How I learned to stop worrying and rate Nick Clegg
Fraser Nelson 12:33pm
If Nick Clegg was a weak-willed, crowd-pleasing charlatan the the front page of yesterday's Independent would not have read “Clegg: there is no future for the Lib Dems as a left party”. Turning up to a Lib Dem
conference and saying there's no point in being a party of lefty protesters is like William Shatner telling
delegates at a Star Trek convention to "get a life". He wants them to be a mature party of reform – many of them prefer to throw stones. His stance at conference is certainly
courageous.
And it fits a theme. For weeks now, Clegg has been surprising those (myself included) who did not take him seriously, by emerging as one of the boldest and most articulate advocates of reform. He is now advancing arguments about the need for tough-love welfare changes, taking on the teaching unions and shrinking the state. To him, it's vital because it shows that coalitions cannot merely exist in Britain but direct a radical government. As a result, he has plenty of unpopular decisions to defend. I say in my News of the World column today that those at the Lib Dem conference have been used to veggie-lite fare from their leaders. Clegg will walk on stage wearing more red meat than Lady Gaga.
I was an advocate of minority Conservative government, and my heart sunk when Cameron concluded (perhaps rightly) that if he couldn’t win in May then he would be unlikely to win a second election in October. But looking at this government, it is bolder than the Conservative one which I had expected. Before election day, Theresa May was in charge of welfare reform. Now we have IDS. There's Gove in schools, of course, and Nick Herbert in policing is an unexpected bonus. Even Andrew Lansley is seeking to reform the NHS.
And then, Clegg. There have been plenty of tensions in the coalition. But he has been on the right side of the battle every time. He’s a major ally for IDS in welfare reform, arguing that the
Treasury has no moral right to confiscate a penny earned by the low-paid. He wrote a piece in The
Times on this last week: it’s my Exhibit A in his defence.
He’s also in favour of school reform, and even believes he came up with the idea ten years ago writing a pamphlet. Gove will not dispute that: he believes, as Reagan did, that it’s
amazing what you can get done if you don’t care who takes the credit. Call it the Clegg/Baker/Adonis/Gove/Swedish/Obama schools agenda – but Clegg hopes LibDem activists will remember
this was their policy. His beef is with the pupil premium: that the voucher is worth more for poor kids. I’m in favour of that, as long as schools can make a profit – and therefore have
a financial incentive to compete with the sink schools. If the incentive is clear enough, sink schools will be eradicated by the end of the decade.
Exhibit B is Clegg’s speech on
social mobility. A very well thought-out thesis. It would have been easy for him to play party politics, to manufacture a Lib Dem v Tory row. But the battles he has chosen have served to
strengthen the coalition and make for a bolder government that it’s easier to cheer on.
And when the IFS launched it’s “appoint Chote or we’ll shoot” report on the budget, claiming it was unfair by dint of their decile tables, CoffeeHousers may remember the
stunned reaction of the Treasury. Guido wrote a very powerful post asking: what does Osborne
expect? If you decide to accept your enemy’s premise (i.e. that this decile table is some arbiter of fairness), is it a surprise that you can be stung like this? No Tory minister seemed able
to come up with a response: the effects of Osborne’s disastrous 2005-08 economic disarmament policy are still painfully obvious.
But it was Clegg who properly socked it to the IFS – and Exhibit C is his response through an article
for the FT. He took the IFS apart intellectually, saying that billions had been squandered by Labour trying to manipulate a spreadsheet moving people from just below some imaginary line to just
above it. He addressed the hollowness of “IFS-speak” showing that, by its decile charts, if a workless couple get a £5 handout it counts as “fairness” but if they are
helped into work then it does not. Clegg was tackling one of the most destructive ideas in politics. As he rightly said, for 13 years Labour produced policies which flattered IFS decile graphs
instead of fighting poverty.
And now, in Liverpool, Clegg is telling his party that it’s make-your-mind-up time. Defending hard choices is the price of power – and he’s willing to pay that price. This is not
some fake battle. Clegg knows he’s already lost the ‘social democrat’ voters: internal polling shows they have fallen away from his party like a continental shelf. But the
word ‘liberal’ is also gaining ground. Hold your nerve, he tells his party: what we’ve done may not win us votes, but it right and it is liberal. This is not an opportunistic
argument, but one of principle. It marks a noble change from a familiar (and false) argument one hears all too often in politics: "this may or may not be right, but it will win us votes and
its tactically clever".
