A family member who was deeply in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy did not share my sense of panic at his upcoming meeting at the bank. He informed me, with complete equanimity, that “When you owe someone a thousand dollars, they have power over you. But when you owe someone a million dollars, you have power over them — they can’t afford to let you go under.”
After the thrashing the LibDems took in the UK election yesterday, I offer this anecdote as advice to the embattled Nick Clegg. He outraged his party by supporting the recent university tuition rises, and seems even more a persona non grata after his party’s drubbing in local elections and the resounding defeat of alternative vote (which wasn’t proportional representation but would still have augmented LibDem influence in Parliament at the expense of the Tories and Labour).
Clegg’s saving grace is that David Cameron desperately needs him. Those LibDems who might replace him as party leader would be nowhere near the good sport Clegg has been (I don’t think the PM will be having Vince Cable round for tea anytime soon), and many of the rank and file would just as soon bring the government down as continue in the coalition. Clegg’s thus never had as strong a hand to ask for something he wants and to be given credit for getting it. I’m betting it will be dramatic reform of the House of Lords, including an end to hereditary peer membership. Some of Cameron’s party will object, but the PM has the perfect answer: We can’t afford to let this man go under.
Tags: Nick Clegg
Eh, Cameron doesn’t need hereditary peers for any political purpose (though I presume the Tories favor them) - he created 117 peers in the (not quite a) year he’s been in office, well over 1/8 of that already conservative body and presumably even more than that when you consider how many don’t vote for principled reasons or are because they are ill, infirm, or just have always been legislative kumquats.
Besides, why should Cameron give Clegg anything? No-one is likely to listen to Clegg, least of all within his own party, should Clegg try to issue a demand. If Clegg were somehow to convince his party to bring down the government, it’s far from clear whether a rather unpopular Cameron would prevail or it would be a Miliband (whichever one it was) still struggling with the memories of Blair and Brown and not helped by his own seeming utter fecklessness - but it is clear that the Liberal Democrats would be annihilated. So even that, the last card Clegg appears to possess, is a joker at best. Clegg has sold his inheritance for a mess of pottage - cold, greasy, lumpy pottage, with unidentifiable bits floating in it, and in the end even that was taken from him.
Ironically, given that you’re hoping House Of Lords reform is on the table, the only thing Clegg has to look forward to in what must surely be a bleak future career - I can’t imagine anyone would willingly be in the same room as him unless they’re a member of Cameron’s cabinet, nor can I imagine that will change any time soon - is that whenever he loses his seat Cameron or his successor will presumably elevate him to a peerage. I recommend it be made hereditary, just to highlight the ways Clegg has betrayed his purported ideals.
I’m impressed, Keith, you almost made it sound as though you believe that.
Maybe you can explain why the Liberal Democrats haven’t just merged with Labor at this point (other than perhaps the self-interest of individual political leaders). Pre-Blair I think I can understand why there was a difference. But isn’t the “Democrat” side of the party made up of refugees from Labor in the first place, and more or less the kinds of people who if they’d stayed in the party would have ended up supporting Blair? Or am I missing something?
Keith,
Two different but related quibbles:
First, I am curious about your selection of an elected House of Lords as the one thing in the world that Clegg should ask Cameron strikes me as either a bit tone deaf or simply a reelection that your priorities are different from people outside of the chattering class. There is a whole list of terrible things that Clegg has enabled which have, as you rightly note, alienated a lot of the disaffected left and center-left voters that the Lib Dems picked up from 2003 until the last election.
Of all of the Thatcherite policies that the center-left would like to see reversed, my guess would be that changing the Lords is either at the bottom or very near to it. To signal that the abolition of hereditary peers is his top priority at a time when Thatcherite “austerity” is destroying the British economy, the middle class and the welfare state would probably cause the defection to Labor of most of the centrist and left of center elements of the party and also permanently alienate the Laborites who abandoned their party and tactically voted Lib Dem as a way of distancing themselves from Blair and Brown.
