The Lib Dems Identity Crisis

At last years party conference Nick Clegg proclaimed- to much sniggering- that he aspired to be Prime Minister. A year down the line, and though he is only Deputy PM, few people would categorise his year as a failure. But whilst Clegg may be comfortable in his new surroundings in government, rubbing shoulders with Tories and making decisions that he is will now be held accountable to, there were rumblings that sections of his own party were less enamoured with their new bedfellows. And so the Liberal Democrats entered this week in Liverpool with some serious questions needing answering. A conference proceeded by Clegg's announcement that the party had no future as one of the left, and rounded off by Vince Cable's call to arms against capitalism, has sent out mixed messages to say the least.

The issue arises from the very nature of the Liberal Democrats themselves. They are a synthesis between the Liberal and the Social Democrat traditions, meaning internal divisions on certain issues are inevitable. What appears to have become apparent since May is that, if not the majority of its members, but certainly the majority of the people who voted for the Liberal Democrats are more of the Social Democrat variety, whilst the higher echelons of the party, those that now sit in David Cameron's cabinet, run more in the liberal vein. Whilst Lib Dem support in the polls has collapsed since the coalition agreement, as those who voted for them in the General Election, like myself, have deserted, the delegates in Liverpool this week sat like fans of a band making its commercial breakthrough, unsure whether to keep supporting the people they'd been following for the last few years, or brand the new, successful sound as having sold out.

There were no cries of 'Judas' as Clegg delivered his conference speech but it was a defensive piece of oratory, filled with denials- 'we will never lose our soul, we haven't changed our liberal values'- and pleas for support- 'hold our nerve', 'stick with us'. It was , in fact, a well-judged speech, pitched at an audience who may have dropped out of sync with his footsteps, but still trusted him enough to follow his path. Clegg, to date, has done a good job of selling the coalition to his party members, and has competently, if inconsistently with his pre-election thinking, put forward the case for the impending cuts.

While many members accept the coalition's belief in the need for swift deficit reduction, clearly other aspects are more of a hard sell. A motion condemning the Conservative's free schools policy was passed and planned reduction to universal benefits were also overwhelmingly rejected. When grilled on this Clegg extolled the democratic virtues of his party, but what good democracy if those Lib Dems in government must sit like nodding dogs as the coalition sees these measures passed. Five months into government and these are minor tremors, but come conference season next year cracks could open both internally within the Lib Dems, and within the coalition.

One senior Lib Dem who definitely sits in the Social Democrat corner of the party is former Labour Party member and current Business Secretary, Vince Cable. Last week I read a description of Cable as looking like a 'shot-down pilot being forced by his captors to read out a propaganda statement.' Today he was a Marxist revolutionary, proclaiming from the barricades the fall of capitalism. Ok, maybe not- but the mainstream media might make you think so. Cable obviously does believe in capitalism, but the kind he believes in is a more regulated, responsible kind, a perfectly reasonable desire in light of recent effects. Cable's speech was one for all those who consider themselves on the left-wing of the liberal democrats and showed the face of the party that I fell for in May. Unfortunately that face, like Cable himself, looks rather the worse for wear after the bruises and blows encountered from five months with the Conservatives.

The coalition has raised many questions about the Lib Dems identity, but it also provides the key answer to it. Right now the Liberal Democrats are a force in government, not a voice in opposition. Though the slogan 'Delivering for Britain' may seem more appropriate for a conference of the national union of midwives, the point is clear. The Liberal Democrats are influencing policy within Britain in a way they never have in their history, and there is little about that the rank-and-file members can condemn.

Post-Debate Musings

It's Saturday afternoon, two days after the Sky Leaders Debate, and I'm at home, listening to The Clash and keeping a keen eye on the relegation battle unfolding in the final days games in the Blue Square Premier. For my team, Histon, to get sucked into the fold they would have to lose to Barrow, with Eastbourne and Gateshead winning and Forest Green getting something from their game against already relegated Grays Athletic. It's unlikely, but after going through three chairman, two managers and enough players to make up an American Football team this season, I'm prepared for anything. Twenty minutes in and we're drawing, with only Gateshead winning, so for now things are looking good.

