness and people are at ease with him. And the things that people complain about (not making a party political broadcast when he is asking Brown questions, for example) actually increase the respect the public have for him, because he is acting like a trustworthy human-being, rather than a slippery politician.

Give him a break! And for the sake of all that's sacred let's start talking about what matters - policy! Did I mention recently that the Liberal Democrats want to decrease the standard rate of income tax down to 16 pence in the pound? 16 pence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the lowest rate since Lloyd George !!!!!!!!!!!!! and more !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ming is "it"

As I foresaw, one of the advantages of having a media conference narrative of "leader on last legs", is that when the leader gives a half-way decent speech at the end, the media narrative then, with typical hysteria, turns turtle and majors on "leader rises from dead".

But the media coverage is not all glowing and Ming's speech far exceeded the description "half-way decent".

I always look forward to immersing myself in wall-to-wall media coverage of the LibDems. I was not disappointed as I sat down to the teatime news programmes yesterday. ITV started their coverage of Ming's speech with a huge caption reading: "Ming finds his Zing" (James Gurling seems to have been ahead of them with that one). That gold standard of UK political commentary, Nick Robinson said the speech should "stop the mutterings - for now".

And there's the rub. We had all this after last year's autumn conference speech and after the Ealing/Southall and Sedgefield by-elections. A few weeks of calm, and then it all kicks off again. "Ming too old", "Young Turks vie for position" etc etc.

So why should this time be any different? Why, as the Michael White said this morning, have "tectonic plates shifted"?

For me, it's different because of the sheer comprehensiveness, passion and heart-stopping liberalism of his speech yesterday.

My earliest experience of live politics, as opposed to my grandfather swearing at Harold Wilson or Nasser whenever they came onto the telly, was when I was ten. During the 1970 general election campaign I was able to wonder a few hundred yards down from our house and stand and observe what, in those days, was an endangered species, a genuine Liberal MP. John Pardoe was his name. A big bear of a man with real charisma and passion. He used to stand on top of his landrover with his microphone and bellow out a stump speech. I can't remember what he said. If you asked me a few minutes after he had spoken what he had said, I probably wouldn't have been able to tell you much of what he said. But I knew one thing for sure. This man was "it". He was speaking the truth, he knew what needed to be done in the country, and he expressed it with such down-to-earth and gripping passion that I knew I was a Liberal like him.

Listening to Ming's speech yesterday was a similar experience. Ming is "it".

You just have to take his opening paragraph:

Let me start by asking some questions:
What kind of country is it where the government responds to the threat of climate change by allowing green taxes to fall as carbon emissions rise?
What kind of country is it where the richest in the land pay a lower rate of tax than the people who have to clean their offices?
What kind of country is it where the government halts a criminal investigation into corrupt arms sales to placate commercial interests?
What kind of country is it where the government colludes with the Tories to exempt MPs from freedom of information?
What kind of country is it where the government sneaks out a short statement on the last day of Parliament signing us up to host America’s Son of Star Wars on British soil?
And what kind of country is it where the government leads us into an illegal and disastrous war and then stops people from protesting against it?
Well, I’ll tell you what sort of country it’s not:
It’s not a liberal country.

Well, that's fired me up just on its own. What an awesome list of the wrongs of the past few years of Labour government! It is to the credit of the speechwriters that they stacked the speech with the full set of these sorts of points in a highly organised way. That opening is all the more arresting for the fact that all those six points are the type of thing that is all too easily forgotten in day-to-day media coverage. It demonstrates cutting-edge liberalism that Ming and his team collated that list, and the other points later in the speech.

Ming's scathing critiques of the other two leaders were brilliant. First on Cameron he was stunningly accurate as well as funny:

This year, David Cameron is going back to basics.
Last year the Conservative conference was about health, happiness and the sunshine glinting through the trees.
This year it will be flag, fear – and foreigners.
But why the right-turn?
I’ll tell you why.
Because he’s under pressure.
And without convictions of his own, the Tory leader is buffeted by the beliefs of others.
He’s done a u-turn on grammar schools.
An about turn on identity cards.
And a wrong-turn on human rights.
Margaret Thatcher would have to concede:
He turns if you want him to.
The laddie’s all for turning.
But we’re not for turning – we know exactly what we stand for.

