In an attempt to repair his Party’s battered poll ratings and diminished credibility following the veto and its aftermath, Nick Clegg has launched the concept of the ‘Open Society’ into the public domain. It mixes important ideas with a sense of a motherhood and apple pie shopping list.
It’s hard to see how the Open Society concept, with its nods to Karl Popper and Isaiah Berlin, will resonate outside of Westminster at a time of increasing economic concern. When people’s major concerns are the cost of energy bills, the cost of living and worries about unemployment and job security, it is unlikely that a political leader’s philosophical musings are really going to transform his political situation.
As I have written many times, Clegg is right to talk about the importance of social mobility, with opportunity not being decided by the lottery of birth. Declining social mobility is one of the biggest problems facing the UK today. As somebody who attended a North Eastern comprehensive, I feel passionately about the issue. Indeed, the rise of politicians with the background of leaders such as Clegg is one of many symptoms of a decline in social mobility (as well as power being concentrated in an increasingly narrow elite).
Clegg is right to point out that as a country, low levels of social mobility mean that we are not making the most of our potential and that too many people from lower income backgrounds are unable to make the most of their individual potential.
That is an issue which resonates with many ordinary voters. However, the rest of his speech might well be viewed through the prism of out of touch politicians discussing ‘ivory towers issues.’ I would instinctively agree with many of the points raised in Clegg’s speech, but it is hard to say that now is the time to debate niceties about constitutional reform as the UK runs the risk of returning to recession.
When the public perceive politicians as being out of touch, it’s hard to see how politicians directing a speech purely at the Westminster bubble is going to change that. In Clegg’s case, in particular, it’s difficult to envisage such a Westminster-centric speech restoring his party’s brand amongst the general electorate.
So many polls show that people, particularly those from aspirational working class and middle class families, do not believe that politicians understand their concerns or share their economic worries. This is surely not a time for the leader of a political party suffering from dire poll ratings to wander off into philosophical musings. I doubt that the “alarm clock heroes” identified by Clegg a year ago will be particularly impressed.
* David Skelton is Deputy Director of Policy Exchange.
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
24 Comments
I attended a south-eastern comprehensive. I grew up on a Labour-voting council estate – yes, such things do exist in south-east England. Why don’t people know about it? Because of the distorting effect of the electoral system which gives the impression that south-east England outside London is almost universally true-blue Tory.
It was my anger at the way people like my family had no-one who really represented them in Parliament, no-one who spoke for their particular needs as poor people living in what outsiders think of as a wealthy area, which led me to see how important electoral reform was, and played a big part in my deciding to switch my support to the Liberals as they were the only party in favour of it.
So to dismiss constitutional reform as unimportant “niceties” is wrong. It is actually the key to ending the situation where people feel their politicians are an alien class they can do nothing to change. We need to find a way of expressing that.
I agree Clegg’s speech as quoted sounded worthy but did not hit home. We need a leader who can speak with true passion on these issues, someone who can hit home to “those from aspirational working class and middle class families” perhaps because they themselves come from that background.
I know I have been critical of Clegg ever since he emerged as “obviously our next leader”, but can people now see what I was getting at? Sorry, but he does give the impression of being the boy picked to play the part of “Liberal Democrat leader” in a public school’s mock election, rather than someone who leads from a position of passion and real background knowledge and commitment.
I think this post seems a little churlish, after all this was an event jointly hosted by the Open Society Foundation and Demos and so inevitably it would be about political issues relevant to both of them. Nick has done plenty of speeches on other topics and perhaps doing the occasional speech on an issue that resonates with the sort of people who have long been our core supporters is a good idea. I thought it was a very good speech that sums up some of the principles of what Lib Dems stand for and that’s coming from someone who went to a Yorkshire comprehensive!
