What is the point of the Liberal Democrats? It’s a question leveled at party supporters, in some form or another, time and time again, over and over; one almost always delivered with lashings of self-satisfaction and smugness.
It’s also an odd sort of question. Because in asking it, you are asking: What is the point in the only mainstream political party to oppose the Iraq war and Israels actions in the Middle East? What is the point in the only mainstream political party to oppose tuition fees? The only mainstream political party to propose plans to tackle inequality with radical and realistic proposals for fairer taxes, to propose genuinely hard-hitting and effective green taxes, electoral reform and proportional representation, an amnesty to deal with illegal immigration and the exploitation and tension it entails? Why bother with the only party to consistently oppose ID cards and 90-day detention without trial? Why bother with alternative?
Nevertheless it is a question that cuts right to the heart of the problem the Liberal Democrats face and one whoever wins the leadership race will have to solve. Because it is not policy that is the problem for the Liberal Democrats, it is the communication of those policies. In short, it is not what we say, but how we say it.
Too often the way the party has packaged and presented itself has been woefully inadequate and, not helped by a hostile media, it has meant our point of view fails to impact on public discourse and on the doorstep. Consequently, the party becomes associated with the buffoonery of Lembit Opik, the feebleness of Ming Campball, the friendly but shambolic pluckiness of Charles Kennedy. Yet there is so much more to the party than that.
There is only one man in the party who can break this impasse, and that is Nick Clegg. Clegg is a man who exudes confidence and charisma, someone proud to be a true Liberal, someone with the communicational skills to reach out and effectively present a genuinely Liberal and distinct alternative to those outside the party and those outside politics. The language and style with which he fights for Liberal Democrat policies is accessible, dynamic and robust.
Chris Huhne by comparison cuts a gray and technocratic figure. A perfectly competent politician, he is nothing more than that. When he speaks his body language is closed, his dialect dry, his nature opportunistic and his image nerdy and meek; he represents everything the party is wrongly perceived to be. He is a good politician, not a great leader.
Indeed it is here that we must be honest with ourselves. The left-right ‘dividing line’ is nonsense; the policy will remain largely the same because the party decides the policy. We are having a beauty contest because the public demands one. In politics any party vying for power must have a cohesive, distinct discourse and image on which to hang their policy. Clegg offers this, Huhne doesnt.
The party has proven it can win, witness the current record number of MPs in party history. But it’s time we stopped feeling sorry for ourselves and convinced the public we can go further. To do this we must elect a leader who will successfully communicate to the British public a bold and realistic alternative with which to breathe life into a society suffocated by turgid two party consensus. That is the point of politics, that is the point of the Liberal Democrats, and that is why Nick Clegg must win.
* Steven Akehurst is a member of Leeds Liberal Democrat Youth & Students.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
Peter Davies
cim
FS People
Peter Martin
expats
20 Comments
Yes but don’t you think that Nick Clegg might be a bit of a calamity?
Steven
You are absolutely spot on. We have got the right message to take to the country and nick is the best person to be able to do that.
Chris Huhne by comparison cuts a gray and technocratic figure. A perfectly competent politician, he is nothing more than that. When he speaks his body language is closed, his dialect dry, his nature opportunistic and his image nerdy and meek; he represents everything the party is wrongly perceived to be. He is a good politician, not a great leader.
More negativity from Nick’s camp, echoing Nick’s personal vitriolic ‘Opportunism Knocks’ attack on Chris. As a floating voter, I’m still wondering how Nick’s supporters have the hypocrisy to accuse Chris of being the only one to go negative.
I would have criticised the negativity in Steve Goddard’s companion piece backing Chris…
…Except I couldn’t, because it was entirely positive, including about Nick.
3 – Alex, whule Steve;s artical way have been posative Chris is certainly not when it comes to Chris.
So lets all stop calling each other negative or bullies, get the gloves off, have it out toe to toe between the camps and last man standing wins…nice!
@ 3 – that should have been “Chris about Nick”…getting too excitd!!
“Chris Huhne by comparison cuts a gray and technocratic figure. A perfectly competent politician, he is nothing more than that. When he speaks his body language is closed, his dialect dry, his nature opportunistic and his image nerdy and meek; he represents everything the party is wrongly perceived to be. He is a good politician, not a great leader.”
If this were penned by a professional journalist employed by Murdoch one would regard it as offensive drivel calculated to cause maximum damage.
When one discovers it is written by a student with minimal experience of anything other than college bars, then one regards it as pretentious claptrap fit for the recycling bin.
In fact, content analysis reveals he is simply regurgitating fatuities peddled by Clegg’s campaign team.
With advocates like these, Clegg deserves to be hammered.
Angus – whatever your opinions of Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne, why do you feel it necessary to launch a personal attack at the author, based purely on his age? Do you believe that you’re not allowed to have an opinion on anything until you’ve graduated?
