A Fisk of Clegg
Right - I've just wasted an hour Fisking Nick Clegg's speech - however its what you would expect from him. The attached video gives you the idea, but if you want to the the actual words used follow the link
A Clockwork Clegg: A Fisk of Clegg
Update:
Tony Sharp wasn't impressed either - thinking its a knock of of Cameron's style.
Oddly Guido sounded supportive - maybe that's sarcasm or his support for the Irish Liberals kicking in.
PS Hat tip to Dizzy for the below from a youtube user called "not winning here" :
12 comments:
The video is poor. As comedy sure, it's alright, but as a critique of Clegg and the Lib Dems, it is a poor argument.
The argument goes something like this:
1. Lib Dems will never get into power.
2. Lib Dems come up with their policy ideas.
3. It doesn't matter what their policy ideas are, because they will never come into force (from 1.).
4.Therefore, they can make up any kind of rubbish (from 3.).
This is badly wrong for reasons:
1. No proof that the Lib Dems will never get into power. It's likely the Tories will next time, but not impossible Lib Dems will instead, and more surprising things have happened before. Besides, there's always a first time when parties get into power (e.g. Labour), and this would the LDs first time if it happened (aside from the Liberals before them). Why can't the first time come IN THE FUTURE?
2. There is no link between 2 and 3. Actually their policies DO matter, because for one, the party in power is not the only influence on UK politics. We have a Parliament, where the LIB DEMS HAVE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. These MPs make votes on issues. Sure, their vote overall counts less than the party in power, but it is important, especially in tight votes, and especially in a DEMOCRACY! Clearly you think we should have only two parties? What a democracy that would be! Also, other parties other than the one in power can offer policy, and these policies can then be taken on board by the current government (and then the Tories complain that their policies are being stolen - don't you want your policies implemented? Or is it just about pure power for you toffs?). So if a party is formed, its aim is to have the country run to its philosophy, in this case liberalism and social justice. Persuading the government to implement liberal policies is what it wants, and getting those policies out acts as a "spokesperson" for the public and for liberalism.
3. Can they really make up any kind of rubbish? No, because what do they gain from it? They are not comedians, so they are not out to make people laugh, therefore their policies must either be serious or lies. If they are lies then that comes from the idea that people aren't trustworthy, and that's for people to decide. Personally they seem more trustworthy than the Red and Blue Labour, but the only way we can know for certain is for them to be in power. So this isn't an accusation that can made. It could be true, but equally it could be true of Cameron. We will see on this point. The other option, is that Nick Clegg's ideas are serious. Why would he (hypothetically) make up some rubbish like "Our policy is to nuke Birmingham." Or something else ridiculous or something that no-one would vote for? What do the LDs have to gain from that? No, the idea is their policies are policies that the party SUPPORTS (if they are trustworthy). Why would they say something that is ridiculous? It would lose them votes, and seats in Parliament, and overall support. Why do that? There is no reason to. So their policies have to be something that is likely to get support, and FEASIBLE. They couldn't have policy that isn't feasible, as the other parties would destroy them. This means that £20 billion of waste does exist in their minds, and their tax cuts are possible. So the argument of not supporting them can only be based on whether you support their policies, or whether they are trustworthy, not on whether they can gain power. Every vote counts, so if they got into power, it would need more votes, and the can only get into power by MORE PEOPLE VOTING FOR THEM. But the logic of the original argument creates a vicious circle which I hope you can now see.
So, the original argument falls down on points 1 and 3 completely, and 4 can only be true if the LDs are untrustworthy and don't plan on enacting their policies. And unless they get into power, the truth of that can only be found in the hearts and minds of Clegg, Cable et al.
Anon - good luck with the returning to your constituency and preparing for government bit ...
The sketch is spot on because it shows how the Lib Dems are perceived.