We live in decadent times, in which a government leader can speak publically about moral collapse while pushing through public spending cuts and modifications which increase the avoidable suffering of millions. We are governed by people who clearly feel morally compelled to make life better for those who are already doing very well for themselves, and all at the expense of the great majority of the population. And when we look at the political leaders we see a certain similarity, a conformity to a narrowing range of concepts and solutions – I mean, damn, they all look so managerial, so lacking in authentic connection to those of us who have to get through this increasingly difficult life.
But a lot of the blame must rest with us, the mass of ordinary people. We must stop looking on politics and political parties as if they were commodities to be selected from a shelf; politics is about the very fabric and foundations of our lives, not a flavour, not a brand. If we dont like the direction being taken by the parties we have previously identified with, then it is up to US to get involved and change them. Its not as if they’re going to do it by themselves.
Sorry but this is just not true.
constitutional matters aren’t niceties – they’re the reason why ordinary voters think politicians are out of touch in the first place. if our institutions were reformed – whether with regards to the institutions of our capitalism, or judiciary, or democracy – people would have a better chance to affect change in their lives. we’d all have a better chance of bringing about an economy we’re happier with if we had fair institutions. Plus if people had the capability to access these institutions of course. This isn’t a peripheral argument, even though the media treat it as such.
If the speech didn’t have the required impact I’d suggest it was down to language and presentation rather than the subject matter being tackled – and of course the lingering impression that folk who look and sound like Nick are by definition our of touch with everyone else’s economic problems.
@Matthew Huntbach
My comment was aimed at the main article not your comment as I’d started writing it before you posted. However I think it’s unfair to say Nick doesn’t lead from a position of passion or committment. I accept some people may feel he doesn’t show passion strongly enough when he speaks, that’s a valid criticism, but to say he doesn’t have it is a very bold statement and I think it is unfair. Indeed wanting to support aspirational families has always been something that he’s felt strongly about, and having just got to the end of his biography, I understand more than ever where it’s come from.
Your last couple of paragraphs though do make it sound as though you only think people who get people like you should ever be leader. I’m expect that’s not your intention, but whilst I also feel that it is wrong that politics has for far too long been dominated by people who went to top public schools (something that not many people would probably disagree on), I’m not sure we should be condeming people purely because they went to a public school as if because they come from that background they can’t possibly ever feel passionate about the concerns of ‘ordinary’ people.
Anders
However I think it’s unfair to say Nick doesn’t lead from a position of passion or committment. I accept some people may feel he doesn’t show passion strongly enough when he speaks, that’s a valid criticism, but to say he doesn’t have it is a very bold statement and I think it is unfair.
I did not say he doesn’t have it. I said he gives the impression of not having it, or rather of faking it. I used to think this was just me, because so many other people seemed to think he was wonderful and I couldn’t work out why. But now I find so many other people also saying much the same as I said from the start. It’s hard to put it into words without sounding prejudiced, but I’m afraid this is how it is – people who look and sound like Nick Clegg do set off in some (mainly those who come from the same sort of background) the feeling “very able, very clever, obvious leader material”, and in others “out of touch, doesn’t have a clue about ordinary people”.
My own view is that he was over-promoted because he was heavily pushed by national media people (mostly who come from that sort of background) into the leadership position when actually he needed a lot more practical experience to do the job well. I also do feel that people like me are written off as soon as we open our mouths. Northern accents are sort of accepted, but southern accents, except the “posh” accent that is spoken by about 10% of southerners, automatically get you written off as thick, maybe good for minor back-room tasks, but not leadership material. If I am wrong, then tell me why is there almost NO-ONE in public life who has a pronounced southern working-class accent?
I’m sorry, but every time I see Cameron, Osborne, and Clegg I feel they are ‘Spitting Image Lookalikes’. Facially they are the same, they come from the same priviledged elite, Cameron and Osborne have their ‘Bullingdon’ background and Clegg his ‘Cactii Caper’. It is little wonder that they neither understand, nor empathise with, those at the bottom of our society.
Matthew,
I have a nasty feeling that the answer to your question is “because politics has become the preserve of the middle/upper classes”.
