Interesting. I don’t see that at all. I can’t stand Cameron and he does nothing for me. Where as Clegg is original, not married to a millionairess and doesn’t look like a bloated oik.

I think your talk will prob have a greater effect on people who are obsessive about politics-maybe but as someone who’s got eyes, a brain and couldn’t care less for tit for tat, Clegg is a much greater leader. Full stop.

“Clegg is a much greater leader. Full stop.”

ROFLAO as they say!

(Not that the boy king is my hero either.)

cjcjc – well, it sounds less funny than your constant shilling for overloads Dale and Fawkes

Generally, I agree with the article though I don’t think Clegg is as oily as Cameron (in agreement with #1). He’s just trying too hard to get noticed by going along with the narratives set by Cameron.

It was ever thus. The Lib dems have always had to fight with limited troops on two fronts. However I agree that the Lib Dems are making a big mistake. The mixed messages that are coming out “savage cuts” vs soak-the-rich property taxes, risks alienating all sides, and even worse, is not exactly likely to make Lib Dem party workers and voters entusiastic.

1. So being married to someone wealthy somehow says something about his character and fitness to govern? Please. If so there are a lot of Labour, Liberal MPs and ministers that are in deep trouble.

After all people like Harriet Harman come from weathly aristo backgrounds.Oh wait…, you might have a point.

I don’t often read liberal conspiracy and never comment but as a Lib Dem member who joined in the heady days of Charles Kennedy I agree with this. Nick Clegg’s comments seem to be steeped in misery and a defeatism about the public finances – yes there will need to be SOME cutbacks in the medium term but the next election should be about a rallying cry to lead Britain out of recession through hard work and determination – and through looking at what works and building on it.

Lib Dem members aren’t idiots (unlike tory members), they know that Britain has got out of more debt than this before and we can do it again without ‘savage cuts’. A shopping list of public sector cuts isn’t exactly motivating for us members, particularly those working in the public sector!

Of course poor Nick didn’t go to Eton, he only managed Westminster…

Do you mean overLORDS?

Though the site has been on Dale overload recently!

“Lib Dem members aren’t idiots (unlike tory members)”

I think you’ll find idiots in both parties you silly troll.

As for the Lib Dem conference, the impression I get is that it has been something of a missed opportunity if not a disaster. I am even less sure of what the Lib Dems stand for than I was before,

Clegg is a terrible leader. He seems to really hate the left of the Liberal Democrats.

He is salivating at the thought of dropping the tuition fees pledge and getting rid of universal child benefit. He wants savage cuts.

No wonder Cameron can credibly say there isn’t a cigarette paper between them.

I agree with the article entirely. It’s a real shame though. The Lib Dems could have had a real shot at big gains this time round if Charlie Kennedy was still in charge.

The LibDems must point out, clearly, where they differ… I would suggest pointing to foreign policy. It should be a sore point that the Conservatives plan to ally with homophobes and Waffen SS-admirers in Europe.

Fortunately, Chris Huhne pointed to just that in his speech. It’s not enough to be headline-grabbing, though… be more vocal!

Sunny, the Lib Dems have never been able to set the main political narrative of the moment. The narrative has always been set by Labour and/or the Conservatives. The Lib Dems can at most hope to trigger a sideshow debate about a particular issue, but it is inevitably quickly forgotten about when Labour and the Tories start scrapping again.

So to get noticed, the Lib Dems need to run with the existing political narrative. Their successes come from when they go against the grain of both Labour and Conservative thinking… Iraq, tuition fees are the first two that spring to mind.

The current narrative is about spending cuts. The Lib Dems had to come out with noises either for or against. Soho is clearly against the option Clegg chose, and has decided that he did this to try and out-Cameron Cameron. However, nowhere does Soho consider that it might actually be what he thinks. If he thinks that savage cuts are necessary, why should he say otherwise? Lib Dem voters aren’t just from the liberal-left. By appeasing the liberal-left, he would similarly betray the more right-wing Lib Dem vote.

Finally, I would suggest that the idea that Cameron’s gambits will only work for Cameron is flawed. Cameron’s style has been shaped by Tony Blair. He is the self-confessed heir to Blair. Blair was electorally successful. Cameron appears to be electorally successful. It would be silly for Clegg to ignore this trend. Not that this is anything more than superficial frivolity. When Cameron talks of more tax on capital gains and mansions, less tax on ordinary incomes, and stops talking about inheritance tax cuts, do get back to me.

re 8, Kate says: “He is salivating at the thought of dropping the tuition fees pledge”

What Clegg actually said: “I believe tuition fees are wrong, I believe they need to be abolished, I want to do it as soon as possible.”

