In common with many Lib Dem activists I have ambivalent feeling about Nick Clegg. I don’t feel that there is a strong case to either say that that no good had come from the coalition or from his leadership, or alternatively that it’s all been peachy. In my view it’s actually a case of what you think the balance has been between successes and disappointments, a debate where I sit roughly in the middle.
However Nick’s latest move – challenging Nigel Farage to a public debate on Europe – has my unbridled admiration, both morally and politically. Morally not only because it’s the right thing to do to engage in a proper public debate about Europe, but also because it’s personally gutsy – it carries risk and that shows proper courageous leadership. I very much imagine that Farage wishes that he thought of it first.
I also think that it is politically a clever strategy. Although it is again not without risks, it does something very rare and impressive: it marginalises the two major parties. Cameron and Miliband really wouldn’t enjoy debating Europe against two people with clear and principled positions, but ducking out makes them look scared and much less relevant to the European Elections. Certainly it gives UKIP extra profile, but they aren’t precisely lacking profile anyway at the moment.
It also further exposes the soft underbelly of the Tories on Europe – Cameron has tried, and I can’t blame him, to sound stronger than he is by staking out the ‘renegotiation’ line, but this debate highlights just how weak his position really is. He is torn between competing views within his party and he can’t afford to clearly jump one way or the other.
The Lib Dems are the party of in. UKIP are the part of out. The Tories on Europe are the Hokey Cokey Party – they’ve got their left leg in, and their right leg out. In out, in out, they shake it all about. Cameron reckons that he can get the rest of the EU to do the Hokey Cokey and turn around. He can’t (and that’s what it’s all about).
Thus in my view Nick has two main missions in the debate. The first is to highlight the strength and consistency of our belief relative to the other two main parties, and particularly the more vulnerable Conservatives – this will help us electorally. The second is to clearly highlight the strength of the advantages of the ‘in’ position as opposed to the ‘out’ position.
It seems to be that the main challenge for this latter mission is in terms of tone: the actual arguments are clear to most Lib Dems in terms of the economic, social and political benefits. However communicating them is not easy – set the tone too highbrow or technical and Nick risks losing much of the audience, especially as Farage is very competent at the simple appealing message. Equally Nick isn’t going to win a bloke-in-pub level argument, and shouldn’t try to – he needs to tread a careful path between clarity, simplicity and accuracy.
Equally I feel he must avoid any temptation to mock UKIP for extremism – a path that may tempt many – or indeed to belittle the grounds for opposing the EU. Denying that there is some case for exit, which many sincerely believe in, is both wrong and politically dangerous, playing as it does to UKIP message that the major parties ignore the concerns of ‘ordinary people’.
I suspect that the debate, when it happens, will actually involve a certain amount of mutual respect at the coherent, if diametrically opposed, views that the other holds. It will of course also involve some very interesting ding dong over the issues. Somebody get the popcorn…
* Adam Killeya is a Lib Dem member, activist and town councillor. He has held various positions in the party including as a parliamentary candidate and agent. He is currently Regional Chair of Devon & Cornwall Lib Dems. In the real world he is Head of Sixth Form of a Secondary School in Cornwall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
21 Comments
“I suspect that the debate, when it happens, will actually involve a certain amount of mutual respect at the coherent, if diametrically opposed, views that the other holds.”
No doubt Farage will be eager to appear good-humoured, but I’m sure he’ll be going for the jugular, and will be portraying Clegg as anything but coherent and consistent, with his on/off support for an in/out referendum.
My feelings about Nick Clegg are not ambivalent. I feel he has taken over the Lib Dems in the economic interests of his own class, to the severe detriment of mine!
My feelings about his challenging Farage ARE ambivalent.
On the one hand, he might be seen as bravely taking the fight to the opponents, and I hope he uses it as an opportunity to call for thoroughgoing democratic reform of the EU, and that he whips Farage’s arse in the meantime.
On the other, I doubt it will bring us many votes in the Euros, as most will hedge their bets with the hokey-cokey parties.
