What do you think?
Rate this book
Politics: Between the Extremes
For decades Britain was divided between Left and Right but united in its belief in a two-party state. Now, with nationalism resurgent and mainstream parties in turmoil, stark new divisions define the country and the centre ground is deserted.
Nick Clegg witnessed this change from the inside. Here he offers a frank account of his experiences and puts the case for a new politics based on reason and compromise.
He writes candidly about the tense stand-offs within government and the decision to enter coalition with the Conservatives in the first place. He also lifts the lid on the arcane worlds of Westminster and Brussels, the vested interests that suffocate reform, as well as the achievements his party made despite them.
Whatever your political persuasion, if you wish to understand politics in Britain today you cannot afford to ignore this book.
Nick Clegg witnessed this change from the inside. Here he offers a frank account of his experiences and puts the case for a new politics based on reason and compromise.
He writes candidly about the tense stand-offs within government and the decision to enter coalition with the Conservatives in the first place. He also lifts the lid on the arcane worlds of Westminster and Brussels, the vested interests that suffocate reform, as well as the achievements his party made despite them.
Whatever your political persuasion, if you wish to understand politics in Britain today you cannot afford to ignore this book.
262 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 15, 2016
67 people are currently reading
701 people want to read
About the author
Nick Clegg
19 books18 followersNick Clegg is the former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He was also Leader of the Liberal Democrats 2007-2015, Member of Parliament for Sheffield Hallam 2005-2017 and Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands 1999-2004.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 102 reviews
August 13, 2021
"They celebrate the constraints that markets impose on sovereignty of governments and politicians ...
Yet this is the same party that then goes berserk if Britain is outvoted in the EU Council of Ministers on technical amendments to the third widget directive."
Nick Clegg on the internal Conservative Party contradictions that led to the Brexit referendum
Nick Clegg's Politics is well written enjoyable, and persuasive in defending his record in office, but ultimately a little frustrating.
He avoids the trap of most quickly written political memoirs: he largely omits blow-by-blow minutae of behind the scenes battles and policy debates that are of little interest to those not involved.
Instead he focuses on the wider lessons learned from his time in office. Indeed, that the public are uninterested in all but key snapshots ("the zoetrope" as he calls it) of political life a key learning one.
The frustration is that while he poses many big questions, he has no really compelling answers.
Clegg provides a convincing defence of his entering into Coalition in the first place, and rather less successfully, of his success in office.
As well as an important reminder of the circumstances at the time (there was no viable centre-left alternative, Britain's economic position was precarious and a stable Government was important), he correctly points out that the compromises of power are a necessary responsibility (he gives us a wonderful Dutch phrase for it - to be a "Burgemeester in oorlog"):
"If, by shunning power, you let your opponents simply occupy power in your place, then you let down the very values that reformist parties believe in."
He takes us on a useful tour of similar parties across Europe, but reaches a rather gloomy conclusion about the fate of the minority party, particularly a reformist one, in a coalition, taking the Dutch D66 as a prime case: "they seem to govern, but do so knowing that coalition is followed by decline, opposition followed by resurgence."
He is right to identity a number of areas where the Liberal Democrats made a real difference, but they don't add up to a coherent narrative. As he himself acknowledges:
"Successful politicians tell compelling stories that encourage people to follow them on a journey. Unfortunately, I soon lost any real control over the story I was seeking to tell."
Ultimately, the Lib Dems were associated with three key stories:
1. Constitutional reform, particularly of the electoral system, the Lib Dems red line on any coalition deal, yet where they least delivered. More time could have been spent discussing how they managed to lose the referendum on AV (not even their preferred system).
2. Tuition fees, where the issue, as Clegg argues, was more the unnecessary pre-election pledge than the policy.
3. Raising the personal allowance, the one big success, but where their coalition partners managed to take much of the credit.
The common thread to all three is being outmanoeuvred by a ruthless Tory party, particularly George Osborne, who indeed comes across as so politically successful it makes one wonder how he managed to lose the most important battle of all in June 2016.
Clegg also makes a very strong case for liberalism and rationale moderation in politics. He argues:
"There are millions of British citizens who are searching for moderation against the extremes, who want evidence and not prejudice to govern decisions, who understand that in a complex world the politics of give-and-take has its place."
And he neatly dissects populism (ranging from the far-right, through the Celtic nationalist to the Corbynist wing of the Labour party) as relying "on three pernicious assertions":
"First it seems to apportion blame for people's frustrations to another group, nation or community.
Second, populists all claim that we must return to a mythical past of simpler truths and happier times.