Just a little of the type of questioning that other parties get all the time leaves your leaders tongue tied : ref Charles Kennedy trying to explain Lib Dem tax policy before the 2005 election and Nick Cleg - um - trying to explain Lib Dem tax cuts (which aren't tax cuts at all - but that's part of the deceit ) - or at least where the savings come from.
I guess when your as rich as Nick Clegg is you don't really need to budget much in your own life.
Its always possible for the Lib Dems to have good ideas - but we have think tanks for that sort of thing.
The Lib Dems are an alliance of two opposed parties ( liberals - i.e. Nick Clegg and the Orange book gang, and Social democrats / lefties - the rest of the party ). You only hang together to play your favourite hobby of politics.
Tony Sharp was (as usual) right, in that it was patently obvious that it had been copied from Cameron's ground-breaking (at least in this arena) effort last year. Watch both and compare, and it becomes very clear.
The biggest difference is that Clegg cannot really hack it this way, so needed a teleprompter at the back of the hall. To his credit, it wasn't obvious to the casual observer when he was looking at that screen, but once you know and watch it all again, you spot what is going on.
Like all LibDemmery, it is fake, which is a shame as they could be so much better if they thought it out and dealt with their internal issues.
Their latest polling results have been a mere 13% (Channel 4) and now 12% (Ipsos-MORI), so the chances of their forming a government or even being in a coalition for the foreseeable future are little above the zero line, despite what their supporters (commenting here, and elsewhere) might like to imagine..
That's a very good Fisk, by the way -- so good I've taken a copy of it for my own files (I have built up quite an extensive library of material of all sorts, as my political opponents have been reminded on occasion in the Council Chamber and elsewhere!)
Thanks John - glad to be of service.
This is the same anon as before (although you will have to take my word for that).
To both of you, I am neither a Lib Dem supporter or member, so there won't be any "returning to constituency". I am an undecided voter, the LDs are an option for me if there was an election right now, but notice how nowhere in my first comment did I say I supported the LDs. I merely wanted to put to bed the abysmal argument in that video. Fair critique is fine with me of them, and the LDs have some god policies, and some bad ones. But as I said, that argument is poor.
Now let's come to the rest of you two's points.
"Nick Cleg - um - trying to explain Lib Dem tax cuts (which aren't tax cuts at all - but that's part of the deceit ) - or at least where the savings come from." I have seen no evidence of this, all of the critique of the LDs policies recently has been accusing them of being Tories for offering tax cuts (even though a Tory would never offer tax cuts for the middle class, let alone the poor). I have not seen the critique that is on this blog called "atoryblog", that the LD tax cuts aren't actual cuts. Care to enlighten me, because you can imagine that I am not going to just take your word for it that they are lying: you are a tory, so I know where your loyalties lie, and thus you may be biased, and so I need evidence m'lud.
"I guess when your as rich as Nick Clegg is you don't really need to budget much in your own life." Ah the old "Tu quoque" fallacy, or "Two wrongs don't make a right". Clearly someone who is rich is not allowed to campaign for tax cuts for the poor. Clearly rich people aren't allowed to be for social justice. Except they can, that's why it's a fallacy. Especially since to have the opportunity to make a change for the poor you need power and money anyway.
"Its always possible for the Lib Dems to have good ideas - but we have think tanks for that sort of thing." Well think tanks can have good ideas too, but a lot of their ideas are biased towards the philosophy of the current government, or biased towards private interests. Think tanks have no actual vote either in parliament, which is kind of an important thing when you want something to become part of law. Clearly you want a two party (New Lab and Tories) or a one party system (just Tories)! I haven't seen such contempt for democracy in a long while.
