David Mitchell, it seems, is a dedicated follower of fashion. He uses his Observer column today to join the long list of lefties who have set their sights on enemy number one: Nick Clegg. And there was I thinking comedians valued originality.
On top of its tedious lack of creativity, the column is also hopelessly misinformed. Mitchell might not like Clegg, but if he’s going to have a rant about him in a national paper, one would have thought he’d do it on the basis of sound facts.
Take the following line:
We all knew before the election that the country was in financial trouble, but you [Clegg] still declared that a Liberal Democrat government, because it valued education, would make the abolition of tuition fees a spending priority.
This puzzles me. I don’t remember Nick Clegg at any point saying that abolishing tuition fees was a spending priority for the Liberal Democrats. Sure, it was a policy that was in our manifesto, but the clue to what were regarded as spending priorities were the four policies highlighted on the front of the manifesto (see picture), and talked about by Nick Clegg until he was blue in the face.
The Liberal Democrats, and Nick Clegg personally, went through the election campaign emphasising four key policy pledges: raising the income tax threshold, political reform, a move to a sustainable economy, and a big investment in education through a pupil premium.
Nothing on tuition fees, note.
Indeed, whenever Clegg was asked about how he would handle a hung Parliament situation, he said firstly that the largest party had the first right to seek to govern, and then secondly that the Liberal Democrats would negotiate primarily on the four key pledges above.
At no point did Clegg say that in the event of the Liberal Democrats entering Government as a junior partner in a coalition, abolishing tuition fees would be a bottom line.
Does Mitchell realise that the Liberal Democrats have 57 MPs out of 646? Has he even read our bloody manifesto? I would be surprised if he would write the column he did today if the answer to those questions are yes – he’s not a Labour MP, after all!
Mitchell also suggests that the Lib Dems should not have entered a coalition without agreement to scrap tuition fees. That, I’m afraid, is ridiculously naive. If the Tories had sought to govern as a minority administration, things would soon have collapsed. There would have been no hope of reassuring international markets that Britain had a Government that was capable of taking the decisions necessary. And there would have been a second election within months in which the Liberal Democrats would have been blamed for all this turmoil and would have been lucky to poll in double figures.
And then we’d have had a Conservative Government. Well, I suppose Mitchell could then have written a column about what a waste of space Nick Clegg is. That’s the beauty of being a columnist, I suppose.
Nick Thornsby's Blog 
Discovered he was a Labour-luvvie a while ago. Don’t listen to R4 shows he’s on now! (Peep Show not too bad, but he doesn’t write much of it now).
These ‘amusing’ columnists are obnoxious – Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times inflames my ire every week – yes,….. I know I shouldn’t read it!
I know Labour don’t have a working majority in the Commons any more but given what’s sauce for the goose… they have BETRAYED me by not being in government any more, they LIED because Gordon is no longer prime minister, and worst of all they have already U-TURNED on increasing VAT, implementing the Browne report, holding a referendum on AV, slashing housing benefit… the FIBBERS!
Your argument only serves to make Clegg look more foolish. You’re suggesting the policy wasn’t a priority; if this was the case, why on earth did he (and every other LD MP) have his picture taken signing the pledge? He knew he might wind up in coalition when he did so, and he knew the state of public finances.
It’s also naive to assume that we had to go into coalition without agreement on these issues – we had a workable plan for this scenario. There would be less anger if Lib Dem MP’s abstained in the fashion the agreement suggests, but Nick and Vince have been advocating voting for the proposals. Going from “I think X should be abolished” to “I think we should triple X” is always going to make the protagonist look a bit silly.
I’m afraid your rebuttal is as poorly argued as the orginal piece you’re arguing against. I’m a Lib Dem, but I agree with much of the thrust of the Mitchell article, I’d say that your piece reinforces his final line.
While what you say about the manifesto is correct Nick, I think you do David Mitchell a disservice. I think he’s making more nuanced points, particularly about political will.
One of them follows the sentence you quote, and relates to the Coalition Agreement:
In my view, letting an agreement between parties supersede an apparently solemn pledge to the electorate is a bad model for coalition government. The personal signed pledges shouldn’t have been made. Given that they were made, the issue should have been a redline in the Coalition Agreement.
Given that it wasn’t made a redline, well… what? I don’t know. I’ve speculated on three alternative futures for the Liberal Democrats over this issue. But the futures are mostly all bad.
I’m a big fan of David Mitchell’s comedy, but I wouldn’t mind seeing someone piss into his letterbox for that article, which is apparently now the appropriate response when you disagree with somebody’s politics.
Indeed. Not very funny given what’s already happened to Clegg.
Really really really poorly argued. Almost not worth deconstructing but as a start there seems to be a pedantic point about what strictly constitutes a priority. Is it a priority if you sign a pledge. Apparently not. It’s only a priority if you put it on the front page of a manifesto.
“Sure, it was a policy that was in our manifesto.”
“Sure”? “Sure”? This sounds a tad dismissive. ‘Sure it was in our manifesto but we all know that counts for nothing.’ How much contempt can you have for your own manifesto???
“But the clue to what were regarded as spending priorities were the four policies highlighted on the front of the manifesto (see picture), and talked about by Nick Clegg until he was blue in the face.” As opposed to the stance on tuition fees which he barely mentioned?? etc etc etc.
The rest continues in the same vain vein and is rounded off with the Straw Man and Ad Hominem
“Well, I suppose Mitchell could then have written a column about what a waste of space Nick Clegg is. That’s the beauty of being a columnist, I suppose.”
A real disappointment TBH.
Let me respond to the points you make.
What I meant about the manifesto was this. The Liberal Democrats came third in the election, with 57 out of 650 MPs. Obviously, therefore, the whole Lib Dem manifesto could not be implemented if indeed the party had the opportunity to implement any of it in coalition. Therefore the party had to concentrate on the manifesto priorities, which were the four priorities published on the front of the manifesto, and which every time Nick Clegg was asked about the possibility of a coalition he stated would be our negotiating priorities. And I really don’t think it is credible to say that it wasn’t obvious that these were Lib Dem priorities. In fact tuition fees didn’t feature very highly at all in the election campaign – in fact, I don’t think it was mentioned as an issue once in any of the three leaders’ debates.
Dishonest. People voted for the Lib Dems on one of three promises that Clegg espoused during the Prime Ministerial debates: proportional representation, the abolition of tuition fees, and the scrapping of Trident. What do we have? AV (ha!), an threefold increase in tuition fees, and no final word on Trident yet – although you don’t get any points for guessing how that will turn out. The Lib Dems knew they would not get a majority government, and yet they made these pledges.
57 of 646 MP’s may be the Lib Dem share, but they also got 23% of the vote compared to Cameron’s 36.1%. Yes, they are the junior partner in the coalition, but compared to the amount of public support they enjoyed at the last election, they lack the influence they earned. Clegg should have at least made proportional representation a requirement in a coalition agreement, a proportional Parliament would have given the Lib Dems the power in future Parliaments to carry through their other pledges. But he bottled it, and with the tuition fees fiasco, Clegg has again demonstrated his contempt for democracy. As long as he remains party leader, the Lib Dems will be unelectable.
OK, Tom, let’s see some evidence for your claims. Show me firstly where you get your data on the specific reasons that people voted Lib Dem in the election, and secondly show me anywhere in the TV debates where those three policies specifically were identified by Nick Clegg as his priorities. I would be extremely surprised if you could back up what you say, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
As for your second paragraph, of course us Lib Dems would have preferred PR, but it was never an option. The Conservatives would have preferred to govern as a minority or have another election rather than committing to a PR referendum. Just read David Laws’ book and see how difficult it was to get just AV out of them. Saying Clegg ‘bottled it’ is a nice cliche but is far from the truth – Clegg had a relatively weak hand (because a Labour deal would have been so difficult) and extracted an extraordinary number of policy concessions from the Conservatives.