Sorry to comment three times in a row, but I also have to take issue with the suggestion that the party are outraged about the suggestion that spending cuts are needed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8268573.stm

“Lib Dem members have given the green light to leader Nick Clegg to campaign at the next election on a platform of spending cuts.”

Not that outraged then.

“It should be a sore point that the Conservatives plan to ally with homophobes and Waffen SS-admirers in Europe.”

Somehow I can’t see this affecting the outcome of the general election.

The Lib Dems need to set out a coherent message and at the moment they don’t seem to have one.

@ Duncan, no. 10:

You appear to be contradicting yourself. You say both that the Lib Dems are constrained to follow the narrative set by the two main parties, and that they succeed when they refuse to do so. There was certainly room for the Lib Dems to buck the trend on the public spending issue. They could have made the sensible centre-left case that Labour has failed to consistently make for continued spending to get us out of recession, combined with curbing waste, and moving to tackle the deficit only when recovery is secure. And Clegg has blown it.

I suppose one way to excuse that failure is to do what you do, and suggest that Clegg really does believe in the Tory line on cuts. But whether he believes it genuinely or not is irrelevant. The point is, he is screwed if he continues down this path, because nobody will turn to Clegg to deliver massive cuts when they can have the Tories. To repeat, the Lib Dems won’t win on Tory home ground.

As to Tony Blair, he succeeded, in large part, because he defined the centre, redrawing the centre ground of politics in a direction favourable to him (i.e. leftwards). Nick Clegg is doing the total opposite of that.

@ Duncan, no 12:

OK, in retrospect I should have referred to “outrage among sections of the party”, in order to avoid giving the misleading impression that the party as a whole is capable of taking a coherent line on something. But certainly it is not credible to suggest, conversely, that there is unity over ‘savage cuts’.

I think we’ve got our wires crossed, possibly my fault for muddling the words ‘narrative’ and ‘agenda’. The Lib Dems can’t expect to be noticed on issues that aren’t on the political agenda at the moment… so don’t expect coverage of Lib Dem civil liberties policy to take off any time soon. The Lib Dems had to come out with a clear position, and they chose to go with the cut spending option. I disagree it is credible to offer anything but… polling suggests 84% of people think there will need to be “significant cuts in public spending”. They might not be able to beat the Tories on this issue, but they must at least sound credible to the electorate, and then hope to win people over in other areas, e.g. on tax, where the Lib Dem policy is poles apart from the Tories.

Vince Cable has been saying that these cuts are for after the recession, and agrees that the government is right to invest now to shorten the length of the downturn. Perhaps they should be emphasising this more. Then again, what is said and what gets reported is seldom in the control of the politicians.

FWIW Smithson thinks Clegg is making a big mistake in not riding the overwhelming mood in the country which is *anti-Labour*.

As many have pointed out, much of the Tory support is really only anti-Labour support, as it were.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/09/22/are-the-lib-dem-trying-to-piss-into-the-wind/

So the LibDems are going to make cuts and this makes them like the Tories, not a Labour party, which is also going to make cuts?

And David Cameron invented the no-tie look? Not a look Tony Blair would ever have sported, obviously.

You also forgot:

- Nick Clegg got his hair cut to look like Cameron.

It’s true. He did.

Up to you whether it really has any relevance.

“polling suggests 84% of people think there will need to be “significant cuts in public spending”.”

Not according to Ipsos Mori.

50% of people do not believe there is a need to cut spending on public services in order to pay off the national debt, a RSA commissioned survey suggests.

The Ipsos MORI poll of 1,041 adults points to only a quarter of people – 24% – believing that public spending cuts are necessary

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/latestnews/newsitemdetail.aspx?oItemId=72

#20

It’s better than getting his hair cut to look like William Hague, Iain Duncan-Smith or Michael Howard.

@ Duncan, no. 16:

What donpaskani said. The view that says that, honestly, the Lib Dems had no choice but to sign up to the Tory line on massive cuts is weak.

@ cjcjc, no 18:

Thanks for pointing out that piece. The view in the post is a little odd, though, to my eyes. In what way are the Lib Dems looking too close to *Labour*? Maybe Mike thinks the Lib Dems should go further rightwards. That would be a disaster for them, IMO, for the same reasons given above.

@ Paul Sagar:

I hadn’t noticed the haircut. I think the emulation of Cameron on style is clearly there to be seen, and is a little disconcerting, frankly. But it is by-the-by, really: it is the fact that the talk as well as the walk is being modelled on Cameron that is of concern.

LidDems probably had their best chance in 2005 when there was anger over Iraq and yet the Tories weren’t doing that well with Howard. I suppose they’ll be looking to build on that this time round, but I suspect they will actually lose seats, as they won’t be able to hang on to their lib/con marginals when all the ‘dormant’ tory voters come out en masse for the first time since 87/92ish. I could be wrong, but I doubt I am.