Anyway, to the matter at hand; that is my thoughts on Thursday's debate and the surrounding goings-on in this intriguing election race. Thursday morning's papers saw the country's right-wing machinery in full force as the nation's front pages peppered Nick Clegg with unsubstantiated accusations, ranging from dodgy financial transactions to Nazi sympathising. The Tory strategy since Clegg's stratospheric rise over the last week has been for the party to gently scrutinise Lib Dem policy, whilst their tentacles in the media and the blogosphere attempt to strangle the leader's burgeoning reputation as a candidate for change. Thursday's attempts, timed to put Clegg off his game before the evening's debate, appear to have failed as he brushed off the Mail's preposterous claim, joking he'd gone 'from Churchill to Nazi in a week', and later published his allegedly shady bank statements, dismissing The Telegraph's completely overblown attempt at 'scrutiny'.

Football update. It's nearly half-time in the BlueSquare matches and Histon are winning 1-0. Gateshead are still winning with Eastbourne and Forest Green still at 0-0 against Oxford and Grays respectively. As long as things stay the same, the mighty Histon will be remaining in the highest tier of non-league football for another year.

Despite a day of media pressure, Clegg came out on Thursday evening and performed well in the debate, in what was a case of trying to consolidate the past week's gains. Cameron and Brown struggled to make any of their attacks stick and he was again quick to dispel allegations of wrongdoing when Adam Boulton had the temerity to raise the issue of that day's media barrage. It is somewhat of a coup for the Liberal Democrats that polling after the debate put Clegg as joint winner, along with David Cameron, as Mr Murdoch failed to engineer the result he wished. There wasn't any brazen bias apparent on Thursday, but immigration, an issue that came up the week before, and on which Cameron scores high approval amongst voters, was raised again. Electoral reform, an issue supported by Labour, the Lib Dems and the majority of the population, was circled round but never directly addressed, whilst foreign aid, on which Labour have an admirable record, was completely bypassed. Then again, as I'm sure any Conservative would argue, last week's slight Tory bias will surely be readdressed by the pinko-loving, socialist breeding ground, that is the BBC.

Can you smell sarcasm. Or perhaps it's trepidation. Barrow have just equalised meaning a couple of inconvenient goals in Eastbourne and at Grays could stick Histon in real trouble. Scratch that. Barrow now lead. Histon are still, staying up, but only just. Trepidation is giving way to full on panic, so I'll make this last bit brief.

Gordon Brown has been said to have performed better this week but I have to say, I didn't really see it. Perhaps it's because he was pretty shoddy in the first twenty minutes or so and after that my attention rather waned. I feel that an hour and a half is too long, and rather than having the first half themed and the second half open for general questions they should be restricted just to a single theme. I am yet to see a question in the general sections at the end that couldn't be incorporated under either domestic affairs, foreign affairs or the economy. Simple proposal: why not have three, one-hour long debates under those three headings. After the first two debates this year is it's not been what's been said in the debates that has made the headlines but rather the public's response to the debates as a whole. Whilst they've definitely added some spice to this campaign, there's some tweaking to be done for next time.

Update: Forest Green ended up losing meaning they are relegated along with Ebbsfleet and Grays. A 92nd minute own goal salvaged a 2-2 draw for Histon meaning that whatever else happened they would stay up. I'm suitably chuffed right now.

