I have been wondering , since Huhne got so close with his leftish agenda , just how Nick Clegg was going to lead his party. His speech attempted the tricky manoeuvre of trying to appear decisive when he is in no position to be anything of the sort “ Freedom choice ,diversity , he said , these are Liberal words lets take them back “.
Having said that he also said , “ The state must intervene to allocate money on a fair basis in our health and education systems “. this sounds faintly redistributive but chew on it and the texture is blancmange . Lo speaketh he more, in riddles “ We would never advocate change for the sake of it …” but he also says” but neither should we defenders of the status quo .” Does any one , and I mean anyone ,have the slightest idea what this means ?.
He attempts to say he is different to David Cameron..” They claim to care for poor people but their only spending commitment is a tax cut for the richest people in the country” This would be the tax cut so popular that Labour were obliged to rush out a copy and which persuaded the Liberal that they had to stop drifting further left even if no one did take them seriously . He also objects to the Conservative suggestion that the tax system might stop actually discriminating against married couples “ They want to use the tax system to make moral judgments about whether people are married or not “ So he does not support marriage .
Nick Clegg `s suggestion of attenuated academies still run by the local authority but a bit less so is feeble stuff. The educational establishment own the Liberal party and the status quo will move not a millimetre thanks to them .To summarise the thrust is this .They will be tax neutral which means nothing but by Liberal standards is an explosion of sense. They are however different to the Conservative because they care about poor people and don’t like marriage . There was a little window dressing about local involvement but it was really dragging the Party after the Conservatives on “How” with a bit of guff about caring thrown in. I found it a dishonest speech he was trying to suggest that you can have redistribution without coercion and you can’t. he was trying to suggest you can have greater efficiency and total equality of result and you cannot . He was trying to pretend the Liberals do not love bossing us around when they do. It has a deep incoherence and was an arse splitting feat of sitting on the fence
Never forget the objective , which is to cut into the Conservative vote so they can do a deal with Brown for PR and establish a left centre progressive dictatorship. A vote Liberal is not only a vote Brown but a vote for eternal Brown. A Trojan horses go it looked a bit suspicious to let into Troy and we must sound the alarm.