I don’t know what his policy prescription would be, other than – make sure you don’t miss the anti-Labour wave.

Quite what that means *exactly* they should do, I’m not sure.

Since everyone (I know not here) has conceded to the Tory “cuts” agenda, with timing the only difference, I’m not sure where they should go.

@ cjcj

He is a better leader. Not great…not so extra-ordinary but he’s good and he’s better then Cameron, come on! Have you EVER watched Cameron and Osbourne during PM questions??

Again, you guys don’t know what your talking about. Do you know of Clegg’s background? Buddy of Louis Theroux and used to be socialist when leaving in New York and has a foreign wife??

Ok, now youre with me. Who is being Who they really are in being ‘free spirited, not uptight in dress code and taking the root of talking to the oi polloi??’

Cameron?? With HIS background and friends..??? Or Clegg.

I hate this because it’s so redundant. It’s like when you’ve always been who you are, some boho fashion chick living your life doing your bit and blimming Kate Moss adopts your style but because she’s well known, out there and famous, any bugger that is later seen with that style copied her!

Sorry for the analogy but I thought it was apt to describe my point.

And also, what are you all? Left? Right? Now, are we simply in a situation were we’re just arguing about who’s gonna govern the country the best no? The UK is made up of right and lefties-the only government that can truly govern this type of people, is a centre party, with no right or left agenda that will easily piss ardent ideologues off.

And saying the LD are not relevant, missed their chance…yawn…..what do you suggest then? With us going into the 21st century, having seen what leftism has done as well as right wing govt’s, tell me why intelligently you think the only party that has realised the world isn’t your neighbourhood of everybody be right OR left, is now so irrelevant.

Logically. With the fact we’re moving into the 21st century. I’m just curious as to why the parties that have systematically governed this country with their ideologies are somehow the most relevant, modern and up to date?

Are you saying inherently a core left or right within the party would want things their way?? More Friedman? or more Governemnt?

I see that Labour are doing some pretty progressive things to finally tap into the 21st century but this is still marginal..

But for me, it’s not tit for tat or a game. If either Labour or the Tories would genuinely map up something that would fairly take into account every person/group/sector that pays taxes in this country, then I’m all for it.

I just want to live in a fairer society that makes it easier for me to live and breath, not coming from a wealthy or priviliged background but doesn’t mean that when I go to the job centre-which I’m doing at the moment-I don’t think that I should be asked more questions to actually try and get me back into work, instead of just shushing me when I tell you I’m over qualified (as told by interviewers) and maybe you should adopt a different and more cognitive approach to unemployment.

Buddy of Louis Theroux and used to be a socialist when living in New York (was that where he met his 30 conquests or whatever it was?)…I’m not sure what I am supposed to do with this admittedly fascinating snippet.

I’m no fan of the boy king, but to call Clegg wet does a disservice to rain.

Most LD activists are on the left of the party. 66% of LD voters and potential LD would vote Tory as a second choice. The small business person as typified by Cyril Smith ( Liberal MP for Rochdale and owner of a manfacturing company) has no more time for city slicker than they do for the government employed administrator. If the administrative headcount does not go down, there will be plenty of angry self employed poeple and those working in SMEs.

Opposition to the Iraq war is history. Faux anger on Clegg’s part just looks stupid. It would have been far better for Clegg to thank Cameron for his attention, and pointing out that if hen wishes to become a Liberal he is welcome to join.
Part of the reason why Blair and Regan were so succesful was that they rarely appeared angry but managed to smile and make their opponents appear bad tempered and irrational.

Duncan Scott,

Clegg has to say he is in favour of the tuition fees policy, but in politics you have to read between the lines.

He loves David Laws and the other Orange Book Tories-in-all-but-name.

If you’re not convinced look at this. Danny Alexander his chief of staff says the only reason Steve Webb is still a frontbencher is to prevent a “voice from the left” becoming a pain from the backbenches.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/11/29/lib-dumb-liberal-democrat-leader-nick-clegg-slags-off-his-own-party-colleagues-on-packed-plane-115875-20934579/

Moving rightwards to ape Cameron would be a disaster because then there literally wouldn’t be any difference between the two.

Hence why he had to take a sensible centre-left position.

So to get noticed, the Lib Dems need to run with the existing political narrative. Their successes come from when they go against the grain of both Labour and Conservative thinking

Duncan this is exactly the point. He should have run with a narrative that countered and attacked both, not just sound like Cameron. Cameron must be quite pleased that the entire debate has moved into who can be most savage about cuts because these guys want nothing better to shrink parts of the state they don’t like and grow the bits (defence) they do.

I think Clegg made a big strategic mistake by going along.

Lib Dem voters aren’t just from the liberal-left. By appeasing the liberal-left, he would similarly betray the more right-wing Lib Dem vote.

Look – with such a strong anti-Labour sentiment across the country, if he wants to grow the party then the only option is to move leftwards, but in a way that carries the existing members and brings new ones. There aren’t any votes by shifting rightwards – that field is already quite crowded.

@ cjcjc

Did I say I was impressed by it? What didn’t you get from what I wrote?

I just said that this ‘flaneur like public school boy CRAP’ that they are ALL pushing, is more Clegg than Cameron, who is the opposite. That was all. Do I seem or sound like I like or appreciate that???

No.

But IF you’re going to say that Clegg is coping Cameron’s ‘loose fitting, people of the moment’ style, THEN please, gimme a break! That was all. Look at the evidence.

30. Sunny H . I am not sure that the country is drifting rightwards. Many people are against Brown and bankers earning excessive incomes. There is more an anti Brown feeling than a pro-Cameron one. You are correct about Labour removing Brown. If this had been done 6 months ago I think the Tories lead would be much softer, perhaps 10%. A proper, classical Liberal party could win plenty of support from the self employed and the SMEs who feel they have had to bail out the City.

@ Sunny H

“Look – with such a strong anti-Labour sentiment across the country, if he wants to grow the party then the only option is to move leftwards, but in a way that carries the existing members and brings new ones. There aren’t any votes by shifting rightwards – that field is already quite crowded.”

He can’t grow the party. He isn’t the CEO. Why do we talk like that about parties, when we know diff? He’s like the consultant or artistic director, he doesn’t steer by ‘inspires’ the organisation.

Also, the LD are really stubborn-obsessively so. And there are too many centre right people to libertarian rights in the party who have senior power.

It’s hard cause you still have the social democratic lot which spawned Vince Cable, who used to be Labour and also people like us, who used to be Labour due to idealism but have chosen a realistic option, which was the Lib Dem centre left wing.

@ Charlie2

Really? Where have you been? I live near a council estate and an 80% majority voted Tory….

What about that survey/report that was done that found out that people want more public service cuts, specifically towards people on benefits? And that they thought the equality gap was between them-those who could earn and the ‘top ten % v wealthy’..

So you know, we’re not going any left..

Sunny H . I am not sure that the country is drifting rightwards.

Oh no, I don’t mean the country is moving right-wards. If anything, it’s shifting leftwards.

But it’s still developing an anti-Labour sentiment (incl from the left). The two are not the same.

ranterasparadise
Also, the LD are really stubborn-obsessively so. And there are too many centre right people to libertarian rights in the party who have senior power.

Agreed, and he needs to find some narrative to carry them. Otherwise he’ll remain the third party. Despite the huge collapse in support for Labour, the only people who have benefited is Conservatives, not the Libdems.

34. rantersparadise. I think Brown has made mistakes and the labour party has more less ignored the working class who work and lower middle class. An Ernie Bevin type leader and few articulate ex foremen as ministers( Don Concannon) could greatly reduce the Tory lead. The more or less dying out of the socially conservative patriotic craftsmen/charge/foreman labour party MP , activist and member to be replaced by Balls and Cooper means that many working people no longer feel emotional attachment to the Labour Party. What a lot of craftsmen want is to cut all the idle penpushers and employ a few more blue collar types who actually work for a living( – building or repairing homes),not project managers, race, gender or sexuality advisers.

30, Sunny, there are Lib Dem votes that will be lost if the party shifts to the left. Clegg can’t ignore the resurgent Tories, and doesn’t want to lose any current Lib Dem seats to the Tories. And I would hope that you and your fellow Liberal Conspirators would want the same.

I agree that there will be a significant left-wing vote with no home at the next election. The Lib Dems need policies to appeal to the left, hence the redistributive tax policies.

Clegg has a difficult balancing act to perform, and it is understandable that people at either end of the spectrum are feeling underwhelmed by certain aspects of his strategy. In addition to that, there are Labour and Conservative activists frantically wobbling the tight-rope making it as hard as possible for Clegg to appeal to the middle-ground.

Either way, making policy on the hoof (see the Mansion Tax thread) isn’t helping them.

They are floundering.

No one’s asked any of my queries…

So WHAT is best?

Apparently it is soo bad to think in a central term…so, please tell us what would benefit a bunch of people in this country who are right and left?

@ Sunny

Tell me about it.

@ charlie2

Yeah, that’s true. So many aspects of life have been missed out-or more not being properly analysed.

But like Sunny said, people are going more Tories….or not voting..

hmmm, the country moving left? Maybe in actions but rarely sentiment. The mood i see is more one of an ugly jealousy and selfishness rather than a desire for true redistribution.

Besides, if people were moving leftward then they wouldn’t choose the parties they have as an anti-labour vote…