Cleggmania

Rumblings and stumblings in September; The tipping point; One man's progressive is another man's ...; Going forward

One Monday, back in September, I was at home reading our family's paper of choice, The Times. Inside it Nick Clegg had a guest column, scheduled to coincide with the start of the Liberal Democrat Autumn conference and the publication of a pamphlet, by Clegg, titled The Liberal Moment. In it, the leader of the third party argued for a change, writing:

'in the same way that Labour eclipsed a tired Liberal Party almost a century ago, the Liberal Democrats now offer a new rallying point for a resurgent progressive movement in Britain, replacing Labour as the dominant force of progressive politics' (The Times, Sept 17, 2009)

Despite this optimism the conference turned out to be rather rough. Clegg had to defend his coarse proclamation that 'savage cuts' were needed to tackle the deficit and then risked a backlash from the Lib Dem's strong student base when the possibility of scrapping the flagship policy to abolish tuition fees was floated. Even Vince Cable, so popular amongst party activists, was criticised for a lack of consultation before announcing his well-intentioned, yet sketchy, plans for a mansion tax. Despite the bruising, at the end of the week Clegg, undeterred, declared he wanted the top job, he wanted to be Prime Minister. The media reacted in predictably skeptical fashion. After all, it was like watching a 10-year old boy with little coordination, struggle to kick a ball round a field before turning to tell you he's going to play for England when he's older.

Now, with less than three weeks to go to the general election, Clegg's ambitious statement seems less like a ten year old's fanciful dream and more like Bobby Zamora's hopes of going to the World Cup. It's unlikely that Clegg will become PM as it is that the Fulham striker will be off to South Africa, but both look a lot more plausible than they did back in September. Whilst Zamora's goals have cut down European giants Juventus and quarter-final opponents Wolfsburg, Clegg has been cutting into the poll leads of the traditional heavyweights of British politics. And it all started with last week's much-hyped debate.

Clegg didn't do anything special in the debate. He spoke directly to both the audience in the room and at home whilst trying to paint the Lib Dems as, not only the party to succeed Labour as the leading progressive force in this country, but also, as opposed to the Conservatives, the leading force for change. All four polls conducted immediately after the debate finished deemed this a winning strategy, creating a media frenzy that rumbled through Friday and Saturday before erupting on Sunday. First off The Mail on Sunday produced a poll placing the Lib Dems top for the first time in over a century before the usually astute Sunday Times declared the new kid on the block nearly as popular as some guy called Churchill. Cleggmania was here.

It certainly shook the opposition leaders into action as the surge of the party in yellow placed target seats around the country in danger. Brown and Cameron came to a rare moment of agreement that scrutiny must be upped on Liberal Democrat policy while Cameron made a last-minute change to Monday's party political broadcast, replacing an attack on New Labour's time in office with a vacuous, presidential style advert for himself. As Cameron seeks to keep his hopes of an overall majority alive, Brown has started making overtures to the Liberal Democrats leader, seeing a Lib-Lab coalition as a way of returning him to 10 Downing Street. Clegg is yet to bite, dismissing Brown today as a 'desperate politician'. This has led to the mooting in some corners of a coalition in which the removal of the hapless Scot is the dealbreaker, paving the way to PM for one of the many waiting in line for Brown's departure. Whilst more appetising than half a decade of Cameron and chums, five more years with New Labour at the helm of British politics hardly enlivens the taste buds. But, were a coalition to be formed, it must be asked to what extent would the Liberals lead Britain towards a more progressive future?

Cleggmania is a bubble that has been inflated by all sections of the media over the past week, yet to say that it represents 'a new rallying point for a resurgent progressive movement in Britain' is a far cry from the truth. The Liberal Democrats are looking to pursue the ruthless cuts advocated by both other parties whilst policies such as the abolition of tuition fees and the raising of the income tax threshold to £10,000, though more progressive than the Tories and Labour, will predominantly benefit the middle class. The lack of discourse on Afghanistan makes it easy to forget the country is at war, yet when it is mentioned Clegg sings very much from the same hymn sheet as Brown and Cameron. A pledge for a phased withdrawal would not only be the sensible and popular choice but also likely bring the backing of a major national newspaper in The Independent. The choice of Liberal Democrat slogan for this General Election says a lot about the lack of diversity amongst the three main parties. 'Change that works for you/Building a fairer Britain' acts simply as a compound of the Tories 'Vote for Change' and Labour's 'A future fair for all'.

