It’s not often I use this blog for mattters of national politics but since everyone else has a view, I thought I’d express mine.
After the last general election, there was a general consensus in the Liberal Democrats that, whilst we had many popular policies, we had not communicated well enough a vision – or ‘narrative’ – of what a Liberal society and a Liberal Democrat led government would look like.
So I have been struck that Nick Clegg has gone about this election not by listing a load of policies designed to appeal to party activists but by seeking to articulate his vision.
In contrast, Chris Huhne has decided to portray himself as the authentic voice of radical liberalism by listing a number of policy positions that touch the activists buttons – trident, public services, the environment. I am sympathetic, but I don’t think that is what this election is about.
As Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary (not the easiest of jobs!), Nick Clegg has shown that he can articulate a liberal approach to tackling crime effectively. I was very impressed when he came to campaign in East Dulwich in 2006 to open our local police station 24/7. We were in the throws of a viscous campaign in which Labour were attacking us for being ’soft on crime’ and ‘on the side of criminals’. I think he understood that having a policy of attacking crime effectively is critical but that joining the other party’s dutch auction on ‘toughness’ would be both unprincipled and politically pointless.
Nick Clegg has a clear Liberal vision and and fantastic ability to communicate it. I am sure that under his leadership we willl be able to continue our habit of confounding the critics by winning more votes and more seats at the next election.
Tristan Mills said
My problem with Chris Huhne painting himself as a ‘radical’ is he’s very conservative within LibDem positions and not at all radical.
Not that Clegg is radical either, but at least he’s not being dishonest about being radical…
Matthew Huntbach said
Richard, just who are these “activists” whose button you claim are being pressed?
There’s just so much comment on these lines from Cleggies about the Huhne campaign, but it always seem these activists are always someone else. So if the activists aren’t people who blog, and who are councillors, and who I am sure do their fair share of Focus delivery, I mean people like you, many of whom are moaning “I don’t like Huhne- he’s appealing to activists” just who exactly do you mean?
I think there is a tendency to say things just because they’re the things people are saying, and that’s what’s happening here. There isn’t some big group of left-wing activists in the Liberal Democrats who are getting turned on by Huhne – people who are activists are just as likely to be turned on by Clegg and his “I’m a pure liberal” line.
We aren’t the 1980s Labour Party. Sloppy commentators who don’t know us might like to think we are, and suppose there’s a big problem of out-of-touch “activists” in the party. There isn’t – so stop bashing the party and the people who do the work for it (including yourself) by making comments which suppose there is.
Richard Thomas said
Matthew
I don’t follow your logic at all. I was not suggesting or implying any of the rather ludicrous points you make. I was just commenting on the differing approaches of the two candidates and why one appeals to me more than the other. And I am an activist….
Matthew Huntbach said
There has been a tendency in this election for one camp to slip into language which is disparaging about the other with the claim that it “appeals to activists” as if this is a bad thing, and activists are horrid people one shouldn’t appeal to. As I said, I suspect you just used this language because others have used it without thinking of where it originates from and what the implications are.
Richard Thomas said
I was not close enough to the action to consider my self in a camp.
I think activists are fantastic people.
I used the language, which I did think about, because it reflects my view.
I don’t think it implies anything which you suggest . You are inferring things – incorrectly.
you wrongly suspecting my motives is really tedious.