So I'm left wondering: on what ground might I have reservations about Nick Clegg? I disagree with him on Europe and Trident. Stories about how he pleaded with Brown to keep faith in a LibLab coalition suggests a man of
opportunism rather than principle. And while he has redeemed himself since, this week may be the high water mark of his boldness – depending on how hard his party slap him down.
I know that Osborne remains the de facto deputy, doing the motoring when No.10 slips into neutral. But on the issues that I regard as the most important: welfare reform, spending reform and school reform, he’s not only on the right side but actively fighting for it. The bad decisions (releasing prisoners, 50p tax, protecting the NHS budget) were made by blokes with blue rosettes.
I’ve supported the Conservatives in most general elections, but struggle to muster a tribal dislike to Clegg. My admiration for him personally does not extent to the Lib Dems in general, many
of whom I regard as deeply suspicious. But that social mobility speech was the turning point for me: I realised that I genuinely rate him. As CoffeeHousers know, I have long argued that the real
dividing line in British politics runs across political parties: between the reformers, who wish to empower the masses, and between the statists/paternalists who wish to keep power for an elite.
Clegg, Laws and even Danny Alexander are on the right side of this dividing line.
Admiration from the likes of me won’t do him many favours amongst his own party, though, and the Lib Dems may very well be heading for a split. I do wonder at times if Clegg wants one, and
wishes to lead a “Liberal” party. But, in any case, what he's offering looks very much like real leadership.
Previous
Iconoclast
September 19th, 2010 1:09pm Report this commentClegg is a man of straw, he has no ideology or policy other than naked vacuous celebrity status ambition. All that remains is how the 2 major parties fight over their (LibDem) voters at the next election. Will Clegg inspire them to vote for the Libs on the basis of the success he can then prove or will they desert to NuLab and end the party?
Power is nothing without control and no Lib Dem politician or supporter can honestly point to any policy so far thrust out by Gideon and his chums that would get support at grass roots level. Neither can they point to were the LibDems have acted as moderators or influencers. They simply cave in to Gideon and Cameron's wishes..
No one voted for this hybrid co-allition and as (Lord) Ashcroft pointed out recently the Tories failed abjectly at the election, so what rights they and the Libs have to spit out their poisonous ideology is debatable.
cuffleyburgers
September 19th, 2010 1:23pm Report this commentI agree, however he will need publicly to denounce the undemocratic EU in order to win my support.
Any amount of reform at home is pointless if this country is governed by the French rather than our owm homegrown invertebrates
Edward McLaughlin
September 19th, 2010 1:24pm Report this commentShield up Mr Nelson. Never mind the flak you've taken on Neather - just stand by with gritted teeth for the whirlwind on its way to you from our Trekkie community.
Dave
September 19th, 2010 1:30pm Report this commentI was no Clegg fan, but I am now.
Though I am far to the right of him and disagree with many of his political views, he has shown himself to be a responsible and 'grown-up' politician with backbone and pragmatism, who puts the interests of this country before party politics.
David Davis, Simon Hughes, Vince Cable, etc please take note.
David Parker
September 19th, 2010 1:31pm Report this commentI think Fraser makes some interesting points and, so far, Clegg has proved better than many of us would have expected. The biggest drawback, however, is his enthusiasm for the EU. Brussels is now involved in so many aspects of the internal affairs of the UK that no British government is free to make radical changes to vital policies such as energy or human rights without finding itself hamstrung by EU regulations and directives.
If, as Fraser suggests, Clegg is an opportunist, it is certainly possible that he will realise that the growing public antipathy towards further EU integration is one of the factors responsible for the declining popularity of his party in recent polls and seek to distance himself from the likes of Huhn and Hughes.
Stephen Lord
September 19th, 2010 1:45pm Report this commentFraser's dead right. I didn't like Clegg when he seemed to be all things to all people during the TV debates. I admire him now because he's prepared to say unpopular things to the people affected by the policies he's talking about. That's rare in a politician. He could go far. OK he makes the odd gaffe or two but he's clearly the real deal, not a spinner.