Liberalism has been perceived as a middle-class preoccupation since the emergence of the Labour Party, and as the Labour Party has become less blue collar and more white collar, the space for ‘working class tribunes’ appears to have been squeezed.
On the question of Nick and passion, my experience of dealing with him is that he has passion, but he is trying to appear reasonable and inclusive. It’s difficult to display passion and reasonableness at the same time…
I think constitution reform is an enormous topic and I think we will find the question of Scottish Independence will be highly significant over the next few years, despite all the other problems people face.
There are lots of issues that most people do not care about but they are still vitally important – our attitude to the EU for example. And even on the issue of social mobility – yes it is important but most people feel more strongly that wealth redistribution should also be attended to.
As for House of Lords reform is concerned, it is true that most people do not think about the House of Lords that much and do not know what it does. However that does not in itself make the issue unimportant. It is an issue referred to the Coalition agreement, the government is obliged to deal with it and those who think the matter is unimportant will have a moral obigation to ensure it’s swift passage through Parliament so that Parliament can then spend more time deliberating on other issues.
As for the philosophical leanings of Nick Clegg, this is an important matter. I want to know why he blieves what he believes in because this will help me decide how motivated I am to support his leadership. I am not sure if David Skelton is writing on behalf of himself rather than Policy Exchange if he thinks that philosophy is unimportant. However it is true that the reason JS Mill described the Conservative party as the stupid party was because they then lacked a philiosophy and I suppose you could say that when it comes to winning elections it didn’t cause them any problems. What they did once they won them is another matter!
On this question of whether politicians look and sound committed, passionate and in touch with ordinary people, I think it is helpful to imagine, when watching the news, that you come from the Third World and know no English at all. So you can only judge by body language and impression (and you can’t tell where the accent is from!)
I think the obvious conclusion you would reach is that most of them have obviously had a good lunch, and are feeling pretty pleased with themselves. Cameron, Clegg and Osborne all exude this sense of self-satisfaction (it’s not only Pickles!).
Ed Miliband tends to sound angrier. But that doesn’t stop him looking self-satisfied about how right he thinks he is.
Despite the bumptiousness, I think Alex Salmond comes closer toward sounding as if he occasionally notices that not everything in everybody’s lives is always going completely swimmingly. Given that many of the people that politicians are talking to are in fact feeling totally miserable, angry, or scared stiff about their situation, that’s going to make a better impression!
This post is bizarre. Constitutional reform was just one aspect touched upon and clearly very relevant to the group which had asked him to speak.
It is fair to say that this speech was not aimed at the vast majority of people who are not that interested in politics. But in my view, one of the reasons why people are turned off politicians is because they only seem to do the dumbed down politics which is easier to put on leaflets. There is scope for also engaging people in political philosophy at a higher level. Without wishing to be pompous, I am a Liberal Democrat because it is the only party with a clear liberal philosophy….and I am convinced by those ideas. But unless you set those ideas out in clear and persuasive language, how to people come to self-identify as a liberal?
I am not going to tell you my “background” & I dont actually care about yours either. A lot of voters may well reject Clegg because he doesnt look or sound like them, they are wrong.We are Liberals & Democrats, when we look at people we should see a crowd of inividuals not members of various categories, arranged by class, gender or region.
Sorry if that sounded grumpy but Class prejudice upsets me as much as Racism or Sexism.
On the wider point of the article, we are working towards an Election in 3 Years time not next week. Any Clegg speech has to be seen in that context, its a long game.
Wow, who’d be a politician eh?
If you address philosophical issues people call you out of touch, if you don’t address them people complain that you have no guiding philosophy.
If you sound upbeat people complain that you have no clue how hard life is for “ordinary people”, if you talk honestly about life’s hardships people call you gloomy or accuse you of talking down the country.
If you have a confident manner people complain of elitist Westminster arrogance, but if you don’t sound 100% sure of yourself you get labelled as weak and devoid of leadership qualities.
If you talk in moderate tones people say you lack passion, but if you wear your heart on your sleeve you’re seen as a tubthumping extremist.