I certainly hold no brief for “New Labor” but to prioritize getting rid of hereditary peers, with everything else that’s happening in the area of civil liberties and the economy, seems to be a throwback to exactly the kind of insanely misplaced priorities which soured so many people on Labor in the first place.
Second, as someone who values civil liberties very highly, I must confess that the House of Lords (and many of the hereditary peers in particular) were head and shoulders above the Commons. And there were a number of Labor peers who basically sounded like a bunch of Fox New Democrats. The idea of converting a pretty well function Lords into something more like the US Senate isn’t nearly as appealing to me in the aftermath of New Labor.
Mitch: With respect, I said what I expected Clegg to ask for, not what I personally considered the greatest problem facing the British people.
Keith,
Point taken. And, yes, it would be totally in keeping for Clegg to ask for reform of the Lords instead of saving England from the Thatcherite “austerity” which is destroying it.
Although I do agree, as a practical matter, with Warren that David Cameron doesn’t need Clegg at all. At this point it clear that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote Thatcherism, plain and simple. What’s the point of voting Lib Dem now? The trappings of office apparently mattered so much to the Lib Dems that they were willing to make a Faustian bargain to get them and will, I think ultimately end up destroying the party (and perhaps the country, too) in a vain attempt to hold on to their cars, “grace and favor” homes and other perks. They will never bring down the government and Cameron knows it. He owns their souls now.
They had a shot at becoming the legitimate opposition in 2003 and might have sought a center-left mandate for themselves in 2004 had the leadership been interested (and willing to make it worthwhile to Labor defectors). Very sad.
Larry, the Liberal Democrats are a social liberal party, Labour is a democratic socialist/social democratic party. They may both be vaguely center-left these days, but there are still substantial philosophical differences (when they’re not busy selling out their respective platforms in order to remain in power, that is).
Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln enjoyed the play.
Must be missing something in my reading …. the British papers I read (Indelendent and Guardian) say Clegg is more concerned with cuts to the NHS and increased tuitions than messing about with the House of Lords. Something they have been (very properly) conserned with for years.
croghan27, I know Clegg keeps saying that but he obviously doesn’t really mean it or else he wouldn’t stay in a coalition with the Conservatives who are making these cuts to education and NHS he claims to care about. What’s more, unless I’m totally misreading the results of the last election, he is not fooling anybody.
On the other hand, “reform” of the House of Lords might be exactly the sort of thing a politically tone-deaf hack like Clegg might choose as his signature issue as a way of appealing (in his mind) to Laborites in much the same way as Republicans thought Sarah Palin (a woman) ought to attract female supporters of Hillary Clinton (also a woman).
The party should’ve stuck with Kennedy because drunk or sober he was nonetheless the best leader they’ve had in my lifetime and certainly the only one with any balls.
Keith, Clegg Shmegg, the big news here in the UK is what happened in Scotland, we emerged from this election completely and utterly changed. A huge historic Nationalist victory; the worst Labour result in seats since 1931; the Tories still despite a decent campaign in retreat; and the worst Liberal result since 1970s.
Scotland 1979 Tories won 31% of vote = 22 of the 72 seats in Scotland. 1983 28% = 21 seats. 1987 disaster: 24% = 19 seats. TORIE ARMAGEDDON 1997: 17% = EVERY SINGLE SEAT LOST IN SCOTLAND. Since then in terms of share of the vote, the tories in Scotland are non-existent.
Now the big question for me is, WHY IS DAVID CAMERON PLEDGING TO FIGHT WITH EVERY FIBER OF HIS BEING NOT TO LET SCOTLAND BE INDEPENDENT on every newscast since the election result, and hey I can tell you the mood here in Scotland today feels very similar to the momentous feel of any one of the Arab Spring revolutions, a very Scottish revolution.