The Lib Dems will get my vote on May 6th. Not because of the last week but because, out of the dearth of left-wing candidates running in York Outer, they lie closest to my beliefs. Nationally, Brown and Cameron have two weeks and two debates to stick a pin in the Clegg Bubble that has expanded beyond all expectations since last Thursday. Expect too see a sustained attack from both sides on the issue of Trident in the foreign affairs debate tomorrow and a continued level of scrutiny right through to election day. Whilst the last week's hysteria has gone somewhat overboard, I hope they don't succeed. With a hung parliament we can perhaps see some form of progressive politics restored in Britain, but I hold no delusions as to the extent we are likely to get.

The media, the leaders and personality

Letdown of a debate; Channel 4 does personality politics; Politician version 2.0

I finished my last post on Thursday afternoon expressing my excitement about the first televised leaders debate that was to take place that evening. My enthusiasm even led me to get the time wrong, arriving at Andy Brown's to watch this historic moment an hour early. My over-punctuality, however, turned out for the better as the three episodes of Fonejacker we fitted in whilst Corrie laid down the teatime gauntlet for Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg, proved exponentially more entertaining than the tedium that was the main event. And I'm not even a fan of Fonejacker.

The first issue was immigration, a topic on which each leader sought to appease the supposed xenophobe in all of us with a truly nauseating, tougher-than-thou approach. Internet hero Joel Weiner's question on our 'education' system was given short shrift and all three offered similar responses on the issue of crime. Indeed, agreement was the broad theme of the evening with only some petty bickering on the economy between Brown and Cameron, and the Liberal Democrat's pledge to scrap the renewal of Trident demarcating any differences between the three. What the debate went to show was that what clear water there is between the three main parties is but small, shallow puddles on an island of crackdowns on immigration, slashed public spending and policy justification by anecdote.

Nick Clegg has been roundly acclaimed as the winner- a result that has caused somewhat of a media storm around the Lib Dems- yet this is more due to the fact that much of the public were previously unaccustomed with him. With the leaders failing to lock horns on policy, judgements have been made based on performance. Clegg has been acclaimed for his ability to talk straight down the camera to the viewer at home, like an X-factor contestant pleading for the nation to keep them in the competition. Cameron came across as confident and the fact his biggest gaffe is considered to be his story of the black man he met who supposedly joined the Navy aged 10, rather than his categorising China as a potential nuclear threat to a peaceful world, shows how style and delivery are coming under more scrutiny than substance. The hapless Gordon Brown continued to place his sporadic, strained smiles at inopportune moments, such as when being criticised by the others, and remains derided by many corners, not as a political lightweight, but simply as socially-inept.

And here lies the problem. As I sat down for some dinner before heading to the pub on Friday night I was watching Channel 4 news. Halfway through, Jon Snow finished the proper news and handed over to Krishnan Guru-Murthy to present a 'policy free' examination of the three candidates called Britain's Next Boss. The show consisted of three experts- James 'Dragon's Den' Khan, Ruby 'not funny' Wax, and a man, who looked like the kind of guy to be selling you stolen watches in an East End pub, but was in fact referred to as a business psychologist- watching selected clips of Brown, Cameron and Clegg on the campaign trail and then commenting on their team-work/decision making/ genuineness. Here's Gordon Brown with some cabinet members- does this show he's a good team-player? Here's Nick Clegg turning one way out of a room but then going the other- does this show he's indecisive? Here's David Cameron pretending to be mates with some factory workers- does this show he's not genuine? It was an example of the complete dominance of personality and style over policy in modern politics.

This is part of the reason why Gordon Brown is so detrimental to the Labour party at the moment, to the point that he barely figures on most candidates literature. No doubt many people have reservations about the way Labour, under Blair and Brown, have presided over the country, but a lot of people simply see the latter as socially awkward and find it difficult to relate to him. What they want is the socially confident (thanks to a public school and Oxbridge education), forty-something male, with attractive wife and kids in tow. Think Cameron, think Clegg, think David or Ed Miliband. Whilst for a lot of people the UK's political landscape is a dull, monotonous scenery, we risk moving towards a state where the people who inhabit it reflect this, as over-coached, PR savvy, clones. The media persona's of Clegg and Cameron are virtually indistinguishable. Get used to it because there's more of the same coming.

