Liberal Vision

Bit of a wobble ?

It was to be expected that at some point the Liberals would wobble a little. That moment seems to be now.

I am not referring to the polls – though a couple of the most immediate ones do open up more of a lead for the Tories. I am referring to the immensely confusing mixed-message that we are hearing about who the Liberals will and won’t do business with in a hung parliament.

Watching Nick on Sunday -  Nick seemed very clear, very bold, very statesman-like in his position that, in the event that Labour polled the fewest votes of the three main parties, the idea of the Liberals propping up Gordon Brown in the position as PM would be preposterous. Here here. Simple, straightforward – how can any one disagree? And it took the sting out of the “Vote Clegg Get Brown” line.

Yes yes I know…what gives Nick the right to dictate to Labour who their leader is etc etc. But he was not saying that he would not seek to interfere in other parties business. (And as I heard it a good number of senior Labour figures agree with Nick).

As I saw it, Nick was EITHER

(A) in the event of coalition with Labour : angling for the position as PM (and why not – he takes on the roll – giving Labour time to have an election get a new leader in etc?) or he was

(B) edging slowly but surely toward a coalition with the Tories.

(C) Dismissing the vote Clegg get Brown line (or a combination of the above)

Why ever he said it,  he said it – outloud.

Then came the  briefing from one of Nick’s ”advisors” attempting to “clarify” the situation.

Er oh…. as these things always do, the “clarification” just muddied the waters, sending  journalists into mini-hysteria on the possibility of a disagreement within the Liberal High Command. 

Has there been a falling out? Did one of the lefties in Liberal Shadow Cabinet throw a wobbly? Did Mandy throw a wobbly? Did Nick not mean to say that? Is Clegg deliberately taking the agenda in his own party up a notch? Come on someone must now why an advisor was told to go forth and clarify !!!  

Sometimes you just can’t UNSAY what’s been said

And like your handy SATNAV  you have to plot a new route from where you are – not try to retrace your steps to where you were on Saturday, and start over.  Those advising Nick would do well to take that on board the next time they feel the need to “clarify” what he says.

So the last 24 hours has seen journalists hungry to find the split, prise it apart, get at what the problem is. Nick managed the questions well today - but this was damage limitation at best.

Nick needs to get a grip – take charge – let his words stand – and please oh please – don’t let advisors explain to journos “What Nick was actually saying was this…”. 

Nick was perfectly clear on Sunday. The confusion is of the Liberals own making.  Here’s hoping this is a little wobble and no more.

Tags: coalition, hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

Gordo the Saviour! Dave the Cowering! And more…

I have some sympathy for Nick Robinson (bear with me now…)  He does, on some occasions, have to form his analysis of political events extremely quickly, and then promptly figure out how to articulate it in a snappy way to an audience with the collective attention span of a hairdresser’s goldfish.  I reckon I’d fail miserably at such a task, so just as well that I have the luxury of getting my points across on a blog, several days after the event.

Nonetheless, I am going to add another knife to those already inserted in his back, following his incorrect verdict that last week’s TV debate was encapsulated by “I disagree with Nick”. Statistics from the show, you see, reveal that Call Me Dave was, in fact, the most attacked leader (not Nick). Interestingly, Call Me Dave was also the meekest, perhaps in nervous, cowering mode, given the sudden possibility of him entering future history books and DVDs as the failed Tory leader who was forced into electoral reform.

The graph below shows how belligerent each of the leaders were:

Some more interesting findings come from examining the number of words uttered by each leader.  Clearly looking to appeal to the more nationalist element of the electorate, Gordo and Call Me Dave both had “country” in their top two words, with “Britain” being Gordo’s fifth most used word.  Notably, “country” only just scraped into Nick’s top 10 words, and neither he nor Call Me Dave had “Britain” in their top 10.

Gordo’s reputation as a self-styled wannabe global saviour is further enhanced by the analysis.  Out of the three leaders, he used the most language relating to international affairs, with the following words all appearing in his top 10: “Britain”, “country”, “world”, “Europe”, “European”.

The top 10 lists of words are below, with a couple of other graphics to keep you amused. This research, I must confess, was not done by myself, but rather done entirely by Millward Brown. Which is nice of ‘em.

Shared Words: [sorry, can't get this to be more visible. If you want a copy, e-mail admin *-AT-* liberal-vision.org]

All three leaders’ top words combined, by frequency:

Tags: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Leaders Debate, Nick Clegg, tv debate

A bit of back-slapping…..

Back in July 2009, Mark Littlewood, once of this parish, posted on this website…..

Can the LibDems get more votes than Labour at the next election?

At the time he pointed to the Labour Party’s continuing atrocious polling numbers and Nick Clegg’s increasingly impressive performance as LibDem leader.

He said “If the governing party staggers into the General Election with Brown still at the helm, their campaign could be a Michael Foot -style PR disaster” …and”I’d expect Nick Clegg to have a strong showing in the campaign itself. He is a  capable TV performer (by far the most important communications medium in modern politics) and the British public will like him more as they get to know him more”. 

He went onto say “The implications for LibDem strategy could be huge – perhaps suggesting a shift of resources to nationwide communications rather than funnelling as much money as previously into marginals. It would be controversial too – and probably particularly unpalatable to incumbent MPs”.

Of course – it all looked like such a wild suggestion back then.  Then again, no one had any expectation that Cameron, let alone Brown, would agree to the leaders TV debates. (Well not quite true…there were some strong rumours even back then).

But in so far as the Liberal high-command HAS focused its efforts around national TV;  the public HAS grown to like Nick the more they see him; and the polls suggest that Liberals MAY WELL get more votes that Labour at the election…

…then we have to say not a bad bit of crystal ball gazing Mr Littlewood. Not bad.

Tags: general election, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Mark Littlewood, predictions

How Murdoch shafted Clegg

Its 2105 and it is clearly apparent that it was a disgrace to allow Rupert Murdochs Sky was allowed into the Leaders Live Debate club.

When I have time I will analyse in detail – but seems to me a blatant attempt to shaft Nick Clegg. Look at the way the camera goes away from Nick whenever he speaks,… to scan the audience , the shots from behind, the reactions from Cameron – anywhere but Clegg’s face…

Meanwhile Cameron gets full face when ever he utters a word. Brown got a fair edit – but he’s not the threat to Cameron is he??

Its an utter disgrace… I am calling it as Brown’s debate – with Nick second. Cameron – for all the help from his Murdoch buddies comes third.

Thought: May be Sky News are just not very good?

UPDATE 2150

Sun/YouGov gives it to Cameron36%. Clegg 32% Brown 29%

Channel 4 poll gives it to  Clegg 52% Brown 31%. Cameron 17%

Update: 2156

ITV/Comres poll give it to clegg 33%, Cameron and Brown on 30% – suck on that one Rupert…. 

01:15 Update

Just returned from the BBC where I went into to give my analysis of the debate (on News Channel) and ended up being asked about tweeting and the blogosphere. What I was going to say – and will say here instead – is that it strikes me as interesting that the instant poll results tonight are in the same ball park as the national polls pre-debate. 1.It is very difficult to see how the Liberal genie can be put back in the bottle. 2.I wonder whether the instant polls tonight reflect a certain “settling of opinion” – i..e people have made their minds up pretty much and  judged the debate tonight based on their most likely voting intention – not the actual content  of the debate. If so we have a hung parliament.

I was amused to see today’s Sun headline whilst in the studio …something like “Cam saves the day”. With out question TV has re-invented itself and is THE medium of this election. The Leaders debates are the game-changers not the bloggers or tweeters. But what I find astounding is that newspapers are looking increasingly irrelevant and, when you look at the clearly co-ordinated attack fromTory attack-dog newspapers today ..is it any wonder? The Sun used to be really good at smelling political change in the air and moving fast. They appear to have just gone to sleep – or maybe its lack of sleep as Rupert Murdoch hurls abuse at them down the phone into the wee small hours. Did no one tell him The Sun didn’t actually win it for Blair back in 97?

Tags: "murdoch shafted clegg", Leaders Debate, Murdoch, SKY

Aid spending targets are simply wrong

Politicians generally disagree. Don’t be fooled by Brown’s recent nauseating sycophantism towards Clegg – in reality cross party consensus is very difficult to achieve. Banker-bashing aside, there are very few things that all three parties actually agree on and even fewer that they’d be prepared to admit.

But, there is one idea on which all three parties do agree on, and unfortunately it’s a shocker. All three parties have agreed in their manifestoes (Cons, Lab, Lib) to make it a legal obligation to spend 0.7% of national income upon foreign aid by 2013. This will cost an extra £2bn a year, according to the latest figures, and so nearly slipped under the election radar. However, thanks to The Times who picked up on report released today by International Policy Network, the stupidity of this proposal has now been exposed.

Now, before all the “pro-aiders” choke on their organic soup and reach for their recycled tissues, please wait. This isn’t an anti-aid rant. In fact the report doesn’t offer any recommendation on how much should be spent, but instead focuses on the stupidity of fixing aid spending to a specific target- any target.

It makes no sense whatsoever: Using input targets to determine spending is backwards. If a funding shortfall is the issue, it would be logical to look at how much money is needed rather than how much the UK can afford to give. As the The Times notes, “the oddity of deciding how much a poor country needs from the size of a rich one on the other side of the planet.”

What’s more, as the report comprehensively explains, the 0.7% target itself  was formulated as a lobbying tool almost half a century ago using now discredited methodology. The same method with today’s figures shows a capital “need” far below current UK spending on aid. And this highlights another problem with using targets- the developing world is always changing. Since this target was first proposed India and China have pulled half a billion people out of poverty, the economic landscape of the ex-Soviet republics has changed beyond recognition and Geldof has had at least one hair cut. Fixing aid spending denies the reality that people can, and do, pull themselves out of poverty and away from aid dependence.

Unfortunately it looks as though all three parties have neglected to scrutinise this particular lobbying tool, touted by that bellwether of bad ideas- Bono, and have blindly agreed to fix to an arbitrary target. At least one of them should know better.

Tags: Aid, Bono, David Cameron, development, Gordon Brown, Leadership debate, Nick Clegg, targets