But he was even more skillful in shooting that old fox, Gordon Brown:

Mr Brown is working hard to convince us that there has been real change in Number 10:
That his arrival has somehow wiped the slate clean.
That the last ten years of waste, failure and disappointment are to be forgiven and forgotten
Well, not so fast Gordon.
You spent a decade blaming everything on the previous Conservative government.
But as Chancellor over the last ten years you had unparalleled influence over government.
You could have raised green taxes to tackle climate change.
You could have stopped the ineffective, expensive and unnecessary identity card scheme.
And you could have prevented Tony Blair from embarking on the catastrophe of the Iraq war.
But you didn’t.
This is your legacy, Mr Brown:
The environment degraded.
Civil liberties eroded.
Iraq invaded.
Not to mention the record for which you - and you alone - were responsible as Chancellor.
A smash and grab raid on private pensions.
A steady, disturbing rise in the number of home repossessions.
And a national economic backdrop of £1.3 trillion in personal debt.
With a record like that it’s no wonder that the Prime Minister wants to start afresh.
But it’s a record for which we will ensure that he takes responsibility:
In spite of your claims of change, Mr Brown, not much really has changed.
New Labour remains blue Labour.
And you’re still wrong.
Wrong on nuclear energy.
Wrong on council tax.
Wrong on student fees.
And you are wrong, wrong, wrong on detention without charge.
We don’t need a change of tone in this country:
We need a change of policies.
And you, Gordon Brown, have not delivered.

I think we should all re-read that about once a week. To me, that is a main plank of a general election campaign.

There was one tricky patch in the speech, it should be said. When Ming mentioned the EU referendum he only got subdued applause. When he said: "We would ask the British people the real question – whether they wish to remain in the European Union or not. I will proudly lead the Liberal Democrats at the forefront of that debate." he received no applause at all, even though it sounded as though he wanted some, from the way he said it. Maybe conference were a bit miffed at being told 'he will lead' us in a referendum campaign on EU membership when it has not yet considered what that referendum should consist of, if it is to be any different (some might say) from our manifesto commitment.

But, apart from that, the speech went on as it began. A crie de coeur of liberalism. "A classic liberal speech", as Paddy called it. "Ming Emperor rallies his weary troops" as the Telegraph put it.

So Ming has put the party to bed - for now. He has sounded a "clarion call" (Nick Clegg) in advance of a potential election. But that's not enough.

It's all very well making me happy. It's all very well making most of the "troops" happy and fired up. 'Classic liberal speeches' fire us all up. But they don't necessarily fire the country up. I do believe that we have policies, such as the 16p basic rate of tax, which will sell themselves very well to the electorate. If every voter had a copy of Ming's speech and read it, then we'd be home and dry. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen, of course.

So we have the media issue - how do we get our message across (apart from the obvious Penhaligonesque method of putting it on a bit of paper and sticking it through a letter box)? Unlike David Nikel I am not angry at the likes of Nick Assinder, who wrote a typically petty piece on the conference on BBC Online. Like all journalists, Nick has to write something, and normally gets asked by his superior to write in a certain vein. It's no good getting angry with journalists. They have to put bread on the table at home. We are not going to change the media (except perhaps in a very small, incremental way). And they do us some favours - as we can see today's and yesterday's coverage of Ming's speech.

We have to work with the media rather than constantly belittling them.

Yes, it is a pain in the neck to have this constant "who will succeed Ming?" stuff. But look on the bright side. At least we have some obvious successors to Ming. Where are the obvious successors to David Cameron? There aren't any. Strangely enough, it is a credit to Ming that he has successors waiting. It is the job of any manager to ensure that there is a succession plan for him/herself. Ming has ensured that and has gone out of his way to foster his team of "young turks".

Great speech from Ming

Quick reaction on the speech. Great. He pressed all the right buttons. A real liberal speech - outlined a real, distinctive position and made clear Brown/Cameron's appalling failings. There was a tricky patch when he mentioned the EU referendum. I think he was particularly strong with his devastating critique of Brown.

