Nick Clegg and the New Labour project
Thursday, April 22, 2010 Tonight's leadership debate is eagerly awaited ... but by whom, exactly? I admit that I am far more interested in the outcome than I was a week ago, but it is still going to be watched by a minority of the population - a very small minority, as it happens.
This week, lest we forget, it's Sky's turn to broadcast the debate live and the most they can expect is, what, two million viewers? (If you're going to the pub tonight you will expect to watch Liverpool versus Athletico Madrid not Clegg versus Cameron and Brown.)
Last week around nine million people - a quarter of the electorate - were looking in and while Nick Clegg did OK, his performance was hardly on a par with, say, Barack Obama.
Clegg came out on top because few people expected him to do well. Cameron was a disappointment for the opposite reason. I thought Brown did OK. Apparently, though, his "aggressive" style is not in tune with our touchy feely times.
Of course, the most influential person won't be in front of the camera tonight. He'll be behind the scenes, lobbying and cajoling the media to adopt a particular line. If you're a journalist with a fast approaching deadline there isn't time to analyse the debate. All you want to know is, who won, and if it's not immediately clear or there are conflicting opinions, you welcome a firm steer.
Enter Peter Machiavelli Mandelson, the most accomplished political operator in the country. Last week, according to first hand accounts, Mandelson was incredibly busy backstage telling anyone who would listen how well Clegg had performed. Mandelson knew, before most people, that a Clegg "victory" in the first debate had the potential to set the cat among the pigeons. (Even he, though, could not have predicted such a seismic swing in the opinion polls.)
This is not an original analysis - I have read it elsewhere (can't remember where) - but it has been a talking point in "my" circle this week. And it goes like this:
Mandelson is no friend of Brown. Or even old Labour. What matters to Mandelson is the New Labour project. A prime objective of the project is/was to create a centre left coalition that will condemn the Tories to decades in Opposition.
For Mandelson, the prospect of a Lib/Lab pact (or, rather, a Clegg/Milliband pact) is the future. It will keep New Labour in power, the voting system will be changed to some form of PR, and the prospect of a Conservative government any time soon will disappear with it.
I still can't accept that a televised debate watched by a minority of the population can swing an election, but in today's world perception is everything. Clegg mania is like a virus. My guess is that if he thinks it will keep the Tories out, Peter Mandelson will continue to feed it.
Reader Comments (17)
I can't see the prospect of a Lib/Lab pact happening at all now, the wheels are coming off their bandwagon faster than a roller-coaster, and spinning out of control. Clegg has already indicated he will not work with Brown, so who does that leave him with, Banana Boy Milliband? I doubt very much whether the public would buy that one, let alone Clegg.
As for Mandelson, he is decidedly yesterday's man now in the scheme of things. There is a huge myth built up about this man. People keep saying how clever he is. For someone so "clever" doesn't it seem very odd that he has been caught with his hands in the proverbial till on three separate occasions? In my book, a clever man is one who doesn't get caught, who's name isn't tarnished, who people still admire and trust. Mandelson doesn't qualify for any of these virtues!
As for the "Big Debate", or "Britain's Got Rotten Politics" as it should be called, I totally agree that this "event" shouldn't be able to swing the electorate, but with a public now hooked on TV reality shows, which are about as "real" as Peter Mandelson's rhetoric or Tony Blair's suntan, what can we expect?
Even the papers found in the back of Clegg's taxi, which were written by his spin-doctor, ordered him to treat his audience as if they were ten year olds, "don't use any big words which people might not be able to understand" he was told. And what happened, using that premise, Clegg was shunted up the political poll by the media (no one else) to show he was the winner of the first debate.
Now (at last) the truth is emerging about him and his totally crackpot ideas ( a little late - but perhaps better late than never) Hopefully the public will come to their senses before it is too late. I have been saying for as long as I care to remember, that a vote for anyone other than the Conservatives, will only work to keep Labour in power, and now this is proving true.
Do you really want Labour back in? On last night's Labour Party Broadcast, they had the audacity to list as one of the things they had done for Britain, as "Making Britain Smoke Free".
