The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Campaign Crawlers

Liberal Democrats Have a Clegg Up

If a week in politics is a long time, what is two weeks?

Although Sir Winston Churchill is undoubtedly Britain’s most quotable Prime Minister, it was Harold Wilson who came up with the most memorable quip. Wilson, who led Labour Party governments as Prime Minister between 1964 and 1970 and again from 1974 to 1976, often said, “A week in politics is a long time.”

Never have Wilson’s word rang truer than in the 2010 British general election campaign. How else can one describe the political fortunes of Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party? At this time a week ago, Clegg was barely on the political radar. Last week’s cover of the Economist featured campaign posters of Britain’s three top political leaders — Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Gordon Brown, Conservative Party leader David Cameron and Clegg. Scrawled beneath each of the posters were the following captions:

Vote Brown — “The Devil You Know”
Vote Cameron — “The Devil You Don’t”
Vote Clegg — “Who The Devil?”

In fact, in a survey conducted last month more Britons could identify the racehorse Kauto Star than they could Clegg. The Daily Telegraph commented, “The news will come as a blow to Clegg who has spent his party’s Spring Conference attempting to position himself as a major player in the Election battle.”

But with Clegg’s performance last Thursday in Britain’s first ever televised leaders’ debate, not only has Clegg dramatically improved his name recognition but a poll commissioned by the Sunday Times declared him the most popular political leader since Churchill. I guess you could say Clegg had a very good week.

It’s not that Clegg said anything particularly remarkable during the debate. Yet he was able to hold his own with his better known counterparts while setting himself apart as the fellow who came into the room without any political baggage to speak of. The day prior to the debate, Nigel Morgan of Morgan PR made this observation about Clegg’s prospects:

Wait, what about “Who the devil” Nick Clegg? Well there is the interesting thing, no one really knows how Clegg is going to perform. Indeed he has the least to lose and everything to gain. Expectations for Cameron’s performance are so sky high his PR people are trying to play it down, while Brown has to truly impress viewers to confound their low expectations of him. Clegg on the other hand can be seen as an alternative to these two big beasts and may well come across as the voice of reason rather than one of the snarling other two.

Because Clegg accomplished his mission and then some, the election is now Cameron’s to lose. When the Tory leader agreed to include Clegg in the debate in December 2009 it was not well received by Tim Montgomerie, founder and editor of Britain’s most influential conservative blog ConservativeHome. At the time, Montgomerie wrote the debates would be “a big boost for Nick Clegg.” He added, “I hope CCHQ [Conservative Campaign Headquarters] don’t live to regret this decision.” Montgomerie’s worst fears appear to have been realized. An editorial in the Sunday Times said Cameron’s decision “could turn out to be the biggest political gaffe since Mr. Brown’s failure to call an election three years ago.”

Clegg’s performance in the debate was such that Cameron hastily had to record a new campaign ad. Cameron had originally filmed an ad focused on Brown’s record since assuming the reins at 10 Downing Street. Without mentioning Clegg or his party by name, the Tory leader acknowledged the debate “has really shaken up this election campaign.” Cameron called upon the British electorate to vote in a majority Conservative government. He warned, “Any other result would lead to more indecision and more of the old politics. We might even be stuck with what we’ve got now.”

However, Cameron might need to be far more direct. Eric Pickles, chairman of the Conservative Party, put it far more bluntly than Cameron when he wrote, “Do you want five more years of Gordon Brown? The answer is that if you vote Liberal Democrat or Labour you will. Only by voting Conservative can we be sure of the change we need.”

Meanwhile, Clegg is getting the sort of press to which President Obama is accustomed. Indeed, Oliver Burkeman in the Guardian has described Clegg as “a British version of Obama.” Although that might not be as complimentary as it would appear at first glance. Burkeman writes. “The U.S. likes its heroes to be inspiring underdogs who battle vast forces to realize their dreams. We like ours to be not-particularly-inspiring underdogs who never do quite realize their dreams.” Burkeman then produces a list of examples including Eddie “The Eagle” Edwards, the British skier who finished dead last in the 70 meter and 90 meter ski jump at the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. Is Burkeman suggesting Clegg is headed for big fall? Is it all downhill from here?

Well, Clegg has apparently been taking advice from former DNC Chair Howard Dean. The one time Democratic presidential hopeful declined to divulge the nature of his advice. For Clegg’s sake, I hope Dean hasn’t advised him to let out a primal scream during his next debate with Brown and Cameron this Thursday.

The election is set for May 6, a little more than a fortnight away. But if a week in politics is a long time then what is two weeks in politics? Cameron would be wise to shed light on Clegg’s policies as former Thatcher cabinet minister Norman Tebbit has done. Otherwise Cameron’s political career might not have a leg on which to stand. Barring any reckless statements or actions, Nick Clegg appears to have a leg up on both David Cameron and Gordon Brown. Or perhaps a Clegg up.

About the Author

Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (26) |

mbt m walk | 4.20.10 @ 7:23AM

good

A. C. Santore| 4.20.10 @ 8:25AM

I suggest that you include the popular result of the debate between the three would-be Chancellors. It is generally acknowledged that the LibDem (Cable) won that one, too.