AG
September 19th, 2010 1:45pm Report this commentAll the main three parties have been split. The SDP came into existence because at the time Labour were very left wing and CND orientated. But the SDP never took off because it was just socialism with nukes and so they got subsumed into the liberal party. But what about the Conservatives who lost so much support to Tony Blair. I think they had become the nasty party and were in thrall to a winner takes all form of capitalism that had lost the plot and meaning for the majority voter and they were split on Europe. They were also dazzled by Mr Blair like everyone else. So if Mr Clegg can reclaim the Liberal vote and replace his lost democrats with Tory's who believe in strong(and not just rich) institutions while at the same time rewarding social entrepreneurship instead of social handouts then he will have a chance to lead a winningly large party in future. The danger for Conservatives is that they will be marginalised by the Liberal middle and the socialist left. The problem for me is that they are all traitors for giving sovereignty away to the EU and if the Liberals could claim the anti-EU vote from wherever it comes then I think Mr Clegg could become PM in his own right but of course to do that he would have to do a U-turn first. I see no shame in changing ones mind in response to circumstances if it's done in the national interest and not for personal aggrandizement.
Richard of York
September 19th, 2010 1:53pm Report this commentFraser, Iam sure you and your chums are well pleased with the boy...he has done good!
I am also sure Cameron is happy for the LD's to be taking all the hits.
I doubt however Clegg has the same opinion of you and your friends.
Come the next election I and everyone else know full well you will be blogging that Clegg is the devil in yellow doves clothing once again. Read some of the anti Liberal comments on here before and during the election.....they will return and the pain of the Liberals will count for nothing.
Nicholas
September 19th, 2010 2:07pm Report this commentDavid Parker is correct. It is difficult to see how increasing tension can be avoided in a developing relationship between Britain as a state (small 's') within a European Federation (look to the history of the USA and continuing tension/complexities between State and Federal legislatures).
I'm not at all convinced the benefits have been properly weighed against the loss of sovereignty or the burden of these future legislative tensions/complexities. In fact I'd go further and state that those politicians who have committed us to this are dangerous, blathering idiots. I can well understand how some people characterise them as traitors. They seem to have abandoned caution and circumspection, responsibility to country, in favour of reckless presumption. The Irish experience should have rung seriously loud alarm bells.
The British people have certainly never had this case put to them for a democratic decision. Does Britain really want to be a state within a federation? So far, in legislative terms, it seems to point to an increasing loss of powers and independence with little evidence of any real benefit.
Have the socialists/communists in Britain seen in Europe an opportunity to retain power and reinforce their policy ambitions with a European big stick? Set against this appalling prospect is the movement of the traditional party of the right to a central position that either appears to embrace this ambition or not do enough to resist it. Puerile talk of a café culture and free borders does not address these very serious issues.
David
September 19th, 2010 2:24pm Report this commentI hope Clegg is a liberal but I don't think he really believes in individual freedoms, his party certainly don't.
You're talking about a party that in Scotland voted to criminalise men who use prostitutes - what's 'liberal' about that?
I'll believe Clegg's a liberal the day he turns round and says we should legalise cannabis, or some other unpopular issue that is actually very liberal but doesn't have majority support.
Jeremy
September 19th, 2010 2:28pm Report this commentRichard of York is here as propagandist from the Left - to foster division between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. He will say anything to that end. The truth - even the truth of his own personal views (whatever they may be) - bears no relation to his contributions.
ollie
September 19th, 2010 2:28pm Report this commentLabour's vehement (and deeply cynical) attacks on the lib dems is a mark of Clegg's success. He's having an effect they couldn't have foreseen.
Five years is a very long time in politics - I wouldn't be surprised if there was a formal merger of the two parties.
All the evidence points to Labour being totally marginalised in the future. What are they for? An increase in the size of government and state? Those days are gone forever.
Mike
September 19th, 2010 3:03pm Report this commentWould have been nice for all this to have come out before the election, rather than after.
Simon Hall
September 19th, 2010 3:20pm Report this commentMr Nelson,
I invite you to retract your comment that 'sink schools' will be abolished in ten years if only schools are allowed to make profits.
It is one of the most ridiculous pieces of economic fundamentalism I've ever heard, and displays such a disconnect from reality I worry about you, I really do. Next, like Mr Cameron, you'll be suggesting that you're middle class.
Please trying living among some normal working people for a while and then see if you really think profit is the solution to all their problems.
James Blunt
September 19th, 2010 3:26pm Report this commentClegg's taking of the initiative in many areas is a welcome change in the jaded world of British politics. Its in marked contrast to the pathetic efforts of Harriet Harman & John Prescott during their tenure of the role of deputy PM.