If you work to achieve a workable compromise you’re accused of ditching your principles, but if you refuse to compromise you’re seen as an unreasonable ideologue.
Quite a tightrope. And I say this in commiseration with all politicians, not just Nick Clegg.
If anyone thinks that anything to do with constitutional reform will make any more than 10% of the population feel better about us, and 90% think “Do these self indulgent idiots not know what is going on?”, whether in three months, three years or three decades, they really have to make more contact with the home planet more often.
spot on Catherine…!!
What Catherine said!
Seriously, “Now is not the time” for thinking about issues of political principle? I don’t know what the Policy Exchange is, but if it’s a philosophy-free zone it’s a thought-free zone and not worth being.
It makes me quite despondent that Clegg is judged (by LibDems!) as somehow less sincere because he was born into a wealthy family and wears a suit. Would you rather he turned up for work in overalls? He speaks in measured, “managerial” tones because he’s a well educated professional with media training. Would you rather he ranted?
Surely judging someone on the class they’re born into is just as bad as making assumptions on the basis of a strong accent, tattoos etc. Just because the target of your disapproval is privileged doesn’t make it acceptable.
Catherine………… Posted 21st December 2011 at 5:46 pm ……………..Wow, who’d be a politician eh?…………..Quite a tightrope. And I say this in commiseration with all politicians, not just Nick Clegg…………
Who indeed?
Who wants by far the best Pensions in the Public Sector? Who wants a subsidised top class restaurant and bar? Who wants first class travel and overseas jollies? Who wants freebies to major sporting and media events? Who wants nearly a month’s holiday this Christmas? Who wants a full salary and the opportunity to make even more ‘moonlighting’ for private companies? Who wants to claim expenses for a helipad, swimming-pool maintenance, belltower repair and moat-cleaning? Who wants to claim £thousands for a second home, one minute’s walk away?….The list goes on!
Catherine,on reflection, I agree! In fact, my heart bleeds for them.
Jason,
Congratulations on describing an astonishingly one-eyed view of the House of Commons (the Lords is paid on an attendance basis, there is no pension, the Lords rose yesterday and will return on 10 January, there are no expenses, no paid sick leave, no paid holiday leave, no second home allowance and the canteen is subsidised because it’s used predomimantly by staff – and it’s less subsidised than the Royal Mail canteen I used to use).
You probably want MPs to meet constituents, which is done when Parliament isn’t sitting, visit local events, work seventy hour weeks, answer correspondence, campaign and do all of the other things that is expected of a good MP, but you want them to live a life like we do, with family commitments and homes to look after – you know, normal stuff, so that they understand the lives of the people they serve.
They aren’t entitled to first class travel in the UK any more (it was abolished in the recent reforms), most Parliamentary delegations leave no spare time at all these days – it might be warm outside, but if you’re in meetings all day it’s a bit irrelevant, and they can only rent a London flat if their constituency is outside London (and have you seen London rental costs lately?)
And yes, the pensions are generous, but the job security can be virtually non-existent – were most of the MPs who lost their seats last time rubbish or was it a national swing that did for them? And yes, some of them were, at the very least, foolish in their expenses claims, in some cases criminal, but that isn’t true of all of them.
It is people like you that drive decent people out of politics, but then you probably don’t care about that anyway. Cynicism breeds cynicism, my friend, and it works both ways.
.Mark Valladares………………..Why start with the Lords. The post was about MPs?
……..And yes, some of them were, at the very least, foolish in their expenses claims, in some cases criminal, but that isn’t true of all of them……….
Foolish? Well, that’s not the term I’d use; and it wasn’t ‘some’ it was ‘most’. “Flipping” second homes may have been legal but it certainly wasn’t ethical.
…..It is people like you that drive decent people out of politics, but then you probably don’t care about that anyway. …….