Ming's speech really could be offered as a summary to answer the question "what is a liberal?" as well as "what are the LibDems for?"

It was a brilliantly written , comprehensive speech. He showed real passion. I am not just saying that. He was shouting almost at some points and he looked really confident and energetic.

The full text of the speech is here.

Ming's speech - Live blog

11.52 Tim Clement-Jones is "shaking the tin", bless him.

11.59 Dead Liberals are in the spotlight. Chris Rennard announces that John Stuart Mill has been voted the greatest Liberal in history. When you think about it, a bit of a no brainer. (But then again a no brainer surely needs no thinking about....I hate this waiting) Well done to the Millster.

12.06 Chris Rennard looks forward to his 50th LibDem/Liberal conference/assembly in his home city of Liverpool next March.

12.07 The Party Conference broadcast video is being played while the mass ranks move onto the stage to be the backdrop.

12.09 Warm applause for Ming's goal in the video.

12.10 Ming walks into the hall. Elspeth is wearing a plain white suit/coat. Very subdued for her.

12.12 Ming starts with some questions. Climate change response of Labour - green taxes fall. Richest pay lower tax rate than their office cleaners. Criminal investigation into arms sales stopped. Tories trying to exempt MPs from FOI. What kind of country? Government sneaks out "son of Star Wars" announcement on last day of parliament. Illegal disastrous war - stopping protests. What kind of country? Very passionate. It's not a liberal country. That's why LibDems have never been more necessary.

Brilliant start.

12.14 LibDems leading fight against climate change. Examples: Wales, Scotland. Recent green organisations audit where we came top. Policies: green taxes - vision for zero carbon Britain.

12.15 Media critics. Obsessed with Young Turks. (Married one!) I answer to you and not the media. Big applause.

12.16 Thank goodness we can confront difficult issues. Say controversial things. That's real leadership. That's my leadership. We're on the cutting edge of critical issues. "I won't have it any other way".

12.17 Hard choices. Labour. Gordon gets into power and the first thing he does is praises Maggie Thatcher. Maggie, Gordon, Tony, Dave, Ian, Michael....confused? You must be. But I don't want to be like any of them. Big cheer/applause.

12.18 Conservatives. Right turn. No convictions. Cameron buffeted. Grammar schools etc. Wrong turn on human rights.

12.20 He turns if you want him to. The lad is all for turning. Nice one. We're not for turning. Fit for purpose - radical, responsible, Liberal.

12.21 We'll be ready for election. Fight for every vote. To rattle cages.

12.22 Ealing Southall/Sedgefield - hard work -principal challengers to government. Tories pushed into third place. Applause. Mayor of London - three great candidates on shortlist. Sustained applause.

12.23 Boris Johnson. the blondest suicide note in history.

12.24 Age. I will make it an issue. Experience. Judgment. War decisions.

12.25 Tragic folly of Iran war. Ability to trust LibDems if Iran military action proposals from the US come.

12.26 Brown doesn't get off hook - he could have prevented Iraq war, ID cards, lack of green taxes - chancellor for 10 years

12.28 Brown's legacy - we see now. Personal debt. We will ensure he takes responsibility. New Labour remains Blue Labour. Wrong wrong wrong.

12.29 Don't just need change of tone - need change of policy and Brown hasn't delivered. Farmers. Must get farmers back in business asap. Collapse of trust in leading banks. Queues. Underlying of excessive debt/reckless lending has not been addressed - responsibility with Brown.

12.30 Conservatives not fit for purpose. No environment commitments. Agreed with war. Bucketful of policy proposals. Advice from the Vulcan - straight from the bridge of SS Free Enterprise - policies Dave, but not as we know them.

12.32 Tories still don't know what their policies would be. Suffering from identity crisis. Don't know whether to hug or hang hoodies.

12.33 Environment, taxes, Iraq etc - cosy consensus Labour Tory - we alone can break

12.34 That doesn't rule out co-operation. Steel, Ashdown and Kennedy were all proved right when they stood up to Labour/Tories.

