Can Nick Clegg redeem himself?

Yes – Sam Horti

It seems that the public have decided, almost unanimously, that Nick Clegg is a “sell-out” who has betrayed Liberal Democrat voters. Most of the contempt felt towards the Deputy Prime Minister seems to stem from the Coalition’s tuition fees policy, which will come into effect in September 2012.

As we all know, the abolition of tuition fees was an important component of the Lib Dem’s manifesto before the 2010 general election, and there is no doubt the promises they made attracted many young voters. These promises have not come to fruition. I believe, however, that labelling Nick Clegg as some sort of traitor is both naïve and reactionary.

It is clear to me that the Lib Dems played very little part in deciding tuition fee policy. We are talking about a coalition in which Conservatives outnumber Lib Dems six to one in both the cabinet and the House of Commons. We cannot seriously think that this idea is anything other than Conservative–driven, or that scrapping tuition fees was ever on the table. Any attempt at implementing the Lib Dem manifesto on the matter would have been quashed at an early stage – which is fair enough. After all, the Conservatives received the highest number of votes, so it seems right that they decide policy. To say that the fact that tuition fees were not abolished shows that Nick Clegg cannot be trusted grossly overestimates his influence. This is not a 50/50 coalition, far from it. This is a government run by David Cameron, who occasionally tosses his deputy a political bone to keep him on side.

Despite this, some people will still ask “Why didn’t Nick Clegg fight harder for his cause?” I feel this type of question makes wholly unreasonable demands of the Lib Dem leader. Early in the coalition, questions about the stability of the government were rife, and the coalition was desperately clinging on to any sense of togetherness it could muster. Was Nick Clegg really going to publicly distance himself from the Conservatives to fight a battle he was doomed to lose? It may have placated some of his supporters, but in turn it would have given the public an insight into the lack of cohesion between the two parties.

It appears to me that the general failure to understand the Government’s policy on tuition fees has further fanned the flames of the dislike for Nick Clegg. I wish that people would read the fine print, which itself is very easily obtained. Of course, if they did care to do more than a moment of research on the matter they would no doubt concede that this policy, given the economic landscape, is entirely acceptable.

It is, as the Government constantly tells us, a “fair” system, in which the poorest third of young people pay less, offset by those earning high salaries. Students only pay when they earn over £21,000/annum, up from the previous figure of £15,000/annum. If people read the facts and thought objectively, there would no doubt be a lot less animosity on the matter.

Not only do I say that the general feeling towards Nick Clegg is unfounded, I say that we should be thankful for the selfless act the Lib Dems have committed. They went into the coalition knowing they would have to concede ground on every front, and that this, inevitably, would cost them votes. However, without them we would not have a stable government.

I would ask those who are so quick to belittle Clegg to make a choice in their own minds. They can either have a Liberal Democrat leader who fulfills their own personal desires by attempting to force his manifesto upon David Cameron, or a stable government in which Nick Clegg conducts himself with subtlety. I would say that anyone who prefers the first option is being a little selfish. On the issue of tuition fees, they were simply outranked. I cannot see how Nick Clegg can be to blame for going back on his word when his influence on the matter was next to nothing. Unfortunately, as long as Nick Clegg’s input stays, as it must do, out of the public eye, his integrity will continue to be doubted.

No – Tim Arbabzadah

So, I am here to argue about why Nick Clegg is a turbo douchebag. Typical student gripes about tuition fees, broken pledges, blah blah blah. I will address that very quickly right now. He said, during the tuition fee row, that he regretted making the pledge saying “I should have been more careful.” Making it sound as if it is something he did on a drunken night out and woke up hoping it was just a dream. Yeah, but that is just the tip of the arsehole-iceberg.

Delving a little deeper we find more examples of general butt-wipery. One prime example is the shamefully poor attempts to justify abandoning policies that he previously said that he believed in. For example, he said that he changed his mind about the cuts. Not after the election, but actually before the election. When asked if he had changed his mind during the coalition talks he said “I changed my mind earlier than that.” This instead of telling the truth, which would have been less impressive, and would have consisted of “I had absolutely zero say, but now have to pretend I agree with the cuts.” I mean to be fair to him, it is not as though he had any TV debates or other opportunities to inform the public, or indeed his own party, on a crucial U-turn on policy.

Please do not think I fail to understand that the pro-Clegg argument is in a nut shell: He is doing what he has to do to try and do the best for this country, this is the best way he can actually have some power and influence etc (cue: power ballad with picture of him shirtless, hair blowing in the wind). The trouble is he is intelligent enough to know that this is not true, as he is not really doing anything at the moment. He got a referendum on AV, which was never really what the Liberal Democrats wanted, they have been talking about PR for years. Apart from that, it is hard to see any of the major Lib Dem policies being acted upon. He is essentially starring in a play as Tony Blair opposite Cameron’s George Bush (1* - terrible acting, impeccable stage management and makeup though).

Yeah, the Liberal Democrats are “in power”, but that means nothing if all you get is a few people with some meaningless titles. Being “in power” for the sake of it is pointless, unless you use it to do some good. For example: If I were Dmitry Medvedev, which I will be the first to admit that I am not, I would be the President of Russia. However, Putin would be the one making all the choices. What would I have except for a title in front of my name?

He had other options to get real influence. He could have told Cameron to form a minority government and that, while he would not have destabilised the government by constantly voting everything down, they would have to moderate their policies to get him on side. This would give him an incredible amount of power and say in policy discussions. It would not have given him a cool title though, or the ability to go and do things like addressing the UN, and networking with people who now know who the **** you are. He had a choice between power and a title. He chose the latter over the former, and is continuing to choose it.

He currently has the option to just say no, and that way he will be actually voting something down in parliament. However, this could destabilise the very position that he needs to use to get his policies through.

Oh, it all makes sense now. He is unable to influence policy. If he did he would lose the position that enables him to influence policy, thus stopping him being able to influence policy. It is a vicious cycle. So he is staying quiet and toe-ing the line, and using Vince Cable as a human announcement shield.

I like thinking the best of people, so I will just hope he is naïve and thought he could really do something in his position. I will give him another chance with the NHS reforms, as maybe he will stand up, find his conscience, and realise it is not needed or wanted. More likely he will not and my prize will be a crushing sense of the injustice in the world. Yey me.