And one might look at it from another angle: this is what the party has come to – challenging UKIP from a position of electoral weakness in the polls.
I have rarely found reason to praise Nick Clegg but do so in this respect. The other two parties seem be either overtly, or covertly, trying to out UKIP, UKIP. Let’s get some debate around the benefits of EU membership before we sleepwalk into exit.
“The Lib Dems are the party of in. UKIP are the party of out.”
That isn’t totally accurate. The Lib Dems are the party of in (,…but for heaven’s sake, don’t risk it, by allowing a referendum). Ukip are the paryt of out, (but put it to the vote, and live by the answer the public give.)
The difference is about giving the voter a CHOICE, as opposed to Cleggs NO CHOICE.
If you believe Clegg is brave for putting this challenge out to Farage, then you also have to acknowledge his equal cowardice (Clegg’s own words!), for denying the Real referendum that he promised in 2008?
Chris: I take your point but Farage has been quoted in the past as expressing admiration for the Lib Dem’s clear position as a pro-Europe party, in contrast to Cameron ambivalence (or in his view hypocrisy). He may not express that again in the debate although I don’t think it would cost him much to do so and could play to his advantage so I think he might, I have heard him speak in person and one thing that struck me was how well he played at being seen to ‘be fair’ to his opponents (for example quietening the audience to allow a pro-European questioner to ‘have his say’ and that kind of thing).
GP: It may not bring us *many* votes but I think it will gain us some and also energise more of the base into turning out.
Steve: I basically agree with you!
John: it remains to be seen whether UKIP would live by the answer in any referendum and Clegg is offering a choice – a choice of a clearly pro-European political party.
I’m not renewing my membership because Nick Clegg has abandoned centrism with his Party of In campaign. A new party needs to start from scratch.
Best wishes
I am pleased that Adam is so much in favour of the Clegg – Farage debate. ‘I also think that it is politically a clever strategy. Although it is again not without risks, it does something very rare and impressive: it marginalises the two major parties. ‘
I am proud that it was I who first suggested that such a debate should take place. My comment is under the Wythenshawe article, on the 16th Feb. I am pleased that Nick has taken up my suggestion and that he then set the challenge to Farage on the 20th Feb.
It would be excellent if Alex Salmond could be involved too. My suggestion is three preliminary debates on separate evenings:
1. Clegg – Salmond
2. Farage – Salmond
3. Clegg – Farage
4. Major debate Clegg – Salmond – Farage
Having a three way debate would further marginalise the two main parties. It would also have the advantage that it would be about the basic principle of independence itself, not just narrowly about Scottish independence or about UK independence.
My original suggestion:
Joe King 16th Feb ’14 – 9:48pm
‘If Nick Clegg really can tackle Farage, it would go a long way to turning around his own standing, improve our fortunes as a party, and stop the anti-EU rhetoric once and for all. Nick does need to be well briefed before such an encounter. How about a televised debate, just the two of them, ahead of the European election? Cameron wants to ignore Farage, so trying to organise a foursome with Ed Miliband too may not be possible. A televised debate ‘in’ vs ‘out’ would be interesting to watch. It would boost our morale too if Nick lands a few punches.’
@John Dunn “The difference is about giving the voter a CHOICE, as opposed to Cleggs NO CHOICE”.
I don’t think a referendum is a good idea. There is a great deal less risk to us by Nick turning the EU into a General Election issue. Nick will be giving the voters their choice when he stands for re-election next year. I suppose if the voters don’t like what he has been saying they won’t vote for him but hey ho; that’s how democracy works.
I think it is a good idea that Nick Clegg is debating Nigel Farage, it will certainly allow for two diametric views to be put to the test. Personally, I would have liked to see Ed Miliband and David Cameron, be involved in the debate. The Conservatives, would rather kick the European Issue into the long grass, while Labour are not sure whether to back Martin Schultz, their European Commission President Candidate.
As well, I think Guy Verofshadt will be a good leader for ALDE, he would actually be also another good person to debate Farage. He has had some good debates with Farage in the European Parliament!!