As for the vocal critics within the LibDem party - rather than support the good their leader is doing, they seem happy to be setting themselves up for a return to the wilderness. Or voting Labour, next time. Idiots. Have they forgotten already?!?
Clegg appears to be not only "doing things right" but "doing the right thing". Unlike Cameron who seems incapable of criticizing others for doing wrong, presumably because he'd do the same if he could get away with it (eg Roma deportations).
TrevorsDen
September 19th, 2010 4:17pm Report this commentIconoclast talks one item of rubbish after another. Nelson gives several examples of Cleggs brave and serioua comments and he turns round and without evidence says he is a man of straw.
He says the tories election was a disaster - but ignores the fact that the tories captured more seats at an election than since virtually ever and Labour lost virtually a record number. Some disaster.
His remarks are just plain garbage, no majority voted for labour in 2005, very far from it, but they got 60 seat majority.
He says LDs will not support 'tory' policies, but we have a LD Chief Secretary to Treasury!
And as Nelson says Clegg is now claiming Tory schools policy as his own.
The LDs need to grow up as a party of government - they have the furthest to go of all 3 parties but the most to gain.
George Laird
September 19th, 2010 4:32pm Report this commentDear Fraser
Cutting through all the hype of your piece which is like a lovefest of Lib Dem bug turns into Tory Butterfly story.
Clegg is a Turncoat.
And he will be viewed as such by Party rank and file activists who are going out on the doorstep selling Tory policy packaged as Lib Dem.
Perhaps he thinks that rank and file activists are mugs.
Why vote Lib Dem now?
You might as well vote Tory in England because that's your lot.
Are you planning ahead incase there is a vacancy if Cameron pulls the trigger on Coulson?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Iconoclast
September 19th, 2010 5:32pm Report this commentTrevors Den, do keep up..Clegg has back-tracked on all the policies the Lib Dems supposedly fought for in their manifesto, the same manifesto that grass roots supporters selflessly campaigned for on the streets/door to door (on behalf of the party) in the run up to the election.
wrt your other points I can only deduce that you have the memory of a goldfish, or perhaps you are Adam Bolton in disguise.The Tories failed to gain a majority in order to govern, we had a hung parliament and a govt that (despite its baffling arrogance) is still in limbo. Leaderless Labour is neck and neck with the Tories.
The Tories have failed to; convince, engage or excite, which is partly why Ashcroft has distanced himself, and without his backing in 2015 they'll struggle in all the marginals.
The seduction of power is Clegg's 'one bullet' rhetoric, supposedly being at the centre of decision making was the reason for abandoning his and the party's principles and given that the Lib Dems popularity is now at a recent low of 8% it hasn't worked other than for Clegg's narcissm.
Finally, the only reason Tory supporters are worrying less re. Clegg is that he is at heart one of them, his twisted and bent ambition fits in perfectly with their corrupt ideology.
stereodog
September 19th, 2010 5:33pm Report this commentClegg's election as Lib Dem leader was one of the things that kept me in the party rather than transfer my vote to the Conservatives. I have always longed for a party that resembles Gladstone's rentrenchment and reform programme. I haven't found it yet but this coalition is the closest thing to it I've ever seen. It is inevtiable that the Lib Dems will split over this, they already have in the country if not in Westminster. However if Clegg is smart he could do a Chamberlain and split the other parties as well. In a few elections time I can imagine Clarkeite Conservative and Milburnite Labour voters (to use a very crude classifcation) taking another look at the Lib Dems.
Tiberius
September 19th, 2010 5:38pm Report this commentBut, Fraser, Clegg's problem remains that he hasn't yet found his T J Hooker moment (and I'm afraid the mere prospect of having Stacey as bed post notch no. 31 won't make up for that).
Clegg has indeed been sure-footed and this has been a pleasant surprise to many of us. But this coalition remains Cameron's shindig, and the future direction of the LibDems and of Clegg cannot be certain.
As for Ashcroft's conclusion that the TV debates were the major error of the Tories, I'd say howso? If via those Cameron allowed Clegg to steal the badge of change, why did the election see the LibDems lose seats?
I see the combination of many voters wishing to avoid the hard choices the country needed (while embracing the fact that they hadn't done so badly during the banking crisis) with the skewed constituency boundaries, as the major factor in giving Labour so many seats with only 29% of the vote.
