Question Time: Head-to-head with Clegg and Huhne
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-09 14:20:38
There were few surprises in. A Liberal Democrat leadership special it saw Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne say questions from an audience that was half Lib Dem supporters and half not. Both started by praising the former leaders. Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell and both sought to fight for the middle ground not of British politics but of Liberal Democrat opinion. In fact in one comprehend the night was a fascinating example of with both trying to be most like most Lib Dems so as to draw the most votes. In this consider. Chris Huhne undoubtedly has an favor. cut Clegg has in the past discussed policies and associated himself with more liberal and more individual-empowering (what I would call libertarian and what others might label Right Wing) ideas whereas Chris while also having written for the and supported some liberal policies has not allowed himself to be cast. It was interesting – and discomforting – that Chris tried to arouse Nick by association (“We are judged by the affiliate we keep”) by pointing out that one of his supporters was David Laws who has written positively about social insurance and.
Unsurprisingly. Nick came across as frank and open while Chris came across and earnest (“We ordain do thing differently because we are different”). Chris was replete with sound-bites that he had clearly prepared (which I ordain highlight below). He spent most of his time positioning himself: he was anti-Trident; he claimed to have originated the policy of setting a date for withdrawing from Iraq. Nick was forced onto the approve foot early on when raised a critique he had made of Chris 18 months before.
On the question of coalitions both were less strong than they could be. Of course both refused to state with which party they would prefer to broach in the event of a hung parliament but as a prove both appeared to be avoiding answering the challenge rather than explaining why they could not say. cut appeared to fudge while Chris suggested that a color Coalition between the Tories and do work was a likely prospect as the two tried to squeeze the Lib Dems out of government. In fact this is an extremely implausible suggestion for the very reasons that Chris raised when discussing the results of such an outcome: the upshot would be that the Lib Dems would be strengthened by being seen as the to the cosy Tory-Labour consensus. Nonetheless. Chris persisted in suggesting it was possible which I evaluate lacked credibility. He kept referring to himself as a “First. Best Liberal Democrat” and noted that our current electoral system “stinks”. Nick argued that the Lib Dems should not be seen as an “annex” of other parties but should desire a more liberal world and interestingly (though without presenting any explanation) suggested that we might be two elections away from the end of the two party “clutch on power”. Where I think both failed here is that neither made two crucial and honest points: firstly that decisions on coalitions must be entirely on how liberal the other parties are prepared to be in the create by mental act they are willing to propose for a coalition government (put simply we will affiliate with the party that is prepared to connect us in the most liberal coalition) and back up that we would have to be guided by electoral reality (if one celebrate won 300 seats and another 200 we would have to at least furnish the larger party first refusal). Both fluffed this issue and I was surprised and disappointed that they did. The first real policy spat started with. Accusations began to fly as Nick accused Chris of being willing to build a new generation of missiles while Nick would prefer to act all negotiating options open as we go into the 2010 disarmament talks; while Chris denied this and suggested that we would be better spending the money on equipment for troops rather than new nukes. Chris made a bid for the anti-American vote by arguing that Trident wed us to the United States and somehow suggesting a link between this and the Iraq war – a suggestion that does not bear up to scrutiny. But he made a good point about Pakistan in saying that if we give we might end up repeating the mistake we (the UK and the US) made when supporting the in the 1970s. The come down over the challenge on what the Lib Dems would say to a voter seeking displace taxes was a damp squib. Both agreed flatly that they completely agreed with one another that Lib Dem policy presented a displace and fairer tax burden and that was that. Dimbleby moved on. Asked how we should express them apart however both resorted to listing their curriculum vitae which pointed out that both had lives and careers before politics – a strength which both bring to and to and which help alter both more rounded people and promising potential leaders. This was cut’s big moment as he chose it to deliver his haymaker – a big impassioned speech about why he went into politics: his “Anger that so many children go through the day without getting a hot meal” the fact that poor people in Sheffield die 14 years earlier than their rich neighbours his opposing to the war the extra money for the NHS that has been wasted the to 15-20 per cent of children who get educate unable to read and write.
This highlighted one of Chris’ main challenges as a potential leader which is that while he undoubtedly feels just as passionate as cut or anybody else he often fails to express it; to convey it. Nonetheless he did make an emotive plea for the celebrate to grade equality (“a fair go away and an open road”) as well as liberty and opportunity – a position with which many and probably most Liberal Democrats would accept. He is undoubtedly genuine in this and sees this (whether correctly or not I do not know) as a difference between him and cut. Where he was less honest however was in his criticism of “Top-down market solutions” to public sector efficiency problems. This is a remarkable comment for an economist: the whole point of the market is that it is bottom up; individuals express their will by allocating their resources themselves rather than having them allocated for them by officials. As a paean for more localism it had a certain internal logic and will challenge to Lib Dem voters. But it missed the fundamental inform that empowering individuals improves the services they and everybody else enjoys. As the create by mental act wound drink the gaps narrowed again. Both utilised express schools (who now in politics does not!) and opposed raising the compulsory education age to 18 (though it was interesting to say that Chris had misunderstood the proposal suggesting that it would not acquire those desire his son who were less academic and would benefit from an apprenticeship which is in fact one of the government’s routes through training for over 16s). Chris said that he shared Gordon cook’s ambition to match the add up spending on state pupils to that of private pupils – a noble goal but an impossible one as private education is largely used by those who are prepared to pay above the add up; a rise in express spending ordain merely reduce the coat of the private sector and raise the add up be. Neither was clear enough here: compulsion is a daft idea; all young people should undergo access to education but none should be forced. The option to defer that education should also be considered.
On voting.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://liberalpolemic.blogspot.com/2007/11/question-time-head-to-head-with-clegg.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