I add that, because of the structure of the British election - with all its gerrymandered "safe seats" - it would take more than a landslide in the popular vote to give Clegg power. His more realistic hope is to take enough seats from the other two to force a "hung" parliament (meaning neither party with a clear majority), in which case he could partner with one of the other two parties by horse-trading to get some of what he wants.

And the next two weeks will be just as long in politics as the last two, so Clegg might still lose some of the gloss of the first "debate."

timothy stenger| 4.20.10 @ 9:13AM

Interesting point of view. My problem, however, with your article and others I have seen in the last few days is that if you look at the numbers via The Daily Telegraph and other British publications you discover that electoral analysis and polling indicates that in the KEY constituencies in Britain- those the Tories need especially to win a majority- the Tories lead by wide margins. Thus these Clegg stories are much ado about nothing and I suspect- as much as I hate to say it about my own countrymen- the Brits are less likely to be led by their noses over a cult of personality repenting in leisure later.

Derek Leaberry| 4.20.10 @ 12:00PM

Cameron was a wet Tory, sympathetic to diversity, homosexuals, feminists, Third World Britons and an enemy of traditional conservative ideals. He turned his back on not only Margaret Thatcher, but on the historic British nation. That Cameron has now blown his premiership after anticipating a five year term at Number Ten is rather delicious.

For American conservatives, Cameron's defeat will let us put to rest the move to the center that "conservatives" like David Frum, David Brooks, Ed Gillespie, Kathleen Parker and Michael Gerson have favored. Cameronism has failed in Britain. Why should conservatives try to implement it in America? And wasn't George W. Bush the first David Cameron in his way? And we know how "compassionate conservatism" turned out.

Christopher Holland| 4.20.10 @ 10:43PM

Cameron would not even qualify as a RINO in America, he is about as much as a conservative as Obama is - he talks nonsense about a 'big society' (whatever that is) where social activists organise people to run their lives. He simply does not understand that people do not need, or want social activists to tell them how to think - they want to be left alone, they do not need big, intrusive government leaching away their taxes on programs that help nobody.

Good riddance to Cameron and the tories, they deserve to lose. The tea party folks have much more to offer conservatives than a loser like Cameron.

Derek Leaberry| 4.21.10 @ 8:43AM

When I saw that Cameron had a large group of very undistinguished Tory women candidates that were going to be parachuted into safe seats in constituencies where they did not live(in American terminology, forced onto the local Tory Party), I knew Cameron was a man who accepted the left-wing kultursmog.

Roger | 4.23.10 @ 4:12PM

Christopher - I totally agree with you. Cameron has joined the other two main parties on the left wing here. The MSM blank the British National Party as being far right and racist. Not a bit of it; just read their manifesto and it surely is patriotic and very Pro-British and sets out a cogent and viable full set of policies. Never joined it but I am sorely tempted since it echoes many core beliefs about the need for us all to be more self-reliant and with a passion to protect the British culture from the ravages of the rampant marxism that goes unchecked here.

Siegfried X| 4.20.10 @ 12:07PM

Cameron and the UK Conservatives are taking the same flawed approach that the Republican Party is using:

(1) Run as liberal/democrat-light
(2) Run totally against the other party, demonize it, without having a platform of your own.

So Cameron, the "Conservative", has positioned his party in the same center-left area that the two left-wing parties are in. The assumption is that all the conservative voters will choose the "lesser of three evils".

canuckistani| 4.20.10 @ 4:02PM

Everyone loves suckling at the government teat, so no party dare meddle with the nanny state.
Brits have become lazy and laden with lard over the years. (taking our lead...)
The distinctions between all three parties are so nuanced and vague, it will boil down to a simple "hold one's nose" choice at the ballot box.
Too bad, I like a vibrant British political scene, and sadly it has become vanilla like so many other "mature" socialized countries like Canada and Australia.

Pingback| 4.20.10 @ 3:08PM

Liberal Democrats Have a Clegg Up – American Spectator | DEMOCRAT.GNOM.ES links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Contact Email Posts Barack Obama Democratic Party Liberal Issues National News Liberal Democrats Have a Clegg Up – American Spectator 20. Apr, 2010 0 Comments Campaign Crawlers Liberal Democrats Have a Clegg Up By Aaron Goldstein on 4.20.10 @ 6:08AM Although Sir Winston Churchill is undoubtedly Britain’s most quotable Prime Minister, it was Harold Wilson who came up with the most memorable…

PCC| 4.21.10 @ 6:32AM

National polls and personal popularity contests are almost meaningless in British general elections. Most likely outcome at this point is a 15+ majority for the Tories. Stay tuned.

fjsdk| 7.1.10 @ 1:25AM

beijing massage shanghai girl

gavin| 9.19.11 @ 7:08AM

Good post . Thanks for sharing.

More Articles by Aaron Goldstein

More Articles From Campaign Crawlers

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/20/liberal-democrats-have-a-clegg

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

It's.The.Law

Ross Kaminsky | 5.20.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT