Judgement And Courage

@MarkReckons Yes.

@cactusmouth Have you actually read the piece?

RT @MarkReckons: Nick Clegg is a man of judgment and courage – Peter Oborne http://bit.ly/gFSyre << Yes, PISS POOR judgement and NO courage


Mark (Reckons) Thompson tweeted a link to this article by Peter Oborne titled, "Britain’s most hated politician – Nick Clegg – is a man of judgment and courage". Which I retweeted with the addition, "Yes, PISS POOR judgement and NO courage".

First off, I don't hate Nick Clegg. I can't be bothered to work myself up into that much of a state about him as a person. I may well hate the system he is an integral part of, a ruling class comprised of similarly wealthy, similarly educated and similarly connected capitalists whose money is inherited, obtained from property/land or business, but that doesn't mean I hate him. And that is an important distinction.

I said that Nick Clegg had piss poor judgement for one reason: the coalition partners he chose are, in many ways, ideologically opposed to his own party members views. The Tories might be to Nick's taste but I think the Lib Dems spectacular popularity decline has reflected how many ordinary supporters now feel about their party and the bedfellows chosen for them. And possibly about Nick and Vince's role in the government - they look a lot like Tory policy fall-guys to me. Maybe they're role as constant election third-placers has been negated by their right-wing coalition and UK politics has, as a result, coalesced into the kind of clear left/right split not seen for quite a while and former supporters are jumping ship to Labour. Who knows? But I do think the ConDem policy program is scaring a lot of Lib Dem supporters away and that's down to Nick as leader.

As for his courage, I don't think anyone who breaks a promise and then uses the situation he has chosen for himself as an excuse to break that promise is really demonstrating their bravery. The article linked to has the following paragraph:

"The first and least important element concerns that pledge to abolish tuition fees. The charge made by critics that Clegg broke his word is wrong – it would only be valid if the Lib Dems had won the general election. But they came third, meaning that they were forced to enter a coalition government with the Conservatives."

That is entirely disingenuous. We need to draw a line between Lib Dem policy and personal commitment.

The Lib Dems were never going to win the election. To then say that because they didn't win the election all manifesto promises are off is ridiculous. Politicians stand for very little these days but when they so publicly jettison their pre-election pledges it reduces already pitifully low expectations further. That said, I will grant you that Lib Dem policy had to be amended to form the coalition. Clearly that is a fact. But it would have been possible for Clegg to form the coalition and still remain true to his, very public, commitment not to raise tuition fees.

I am willing to judge Clegg as an individual - not as some coalition entity driven by the need to maintain 'stable government' - and, as an individual, he made a promise to vote against tuition fee rises. He didn't make that promise based on this or that type of government being in power, he made it because, I suspect, he believed it was the right thing to do (it still is, btw, to vote against tuition fee rises).

But now he is trying to sell his party the idea that raising tuition fees is a good thing and it is tearing his party apart.

Courage would have seen him form the coalition whilst keeping his promises. The Tory policies he has managed to water-down and the Lib Dems policies he has managed to retain aren't the ones bringing people out onto the streets of Britain to protest.