Overheard on a train in London on Friday.

Londoner: They don’t have litter bins at stations any more because of the bombs.
American: Really?
Londoner: Yes, they were worried about bombs at stations so took the bins away.
American: To stop them rooting through the rubbish?

Back online after a few days in London, and back to what has been dubbed the Mingterview.

Andy wanted to know how the Liberal Democrats could get our message across to Sun-reading council estate residents rather than focussing on the Islington liberati. This was the only point were Ming’s response was a little less than convincing. He noted our local government successes in places like Newcastle and said this had to be translated into parliamentary seats before identifying law and order as a key issue, saying that people on housing estates suffer most from crime. He said that newspaper circulations are falling and suggested connecting with these voters by using the internet – although, with no prompting, he quickly pointed out that this group are those most likely not to be online. He concluded that localised campaigning should be used to connect with these voters.

Passing briefly over the subject of localism (“We have to demonstrate how to make it work in practice”) we moved on the Labour leadership. Campbell believes that Blair may well go at next year’s Labour party conference. 2007 will mark ten years as PM and Thatcher’s reputation would have been better if she had bowed out gracefully in 1989. Gordon Brown may want his own mandate as PM, and would remember the bounce that Major achieved in 1992. Ming recognised that a restless public could see a change of PM as a change of government, “particularly if the dramatis personae change.” As a result, Ming will be planning for the possibility of a snap general election.

From Labour to the Tories, and specifically their leader. “The shine is coming off. How will he get through 15-18 months without any serious policy content?” Ming suspects that the wider Conservative membership don’t support the positions the “vacuous” Cameron is taking. “He makes a speech a day about bugger all. I’ll at least have something to say.” Campbell ridiculed Cameron’s speech on happiness, evening singing a few bars of Ken Dodd’s 1964 single. “All [Cameron] needs now is a tickling stick.”

Ming is similarly unimpressed by Cameron’s tactics on Europe. He calls German Chancellor Angela Merkel “the European statesperson” – she has defied his expectations. She is the closest to Cameron’s party in Europe, but instead of sitting with them in the European Parliament he wants to work “with people who don’t think women should stand and who don’t think you should ride a bicycle on Sundays.” This attitude from the Tories will, he believes, provide an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats.

The EU is, Campbell said, still being protectionist, with the French most guilty. “The market is either free and single or it’s not.” He warned, however, against retaliation and combatting protectionism with more of the same, and suggeted that “EU countries don’t get globalisation.” There are 300,000 new science graduates a year in China and India has become a software capital. “These countries will look for matching political influence.” China is becoming much more assertive. Ming drew a parallel with the British Empire – a strong economy and power go hand in hand. The EU can’t retreat into a fortress mentality, but the French political elite are unwilling to acknowledge the problem. “France has to be damaged before it can be repaired.” Ming believes that Merkel’s big test is to carry through reforms in Germany. He believes that Brown and Blair “get it” but has his doubts about Cameron.

The conversation returns to his leadership. Ming noted that his first sixty days had been spent on the local elections (whereas Cameron, taking over in December, had a month’s Christmas break to ease himself in). Campbell had found it difficult being both Acting Leader and a candidate in the leadership election, out on the campaign trail when he needed to be in Westminster and keen not to be seen to use his position to help his candidacy. He characterises his view his aim for his leadership and the party with the Olympic motto: “citius, altius, fortius” – quicker, higher, stronger.

With time getting short, we switched from heavy political issues to other matters. Ming, though a Scot, is supporting England in the World Cup – he’ll support “Scotland against England at Murrayfield, England against Australia at the Oval, and the UK and Europe in the Ryder Cup team against the USA.” He believes the World Cup can provide a huge boost with the Olympics and will be spending time with Seb Coe on the latter.

