"You're all the same"

Nick Clegg's biggest challenge is to be different
| Categories:

Less than a day into the job, Nick Clegg is doubtless receiving plenty of advice, but he's unlikely to receive much better than this from James Graham:

In particular, Clegg needs to hit the road, catch a dose of initiativitis and take steps to ensure that even if the national media choose to ignore what he has to say, he is using every tool at his disposal to ensure that it comes across anyway.

But, as if to underline the scale of the challenge, the comments in reply to the post show that Nick is going to have to overcome considerable scepticism, even cynicism:

So out of the two white, westminster public school educated, right wing candidates, it was bosses' man, pro-privatisation, anti-union Clegg that won. At least big business and the rich will be happy and feel safe. - Nihon

Who knows, with a hung parliament they could swing the vote one way or the other and make a real difference. But if they are NL in pale orange ties, who's going to bother voting for them? - WillDuff

Now we have right wing Tory, centre-right Lib Dem and NuLab, and half the country are disenfranchised. This is a bad day for representative democracy for vast swathes of the population are unrepresented. I don't know where to turn. - Howie

Now, as a Lib Dem I obviously disagree with the sentiment of these commenters - that there's nothing much different between the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives. But this is a truism; if I did believe that, I wouldn't be posting here. The interesting question is "why do other people believe it?".

Some people probably just are cynics. They're happiest lambasting all sides and no amount of persuasion is going to make a difference. But the majority of people are not like that, and therefore we must accept that their view of the Lib Dems as "just another political party" is genuinely held. Nick Clegg's challenge is to overcome this.

What I'd like to see from Nick is some of the radicalism that was talked about during the leadership campaign. Nick can learn from Chris Huhne's boldness, and if he can ally that with his natural instinct for framing issues in human terms, he will be in possession of genuine political dynamite. And nothing less than dynamite will unseat the two-party consensus that dominates Britain today. I can only speak for myself, but I think that the core message of liberty is a powerful one and a radical one in today's political environment. If Nick can make people see how this will affect them, he can win new converts to the party and its cause. Can we explain to people that liberty isn't just an abstract idea, but something that will give them new power in their own lives?

Above all, Nick needs to demonstrate that there is something real behind all of this. We already have genuinely radical policies which the other parties would never emulate, but we need to make people believe it, in their guts as much as their heads. And, perhaps, we might need more such policies. I hate to talk about policy so much, simply because 'policy' bores most people, even the politically aware. But policies are nothing other than principles given expression, and people can only make sense of our message when our policies and principles are aligned. Perhaps we have to be bolder in all areas if we are to make this connection clear.

One of the most frustrating things about reading criticism of the Lib Dems for being too timid or too similar to the other parties is that I know how many people in the party are here precisely because it's the only place that will give them the space to explore radical ideas. The intellectual life of the party remains vibrant; bloggers like Joe Otten and Jock Coats have been exploring the policies and principles of the liberal tradition for a long time now. Yet on forums like Comment is Free, people still regularly accuse the Lib Dems of lacking vision, radicalism and distinctiveness.

Nick Clegg isn't going to find it easy. There are plenty of people who don't want to give him a fair hearing. He needs to deliver the goods, in presentation, policy and principles. Anything less than this will be a failure. But he's got a chance, and, despite the narrowness of the result, he has a party behind him which believes in those principles and is impatient to see them play a larger role in British political life. It's a chance, and he's got the best opportunity to take it that any liberal leader has had for 80 years.


Comments

On 19 December 2007 - 1:54am, Alix (not verified) wrote:

"policies are nothing other than principles given expression"

Right! Maybe we just need to stop calling them policies. No, actually, I know it's quarter to two in the morning and I have OD'd on sticky buns but I am semi-serious. The gulf that is supposed to exist between high-flown principles and boring on-the-ground policies is a creation of the left-right system, and it just isn't true of us. Liberalism is a babelfish (no, really), the key to understanding any problem, and it bears directly on all our solutions, hence any explanation of either must take account of both. The other parties don't have a comparable babelfish. They have big grandstanding speeches and they have little odds and ends of policy. We should be actively trying to get away from that separating paradigm.


On 19 December 2007 - 9:53am, Joe Otten wrote:

Thanks for the link. One thing that has struck me in 'Reinventing the State', is that there is a great deal of talk in the abstract about equality but very little policy to actually pursue it. Is this a misalignment? Possibly, good principles, or even bad ones, don't do very much heavy lifting when it comes to weighing up the practical consequences of policy alternatives. That is to say that most of the hard work is predicting the consequences of a policy, and very often those consequences, once known, may be obviously good or bad without needing to refer to abstract political principles.

(I say obviously but of course the opposite might be obvious in a sufficiently different culture.)

Policies are difficult to judge. And what has an 'ism' ever done for me? But what our policy priorities do is show what we care about. They demonstrate our values. And people will tend to support parties they feel share their values. So Nick Clegg has the right approach - reaching out to small l liberals on the basis of shared values.


On 19 December 2007 - 6:42pm, Prue (not verified) wrote:

What gives us Lib Dems our resilience (and goodness knows we need it)is our shared values and principles. All our policy grows naturally out of them. The best articulation of them is still probably the bit from the preamble to the party's constitution which is written on the back of our membership cards: the Lib Dems exist to build and safeguard a fair free and open society in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
'New' Labour seem to have lost any principles they had. The Tories have only ever had one: to do anything that gets them power and to hell with everyone else.
The reasons why lots of people out there think we are all the same are because a) they are constantly presented with images and coverage of Labour and Tory politicians and so assume all politicians are like that and b) as a result of their low opinion of Labour and/or Tory politics they don't really care enough to find out any different.
Nick Clegg has a mountain to climb to get coverage and convince people to pay attention to us. I wish him the best of luck.


On 19 December 2007 - 10:04pm, Anonymous (not verified) wrote:

Hopefully pretty boy will be a bit more energetic now he is leader than his poor capaign,another week or two and he would have lost it to Huhne.


On 20 December 2007 - 8:06pm, Jennie (not verified) wrote:

I'd just like to point out that the Anony Mousie above was /not/ me ;)

I think Nick has done well in his first day and a half. And I never thought I'd say that. The media is already painting him as Cameron-lite, though. He needs to be distinctive, and I think his best way of doing that (and connecting with the public) is to suppress his tendency to waffle, and give snappy, straight answers to all questions he is asked. F'r'instance, the God Question:

"No" was good. "Yes" would have been equally good, if that would have been the honest answer. "No, but my wife is catholic and our children are being raised catholic and I have lots of respect for religious people" = bad bad bad. It appears that he is apologetic for his perfectly acceptable straight answer, he doesn't have the courage of his convictions, and he is doing the stereotypical Liberal fence-sitting.

So, that's my (completely unsolicited and non-party-member) advice.

Just think, a politician giving honest, unequivocal, straight answers to questions! The journos wouldn't know how to cope!