12.35 When they try to shout me down - I would not be silenced. The LibDems will never be silenced (rendition, Guantanemo etc). That includes Europe. We must make case. Cameron wants to restrict us to narrow referendum - let's have an honest debate with a real choice. Applause (3 on clapometer). Tricky moment.

12.42 Freedom is indivisible. Racial/sexual/sexual orientation - I stand with those prejudiced against and so too do LibDems - strong applause - tricky moment over.

12.43 You can't be a part time liberal. Faith. Guarantee all religions accept tyranny of none.
Good phrase.

12.44 Listing people he has met. Homeless. Injured soldier. Powerful piece about price of war that should never have been.

12.44 too many forgotten people. Social exclusion. I'm angry. I'm deeply angry. Things have got to change if we want to be one truly united Britain. Big applause. Government must stand for interests of all but vested interests of none.

12.45 Change governance once and for all - throw open the doors of government and let the people in. No more secret arms deals full stop. Fair votes. End of lottery of FPSTP system. Real Freedom of information. Wholly elected house of Lords. Bill of rights. Put the protection of the environment at the heart of constitution - guarantee rights to clean water, air etc

12.46 Our challenge is to extend freedom to everyone. London. Deprivation. Gap between rich and poor is wider than when Labour came to office. Who'd have thought it? Big applause. Social mobility in decline - UK at bottom of UNICEF league table for child well being.

12.48 That's the record of Brown/Labour. Social housing queue. Pensioners struggling. People whose background change their prospects. Education. Proposal for extra money for children who are struggling. Where opportunity is denied, freedom is denied also.

12.50 William Beveridge. Challenges still there. Five giants. We should lead fight for five freedoms.

12.51 Confidence in the law and crime prevention at all time low. Brown increased taxes for less well off. We will close tax loopholes. Cut rate of income tax to lowest for century. Shift tax from income to pollution. Cuts for average families.

12.52 Clean environment. We will fight for the five freedoms. I will lead party into GE with energy, passion...liberalism has never been needed than it is today.

12.55 We alone can break cosy consensus. We only can make people free from fear, climate change. Only we will fight for free, fair and green society. We're not the real alternative - we're the ONLY alternative. Sustained applause.

12.56 Not two against one. But one against two. I joined to change country - that is what we can achieve together.

Lots of applause.

Ming's speech - Live blog

11.52 Tim Clement-Jones is "shaking the tin" bless him.

Ming: 'It's not two on one now, it's one on two'

That was a phrase that Ming repeated several times at the interview last Sunday with the LibDem Blogger of year shortlisters.

It's not two on one, now. It's one on two.

What he means is that instead of the two non-governmental parties opposing the government, we now have just one of the non-governmental parties, the LibDems, opposing both Labour and the Conservatives - what he is calling the "cosy consensus", in his speech this morning.

It is a powerful point. Rather than list off those policies on which Labour and the Tories have agreed on in the last ten years (there are too many), it is easier to list the policies on which they have disagreed.

In the early days, they disagreed on the Minimum Wage. The preponderance of each party's MPs, in a free vote, have disagreed on Hunting with hounds. There have been differences of tone on Europe and immigration - but nothing substantive. On most issues, both parties have fallen in with the other in a game of "Anything you can do, we can do better". A sort of Daily Mail reader bidding war.

So Ming's "It's one on two" and "cosy consensus" phrases are actually a clever distillation of the UK political picture which highlights the injustice of a system which is erring more and more towards what used to be, and perhaps still is, called the "right wing". That's a situation brought sharply into focus with Gordon Brown's cosying up to Margaret Thatcher and subsequent comparisons to George Orwell's Animal Farm:

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig...but already it was too late to say which was which.