The subject moved to television and, for the benefit of those readers of this blog who don’t have dreams about Focus delivery, I asked a quick question about Doctor Who. “Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker were the quintessential Doctor Whos,” according to Ming. He will divide fans with his next comment: “After that it was downhill all the way.” He and his wife – who wrote an academic paper on Coronation Street – do like television. Ming was keen on Dallas, which was a bit of a surprise. He took pleasure while recovering from illness from being able to watch cricket and rugby matches on Sky Sports. I asked how he felt about being satirised on TV now that he’s leader. He said that his grandchildren have learnt a Rory Bremner sketch verbatim and he’s now treated to them being Bremner being him when he sees them. And that he tries to keep a sense of humour.

And that was that. As something of a Ming sceptic (and a Huhne backer in the leadership election), I was pleasantly surprised. It may not have been the most challenging or hostile interview he’s ever likely to do, but he handled the questions pretty well. He came across as switched on, enthusiastic, and on top of policy – and I got the impression that he and those around him know what they’re doing, where they want to take the party, and how to get there.

I was very chuffed to be invited earlier in the week to take part in an interview with Ming following today’s speech. At first, I thought I would have to decline, but as I was due to be in London anyway tomorrow I decided it was too good an opportunity to miss so rearranged my flight (which I will be carbon-offsetting, of course) and headed down.

The interview
It was a relatively information half hour session with Ming and the four of us. I hadn’t met Mign before and can report that he’s surprisingly easy to get on with. He was friendly and very keen to demonstrate his commitment to using the internet as a way to reach out to patry members as well as to the public.

I started off by asking him how he would characterise his first 100 days as leader. “Challenging,” was his reply. He had chatted with Paddy Ashdown recently and they agreed that it is nothing like any other job they had done. Little elsewhere prepares you to be taking such big decisions with important consequences. He also said that he had had to adjust to being leader not just of the MPs in Westminster but of the party as a whole – he had never been on the Federal Executive or the Federal Policy Committee before so there is a whole culture of party meetings to get used to. He was also concerned not to be stuck in meetings as leader. He noted that he had no period of run-in as leader. He was immediately plunged into the local election campaign and commitments that had carried over from Charles’s tenure.

Unsurprisingly, Ming identified Prime Minister’s Questions as a particularly challenging part of the job. He said it was different from Foreign Affairs Questions, where, if you asked, say, a pro-European question, half of the MPs there would agree with you. As a third party leader at PMQs, about 590 MPs are opposed to what you’re saying.

Another problem is that Cameron has the pick of the questions and Campbell has to prepared for his killer question to be snapped up before he can use it. He noted, though, that the Tories would not ask about rendition as they are slavishly pro-US, and they can’t ask about the Iraq war they voted for. He saw this week’s more positive press coverage like an end of term school report: “Some improvement shown – more needed.”

Moving on to another subject area, Ming said that he felt that the values of the Liberal Democrats are closer to those of the British people than either Labour’s or the Tories’. People felt in 1997 that the change in government was the right thing – even if they didn’t vote Labour – but since then it has become a government of target, photo opportunities and micromanagement. Cameron’s attitude, meanwhile, is not to present alternatives but to say, “Give me your education bill and I’ll manage it better.”

Our party’s values, Ming said, must be relevant to modern lives, and he reiterated his belief that law-breaking should be punished, and that his experience in court had shown him how the victims of crime can be affected. It is important, he said, that we mustn’t allow people’s lives to be blighted by crime.

Asked what we could do for the aspiring middle classes, Ming cited the income tax cut he was proposing, saying that lower taxes would encourage ambition, work and achievement. He followed up the mention of education in his speech by committing himself to scrapping student tuition fees and to early years education – helping people make progress on the back of their own efforts.

And there we must leave it for now.
Next time: Ming on Blair’s exit, Merkel’s rise, globalisation, the World Cup and, yes, Doctor Who.

Following Ming’s speech today, he met with a small group of LibDem bloggers (myself, Andy Darley, Peter from Apollo and Martin Tod), and we spent half an hour or so quizzing him on whatever subjects we wished.