The piece is anything but pretentious, its a strong explanation of why he finds Clegg the more compelling candidate, and why he just doesn’t warm to Huhne. This is a similar view to the one I hold. Huhne is simply not the right man to lead the party. Other people within the party hold this view and it won’t just disappear overnight, even if Huhne wins. Steven’s comment about his “opportunistic nature” was in clear evidence today on the politics programme, and is hinted at in the early pages of Greg Hurst’s book on Charles Kennedy.
One thing you do have to ask yourself is – if this is the feeling that Huhne is stirring up in my generation, even amongst people who are party members, how are we going to attract more people to the party, expand our base and move forward? How are we going to engage with young people, get them to join the party, and keep hold of the ones we have, who will form the backbone of the party in years to come? Whilst I am aware of some members who do support Huhne, virtually everybody I know supports Nick, whether they be fellow students, or members of older generations. This is for the simple reason that he comes across as a genuine, principled plitician who can connect with the wider public, whether they be young or old. He is a fantastic communicator, and is also very adept at policy formulation, despite the attempt by his opponents to suggest he has little in the way of depth. He’s one of the very few politicians who, every time I hear them speak, tends to inspire me. Nick is, I feel, the candidate best placed to keep hold of what we have, and advance our position in the future. With Huhne, I fear we would be running too big a risk of falling back into obscurity.
As a young person myself, I want to be part of a strong and vigourous party for decades to come. In my mind, of the two candidates, Nick is best placed to achieve this in both the short and long term. Whilst he’s a competent politician, and a good front-bench spokesman, Chris Huhne just doesn’t quite have what it takes to lead our party onto bigger and better things.
Alex:
I’ve heard many undecided voters raise the concern that Chris is ‘grey and technocratic’. I think its an image problem that was well known before the election and I suspect Chris’s team is well aware of the problem (which has partly worked – look at Question Time).
My biggest concern is the way his campaign and supporters have played the ‘activist’ card, seeking to position themselves on the ‘left’ and trying to divide the party. That has put me off well and truly as it really makes me wonder what would be done once in power.
“Angus – whatever your opinions of Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne, why do you feel it necessary to launch a personal attack at the author, based purely on his age? Do you believe that you’re not allowed to have an opinion on anything until you’ve graduated?”
My attack on Steve A. was not on his age, it was aimed at his ham-fisted attempt at character assassination.
Of course Steve A. is entitled to an opinion, but I and other readers are entitled to take cognisance of the fact that this peremptory evaluation of Chris Huhne’s career is being made by someone with little experience of how the world works.
Your own eulogy of Nick Clegg, and dismissal of Chris Huhne, is equally unimpressive. It is based solely on hyperbole and half-baked, untestable assertions. It is, to put it bluntly, nothing but hype and puff fed to those too lazy and gullible to think for themselves. It is an attempt to create an unstoppable bandwagon based on mass psychology.
How is it you are unable to see this?
What is it about Nick Clegg that makes you look on him as some kind of demigod? I cannot see it, even if those myriads of people for whom you claim to speak fall at his knees and fawn.
Seriously, I find this hero-worship we are beginning to see on this forum deeply troubling.
I have been following the Leadership contest with great interest. Through this study, I have become increasingly concerned at Chris Huhne’s treatment and response with political commentators and in fact, anyone who questions him (surely a natural thing to do at this stage of selection?) This morning, I watched Nick and Chris Huhne on the Political show and just had to comment! – As a Lib Dem member – if Chris Huhne wins the leadership – I will resign from the party! He is belligerent to the point of being offensive and an absolute turn-off, and very very worryingly – damaging the credibility of our party at a time when there is such potential! Huhne’s giving any detractor/critic of Lib Dems so much ammunition to fire against us!
Nick! Please save us from this type of gutter politics!
Best regards,
L C Gillatt
Re. (3) – quite so, Alex: I was keen to keep to the (many) positive reasons to support the candidates, and especially the one I favour, even before today’s events. It’s worth rereading the excellent article Stephen Tall wrote on, I think, 14th November (I don’t know how to do hyperlinks, I’m afraid), about emphasising our strengths – which is, surely, what the leadership contest should be about.
6- Angus J Huck, you are more offensive than anything in the article. Just because someone is a student does not make his view less valid, and it is frankly ageist to suggest so.
“A perfectly competent politician, he is nothing more than that. When he speaks his body language is closed, his dialect dry, his nature opportunistic and his image nerdy and meek; he represents everything the party is wrongly perceived to be. He is a good politician, not a great leader.”
So the above is not offensive, Simon?
And I am forbidden (by you, presumably) to question the competence of the author to arrive at this judgment?
Or is your partisanship such that in your view ALL anti-Huhne comments are beyond criticism?
Thanks for your comments, Angus.