So it’s all my fault, eh? To read your post, all MPs are saints; most of those who blythely milked taxpayers for expenses are still sitting MPs. They only stopped their ‘fiddling’ because they were exposed (I’d use the term ‘shamed’ but, had they any shame, they would not have used such ‘creativity’).
If ‘they’ are the “decent people” you are referring to then our definition of ‘decent’ is poles apart.
…………….Cynicism breeds cynicism, my friend, and it works both ways………..
On that, at least, we can agree!
Wow, who’d be a human, eh?
If you hit people who annoy you, you get arrested. If you act nice to them, you get called a wimp.
If you go around all full of yourself and upbeat all the time, people call you a smug self-satisfied b*stard. If you go around moaning all the time, people call you a whinger.
It’s really difficult to get the balance right, and what’s more, you never got the choice as to whether you wanted to be a human or not. Unlike politicians, who volunteered to take on a career which depended on their ability to get the balance right. Isn’t it strange that so many of them (prime example: G. Brown) aren’t good at it?
No Ann, I am not judging politicians by their class, that was an invention all your own. Many politicians – not all – sound far too self-satisfied and out of touch with the many in our nation who are struggling. Smugness isn’t the exclusive preserve of the middle class, and struggling isn’t exclusive to the working class. And yes Mark, they work hard. So did Fred the Shred. And yes guys, we do need philosophy, as long as it isn’t just an excuse for bumptiousness or evasion.
Jason,
Let’s see now…
I mention the Lords because, if you turn your cynicism off for a moment, you’ll find that Catherine referred to politicians, not MPs, and as you seemed determined to tar all politicians with the same brush, I felt obliged to correct you.
And I still do. Your approach appears to be to take a moderately expressed view, distort it massively, and then attack the distortion. I merely suggested that not all MPs were, or are, dishonest, and that cynicism about politics and politicians tends to put those with talent and integrity from entering politics at all – why enter a field where people abuse you simply because they assume you’re corrupt, rather than actually taking the trouble to find out? I know of MPs whose expenses were given a clean bill of health and were still driven out of politics by people with views like yours.
Yes, by all means punish those who aren’t good at their jobs, or who cheat on their expenses, but don’t judge every politician according to your prejudices, judge them on their individual acts.
And perhaps, if we did that, we’d have a better body politic in this country.
Nicely put Mark.
Ann Keelan
It makes me quite despondent that Clegg is judged (by LibDems!) as somehow less sincere because he was born into a wealthy family and wears a suit. Would you rather he turned up for work in overalls? He speaks in measured, “managerial” tones because he’s a well educated professional with media training. Would you rather he ranted?
No, I am not asking for him to rant. I am sorry if it sounds rude, but I do find that many people who used to support our party say similar to what I’ve said about him. Some of it is his looks and manner, but that’s not all. There are other people with those looks and manner I don’t have the problem with that I have with Clegg.
Look sorry, but can I put in another way? I’ve never read or heard anything from Clegg that makes me sit up and think. I’ve never heard him say anything that suggests he is really speaking from deep experience. Most of the time he comes across as just so trite – as if he’s mugged up on these things, is saying what he thinks he ought to say, but there is just no depth to it. Look, I’m a university lecturer, and a Clegg speech always reminds me of the sort of work submitted by a student who’s diligent but “solid 2.i” – you get the feeling they’ve been up all night revising, they’re repeating the stuff from the text book, they’re not getting anything wrong, but there jsut isn’t the sparkle and real insight beyond the obvious that makes it 1st class.
The point about his background is that we KNOW there’s far more people from that background in the top ranks of life than there are people from that background as a proportion of the whole population. Therefore, assuming we believe real intelligence is distributed evenly regardless of social background, there must be many at the top from that background who are there because of that background and not because of their intelligence. From this, if we see someone at the top from that sort of background, there’s a higher chance that person isn’t really that bright tnan there is when we see someone at the to who came from a poor working class background. When we see someone from a poor working class background who’s made it to the top, we know damn sure that person has ability, that that person has a fighting power. That’s not prejudice, that’s just using statistics.