"The Lib Dems are an alliance of two opposed parties ( liberals - i.e. Nick Clegg and the Orange book gang, and Social democrats / lefties - the rest of the party ). You only hang together to play your favourite hobby of politics." Well certainly the party was formed from those two, whether factions still exist within the party I think is probably unlikely. But the two parties were not opposing as far as I'm aware. Let's see, you had the Liberals who supported Liberalism (obviously), and you has the Social Democrats who supported Social Democracy (again obviously). What do you get when you want a political philosophy tat is combination of those two? Social Liberalism. Pretty simple concept really, and it is a viable combination. It's not like if a communist party and a capitalist party had conjoined. That WOULD be political. Of course, the LDs' formation may have been political two, but not for the reason you state: they are not opposing philosophies.
"Tony Sharp was (as usual) right, in that it was patently obvious that it had been copied from Cameron's ground-breaking (at least in this arena) effort last year. Watch both and compare, and it becomes very clear. The biggest difference is that Clegg cannot really hack it this way, so needed a teleprompter at the back of the hall. To his credit, it wasn't obvious to the casual observer when he was looking at that screen, but once you know and watch it all again, you spot what is going on." Well clearly he must be copying Cameron if he speaks without notes. You know, not a single person other than Cameron has spoken without notes. And so what if he used an autocue? Lots and lots of people do it, and in fact it knocks down the point that he was copying Cameron when Cameron didn't use an autocue! I watched a lot of the conventions in America the other weeks, and they all used autocues. To be honest, does it really matter if Cameron can make a speech without notes or autocue? No it doesn't, that is style over substance. As a voter, I look for what they say first and foremost, and secondly, whether when they speak they appear shifty or not fluent. This is one of Gordon Brown's problems. But this is not a problem of Clegg or Cameron, they both are good at giving speeches imo.
"Like all LibDemmery, it is fake, which is a shame as they could be so much better if they thought it out and dealt with their internal issues." Firstly, how do you know "all LibDemmery" is fake when they haven't been in power? Nor was this speech fake in presentation: if he didn't want to appear to be reading an autocue, it wouldn't have been so easy to find out. Who ever said he was hiding it? Secondly, what internal issues? I am interested to know. However, at least you criticize the argument I originally had a go at in my first comment: that if they had good policies (in your opinion) they would do better. As I said, just because they are the third party, doesn't mean they can say whatever they want.
"Their latest polling results have been a mere 13% (Channel 4) and now 12% (Ipsos-MORI), so the chances of their forming a government or even being in a coalition for the foreseeable future are little above the zero line" Firstly, I actually said that I believe the Tories will get into power next time. Labour are most definitely going down for at least a term, probably more than one. Most people will then just vote for the Tories, though not necessarily "for the Tories", but "against Labour" if you appreciate the difference. There is still a chance that the LDs will win, though unlikely. Even Labour have a (even slimmer) chance (only because I compare Brown's popularity now to a year ago). I think though, that there is a good chance that the LDs could become the second party behind the Tories: I wouldn't be surprised anyway. Oh and as for the polls, well if those polls are realistic, then yes that isn't brilliant for the LDs. But are they realistic? As someone who knows a fair bit about statistical mathematics, I never trust polls. Sure, the Tories huge percentage means it is damn likely that they will get the most votes. However, there are many problems with polls. Like what question EXACTLY did the people get asked? How were they asked? Phone? Letter? Magazine? What are the error margins in the percentages? What was the polls sample size? Where was it done? How many locations? When was it done? How many seats does it translate to (remember, we don't have proportional representation in this country)? All of these questions (and more) matter, else a poll is worthless. Note, I am not saying that the LDs don't have 12/13% support, just that most polls are rubbish mathematically, especially since "A week is a long time in politics".
OK same Anon - here goes:
1) See my prebious post here - these comments are based on Nick Clegg's own words with an interview with the Daily Politic's Andrew Neil - which was on TV after Clegg;s disasterous interview with Paxman on Newsnight when he had to admit to not knowing where the £20 billion came from.
2) I mention his considerable personal wealth because he has when he tried to relate to the people in Sheffield by cancelling his Ocado shop. It also shows he is fully insulated from the disastrous economic strategy he is proposing.