Vote Clegg, vote any of the other soppy little parties, and end up with 5 more years of Labour and their SMOKE FREE Policies.
Clegg Mania ?
Well, does anyone here remember the 'soaring' support in the polls for the SDP/Lib Alliance back in the Eighties ?
With or without a 'Falklands Factor' (vastly overrated by Maggie's crestfallen opponents, in my view), I don't see Poster Boy Nick doing what Jenkins, Owen and Co failed to do back then.
I rather think that this little flurry demonstrates just how bored both the Public AND the Media are with current politics.
If that isn't to demean the word 'politics'..........
Mandelson has done a great job for Labour since he was brought back in by keeping Harriet Harridan away from the public. Every time that woman appears on TV it must cost Labour thousands of votes.
Clegg will work with Labour and the electorate know it. While they may not like Brown they distrust Cameron which is why they are happy with the idea of a Lib/Lab pact. The attacks in the press against Clegg will only engender sympathy for him and attract more votes which makes a hung parliament almost guaranteed.
Electoral reform and the abolition of the remaining hundred or so hereditary peers is what most people want and by voting LibDem they can ensure this happens.
Economically, the electorate fear the Tories particularly those who remember the Thatcher days. Brown has proven steady in times of economic crisis whereas Cameron and Osborne seem to have little policies at all.
The smoke free issue is a red herring because Cameron has stated that the 'argument was lost' and the ban is here to stay while promising to overturn the hunting ban. This shows the make up of the man in that he is happy to allow wild animals to be torn apart by packs of dogs but will not allow consenting adults to smoke a legal product in a well ventilated private room or a club.
Well said Michael. I am sure your words will go down well in a SMOKE FREE BRITAIN.
Peter. The Tories want one too. Cameron has made that plain. Voting Tory does not help smokers.
Michael: "Brown has proven steady in times of economic crisis"
Steady??? Good grief! The only steady part has been his continual bankruptcy ofthe country with his balmy policies. Starting with the sale of most of our gold reserves when the market was at it's lowest. It's been like watching a slow motion car crash.
Michael, are you really pleased to see our country "Great Britain" continually dragged through the mud?
Would you really like to see a hung Parliament, which would devalue the pound even further, and install a massive lack of confidence in us from our trading partners abroad ?
Are you really proud to have an unelected and corrupt man like Peter Mandelson as part of the party you speak of supporting?
Are you happy to know your prime minister is a bully? And that Mandleson also bullies female members of the cabinet, because they don't agree with him?
Would you really like to see our country dragged even further into the failed European experiment, and maybe even lose our Pound to the Euro? After the Greek debacle even Germany are talking about pulling out, yet Mr Mandleson and Mr Clegg still want to join...talk about great brains thinking alike...not!
Are you ready to welcome aboard a man (Clegg) who said that the British people have a more insidious cross to bear than Germany over the second world war?
Are you proud of a party whom 85% of voted in favour of this draconian ban on smoking?
Would you really like to see your party merge with the Lib-Dems, of whom even more voted for an outright ban on smoking? (in stark contrast to the Tories, of whom only 25% voted for this ban)
Are you really ready to carry on, possibly for the rest of your life, talking about one Conservative politician whom you (rightly or wrongly) didn't agree with? Are you not ready to move on? She is no longer in politics Michael, end of story!
"Electoral reform and the abolition of the remaining hundred or so hereditary peers is what most people want........."
I assume you're being provocatively ironic, Michael ?
'Most people' haven't a CLUE about 'electoral reform', and have absolutely NO interest whatever in the constitutional position of the Upper Chamber. And even less knowledge.
If they did, I wonder whether they'd be THAT keen on replacing the likes of Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley) with failed second-raters like Neil Kinnock (Lord Windbag) ?
Personally, I'd like to see the Hereditary Peers restored in their entirety (subject to the usual conventions, coupled with stronger rules on attendance) - and leave the thuggish imbeciles of the Other Place to carry on wrecking the country behind the threadbare cloak of 'democracy', 'will of the People', and 'manifesto commitment'.
Of course, if you WANT to see this country turn into a 21st century version of the DDR, then I quite see your point.
In that case, of course, the continuing erosion of our individual liberties AND the final demise of our national sovereignty (still in its death throes) will have received the Democratic Imprimatur - not once, but TWICE.
Just what we need.......................
Peter T -
You're wasting your breath when you try and reason with ANY confirmed Maggie-Hater, I fear. They know better.
And, after all, it's only 19 years since Ken, Michael, and Geoffrey's tyrannicidal palace coup.
Rather like Coriolanus, the Maggie-Haters have WOUNDS to show you.
And they still haven't quite healed.
Bless !
Better, therefore, for ALL of us to cherish the Paradise-on-Earth that's been created in this Sceptred Isle since 1997.
Of course, we still have a few problems now, it's true.
But I for one, am QUITE happy (if not ecstatic) to see our DAILY debt rise by a mere £447 million, if that - and everything else - is what it takes to sustain this unprecedented resurgence in National Pride, Individual Freedom, and Unquenchable Optimism.
Martin V - 'back then' the Lib/SDP alliance got 25% of the national vote and less than 4% of seats in parliament. When I see polls showing Lib/Dems level pegging with Tories and higher than Labour I know that it means nothing in this archaic first past the post voting system. The UK voting system is cutting off it's nose despite it's face. It is which politbeurau to vote for. Our voting system means our polticians can play games while the UK loses credibility and becomes absorbed into Europe.
I would have no problem with a Tory government lead by someone like Ken Clarke but the current bunch of wannabe Blairs just do nothing for me.
I do not want a government that is rabidly anti European nor do I want to be governed by a bunch of millionaire inbreeds whose position is as a result of sexual dalliances.I don't want Trident renewed and only the LibDems are saying they will not waste the money so in a hung parliament they may get their way.
'Are you really proud to have an unelected and corrupt man like Peter Mandelson as part of the party you speak of supporting?' There are 92 such people in the Lords and I want rid of them all. I have no time for Mandelson but he has done a much better job than his Tory counterparts in getting his party re-elected. To give him credit does not mean support.
Martin V. You are right about Thatcher. I was a child when she took free milk away from the primary schools adversely affecting the nutrition of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. I saw the wreckage of her economic policies and the lives she destroyed. If that is how the Tory party make Britain GREAT it is not something most people want to be part of.
The excesses of the past few decades have to stop and the two party system has to go. Tories gave us disastrous policies as did Labour and maybe without such large majorities some of these disasters would have been avoided.
When I was a child at school Martin, there was a joke doing the rounds, which went something like this. A man in a lunatic asylum keep banging his head against a wall, and when asked why he does it, he replies that it feels so good when he stops to go to bed.
Please let us all know when you are about to stop!
Peter -
Re:
"Please let us all know when you are about to stop!"
Easy.
When they open the doors - and let me OUT !
Timbone -
Yes, our electotal system does produce some pretty quirky results from time to time.
Didn't Blair's New Dawn - the sun rising through a forest of Union Flags - come about with fewer votes for Cherie Blair's husband than Norma's had achieved in the previous Election ?
Come to think of it, this MAY be one reason why all the parties ARE the same nowadays: whatever the count, you still get the same result.
Quite brilliant, really !
Michael P -
Yes, the decision by Margaret Thatcher in 1971 to remove free school milk was an absolute gift to the Left - whatever its economic or social merits or demerits.
(I had never drunk mine - giving it away to friends - yet, by some miracle of nature, managed to survive).
But her decision to continue the Left's relentless assault upon Grammar Schools was a far more grievous one, in my view (and I plead guilty to a strong prejudice in favour of them).
Nowadays, most parents can afford a third of a pint of milk a day for their children (as most could in the early Seventies, despite all the howling).
Securing a decent education for them is not always quite so easy, however - if they lack the money (or the appropriate post code).
At least under Socialism, we can ALL be miserable.
I'll give it that...................
This is not argumentative or supportive of anyone, just a couple of facts.
The removal of free school milk was decided before Thatcher became Eductaion Minister, but was enacted when she was. Also, free school milk was part of the 1944 Education Act for a post was Britain where children were still getting ricketts.
Good points, Timbone.
Myth will always trump Fact, however: as we are all learning to our cost - in so many ways.