British politics always follows certain patterns. First they get elected, and then they throttle the expectations of those who elected them. Then the justifications start. Think back to Blair, then Brown. Now we can enjoy the same spectacle from Nick Clegg.
A Tory in Liberal clothing, his party spent much of the last five years criticising Labour from the left, though on some grounds that was not difficult. For sections of the press like the Guardian, that, combined with the so called Clegg effect from the X-Factor television political debates, was enough for them. The country was advised in the editorial columns to vote Lib Dem, to vote for real change.
Well the Guardian got their wish. When the Tory landslide didn’t materialise, Cameron needed a prop to legitimise his old Etonian coterie, and his spiritual younger brother was only to happy to give it to him. After a weekend of “tough negotiations”, the so called Con Dems were born.
“Tough negotiations” would imply that that Clegg’s party was extracting concessions. From the results so far, it would seem to be nearer to the truth to suggest that the only decisions being made were on the spoils of office :- a case of never mind the politics, who gets the country residence?
So the justifications start- as usual the exclusive interview in the Saturday press with a chosen newspaper, again the Guardian. http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?lDim=N%3D0&search=Nick+Clegg+interview&search_target=%2Fsearch&N=4294962546&fr=cb-guardian There is no point in giving this story to the Tory supporting press. Clegg needs to try and persuade the readers of the great liberal leaning organ not to desert him. To quote the man himself, “We will have to explain to explain to the public over and over again that this is not driven by so ideological zeal .The idea that this is driven by some libertarian drive to destroy the state is completely absurd”
So what is the explanation?
“This will be the most liberal parliament in a generation.” Check the dictionary definition;-Liberal- broad minded, socially or politically progressive.
So what has Clegg in mind? Alternative voting? According to the Liberal Democrats prior to the general election, that was not electoral reform but an affirmation of the status quo. Now it is the Holy Grail. But taken with an increase in the majority to defeat a government in the House of Commons, the proposals to standardise constituency sizes and reduce the number of constituencies, it looks more like good old fashioned gerrymandering to maintain the party in government. (Gerrymander=to manipulate an electoral area in order to gain an unfair political advantage, in case Mr Clegg is unfamiliar with the term).
“We have a got a very dramatic push for rebalancing of the statute book away from the state toward individual liberty”
It is an argument familiar to any one on the left and for anyone who needs a refresher course, then check http://www.adamsmith.org.uk/, the website of the Adam Smith Society, an extreme right wing organization .This is precisely the sort of message that they put out. For the Smith Institute, the state is always the problem and the solution is always to cut it down.
So why are Clegg and Cable who warned during the election campaign that early action to tackle the fiscal deficit could choke off the recovery, signed up to the most brutal programme of cuts since Thatcher was in power?
Well Nick says Mervyn King the Governor of the Bank of England says they were right. That would be the Mervyn King whose governorship often failed to consult with colleagues before making his pronouncements, who was likely to be sacked if Labour had returned to power and who needed to prove his usefulness to his new political masters? He was bound to be impartial and even handed.
Then there is Paul Klugman, prominent US economist whose view is that the Osborne measures will tip the UK into a new Depression era just like the thirties http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Or try David Blanchflower , Professor of Economics and former colleague of King on the Bank of England monetary Policy Committee www.youtube.com/watch?v=90PyvO2JvNw
His view again is the debt crisis has been considerably overstated; when our economy is viewed from a historical perspective and that there is a greater threat from the Tory remedies.
Or try Joseph Stiglitz webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=blog/537
Stiglitz is not convinced by the retreat into neo-liberal economics either. All three have world class reputations and more importantly, have no reason to toady to the current government. Why not listen to them? Unless of course, it is ideology not evidence that you require.
So what has Clegg to say to those who face losing their jobs because of the Government actions? That would be our members? Nothing.
Does he decry those who advise the poor to accept food parcels? No
Does he censure those who tell mothers to recycle and use hand me downs? No
Does he even know that the education policies being pursued by this government will condemn generations of working class children to third class education? No
All is right on Planet Clegg.
What does he say on Cameron;-
“He and I didn’t know one another but (we are) incredibly relaxed that we have come at this from different points of view but with respect that we have constraints and priorities”
Two public schools boys who went to Oxbridge before family connections gave them the break into media/ public relations/ business and then the political class that they always aspired to, sit down and indulge in mutual self congratulations.
It’s politics people, but not as we know them. All’s right in the City, and all’s right with the world.
Read it and weep.
