The Lib Dems created many of their own problems, but still deserve more credit

James Kirkup

Admittedly it won’t be hard, but history will eventually judge Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats much more kindly than the British electorate have done this week. That’s not because of the things the party did in government, though some of those things do deserve more credit. It’s the simple fact that they went into government and stayed there for a full five years, confounding Conservative fears that they would run at the first whiff of gunpowder. Instead, they stood firm to the very bitter end.

In a cynical age, a lot of people think politicians are entirely self-serving, creatures who just do things to win votes, score points and advance their own careers. The Lib Dem decision to go into government in 2010 is at least a partial challenge to that notion. Yes, the Lib Dems were rewarded for that decision, enjoying ministerial careers many had never even dared to dream of. But they paid a terrible price for it and many knew they would too. They hoped to be thanked for the Coalition’s successes, but feared being punished for its shortcomings. They didn’t stay just for ministerial red box and a chauffeur-driven car; only a few Lib Dems actually got ministerial jobs. Yet even the grassroots activists far removed from the centre of power stuck resolutely with the coalition, believing to doing so was in the interests of people other than themselves.

The resilience the Lib Dems showed in remaining part of the coalition is a facet of the last government that was never properly understood beyond a few small political circles. Even as their poll numbers went into freefall, the Lib Dems resisted every temptation to uncouple themselves from the Conservatives. Even Tories who felt no love for their coalition partners were frequently surprised by the smaller party’s willingness to endure political torment in order to keep the government together. For all the venom that eventually seeped into the relationship between the two parties towards the end, the two sides never stopped respecting each other. George Osborne and Danny Alexander spent the general election campaign exchanging personal abuse and betraying confidences, but Mr Osborne’s statement of regret that his deputy had lost his Commons seat was genuine: the two men worked well together as colleagues. Most agreed that the Treasury was the department where the coalition worked best.

A word here must surely be said for Mr Clegg himself. Few politicians have endured the level of opprobrium and personal abuse that the former deputy prime minister did. The sadness of that experience is now visibly etched on his face. But equally obvious is the pride he still feels at his role in the last government. The sadness and the pride met yesterday in his resignation statement. Some friends even suggest that the tribulations of office have made Mr Clegg a better person, more humble, self-aware and self-deprecating.

The last government comprised parties who had received the votes of more than 55 per cent of the electorate. The Lib Dems did not just bring stability to the last government. They brought legitimacy, all the more important for governing at a time of genuine economic and financial uncertainty.

Consider the counterfactual, the “what if” question of the 2010 general election: what would have happened if – as they so easily could have done – the Lib Dems had chosen the purity of opposition to the compromises of power in 2010? David Cameron might have managed a minority government for a short time, then perhaps collapsed into a second election. Lib Dem claims that Britain could have followed Greece into full-blown fiscal disaster are overblown – Britain simply is not Greece – but panic in the bond markets was not out of the question, with all that that would have meant for interest rates, growth, unemployment and the rest. That risk was averted largely because of the support the Lib Dems provided to the government.

And now the voters have punished the party, and punished it harshly. Some of that is down to Lib Dem errors: the party’s tuition fees pledge deserves its place in infamy because many of those politicians who made the promise knew it was a harmful and impractical policy but did it anyway, because they wanted votes. Such cynicism deserves chastisement. Latterly, the party’s entire message to voters was hopelessly confused. The party wanted the credit for the coalition’s victories, while disowning its failures. This silliness descended into pantomime last year when Mr Clegg refused to be in the Commons when George Osborne delivered an Autumn Statement on the economy that Mr Clegg had signed off. Voters are not stupid. They know when politicians try to have their cake and eat it too. They were rightly unimpressed.

But do those vices outweigh the virtues of that original decision five years ago? For now, voters believe so. In years to come, the balance of credit and criticism may just tip back in the Lib Dems’ favour – even if that reassessment will come far too late for Mr Clegg and his colleagues whose careers now lie in ruins1.

The Daily Telegraph,8 May 2015

Task 33. Answer the questions.

1. Why does the journalist claim that “history will eventually judge Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats much more kindly than the British electorate” did on May 8, 2015?

2. Why did the Liberal Democrats go into coalition in May 2010? Why did the party stay loal to that idea to the very end?

3. The author suggests, that “even as their poll numbers went into freefall, the Lib Dems resisted every temptation to uncouple themselves from the Conservatives” Why?

4. In what govenrment department the two parties worked best?

5. What did the coalition government save the country from?

6. Why did the voters punish the Liberal Democrats in May 2015?

7. Does the author of Article C (Unit 1, Task 4) Never mind Labour, where do the Liberal Democrats go from here? share the idea of article above? Put forward your arguments.

Task 32. Watch Video 13.9, determine its genre and idea. Answer the following questions.

1. What city is the journalist reporting from?

2. What is the city famous for?

3. What does the screen graph “Europe: In or Out?” in the clip mean? What event is to be discussed?

4. Put down the sentence the journalist opens up his report with.

5. What numbers are featured in the crawler as soon as the reporter starts talking?

Task 44. Revise the words and word combinations. Get ready for a quiz.

1) leadership challenge; 2) to cling on to the leadership; 3) Cabinet reshuffle 4) to put a brave face on something; 5) to take sth into account; 6) to step down (to resign); 7) to go to the polls; 8) the election turn out; 9) to be held (in March) 10) landslide; 11) sole searching; 12) to give somebody a kicking; 13) a laughing stock; 14) PM’s successor; 15) to turn one’s back on; 16) to inflict maximum damage on; 17) a key moment in something; 18) a share of the vote; 19) to confound; 20) to win an outright majority; 21) a pollster; 22) to deliver on one’s campaign promises; 23) to tip the balance; 24) the autumn party conference; 25) left of the centre party; 26) to be swept back to power with a majority; 27) in full swing; 28) defeat; 29) the window of opportunity; 30) the centre ground of politics; 31) to shore up; 32) to be far below polling expectations; 33) popular vote; 34) leadership contest; 35) to ram / drive the message home; 36) to plunge; 37) to stomach something; 38) poll numbers went into a freefall; 39) legitimacy; 40) financial uncertainty; 41) a full-blown disaster; 42) to avert the risk; 43) the Lib Dems’ tuition fees pledge; 44) to lie in ruins; 45) in-out referendum.

TEST 3

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14