As an aside, Ming developed his "one on two" leitmotif in the Sunday interview, saying that "it's one against one - LibDem against Labour in the North and one against one - LibDem against Conservative in the South". He then attempted a further bit of juggling with basic maths but stumbled a bit and got a bit tangled up. He reminded me of a slightly discombobulated Ted Rodgers on the telly programme 3-2-1 (below) when he used to do a little trick with his hand to put up three, then two, then one finger in a very fast sequence. Most of the audience of 3-2-1 were left utterly baffled by the programme, but I have high hopes that this "cosy consensus" and "one against two" theme will be better understood by the public. It might even pass as a rallying call for the LibDems, if we are allowed rallying calls. I suspect we'll have to receive a couple of shots of mogodon to calm us down.

What more does Ming have to do? Streak?

We had a Party Conference Broadcast this evening. The title was "Environment Action Now". It had a straight-forward narrative involving the floods in July. Ming appeared against that backdrop. He was in "animated mode". I know, the electrodes had been applied. Ha Ha. But I did find his words and body language reasonably arresting. What more does he have to do? Streak?

It was a nice touch to see Ming playing football with his gandsons at the end. You can watch the broadcast below this post.

Later on the Six O'Clock News, Nick Robinson put viewers' questions to Ming.

Nick started by reading an email question: "Ming Campbell's clearly a smart chap, can he not see that the country will not back a leader they feel sorry for?"

Ming appeared very assured and answered robustly that he had an agenda to take on Climate change, implement a fair tax policy, and improve citizens' rights, which have been whittled away by this government.

Nick said that a party colleague had described him (Ming) as a victim of "barely disguised ageism".

Ming replied that people are concerned about performance, judgement, fairness and experience.

Nick said "You used word "fair" - is it fair to increase the taxes of people earning a combined household income of £67,000?"

Ming answered that the UK average income is £24-25,000 so that people earning £70,000 are on 2.5 times average - "shouldn't they be asked to pay a little more? - If you are going to benefit 90% of the people you can't do it with smoke and mirrors"

Nick ended by asking if Ming faced a big challenge tomorrow.

Ming said that he intended to send LibDems home with a spring in their step and that he offered policies to change the face of Britain.

There's more here.

163 families would not now be grieving if there had been more people like Ming in the Cabinet

I did a quick cut and paste last night about the ICM poll showing Cameron behind Ming and Brown in the popularity stakes. Yes! Ming is more popular than Cameron. So stick that in your pipe, oh detractors, and smoke it!

James quite rightly says that it is the Tories who should now be tearing themselves apart.

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian concludes that Cameron has not stayed the course of "modernisation" as Blair did for years:

...if Cameron thinks he's done enough modernising so that he can now soothe the Tory heartlands with the old songs on Europe and immigration, he's wrong. To win, he has to be able to hold a line long after the political classes, and especially his own party, have become bored rigid by it.

I have moved on from being bored rigid by the continual "Ming faltering line". The media are just pathetic. First, we got the Guardian blowing a quip totally out of proportion. Then this morning Radio Four majored on "Nick Clegg ready to takeover" or some such of nonsense. It turns out Nick Clegg had a woolly suggestion that he might stand for the leadership if and when there is a vacancy (couched around support for Ming and an attack on his detractors) reluctantly squeezed out of him (I think he had a soft part of his anatomy placed roughly between two bricks) at a fringe meeting which was not even recorded.

Pathetic.

So boredom is now being replaced by mild anger, on my part. Anger at the ridiculous, pathetic media pack mentality. I live in hope that Ming will be described as 'Lazarus rising from the dead' after his speech tomorrow. It would be par for the course.

And I have to admit I am still working up to being livid at the smug idiots who make sneering remarks about Ming's age. Humour I can handle. But not the unhumourous, sneering remarks.

Ming is fitter than many men, indeed journalists, half his age. He is mentally agile. He is a life-long liberal. He is wise and authoratitive and he was given the job by an overwhelming majority of the party membership.

To constantly snipe at his age is utterly disgraceful. It is pure, bigotted prejudice. As Ming quite rightly says, if there had been more people his age in Blair's cabinet, we would not have gone to war in Iraq and 163 British families would not now be mourning the loss of a son or daughter. (Imagine 163 crying families sat in front of you.)

Of course, to the smug self-satisfied people who sneer about Ming's age, that is a secondary consideration to making lazy jibes.

Ming goes down the pan

Poor Ming!