Tomorrow, at dawn, we fight for Middle Ground!
So the Lib Dems have finally elected their new leader, Nick Clegg. The fact that the margin was so close between the two candidates was indicative of the whole campaign, with neither seemingly able to outperform the other. It is not the fact that Clegg got elected, nor his merits for the job which I wish to discuss here. Instead, it is the observations he made in his acceptance speech.
Firstly, "He said Labour and the Conservatives were "mutating" into each other, and urged disaffected voters to join the Lib Dems, saying he wanted to "provide a liberal alternative to the discredited politics of big government"
Right, because it seems more obvious to the rest of us that what he actually meant was Labour and the Lib Dems were mutating into each other, albeit with slightly more left wing tendencies from the Red camp.
Secondly, "He accused the Conservatives of having "no answers to the big issues" and said Labour was "increasingly exhausted and discredited" - saying it left an opportunity for the Lib Dems." I have to say I agree with this, in part. The tories do have little or no answers to the big problems, and Labour are more frequently becoming 'discredited' (the loss of some 25 million peoples personel information for a start). Whether this leaves the way open for the Lib Dems though seems less clear. They would need some serious work to overhaul either of the other two parties it appears.
Finally, he aims "To bring in a new politics, of politicians who listen to people, not themselves. No more business as usual. No more government knows best". I am slightly confused by this. If we run with a bit of a fantasy for a bit, and suppose that the Lib Dems get into power whenever the next election might occur, do we suppose that this statement means that they would not know best? I can sort of understand the point he is trying to make (about the overhaul of old presuppositions) but the way he has made it seems poor.
The trouble it appears, with all the parties, but not least the Lib Dems, is that they are all trying to appease as much of the public as possible. Not only is such a goal almost impossible to achieve, it renders political campaigns slightly pointless.
The public, as I have said before, and will say again, is a fickle body. It is impossible to generalise about it as one whole thing though. I guess I am trying to suggest that the parties should focus upon what they have at the moment, that is, really work with the support they already have. In such a lean time of substantial policy, that is, anything to really seperate one from the others, keeping what they already hold is surely more important than going out of their way to attract new voters, especially if the only way to attract new voters, is to occupy the political centre ground. For if the big three continue to jostle for this much coveted centre ground, they risk alienating those more 'radical' voters. This paves the way for the likes of the BNP for example to pick up those voters alienated by the battle for middle ground.
So therefore it seems that for all those who complain about the rise of such radical parties, it would be worthwhile considering why they sprung up in the first place. In political terms, it seems that they were a logical consequence of Labour and the Conservatives assault on, what is now, Nick Clegg's middle ground. Radical parties are just an indication of why Clegg's apparently expansionist outlook for the Lib Dems seems likely to fail. Consolidation, rather than expansion is surely what is required now, for all the parties?
Luke
Firstly, "He said Labour and the Conservatives were "mutating" into each other, and urged disaffected voters to join the Lib Dems, saying he wanted to "provide a liberal alternative to the discredited politics of big government"
Right, because it seems more obvious to the rest of us that what he actually meant was Labour and the Lib Dems were mutating into each other, albeit with slightly more left wing tendencies from the Red camp.
Secondly, "He accused the Conservatives of having "no answers to the big issues" and said Labour was "increasingly exhausted and discredited" - saying it left an opportunity for the Lib Dems." I have to say I agree with this, in part. The tories do have little or no answers to the big problems, and Labour are more frequently becoming 'discredited' (the loss of some 25 million peoples personel information for a start). Whether this leaves the way open for the Lib Dems though seems less clear. They would need some serious work to overhaul either of the other two parties it appears.
Finally, he aims "To bring in a new politics, of politicians who listen to people, not themselves. No more business as usual. No more government knows best". I am slightly confused by this. If we run with a bit of a fantasy for a bit, and suppose that the Lib Dems get into power whenever the next election might occur, do we suppose that this statement means that they would not know best? I can sort of understand the point he is trying to make (about the overhaul of old presuppositions) but the way he has made it seems poor.
The trouble it appears, with all the parties, but not least the Lib Dems, is that they are all trying to appease as much of the public as possible. Not only is such a goal almost impossible to achieve, it renders political campaigns slightly pointless.
The public, as I have said before, and will say again, is a fickle body. It is impossible to generalise about it as one whole thing though. I guess I am trying to suggest that the parties should focus upon what they have at the moment, that is, really work with the support they already have. In such a lean time of substantial policy, that is, anything to really seperate one from the others, keeping what they already hold is surely more important than going out of their way to attract new voters, especially if the only way to attract new voters, is to occupy the political centre ground. For if the big three continue to jostle for this much coveted centre ground, they risk alienating those more 'radical' voters. This paves the way for the likes of the BNP for example to pick up those voters alienated by the battle for middle ground.
So therefore it seems that for all those who complain about the rise of such radical parties, it would be worthwhile considering why they sprung up in the first place. In political terms, it seems that they were a logical consequence of Labour and the Conservatives assault on, what is now, Nick Clegg's middle ground. Radical parties are just an indication of why Clegg's apparently expansionist outlook for the Lib Dems seems likely to fail. Consolidation, rather than expansion is surely what is required now, for all the parties?
Luke
