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

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As