Skip to main content

Crew Cut Clegg makes his case

Speeches at political conferences often fall flat, and the irritating hullabaloo that usually surrounds the speech of a party leader on these occasions usually makes me feel somehow cheated.

Who really cares if there were eight standing ovations from a party for its leader, or even twelve? It always strikes me as false anyway. I remember Paddy Ashdown coming off stage at a rally which had ended with fireworks and balloons and much razzmatazz and wryly muttering that it only needed elephants to make it into a circus. Yet sometimes a leader's speech can indeed be significant. David Cameron's speech in the Autumn of 2007 that made Gordon Brown recalculate his electoral prospects- a recalculation that seems to have acquired terminal significance after Brown was dubbed a "bottler", for example. Strangely, although much more low key, Nick Clegg may have done something similar over the weekend.

It was not just Clegg's new hairstyle, a much more distinctive crew cut, that marked out this speech as a new direction. It was also the integrated policy approach: it was the integration of a whole new set of policies. Under Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats have gained much needed economic credibility, but Clegg also managed to draw a radical thread through the Liberal Democrat programme. He laid out once unthinkable policies, such as nationalisation of the Banks, but he also demonstrated why such policies were not only quite sensible, but actually necessary. The programme he outlined was measured and practical. It sounded like a programme for power.

We have now just over one year until the most likely election date.

The electoral system requires a substantial lead in votes - roughly 10%- before the Conservatives can gain a bare majority in the House of Commons. The polls remain volatile. It is by no means impossible that the Liberal Democrats actually do better than their showing in 2005. Under such circumstances, the chances of either Labour or Tory gaining a majority fall substantially.

We are not there yet- but then a lot can happen in 15 months. What Nick Clegg showed in his speech was not only a distinct appetite for the fight, but a clear idea of what the Liberal Democrats would do if given an opportunity for power. I suspect that far from being squeezed and written off, the Liberal Democrats may enter the last year of this Parliament in a much stronger position than any of the last three years.

After having been ignored and derided by our political opponents, the significance and substance of Cleggs' speech is the credibility which he clearly believes that the party has gained.

That could prove to be very significant, very soon.

Comments

Newmania said…
In elections where there is a change of direction the Liberal vote gets squeezed. You , a fan of PR , like the idea of people voting with no idea what they are voting for .
Voters take a different view and tend to react against the idea of the least popular Party holding the most power.
I think this preference for a direct say will manifest itself again
Cicero said…
Perhaps you might translate this one into English?
Anonymous said…
A hung Parliament would be a disaster because it could be likely to result in a conservative majority in England and a Lib/Lab coalition in government, and an unresolved West Lothian Question.

You really don't want to go down this route if you value the future of the UK, as I do. Let's have an outright majority for one party or the other, not LibDem footsy-tootsy with the two main parties.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...