Amazing! How did I not see this before? You’re so, so right, and the Liberal Democrats will most certainly receive my vote at the next General Election. Indeed, I think your argument is so striking that all the students that have been crowding the streets of our nation, upset over a foolish little thing about their elected representatives breaking their word, will, without doubt, do the same.
In addition, those children that were being struck by police batons earlier this week, upon seeing the strength of this rebuttal, will finger their stitches and think: “You know what? I’ve been a fool” and recognise the justice of the policy switch that enabled them to receive that beating, and how effective the ‘whack’ of a carbon-fibre stick can be as part of the process of political debate. I am sure that when they are eligible to vote at the next General Election, those same blood-stained fingers will happily make their mark by the name of their local Liberal Democrat candidate.
Bravo!
Hilarious.
Thanks.
Maybe you should email David Mitchell and ask him to write a column about what a waste of space bloggers who profess to have some profound insight are
Yes, and what about those who comment on such ‘wastes of space’?!
I have a sincere question on this issue that I have yet to see answered in the standard defence of the Liberal Democrat position. I understand the argument that because your party is the minor party in a coalition and that you came third in the general election that means that your manifesto pledges cannot be implemented. I understand this but that’s a defence to a different accusation. The signed pledge was not ‘if we form the government we will not raise tuition fees’, it was ‘if elected to parliment I will vote against any rise in tuition fees’. To me there is very little grey area here. Each prospective Lib Dem MP made an explicit promise to voters. If elected as an MP I will vote against a rise in tuition fee cap. This has nothing to do with manifestos or who forms the government. It was an explicit promise by each Lib Dem MP to the people they represent in exchange for their votes. Maybe it was a foolish promise to make, but once made surely it has to be honoured doesn’t it? I’m not looking for a slagging match here, I just have not yet heard the reason why the breach of the promise is acceptable.
I think that is a valid point, John.
Nick Clegg would argue (and has) that his understanding of the pledge was that if the Lib Dems were to win the election they would not raise tuition fees. But I agree that doesn’t hold much water.
The dilemma that Lib Dem MPs (particularly Ministers) faced was this: Is it worse to go back on the NUS pledge or is it worse to risk jeopardising the future of the Government. I suppose that Ministers thought that the latter would be a worse thing to do.
So while some Lib Dem MPs have clearly not fulfilled that part of the pledge, I’d argue that the Govt has certainly fulfilled the second half of the pledge which said “I promise to fight for a fairer system” (or something similar) – there are disagreements about this, but I would say that this has absolutely been done.
Incidently, i do not have a party political affiliation. I do not vote labour and they did many awful things in office so it’s not a party political war I’m looking for here. It’s just a sincere question. Thanks.
And to be honest, you’d have to ask individual MPs what their answer to that question is – it’s not really something I, as a mere blogger, can really answer with any meaning.
Sorry my follow up comment was before your reply. sorry about that
Thanks for your considered reply Nick. I suppose the will for the Government not to collapse may have been the reasoning for many of them. I disagree with that because I think that the government would be stronger if dissent and disagreement within it were permitted but I guess I understand the reasoning.
Pingback: Top 10 Posts of the Year (Including lots of Woolas) | Nick Thornsby's Blog
“There would have been no hope of reassuring international markets that Britain had a Government that was capable of taking the decisions necessary.”
You mean the decision to redistribute yet more wealth from the common weal to bankers and other business elites?
Is that a ‘decision’? Seems like going with the flow these days. Admit that mainstream politics is now morally and ideologically bankrupt. You simply do not know what is right or wrong, what is happening or what you should do next. You keep hoping for the market to magically fix everything if you can just nurse it along, and it’s never going to happen – the market, without restraint from our weak politicians, will destroy society and itself. But before this happens, new political movements will by necessity arise, and they will make Labour/Lib Dem/Conservative irrelevant. People are waiting and waiting for their Option D and so it will arise.
I just hope whatever it is it is not more of the same intellectual masturbation and careerist venality.