Skip to main content

Farage bests Clegg in TV debate

What surprised me about the Nigel Farage - Nick Clegg debate was that Clegg made no real attempt to extol the positives of EU membership. His arguments were defensive not of our EU membership but of his own position. They were also negative rather than positive.

What is odd about the outcome is that Clegg's opening statement was good. In my view better than Farage. Clegg was being positive, but then it all changed.

Clegg attacked Nigel Farage, trying to ridicule his opponent instead of countering Farage's arguments. Clegg missed the opportunity to say why the Liberal Party supports membership of the EU. It was a missed opportunity.

Clegg spent several minutes not arguing about the EU but about Syria! It was a side issue. The debate Mr Clegg was about the EU! A wasted opportunity.

It is therefore no surprise that Nigel Farage came out on top. Even the Liberal spin doctors found it difficult to spin a win for their man. In short, Farage wiped the floor with Mr Clegg and got away with calling Mr Clegg a liar. The reason he got away with that is because Mr Clegg also took the decision to attack Mr Farage. He should have dealt with the issues - he didn't and Farage came out on top.

Debating with Farage was always something of a gamble. It was a gamble and Clegg lost. You cannot debate facts with a man who appeals to gut instinct - and you can't do it by underestimating your opponent. Ridiculing Farage is to ridicule many voters who agree with the main thrust of his argument. It is the classic mistake. Mr Clegg for all his skill was simply angry. His undoubted skill in debate deserted him. He floundered. It was not a pretty site.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba