Saturday, 27 October 2007

Clegg, but with a heavy heart

I'm going with the general consensus (not often you'll hear me say that!). I'll be voting for Nick Clegg, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Clegg is the better presenter, and that's what counts. I am far from convinced that Chris Huhne, whilst holding policy positions closer to my heart all round, will be the best person to raise the public profile and standing of the party.


Jock Coats said...

I don't understand this focus on "presentation". We had our best results so far with someone who, let's face it, was better at the cosy chat by the fireplace than the rally podium, Charles Kennedy.

One issue I have with good presenters is that they tend to like to be prepared and therfore can waste time getting prepared when actually what we want is an incisive debater who can pull arguments out of his head just like that. And in the area that's going to mater most, economics, I think that's more likely to be the other bloke, personally.

sanbikinoraion said...

But I think presentation is about doing stuff like "chat show Charlie" (and I know he hates that nickname) did - humanizing the party for the general audience. And to date I am more convinced that Nick Clegg is better at this than Huhne - mostly because I identify with Huhne a lot better myself as the maverick that no-one wants to agree with, but who generally says sensible (if taboo) things. Like I say - Clegg seems better to me at pushing the liberal agenda, whereas Huhne understands better what the liberal agenda *should be*.

I agree that Huhne is better at the economics, but that doesn't matter a damn if you can't win the seats and hold the current government to account.

(I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one, or perhaps we have different focusses - I am, well not happy, but okay with compromising my ideals to get some of what I want, whereas you seem more focussed on getting the policy right - and that's entirely admirable!

But I do worry about our electabililty without a charismatic leader. If the alternatives are a decade in the wilderness with the right leader versus a decade in with a chance with the wrong leader, I'd rather pick the latter, and I think that that is roughly the choice that is being offered.

Of course I reserve the right to change my opinion based on further evidence!

Mark Wadsworth said...

The funny thing is, one of the rules in the PPERA 2000 is that a party has to have A Leader (among other officers). So this leadership cult is something that is deeply embedded.