The stuff about Huhne is my firm opinion, and although it’s quite strongly worded that is only born out of my (probably narrow minded) frustration with people who cant see that he is everything the party is wrongly perceived to be, and everything the party doesnt need.
Im actually someone who considers themselves fairly analytical and balanced, but I have to admit I cant even see how this leadership is a contest. Admittedly Cleggs campaign hasnt been as good as it could be, and he is by no means perfect, but he provides everything the party is crying out for.
If we genuinely lacked substance or needed to create thethen I could see the argument for Chris, but we dont – we lack the ability to sell our policies effectively, we lack a strong image – we shouldnt kid ourselves that delivery of policy is as important as policy itself. There’s no point in being as different as we are if that isnt getting through to people.
That isnt to say Nick lacks substance, he doesnt – but people should understand that leadership in opposition politics is about creating an image and creating a discourse. The policy is already there.
I am not a member of Nick’s ‘team’, just an impassioned supporter who doesnt want the party he genuinely believes in to spend generations bleating in the wilderness as a glorified pressure group. If you’re happy with third place and continuity of the status quo, by all means vote for Chris. I know we can go further than that.
Steve, is it acceptable to accuse a Liberal Democrat MP of having an “opportunistic nature”? What is your basis for this?
And what do you mean when you deride him as “gray”? Is this a reference to his age? Or would it be all right if he dyed his hair?
And then you criticise his “dialect”? Are you using this word correctly? Do you mean “accent”, “intonation”, or what?
It’s articles like this that allow the Huhne campaign to justify going negative…
Well done Angus (15) – I would suggest you’re missing Steve’s point (but I guess you know that already).
These personal attacks whenever you post a piece, are frankly boring.
I welcome genuine debate, but not this….
BTW – my posting has nothing to do with which candidate I’m supporting – I’ve been a supporter of Chris since early on, and despite my concerns at yesterday’s ‘CC’ debacle by his team, remain so.
It would be more enlightening to critique the strengths (or weaknesses, if that is more your style) of each of the respective candidates rather than churlishly chastise the personalities posting.
Something tells me however, nothing will change, eh?
One of the worst negative things from the Clegg camp was Paddy Ashdown’s claim, in his Guardian article, after giving a list of qualities he though a Liberal Democrat leader should have, that there was “only one man” (it may have been “person”, I can’t remember) who met them.
Now isn’t that kicking down all other Liberal Democrat MPs to claim they aren’t even competent to lead the party? And how would Lord Ashdown respond if Clegg weasn’t elected and this comment was thrown back at him – effectively a vote of no confidence in the new leader?
It would have been fine to have said Clegg is the person who best meets these requirements, but the word used was “only”.
The media coverage of this leadership contest in the press has followed a pattern we have often seen when there is internal disagreement in our party. The press prints the opinion of the side it favours as if it is neutral comment. Thus we have continuously seen very dubious Cleggite comments about Huhne only appealing to activists and being inward-looking printed as if fact rather than opinion. This is very similar to the way, for example, the Liberal-SDP merger was handled in the press. The most pro-SDP views were written up as if they were neutral comment or common sense, pro-Liberal or even mildly SDP-sceptical views were written off as damaging and made only out of closed-minded spite by “activists” and other such nasty people.
“When he speaks his body language is closed, his dialect dry, his nature opportunistic and his image nerdy and meek”
“He is belligerent to the point of being offensive.”
Is this the same man? Anti-Chris people are certainly coming up with a variety of view.
Steven, I must disagree with you on two counts.
Firstly, policy IS a problem for the Lib Dems. The Manifesto Consultation revealed in stark terms that two decades after the formation of the Party it is still incapable of articulating a coherent ‘narrative’ which is a terrible indictment of its leadership to date. Thus it is that policies are often contradictory or simply involve throwing lots of taxpayers money at problems in the hope that some will stick. This is the sort of stupid politics we have come to expect from Labour and Conservatives and we should aim to do better – much better.
Yes, indeed presentation could be much better but you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Like the traditional Englishman abroad we seem to think that speaking very LOUDLY and very SLOWLY will lead to understanding. Not so; we should rather learn to speak the electorate’s language.
Secondly, it is a common fallacy that leaders are charismatic, people-people with brilliant interpersonal skills. Not so. They may of course be just that but the finest leaders I have ever known are shy and retiring types. What counts is the ability to analyse a situation and the instinct to devise a strategy based on that analysis that will actually work as opposed to a plan that sounds good but actually amounts mainly to spin. We’ve had enough of that with Blair.
All the salesman-types that I have know in leadership positions have been disasters. I don’t say that they don’t exist – simply that I’ve never met one. That is why I think both the Party and the Country actually need a technocratic figure with the proven ability to run a complex organisation as the next leader. Given that, the presentational aspect will look after itself; I sense that there is a great hunger in the country for a restatement of traditional liberalism.