Prepare for people power?

Essays and the Agricultural adjustment act; A power station that generates no power; The elusive Mr Osborne; Let the debates begin

The last few days have been spent getting slowly back into work/essay mode. I would say I'm easing myself back in, upping the hours each day like a jogger slowly upping the mileage in preparation for a marathon. However, it's been more like a jogger who gets to the end of his road and decides he can't be bothered so turns around and walks back to his house. Word counts are the issue at the moment with the essay I've pretty much done a couple of hundred words short and the one I'm working on at the moment shaping up to fall similarly wanting. I blame my laconic style on the useless History A-level exams where you had an hour to write one essay showing how knowledgeable you were. This involved being concise and getting straight to the point to the extent that adjectives and conjunctions came at a premium and was more a test of how many facts you could jam in to two scribbled sides of A4 than a gauge of aptitude in the study of history. For an example of its success I can tell you that one of the bills in FDR's first new deal resulted in the slaughter of 6 million pigs. What I couldn't tell you is what act it was, when it was enacted or whether this great loss of swine life had any effect on America's economic recovery (for those who are interested it was the agricultural adjustment act, enacted in 1933, and I'm still none the wiser on its impact).

---

The last few days have seen all the main parties launching their manifestos as well as some not so main parties- my favourite proposal from the lesser parties is Ukip's plan to fund the Met Office depending on the accuracy of its predictions. The launch greeted with the most fanfare was the Conservative's on Tuesday, unveiled in the rather bemusing surroundings of the long-defunct Battersea power station. John Prescott, never one to miss the opportunity for a bit of Tory bashing, saw similarities between the two tweeting 'impressive from the outside but hollow and empty within'. Turns out the manifesto wasn't empty. No, it was all about people power and was filled with all kinds of invitations to set up schools, elect police chiefs and sack MP's. The PR wizards had come up with the High School Musical inspired slogan 'we're all in this together' and David Cameron even had the temerity to quote JFK's old 'ask not what your country can do for you' line. Whilst the presentation may have lacked imagination, the manifesto did finally provide some clue as to what Cameron, as a conservative, stands for.

The question though is whether anyone 1) actually wants to take advantage of these schemes and 2) has the time to do so. At least these were the questions Michael Gove dealt with as he did the media rounds Tuesday evening. I quite like Gove. He speaks eloquently and intelligently and generally answers the questions put to him. He's performing well, as he's playing a pretty predominant role in the Tory campaign at the moment whilst others- Chris Grayling and George Osborne for example- have receded into the shadows. Osborne is an interesting case as, for someone who in a month will likely be controlling our ailing economy, even the Tories seem to realise he can come across as immensely unlikeable. He still has the superior demeanour that Cameron seems to have shaken since their Bullingdon days, and he has a perpetual look of contempt etched across his face. I was fairly surprised when the latest Conservative's letter through our door came baring his photocopied signature (no photos, unlike the Cameron ones though).

Whilst Cameron and Nick Clegg are their parties main assets, Gordon Brown is conspicuous by his absence from much of Labour's election material, replaced by marathon-running comics and vanquished timelords. Tonight he will have nowhere to hide. All three have been attempting to play down the impact of tonight's leaders debate, but it looks set to have a some effect with the expected audience around the 10 million mark. Cameron has been most guilty of trying to dampen expectations warning that it could be 'slow and sluggish'. Despite his efforts he knows he has the most to lose if he doesn't perform. Nick Clegg, who has already shown himself ready to be challenged on his policies with a reasonable performance against Paxman, will benefit from an equal footing with the other two and should show better than his rather tepid interventions at PMQs. And then Brown. It's finally time for him to show why he deserved to survive more coup attempts than most small west African nations ever manage. I can't wait.