Nick Clegg: Still Less Odious Than Ed Miliband
Here's an interesting interview with Nick Clegg. Well, when I say it is interesting, what I mean is it tries to do more than make him out to be the greatest traitor since Judas. While at times clearly just trying to find fault, the interviewer does seem to understand that, at least on some levels, that politics - particularly at the top, rather than sniping from the sidelines - requires compromise.
And - before we go on - let's just pause for a moment and reflect on Nick Clegg's year. This time last year, he looked like yet another failed Lib Dem leader. Quite frankly, he didn't have a voice. Then came the debates, and Cleggmania. Suddenly he was, in the eyes of some, a British version of JFK (despite the fact that all he did was not be shit at debating with a vacuous ex-marketing man and an arrogant, dour drip of a man). Then his party did poorly at the General Election - all Cleggmania meant was they were, more or less, able to maintain their 2001 level of popularity (in vote percentage terms, even if not in terms of Commons seats maintained). Despite this, less than a week after that result, Nick Clegg was the Deputy Prime Minister, and enjoying a level of power that no member of the Liberal Democrats has ever enjoyed before. Of course, that must be of little comfort on occasion when faced with the rage of the Shy Labour Lib Dems, who really wanted the Labour government to continue but who couldn't quite bring themselves to put their shaky "X" in the box of their local Labour candidate on their ballot papers. In short, quite a year for Nick Clegg - from non-entity to Second Coming to real political power and then to hatred. The whole of the Tony Blair experience in about 12 months.
But anyway, let's get to the point. I can, if I really force myself, understand why some people feel frustrated with Nick Clegg. And there is something faintly pathetic about Nick Clegg. He looks and sounds compromised most of the time. But I genuinely think he was placed in an impossible situation, and he is making the best of it. So when I read an interview with Clegg, I might feel a bit of pity for him. Whereas when I read an interview with Ed Miliband, I can't help but feel a certain level of anger and, well, hate.
The reason is this - there is a certain level of humility to Nick Clegg. He's not a stupid man; he must have understood what his deal with the Tories must have meant for his career in the long-term, but he still went for the deal with the Tories. A deal that was, given his limited choices, the best option on offer. Whereas with Ed Miliband, you get the same feeling of the pathetic that you do with Clegg (particularly given Ed's inability to say no to one Ed Balls), but Miliband Minor has a certain arrogance to him that makes him pretty repellant. Clegg seems to be incredulous that he is in a position of real power, while Miliband Minor seems incredulous that he isn't. Miliband Minor has all the arrogance of the utterly undeserved.
So, while I don't have a great deal of respect for Nick Clegg, I have nothing but contempt for Ed Miliband.
Labels: Balls, Calamity Clegg, Clegg, JFK, Miliband Minor
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 6:04 pm
8 Comments
8 Comments:
Actually, I do have a little respect for Clegg. His decision to go into coalition with the Tories was the right one. They had the greater mandate than Labour and Clegg said at the time, that he would give them first stab at a deal. Despite the likely backlash for his party and himself personally, he made a difficult decision and the right decision.
Miliband has nothing to say of any value whatsoever - unless it is to get on his knees, offer an unreserved apology for the damage done to the country and slit his own gizzards.
I completely agree with your reasoning - Clegg was faced with a damn near impossible choice in that whatever he did circa 50% of his party would hate him. He went with the most legitimate choice; coalition with the party that won the most seats. And I don't doubt that the ConDem coalition has been better than any LibLab one would have been.
TNL
You'll never find a Clegg hater saying what they think he should have done differently in the past and what he should be doing differently now, given the cards he has been dealt, particularly with electoral arithmetic.
Miliband, I sense, is less objectionable than Blair or Brown but is still an unknown quantity. I fear he is too beholden to his party, and to bellends like Maurice Glasman.
I've never felt comfortable identifying with any party but I'm really finding that the yellow wing of the coalition is acting in accordance with what I want. I now think it's perfectly reasonable for me to want them to be strengthened. Whereas I certainly don't think that about any of the protestors we've seen.
A Lib/Lab coalition would have been far more unpopular than this government. I would certainly have opposed it. Also, it couldn't have been formed anyway because the electoral arithmetic was such. (Few Labour people know this and it always surprises them when I point out the exact numbr of seats held by each party).
Did you ever read this "22 Days In May"? It really gives the best account of why the Labour team (both Eds, Peter Mandelson, Andrew Adonis, Harriet Harman) made a bad situation worse with their attitude. Also, in the coalition agreement and subsequently, you can really see the liberal elements, which is why they're all whinging about the government on ConHome, but I'm not bothered what they think.
Completely agree about the electoral arithmetic - a LibLab pact would have been another minority government, whereas what Clegg said he would work for is a stable government. And that's what happened.
Surprisingly few Labourites realise the extent to which they lost last year...
Never read 22 Days In May, although it is certainly on my list of books to read in the near future.
To be honest i have a lot of sympathy for Clegg. Starting with the coalition - like everyone has said, that was the 'right' choice, so points there (although maybe it was an easy decision). The main thing is that he as *no power* he has some influence - just enough to keep the coalition going, no doubt. So all the protests about student fees where misguided, OK so the Lib Dems said they wouldn't introduce them, but they have to choose their fights (but the Cons did and Labour too, mind, so technically the majority of the country voted for it...) and this was probably a COMPROMISE. BUT The Lib Dems have got their electoral reform referendum (which doubtless cost them dear). That's the price of being a minor party in a coalition... Saying all that i don't think he's much of a politician, maybe equal to Cameron, but still better than Ed 'someone to fill in till 2014' Miliband.
The LibDems wouldn't have got anywhere near as many concessions from Labour as they have from the Conservatives. If the SDP wing of the party had got their "progressive coalition" they would now be raging about how Labour were giving them nothing and treating them with total contempt. If Clegg had declined to do a deal with either party it would have ended his career and totally destroyed the LibDems' credibility. He really didn't have any viable option other than a coalition with the Conservatives.
There is, perhaps, something of the Lawrence Oates about Clegg:
"I am just going outside and may be some time..."
Of course, bravery is relative and our expectations of politicians are deservedly modest, but when all is said and done, Clegg (after dithering) did what he said he would do, which was to offer coalition to the biggest party.
But there is, as has been pointed out, a particular type of Liberal Democrat whose focus is not and never has been about gaining office, so these people are in the dog's dilemma: Once you have caught the car and have your lips around the rear bumper, what next?
Natch, you lose interest in the whole exercise.
But of all the parties, the Lib Dems are by far the nastiest (Labour are merely stupid) but Clegg is bright enough to see that in order to be associated with a recovery then he must, to an extent, trust the Tories. A coalition with Labour, the masters of disaster, would have had them tarred with the same brush. Most Lib Dems are too stupid to see this.
Clegg is also bright enough to realise that in the event of a Tory majority then the LDs will have served their purpose. Or maybe not - to carve out the yellow wing and persuade it to cross the floor must be an objective, and it is this which the sandal-wearers fear.
Good luck to him and hats off to a bit of big picture integrity
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home