Annemarie,
What I’ve heard is that the SNP is respected as being competent at administration and ideologically opposed to the Tory priorities; Labour isn’t respected for competence and isn’t trusted to oppose Tory priorities (see: Blair, Tony et al), and the Tories are hated - but that when you poll people on secession, huge majorities are opposed, even though they are voting for an SNP that’s quite enthusiastic on the subject. Have I heard wrong?
Hiya Annemarie! I often cite the Tory resistance to Scottish independence as an example of how in politics, ideology and political self-interest clash. If the Tories let Scotland go (along with all those constituencies where they get crushed on a regular basis), they could dominate English politics in a way they cannot dominate UK politics now, but as you know that is a non-starter in Tory circles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8125041.stm
No your not wrong Im sure the SNP picked up the Lib Dem and lab vote because of the hated coalition in Westminster but dunno if this is the latest poll Keith (58%) of Scots wanted a referendum on independence in 2009.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8125041.stm
But i wonder if there has ever been a situation (in history) where a country is offered independence and the country in question said eh no thanks?
Ahem without the Parliament asking setting a condition that 40% of the registered electorate should vote “Yes” in order to make it valid?. Did Labour rigg the rules of the ballot back in 79, I wonder was the 40% rule undemocratic, never mind the electoral register they used being so out of date, William Wallace was on it, joking aside, as you know this left Scotland to the hell of Tory direct rule and the devastation of the country in the 80s.. Sorry to be asking you? but i was only a wean when these shennanigians went on in 1979 and I dont have any knowledge of how other country’s do/did it. I think Denmark used the 40% rule too but something different about non voters being no votes or something sorry?
From what i have learned though there was no support for Scottish independence at (Labour) cabinet level back then (and def not now) but the new SNP threat had to be scuppered somehow, so a referendum on devolution was approved, primarily as a way of heading off full scale independence?. Im thinking is it apples n pears now?
Although I do think the 79 devolution referendum is instructive and a warning in a number of ways. It shows how a question posed deliberately in favour of a reform few were advocating is divisive among reformers. It shows how a divided campaign can lose ground to a united opposition and how, once a referendum is put, no matter what way the answer falls you’ve had your option for change for a generation but a lesson in British-style democracy was definitely learnt. .
I think also what was more significant for Scotland was the timing of the AV vote which was the same day as the Holyrood elections…
As the SNP have commented: “It just shows that the Tory-led coalition government with the LibDems is treating the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland with contempt.” we also had the British Royal Family wedding of the heirs, heir to the throne that took place the Friday before the Holyrood election, which if yer being cynical could have further diminished the Holyrood elections, and yet we still turned out in slightly above average numbers, its is hardly surprising that those of a more conspiratorial bent are suggesting that this was a grand pincer movement by the British establishment to diminish the importance of the Scottish elections. That may or may not be the case. But we can be sure of one thing: neither of these events would EVER have been scheduled to coincide with elections to the Palace of Westminster. Its is also worth noting too that Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, had stated all along that this election will be fought primarily on the case for Scottish Independence.
Going back to Nick Clegg though, newly christened the accidental midwife of Scotland’s independence referendum, and also helping at the birth the Scottish Conservative deputy leader Murdo Fraser called on the UK government to give “very serious consideration” to launching its own referendum on the future of the UK constitution to prevent a “damaging” and long-running debate.
Also last year, whilst as a minority government, the SNP fought really hard to bring in a minimum price for alcohol. With booze selling cheaper than bottled water and cirrhosis rates rising like wildfire, and every expert and their auntie behind the SNP, still the Labour politicians didn’t think it was a good idea (WTF) and blocked the Scottish Government’s plans, they argued and voted against any change in the law. The SNP is determined on the issue of reducing overall consumption through minimum pricing and have promised to bring forward legislation in this first session of parliament, obviously Westminster has shown interest on this, but is rather more concerned about what the drinks industry thinks than we are north of their border.
Bring it on! says I (obviously).
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/contributors/
have a wee look at this “PURE QUALITY MAN” or in english “The crème de la crème” of Scotlands independence writers.