The speech

The venue was The Atrium in Millbank and I arrived to find it full of party grandees. MPs and peers were everywhere, engaged deep in conversation. Parliamentary researches were milling around. John Thurso was sipping a glass of water. I nearly trampled Sarah Teather underfoot. Paddy Ashdown swept majestically down the stairs into the mix. The representatives of the media took their positions – Gary Gibbon from Channel 4 News, Carole Walker and Nick Robinson (right) for the BBC, Adam Boulton from Sky, and that tall man from ITV News whose name I don’t know. After the speech I also spotted Tania Branigan from theguardian, which gave me another couple of points in my I-Spy Book of Political Journalists.

At the appointed hour, a band of parliamentarians – Chris Huhne, Saj Karim, Michael Moore, Nick Clegg, TV’s Julia Goldsworthy, Vince Cable, and Ed Davey – mounted the stage, and Jo Swinson, our youngest MP, introduced a video sequence – a king of mini party political broadcast – marking Ming’s first 100 days as leader. Then she introduced the man himself and he took centre stage.

The speech is online at Ming’s new website so you can read it for yourself, but I’ll flag up some of the salient points. Perhaps most importantly, Ming was very good delivering it. He seemed determined, focussed and passionate, and it was one of the best speeches he’s given. Following a couple of quips at David Cameron’s and John Prescott’s expense, he talked about reforming the party, and the organisation of the event itself showed the party is already becoming more professional.

Ming said that, if Blair makes way for Brown sometime next year, there could be a general election in October 2007 and we must be ready for it. The campaign starts now and he has put Chris Rennard in charge. He also announced that he is supporting Ed Davey for the chairmanship of the party’s Campaigns and Communications Committee.

Bloggers will be pleased to hear that Ming recognises the importance of the information superweb for politics. He noted that two-thirds of people use it while only 60% of voters turned out last year. He also mentioned a new eSupporters scheme to keep in touch with people who support the party but may not be members.

Ming reaffirmed that he wants to see a diverse range of parliamentary candidates and that central campaign funding will be considered more positively for constituencies who choose candidates from under-represented groups. Steve Hitchins, until recently the leader of Islington Council, will draw up a diversity plan for the party.

Without mentioning the Michael Brown affair, Ming said that he hoped the party could be funded by a broad base of donations rather than the large single donors on whom Labour and the Conservatives rely. He also mentioned the need to streamline the policy-making process (which will raise the hackles of some activists), and the importance of making party conferences more professional and more accessible.

He derided Labour’s record on international law and in public service reform, saying that we had supported greater investment but that Labour had failed to spend the money wisely. He noted that inequality in society has continued to rise, which led onto his call for fairer Britain and the issue that would catch the headlines – tax. Basic rate cut; personal allowance increased; paid for by increases in capital gains tax and environmental taxation; no increase in the overall tax burden.

Ming highlighted the importance of education in giving people the best start in life. He noted that many children are still illiterate when they reach secondary school, and talking about involving sporting figures – namechecking Beckham, Flintoff and Kelly Holmes, a fellow Olympic medal winner – in inspiring children to learn.

He talked about taking important decisions on climate change, claiming that the Tories just “tinker, while the planet warms up.” He menioned clean coal (about which I have my West Wing-inspired suspicions but know little) and firmly ruled out more nuclear power stations.

He reiterated that “crime is a liberal issue” and said that the rule of law should be defended. He opposed the creation of huge “super regional police forces” and stated that the shambolic Home Office should be broken up. He also underlined the party’s opposition to ID cards and called for a public inquiry into the events of July 7, 2005.

Ming said the party’s aim should be to empower citizens and to regulate less, noting that the country is so centralised that Birmingham City Council has less power than it did when Joseph Chamberlain ran it in the 1870s. He talked about slashing central government, reducing the number of MPs and the size of Whitehall, and mentioned PR for the House of Commons and the need for an elected House of Lords. He was very good on foreign affairs, as always.

“This is not yet the liberal country that people want and are entitled to,” he said, and mentioned what appeared to be his three buzzwords: freedom, opportunity, compassion.

It was a wide-ranging, thoughtfull and refreshing speech, and really did seem to excite the people in the room. In many ways it’s a manifesto for Ming’s leadership.