When is a cut not a cut?

Richard Robinson‘s Speech Bubble

Love ’em or hate ’em, the Liberal Democrats always try their best. Historically, of course, they’ve tried their best to “differentiate themselves”. Remember, for example, Paddy Ashdown and his “equidistance”? Before the 1997 General Election he dropped this equidistance between Labour and the Conservatives. He made it abundantly clear then in the run-up to the election that the Lib Dems would support Labour in the event of a hung parliament.

But fast forward 14 years to Nick Clegg. At a Reuters Newsmaker event in London on Monday Clegg’s latest attempts to differentiate his party seem to have hit the buffers, and resoundingly so.

When asked about the possibility of a hung parliament should Labour lose its majority and the Conservatives can’t form a government alone, he rather blithely replied that he “could not predict the future” and only committed to outlining the core values his party would retain in any situation. This hardly seems a robust statement from the leader of a major party, seeking to stamp his authority from the outset of a general election campaign.

What’s more, he confessed openly that his party had to “shelve” long-standing commitments to a number of cherished liberal polices such as extending free childcare, and free personal care for the elderly. In addition, plans for a citizen’s pension would have to be “put on hold” and tuition fees ended over six years.

So where do we search now for those “radical” Liberal trademark policies? In a move that seems certain to earn the wrath of the City, Clegg signalled his intention to break up investment banks, as well as a new tax to cover the implicit government guarantee on large financial institutions and the closure of tax loopholes for the richest.

While we can all applaud those aspirations, it all remains rather trite. Clegg’s focus appears now to centre on downgrading key commitments, whilst looking vainly for a few headlines to grab with poorly thought-out soundbites. It’s all rather incoherent; a scatter gun approach, with little that will resonate with the public at large.

It is admittedly easy to dismiss the Liberals, as they are unlikely ever to be a party of government. That does not mean, however, that their policies should be free from scrutiny. So we should be acutely aware of bold statements such as those Clegg made yesterday, in which he proclaimed “the age of universal banking has to come to an end”.

That, of course, would be another story.