Third, populists claim that complex problems can be solved by simple, invariably divisive, solutions."
The problem however is that today's electorate appear in no mood for a more reasoned approach. We have entered an era of "expressive individualism" (David Brooks), the "Age of Exhaustion" (Joshua Mitchell), and one Clegg himself describes as "The Age of Unreason" ("reason is underpinned by doubt and open enquiry - both of which are shunned by populist politics").
He diagnoses the root of the problem, with some justification, as being rooted in the uneven sharing of the post crisis gains and losses.
But the policy prescriptions with which he ends the book are somewhat anaemic, as well as inconsistent with much of his record in office:
1. "A rewired economy". This involves "an aggressive, publicly funded and publicly direct house-building programme", and reforms to the creation of credit as suggested by Adair Turner. This ultimately doesn't sound too different to parts of the Corbyn/Mc Donnell agenda (minus the punative aspects) and could represent a basis for a new centre-left consensus.
2. A new bargain between the young and the old. This would involve ending the Triple Lock, "pioneered and put in place by the Liberal Democrats", and addressing tuition fees, and seems both at odds with his record in office, as well as electorally difficult given the turnout rate of different age groups.
3. Least convincingly, "a reassertion of liberal patriotism", which seems key to his vision but very ill-defined.
One is still left in search of the compelling narrative that glues this together. Perhaps it is the fate of liberal, rational, centrist politics that there isn't one.
As a final thought of my own, the Lib Dems biggest success over the years has been their ruthless by- and local- election. A key part of this, as Clegg explains is that "for decades, Liberal Democrat leaflets have featured bar-charts demonstrating to voters that their preferred party cannot possibly win."
But Clegg fails to see one key point. These bar charts are infamous. The underlying message - the Lib Dems are the only avenue for change - may be valid, but the charts rely on cherry-picking electoral results and highly distorted scales. So it turns out Liberal Democrats can successfully borrow some of the tools (if not the goals) of populists to support a narrative, they just need to do the same to deliver their policies.
Yet this is the same party that then goes berserk if Britain is outvoted in the EU Council of Ministers on technical amendments to the third widget directive."
Nick Clegg on the internal Conservative Party contradictions that led to the Brexit referendum
Nick Clegg's Politics is well written enjoyable, and persuasive in defending his record in office, but ultimately a little frustrating.
He avoids the trap of most quickly written political memoirs: he largely omits blow-by-blow minutae of behind the scenes battles and policy debates that are of little interest to those not involved.
Instead he focuses on the wider lessons learned from his time in office. Indeed, that the public are uninterested in all but key snapshots ("the zoetrope" as he calls it) of political life a key learning one.
The frustration is that while he poses many big questions, he has no really compelling answers.
Clegg provides a convincing defence of his entering into Coalition in the first place, and rather less successfully, of his success in office.
As well as an important reminder of the circumstances at the time (there was no viable centre-left alternative, Britain's economic position was precarious and a stable Government was important), he correctly points out that the compromises of power are a necessary responsibility (he gives us a wonderful Dutch phrase for it - to be a "Burgemeester in oorlog"):
"If, by shunning power, you let your opponents simply occupy power in your place, then you let down the very values that reformist parties believe in."
He takes us on a useful tour of similar parties across Europe, but reaches a rather gloomy conclusion about the fate of the minority party, particularly a reformist one, in a coalition, taking the Dutch D66 as a prime case: "they seem to govern, but do so knowing that coalition is followed by decline, opposition followed by resurgence."
He is right to identity a number of areas where the Liberal Democrats made a real difference, but they don't add up to a coherent narrative. As he himself acknowledges:
"Successful politicians tell compelling stories that encourage people to follow them on a journey. Unfortunately, I soon lost any real control over the story I was seeking to tell."
Ultimately, the Lib Dems were associated with three key stories:
1. Constitutional reform, particularly of the electoral system, the Lib Dems red line on any coalition deal, yet where they least delivered. More time could have been spent discussing how they managed to lose the referendum on AV (not even their preferred system).
2. Tuition fees, where the issue, as Clegg argues, was more the unnecessary pre-election pledge than the policy.
3. Raising the personal allowance, the one big success, but where their coalition partners managed to take much of the credit.
The common thread to all three is being outmanoeuvred by a ruthless Tory party, particularly George Osborne, who indeed comes across as so politically successful it makes one wonder how he managed to lose the most important battle of all in June 2016.
