Throughout the festive season, LDV is offering our readers a load of repeats another chance to read the 12 most popular opinion articles which have appeared on the blog since 1st January, 20109. The tenth most-read LDV op-ed of 2010 was by party member Mat Smith, and originally appeared on 15th November …
Opinion: Clegg has not betrayed us!
Many left-leaning liberals in the media are outraged at what they consider to be broken pledges on the part of Nick Clegg.
Johann Hari writes in The Independent, “In just a few days after the election, he cleared a space in his swanky new ministerial offices and staged a bonfire of his principles”.
Aside from the fact this article is laced with hyperbole (look carefully – barely a paragraph without some emotive language!), I can’t help thinking this is exactly not what the country needs.
I don’t mean that in a patriotic sense; I believe this country will operate perfectly well even if we don’t get behind our leaders in support. Thankfully we live in a pluralist state, and it’s not important to me that my fellow citizens are either “for or against” a given government.
No, the reason I am concerned is because we are heading towards one of the most exciting changes in a political system, a genuine maturing of our politics, and one that requires we all start to grasp the concept of what it means to have plurality in government as well as amongst the electorate.
This maturing of our political system is something we Brits have long desired, culminating in our outrage at the expenses scandal – a scandal that would never have grown to such an issue had it not been for the fact that one political party was allowed to govern the country unilaterally for 13 whole years. It is precisely our FPTP (First Past The Post) voting system that polarises the parties in the first place, and splits the electorate in two – a split, incidentally, that has in the last 13 years seen one party as the goodies and one party as the baddies. It’s a well-known and well-studied fact – an obvious and intuitive one – that two-party politics leads to long-term instability (make law, unmake law, make law) rather than a more slower, iterative style of policy-making.
Yet what are we going to do about it? Is our appetite strong enough for a mature politics?
When I read articles like Hari’s in The Independent, it worries me that we are more concerned about our leaders’ characters and personal pledges than we are about what they can do for politics itself.
Clegg, along with other Liberal Democrats, signed a pledge before the election. Before the coalition was formed, and before there was any possibility that he might be in a position to even govern. But this was a pledge of political policy, not of political principle.
And here is the basis of understanding a coalition. One must no longer think about pledges, promises, scandal and success, but instead one has to think of the hypothetical.
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if the Tories had gained power, without the Liberal Democrats to temper them?”
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if Labour were still in power?”
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if the Liberal Democrats had won the majority in the House of Commons?”
When you look honestly at the answers to those questions, it becomes very clear why Clegg has not betrayed us in the slightest.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
6 Comments
I suspect the response to this article will be very much the same as when it was written: you can twist and turn as much as you like and use as much sophistry as you are capable of, but the fact remains that those of our MPs who voted in favour of tuition fees betrayed a political principle, namely that if you make a personal promise to a section of the electorate in order to gain their support then you do not break that promise.
I missed this post the first time round and am grateful for that small mercy.
I look at Hari’s post:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-clegg-ndash-the-man-who-betrayed-us-all-2131652.html
and then at this response to it and can fully understand why the electorate are abandoning the LibDems in their droves.
Amazing how the FPTP system looks like surviving AV and now we have two parties very much cast as the baddies and Labour very much the goodie in the polls as the only one interested in standing up for the weak, disadvantaged and poor as well as the hard-pressed middle classes. It really is quite an achievement by Clegg to manage all that in such a short time LOL.
But of course the writer of this post makes it clear that it isn’t important to him whether an electorate thinks a government is good or not – well it may become important to Clegg and the LibDems at the next GE and it may well be sooner than some expect.
Still it’s nice to note that Coalition government creates a: ‘more slower, iterative style of policy-making’ – I didn’t realise that was the politically-correct way to describe this mad, breakneck speed of legislative change, with little or no adequate scrutiny, that we are currently experiencing from this Tory-led Coalition 🙂
@tonyhill. Perfectly put. Mr Clegg got me with “new politics” thing. C’est la vie I suppose. But wait till the next GE.
The piece looks rather dated already.
“two-party politics leads to long-term instability (make law, unmake law, make law) rather than a more slower, iterative style of policy-making” Really? The Coalition is operating a slow, iterative policy-making style? Most commentators argue that the problem is the outrageous speed the Coalition are operating at which is leading to mistake after mistake; u-turn after u-turn. Is it also not the case that the core belied driving the Coalition is “New Labour Bad; Coalition good”? There is no iteration in any of the NHS, education or defence policies. They are all designed to tear apart the previous Government’s policies and start again – with potentially disastrous consequences. Look at the latest wheeze – the public to choose policies. Is this for real?
“And here is the basis of understanding a coalition. One must no longer think about pledges, promises, scandal and success, but instead one has to think of the hypothetical. Utter nonsense. I make the point repeatedly – the only people who understand Coalitions are those who have operated in or lived under one. And this Coalition is nothing like any other Coalition I have ever experienced – and that is it’s undoing. The latest polling
suggests the electorate is tiring of this system as well.
The author signs off with: “When you look honestly at the answers to those questions, it becomes very clear why Clegg has not betrayed us in the slightest.” Far from presenting a powerful closing argument – it just leaves a sour taste. Clegg has betrayed his party, his electorate and every student who placed a vote for him. It will not be forgotten.
I agree with Tony Hill. Note Hari ends his article with: “If you are a member of the Liberal Democrats appalled by Clegg’s choices, you can join the Social Liberal Forum, an internal group that is trying to reclaim the party.” So all you ‘I’ll never vote Lib Dem again’ folk, join the party and fight to reclaim it or shut up!
@ Kev
Why is it that to LD loyalists who support the Coalition, the correct default response to criticism is always; “either join us and fight from within, or shut up and go away or I’ll stick my fingers in my ears and sing la-la-la-la to avoid hearing your argument” ?
I’ve never been an LD member, I’m not particularly interested in EVER being a member. I am however interested in promoting changes to our society and political system I felt were more likely to come about by seeing the LD’s in power; yes, fool that I am I actually though the LD’s were different, even if I didn’t agree with everything in their manifesto they were the “best fit” I could find, and seemed to promise something progressive, something more radical than either of the other 2 main parties.
I’m one of that large section of left of centre voters who have consistently turned out however to support your party over decades, you know that core of non-member support that actually got you into power. Without people like us, you’d still be languishing in the electoral cul-de-sac you found yourselves in before the Liberal-SDP Alliance.
You now have the effrontery to demand we “shut-up” rather than point out that the Emperor has no clothes. How arrogant. I wish those in the social Liberal Forum luck in their attempt to reclaim their party from the cabal surrounding Clegg who have pimped it out to the Tories for the political equivalent of a few strings of beads and shiny mirrors. I have a feeling they are going to need all the help they can get!