In education policy, Nick Clegg appears to be a fully paid-up member of the cosy consensus of “choice” that the characterises the Labour and Tory front benches.
In his first substantial speech since being elected to the Lib Dem leadership, he stakes out some ideological ground:
There are two crucial dividing lines in British politics. First - the dividing line between progressives and conservatives - between those who believe in tackling inherited disadvantage and removing the scars of poverty, and those who don’t. And second - the dividing line that splits liberals from the advocates of big government solutions - a dividing line that splits the progressive cause … The split within the progressive cause is not about whether we wish to overcome social injustice, but how we want to overcome it. Socialism believes that Government knows best. Liberalism believes people know best.
Which people, exactly? Entrepreneurs? What is the difference in intent between this and Thatcherism or the PPP totemism of Blair-Brown? Perhaps there is a difference in delivery, but that is hardly a rallying cry.
On a broader note, is there anything truly radical in Clegg’s speech? His comments about Tony Blair being sometimes “too timid” and sometimes “misguided”, and that Gordon Brown is quietly determined to roll back his reforms, is almost identical with David Cameron’s line. His call for grades F and G to be scrapped, while perhaps reasonable in themselves, have an alarmingly populist ring about them. It is also rather absurd to decry top-down intervention in favour of grass-roots “genius” (presumably teachers), then make grand statements on a common-sense basis the next moment. It would be no surprise to hear these sentiments expressed by a Tory. This is how the Telegraph is reading it, and presumably that is the audience for whom the ideas are intended.
The problem for the Lib Dems remains this: they do not have a natural constituency of any size. They have some good ideas, and, perhaps because they have not have to tackle with the realities of power for so long, they are seen as somewhat cleaner than either of the two main parties. People like myself, who, post-Iraq and the rest of the follies perpetuated by Blair-Brown, no longer have a home in the Labour party, but would not touch the Tories with a barge-pole, are looking to the Lib Dems to provide some kind of temporary accommodation. And presumably, there are disaffected Tories who have abandoned their party (too nasty? too Europhobic?) and are seeing if they can live with the Lib Dems. But these relationships, made on the rebound, come with too many provisos and reservations to provide a strong foundation.
It is all very well for Clegg to bemoan the appropriation of Liberal terminology:
Freedom. Innovation. Diversity. Yes, choice too. These are liberal words. Let us take them back. If we yield liberal language and liberal values to our opponents we do nothing but damage to our liberal cause.
But as the law of the meaningless opposite, as Guardian sketch writer Simon Hoggart states,
if the reverse of a statement is patently nonsense, the statement was not worth saying in the first place. Freedom, innovation, diversity, choice? Of course the Lib Dems don’t stand for enslavement, stagnation, homogenity and coercion; who does? Maybe the BNP. Yes Nick - really radical stuff. The devil, as Lib Dem blogger Anders Hanson says, is in the details. Behind these bland statements there is huge room for manoeuvre; as noted on Quaequam Blog, “One person’s minimum standard is another person’s nanny-state interference”.
I think it is telling that Clegg mentions the “dividing line” of progressives versus conservatives, first. This allows him to spend the majority of his speech bashing Labour’s centralised solutions, mentioning the Conservatives only to attempt, unconvincingly, to lump them in with Labour. But meanwhile, David Cameron has been busy attempting to erase his party’s thoroughly deserved reputation for nastiness, with some success. Recent polls show the Conservatives riding high, on very similar rhetoric to that contained in Clegg’s speech. The enemy of the Lib Dems is irrelevance, whether real or perceived; and this speech will do little to combat it.
I am still reserving judgement on the new leader. But from his latest speech, I can only agree with Tory MP Ed Vaizey’s comment:
Ah, Cleggmeister, you can wear as many red ties as you like, but fundamentally you think like a Tory.
Recent Comments