Olly Kendall gets it wrong
I haven’t seen anyone else comment on this article, ‘The Lib Dems: trying to do too much?‘, by former Charles Kennedy staffer Olly Kendall from Comment is free on Sunday. So I will.
Kendall argues that given current circumstances Nick Clegg and the Party have a difficult task ahead in balancing being seen as a radical voice on civil liberties with the need to appear serious and credible in terms of the economy. We need to reconcile what he calls the “radicalism-versus-responsibility agenda” and find ways to communicate it that do not put off potential voters. He says;
“Taking radical and distinctive policy positions and finding neat, edgy ways to communicate them should be applauded, but this is a time when the party desperately needs to be seen as responsible and competent on economic issues.”
I’m sorry, but in my view, he couldn’t be more wrong.
So often the outcome we get when those who call for the Liberal Democrats to “be responsible” get their way is that we end up saying nothing of any interest. In our two party system being responsible almost inevitably ends up with us being ignored.
We need to be as radical on the economy as we are on civil liberties, energy policy, environmentalism or anything else. As economic issues become more and more central to the concerns of voters we need to establish economic policies that are distinctive and contrast with the consensus held by the other two main parties. Yes, this means taking some risks and will result in us being called “irresponsible” by commentators and opponents, but it needs to be done if we are to set the agenda.
It wasn’t long ago that Vince Cable was being accused of irresponsibility for arguing for the nationalisation of Northern Rock. Do we think he should have listened and dropped that policy?
We don’t need to be “responsible” – we need to be liberal and we need to be right.
This content was originally posted on my old Process Guy blog.
8 Comments
·
No, I agree with Kendall (who’s a woman, by the way).
We have too many policies and we are trying to do too much. We need a simple, dumbed down message very much in the style of the recent excellent Make It Happen document.
The only way peop[le will listen to us is if they notice us in the first place. We basically have a selling job, not a persuasion job.
·
Yikes! Olly Grendell, as regularly featured on Newsnight, is a woman, Olly Kendall is clearly male from his picture.
They always told me to check my sourcfes before going into print…
·
I don’t know if Kendall is a man or a woman but s/he is very popular with hikers.
·
Don’t know who Olly Grendell is, but Olly Grender, who regularly appears on Newsnight, is a woman. And a former radical Kingston Young Liberal – I am sure she would agree with Andy.
So you should have checked your sources… again.
Last time I saw Olly Kendall he didn’t seem to have had a sex change. But whatever sex he is, he is wrong, and actually Wit and Wisdom you aren’t arguing
·
Duncan – thanks for backing me up on my gender 🙂 I think I’m inadvertantly developing a post-op online alter ego.
i agree that the claim to genuine policy innovation, nay radicalism, is one of (and rightly) our defining political USPs (horrid phrase, sorry).I just think there is a comms job to do to ensure that voters are clear about these two distinct strands. if there is any
·
Thanks all for the comments – I hope all gender confusion is now clarified.
Olly – I wouldn’t want to argue that we appear irresponsible or dangerous on the economy, credibility is enormously important, I just find that when we worry about being responsible we tend to end up being boring!
·
Well I had also commented on the article. With David Cameron promising to spend exactly the same amount of money as Labour, there is plenty of scope for responsible radicalism.
http://peterwelcheastern.blogspot.com/2008/09/lower-taxes-and-no-new-initiatives.html
·
I agree that we need a simple and convincing message.
But I don’t agree that there is any incompatibility between being pro civil liberties and ‘responsible’ on the economy.