I declare, Duncan, that I am Huhne supporter and if you want something really positive about Clegg written by me, I commend you to this.
Danny Finkelstein in the Times, observes Nick Clegg's performance in the furnace of the leadership campaign:
Yes, er well no, hang on, or, sorry.” Thus Nick Clegg under a little light questioning on television a few days back, moments after he started an answer with the fateful words: “Let me be very clear...”
Now, “Yes, er well no, hang on, or, sorry” may not up there with “Time for a Change” or “Labour isn't Working” but I think it might make a rather good slogan for Mr Clegg's leadership campaign. Certainly it would be a pretty good summary of what we have seen so far.
UPDATE: I apologise that, due to rushing this post as I was about to leave for work, I quoted the personal bit of DaFink's article without alluding to the bulk of the article which referred to criticism of Nick being too timid in policy terms during the campaign and the need to challenge the party to move to get a mandate to change. I am sorry about this. There are indeed such criticisms in the full article linked above.
Posts
11 comments:
Whoa,
Right back there with the negativity Paul eh? Strange particularly after such a strong performance by Nick on Newsnight last night and Chris having made such a point of laying off the personal attacks.
They are both very effective communicators they've each now won a debate each ( I leave Sunday's messy implosion aside) - so perhaps now we can have a debate on their different policy priorities and approaches rather than attacking them personally?
Danny Finkelstein - ex-Owenite and now fully paid-up apologist for the Cameroons - is a very unreliable witness for true radicals. What he does confirm, however, is that the Tories in Westminster are clearly scared stiff by the prospect of the Lib Dems lead by Nick Clegg.
While I doubt very much that anyone is that frightened of Nick, who still looks very much a work in progress, I will admit - as a declared Huhne supporter - that Nick was much the more appealing of the two on Newsnight last night. For once we saw a bit of that star quality which had been sadly lacking hitherto - while Chris seemed badly off form. When Nick manages the better exposition of green tax policy, which is Chris's baby, something seems a bit cock-eyed. That said, I am still convinced Chris Huhne has the better chance of making the Liberal Democrats a party that cannot be ignored. (Of course I would have had Huhne last time, when Nick was being active lieutenant on the Ming campaign - a political misjudgement I find hard to forgive).
I'm not sure that William Hague's former chief policy adviser is the best person to be taking advice from...
Finkelstein's article suggests the Great Right Hope has failed to live up to the expectations of his press backers by neither giving voice to the right-wing economics that obsesses them, nor by being the great communicator he was held up to be.
I fully agree with Paul Tyler. Danny Finkelstein is one of those sneering commentators who never shies away from digging the knife into us so his views are worth as much as the government's reputation for data handling.
That said, Nick can be a bit bumbling and really needs to sort this out, although Paxman didn't manage to land a single blow, which surprised me.
By contrast with Nick's relaxed, if not by any measure perfect performance, the nasty side of Calamity Chris comes out more with every performance. He's a busted flush and he's going nowhere.
Bullseye - also known as Charles Anglin, complete, no doubt, with violin case,
I wasn't being personal. I didn't say Clegg has BO or bad breath or make comments about his mother, and nor does the DaFink. I have simply linked to a Times acticle which will be read by about a million people as opposed to my blog which is read by about a hundred people. The article itself is a valid deconstruction of all the things we have been told Clegg is good at.
"Danny Finkelstein - ex-Owenite and now fully paid-up apologist for the Cameroons - is a very unreliable witness for true radicals. What he does confirm, however, is that the Tories in Westminster are clearly scared stiff by the prospect of the Lib Dems lead by Nick Clegg."
It is an honour to have you commenting on my blog Paul. A fellow Cornishman. Surely a substanmtial part of the article is about Clegg's skills - what have you to say about those criticisms? His performances on television which Finkelstein sees as nervy and hesitant? His readiness to lose his cool under pressure? His inability to set out a simple policy platform in one shot?
What do you say about that Paul?
Are you saying that Daniel Finkelstein is a Conservative politician? He is a writer and surely, as such, his priority is to write things which are backed up in logic and valid observation which will impress his readers and editor?
Paul,
I realise that its was a quote from Finkelstein's article - but what is depressing is that the bit that you've cut & pasted is the personal criticism.
Apart from this obligatory knockabout Finkelstein's piece is a serious criticism that Nick has been far too timid in policy terms during this campaign and needs to challenge the party move to get a mandate for change. that's something I've echoed, admittedly in rather more muted terms, in my own blog.
In yur reply to Paul Taylor you refer to the substantial part of the article, just a pity that you chose to quote the insubstantial bit.
Bullseye, who is indeed aka Charles Anglin
Paul,
Thanks for amending the post
Charles
Paul,
Thanks for amending the post.
Charles
Post a Comment