3) Think tanks have more influence in the long term than political parties. This year at Bournemouth is a good example - loads of Lib Dem party members who have been campaigning like rabid dogs for tax rises walk into the hall and get told they now believe in tax cuts ( because that's the only way they can keep their MPs ). That's not a political party - its a football supporters club being overcome by marketing and spin. They also have no chance of forming a new government - these are just the facts of life - get used to them. ( PS If you want to see disrespect for democracy in action see Labour and the coronation of Gordon Brown who then broke election promises on Blair's term in office and the EU Constitution ).
The SDP/Lib split in the party is very real - google "The Orange Book" and you'll get the idea.
I think you need to leave your comments on Tony Sharp's blog on his blog - he'll be happy to oblige you I'm sure.
Finally of course I'm right of centre - as my profile points out. That's what blogging's about - your own perspective and discussing it with other people, like yourself. ( I should add that your comments are welcomed. )
Same anon again. My replies:
1. I shall comment on that post.
2. He's rich, true. But then most politicians are. Whatever policies the Tories, the LDs, Labour etc propose for the economy, they will all be fully insulated if it goes belly-up. Though I wouldn't say his economic strategy is "disastrous". With the Ocado thing, it makes sense that he has to shop elsewhere now due to these economic troubles, but it is a bit dodgy somethimes when any politician tries to relate to the ordinary person.
3. "loads of Lib Dem party members who have been campaigning like rabid dogs for tax rises walk into the hall and get told they now believe in tax cuts" Well no they weren't told they were for tax cuts. I watched some of the conference (same as I'll watch some of the other two coming up), and they voted on it. "They also have no chance of forming a new government" Not no chance, but certainly a lot less than the Tories. But I think they have a good chance of being the second party. "If you want to see disrespect for democracy in action see Labour and the coronation of Gordon Brown who then broke election promises on Blair's term in office and the EU Constitution" Well, they are allowed to change leader without an election, so that is fair enough, however I agree that there should be a change in the rules to force a new election when the PM steps down. I don't care if when we vote we vote for the party, a great many people vote for the leader. I could understand if Tony Blair had been assassinated and GB had stepped in like in America, but that would b a stability thing for the nation's defence. What do you mean by Brown's promise for "Blair's term in office"? As for EU constitution/treaty (depending on who you talk to), did he say he was going to give us a referendum? If he did, bastard! Whether we should have one or not is irrelevant to the fact he promised it. Personally, I don't mind the EU. We mustn't become an actual country, but we must be extremely integrated imo.
As for the book, well I found the Wikipedia article on it, but it was poor because it was unsourced. I did though find some BBC articles on it. The book came out in 2004, whether the split is still there, I have no idea. Most people seemed to support Clegg's policies, so maybe it is less of a factor now?
Anon - I think you'll find the split in the Lib Dems is very much there. It will be interesting to see what they do with council tax next year, will they make reductions and cuts in real terms like many Conservative councils have done ( some of which are orders of magnitude more efficient that their Lib Dem counterparts ). If not then we'll know it was all about "Winning here".
It is also intresteing that the need for tax cutrs was placed in the context of the 2/3 of the Lib Dem seats that will get wiped out at the next general election unless they change their message. ( There was a report before the conference that got wide circulation on the electoral arithmetic - the conference had a choice of doing 180 degr spin on Tax or losing seats - it chose "winning here" over its principles.)
By the way you shoudl register an ID with OpenID or Blogger - do what I do and chose a pseudonym.
OK here are the links:
Newsnight here
Daily Politics here.
Neither are BBC iPlayer - though you can probably figure out which program from them. ( The second link is to the conference interview ).
These links tend to only last for about a week then they go dead.
I haven't re watched them since earlier in the week - but there's shopping and chores to be done this morning.
Daily politics link was here - correction.
The Daily politics is the most telling interview as you see what he's really talking about is moving spending - not doing less. ( Almost his first sentence ).
Post a Comment