@ Theresa – 1
“I don’t think a referendum is a good idea.”
And that is a fair and reasonable opinion, but, it has no democratic credence. Surely you can grasp the point that your (one), opinion, or indeed my (one), opinion, can only be considered valid ‘democratically’, when put side by side with the other potential 40 million votes?
Why is it that Liberal Democrats just don’t seem to get, democracy?
@John Dunn “Why is it that Liberal Democrats just don’t seem to get, democracy?”
That’s a bit unfair. Everyone now knows we LibDems are ” the party of in” – that is a clear and unambiguous policy. No ifs or buts. If people vote for us then we stay in the EU; period. Of course we “get” democracy; (I assume) Nick will include our unambiguous EU policy in our next General Election manifesto and if the voters don’t agree with it then they won’t vote for us. We have to accept that. That is democracy. We live or die by it.
Sure, Theresa, if you you wish the sum of the liberal party to be its eu policy.
I fully agree with Nick on this – but why oh why cannot we promise a referendum – and campaign all the way on staying in ? If the people decide to come out – thats their problem – at least we can say ” We told you so” – get off the high moral ground – and get stuck in. I am really woried that our refusal to give the people the choice will rebound on us – again – and it wont even matter if Nick “wins ‘ the debate – in the publics mind we will be the ones who promised a referendum and then reneged on it – now where have I heard that before?
Has everyone forgotten that we’ve already legislated for a referendum? How many do you want? Or do we have to keep having them till you get the answer you want?
“The Lib Dems are the party of in. UKIP are the part of out. The Tories on Europe are the Hokey Cokey Party – they’ve got their left leg in, and their right leg out. In out, in out, they shake it all about. Cameron reckons that he can get the rest of the EU to do the Hokey Cokey and turn around. He can’t (and that’s what it’s all about).”
Worth reading just for that line. Genius!
I think Nick has chosen a brave course and I’m not sure that Farage wishes he’d thought of it first. We have more to gain from it than he has. Nick must go in well briefed with day-to-day examples of how Europe works for us, eg on consumer affairs as well as the obvious big-picture stuff on jobs and markets. Ther is some useful data around on how very few cases actually get before the European, and in less than half of those British courts are over-ruled. Funny how they’re the only ones that get on to the front page of that DM.
“Or do we have to keep having them till you get the answer you want?”
surely that is the ever-closer-union way, no?
@Adam Robertson
“I think it is a good idea that Nick Clegg is debating Nigel Farage”
Debating *with*, please. He is debating the UK’s EU membership with Nigel Farage.
We need to be positioning ourselves as wanting to remain in the EU, but demanding serious changes, not cheerleading for the status quo.
If Nick Clegg falls into the trap of doing the second, he’ll be dead in the water.
@RC
Sorry if my grammar was wrong or I used a word in the wrong context.
We do want change in Europe. Just because we want to stay in Europe, doesn’t mean me want change. This is what Lib Dem MEP’s like Andrew Duff are doing on our behalf in the European Parliament.
Referenda – I’m probably in a small minority but I oppose ANY referenda. We are a parliamentary democracy. we elect our representatives to express our views (and YES – there is a case for recall and other checks and balances), so let us allow them to get on with it. The referenda road is a slippery one. In its extreme form we risk ending up with government by referendum; a dangerous road indeed.
I liked Adam Killeya’s response to the Clegg/Farage debate idea. The HokeyCokey analagy is spot on. And the idea of not trying to speak in the same way as Farage. Nick will obviously need to prepare carefully, but I am hopeful that his experience of PMQs as Deputy and his different experience on LBC will have prepared him for this different confrontation. He will need to be very astute on immigration, weighing up Vince Cable’s recent remarks about immigration being a good thing – when the man in the street often thinks otherwise. If Libdems affirm the free movement of labour in the EU, then Nick needs to be willing to admit other flaws in the EU project, such as the expensive farce of two venues for the parliament, the slack auditing of accounts and wretchedly puny reporting of what Europe actually does.