Ashcroft also does not acknowledge the historical precedent that mid term poll leads usually reduce come the election. I would expect Alistair Campbell to try to make the case that the fall in the Tory lead was the overlooked story of the election, but it's a bit lame of anyone outside the New Labour cabal to try to use it as a reason for the Tories failing to win a majority.
TGF UKIP
September 19th, 2010 5:43pm Report this commentGetting a bit obvious Fraser, your preference for discussing any and every subject under the sun other than our falling off the cliff economy. Not particularly surprising, though.
Can't help noticing too your attempt to re-write history with your first sentence of the third para. It must have been an altogether different editor of the house mag who was responsible for that ludicrous "Victory" leader in the issue of 14th May.
Verity
September 19th, 2010 6:58pm Report this commentFrazer Nelson's headline is: "How I learned to stop worrying and rate Nick Clegg."
This should have been preceeded some time ago by "How I learned to stop worrying and write my promised article on mass islamic immigration and the Neather Report."
Richard Calhoun
September 19th, 2010 11:25pm Report this commentAn excellent analysis of Clegg, one with which I fully concur.
This is quite an about turn for me but he is outperforming everyone in the cabinet with the exception of Cameron
Fraser Nelson
September 20th, 2010 12:16am Report this commentTGF, I was dismayed - until I saw the Cabinet lineup. Gove in schools, Fox in defeence, Herbert in police and IDS in welfare did represent a victory, and I wonder if Cameron would dare put them in place if he had a minority gvt. Cameron & Co screwed up the election, but recovered v well.
Verity, come on. It's more than a year since that story, and I still can't write a blog without someone saying "never mind that, Fraser, where's your twice-promised blog on David Neather?" I sometimes wonder if you guys will etch it on my tombstone.
Alan Edwards
September 20th, 2010 9:24am Report this commentCut me in half and it says conservative but Clegg has impressed me. Cable on the other hand tried being a real Minister for 2 weeks, watched his popularity plummet and then went back to being a media politician.
Clegg learned that media popularity does not mean votes.
TGF UKIP
September 20th, 2010 10:57am Report this commentBollocks, Fraser - as you well know but can't possibly say.
anxiouswarrior
September 20th, 2010 12:01pm Report this commentclegg has in 6 months become just another boring right wing bar buffoon fanatic simalar to the clowns in the us republican party and also in your coffee shop
Tiberius
September 20th, 2010 3:44pm Report this commentIf you didn't persist in writing about the good side of immigration while ignoring the reverse, you wouldn't be taunted so, Fraser.
And did you honestly ever have any doubts about Gove's, Fox's, and IDS' appointments?
And from what did Cameron recover? A 66 seat Labour majority while he needed a 7% lead to have a majority of 1? A fair effort, I'd say.
37% of the electorate said only recently that they would vote Labour now - for a party without a leader. Lots a nutty voters around now, just as there were in May.
Fraser Nelson
September 20th, 2010 5:41pm Report this commentTiberius, fair point: though I experience the good sides of immigration. Never the bad sides - though I know for those competing with immigrants for housing and jobs in Dagenham etc these bad sides exist. IDS appointment was only due to the coalition, I think, a bit of right to balance the dollop of left. Cameron was always iffy about whether Fox would actually go to the MoD (unlike Lansley, whose job was guaranteed). Cameron inspired the lowest vote ever received by a Conservative Prime Minister - that's what he needs to recover from. It was a fair effort, but not an election win. And it could have been an election win, if the campaign had more purpose and direction!
Tiberius
September 20th, 2010 8:17pm Report this commentWithout wishing to prolong this argument too much further, Fraser, wouldn't Cameron have had to put those three in Cabinet all the more so with a minority govt, in order to keep the backbenchers happy (or should that be less disruptive)?
Of course you're correct about the low vote, but it's hardly surprising when the aggregate vote for Labour and the Tories has been in long term decline.
Mike S.
November 21st, 2010 10:43pm Report this commentThe share of the vote for the 2 big parties has been in decline for decades. Over 95% voted Labour or Tory in the 60s, now it's more like 65%. The ascent of the Lib Dems and the creation of UKIP have taken votes away from the big parties.
I don't think it's fair to criticise Cameron for getting the smallest share of the Conservative vote ever - given the rise of other parties.
Back to top