Clegg also makes a very strong case for liberalism and rationale moderation in politics. He argues:
"There are millions of British citizens who are searching for moderation against the extremes, who want evidence and not prejudice to govern decisions, who understand that in a complex world the politics of give-and-take has its place."
And he neatly dissects populism (ranging from the far-right, through the Celtic nationalist to the Corbynist wing of the Labour party) as relying "on three pernicious assertions":
"First it seems to apportion blame for people's frustrations to another group, nation or community.
Second, populists all claim that we must return to a mythical past of simpler truths and happier times.
Third, populists claim that complex problems can be solved by simple, invariably divisive, solutions."
The problem however is that today's electorate appear in no mood for a more reasoned approach. We have entered an era of "expressive individualism" (David Brooks), the "Age of Exhaustion" (Joshua Mitchell), and one Clegg himself describes as "The Age of Unreason" ("reason is underpinned by doubt and open enquiry - both of which are shunned by populist politics").
He diagnoses the root of the problem, with some justification, as being rooted in the uneven sharing of the post crisis gains and losses.
But the policy prescriptions with which he ends the book are somewhat anaemic, as well as inconsistent with much of his record in office:
1. "A rewired economy". This involves "an aggressive, publicly funded and publicly direct house-building programme", and reforms to the creation of credit as suggested by Adair Turner. This ultimately doesn't sound too different to parts of the Corbyn/Mc Donnell agenda (minus the punative aspects) and could represent a basis for a new centre-left consensus.
2. A new bargain between the young and the old. This would involve ending the Triple Lock, "pioneered and put in place by the Liberal Democrats", and addressing tuition fees, and seems both at odds with his record in office, as well as electorally difficult given the turnout rate of different age groups.
3. Least convincingly, "a reassertion of liberal patriotism", which seems key to his vision but very ill-defined.
One is still left in search of the compelling narrative that glues this together. Perhaps it is the fate of liberal, rational, centrist politics that there isn't one.
As a final thought of my own, the Lib Dems biggest success over the years has been their ruthless by- and local- election. A key part of this, as Clegg explains is that "for decades, Liberal Democrat leaflets have featured bar-charts demonstrating to voters that their preferred party cannot possibly win."
But Clegg fails to see one key point. These bar charts are infamous. The underlying message - the Lib Dems are the only avenue for change - may be valid, but the charts rely on cherry-picking electoral results and highly distorted scales. So it turns out Liberal Democrats can successfully borrow some of the tools (if not the goals) of populists to support a narrative, they just need to do the same to deliver their policies.
February 9, 2017
Once upon a time, I was a Lib Dem voter — in fact, I was one of the values-driven, idealistic voters who chose a party based on my values instead of on political realities, like how likely they were to be able to beat Labour in my area. (Answer: they weren’t, it would’ve been impossible, and indeed the place where I grew up is still a pretty safe Labour seat.) I suppose to some extent I still am: I’m unlikely to vote for certain parties based on their stated values, even if they somehow came up with a policy I agreed with strongly (like electoral reform, perhaps). So I wanted to see what Nick Clegg had to say for himself and for his party’s time in government.
It’s pretty defensive of the Liberal Democrat position, unsurprisingly; at times slipping into self-pity, I think. Clegg vividly defends the Lib Dem policy of compromise with the Tories, and claims that he was sidelined by the Tories in order for them to present a picture of a Tory-led government. Behind the scenes, says Clegg, the Lib Dems exerted a disproportionate amount of influence. This may well be true, and it makes sense that they did compromise; idealist or not, I know that politics must involve some compromise, especially in a coalition between the left and the right. I just don’t agree with some of the compromises made.
Clegg seems naively surprised by the extent to which the heart rules the head in the public’s political decisions. He expects a liberalism based on cool reason and logic — despite the fact that his own rise was a highly emotive thing, driven by the hopes of young voters. He’s right that he should have taken more control of the political narrative and shaped it, but I don’t know to what extent that would have helped the Lib Dems in the specific situation in which they found themselves.
His personal-level musings aren’t the key feature of this book, but he does show a healthy respect for David Cameron, and a disgust for Michael Gove that warms the heart. Ultimately, of course he tries to justify what the Lib Dems achieved, or didn’t, during the coalition. But he also makes a fairly convincing case that we need more compromise, more coalitions; we need to temper the current tide of conservatism with a revitalised liberalism. I’m sure from his comments on the Labour party that he doesn’t expect to see Corbyn doing it… in fact, it’s not very clear where he does hope for it to rise from.
I suppose the only answer left is: you and me. Writing this review in advance, just days after Trump became the President-elect of the United States, I don’t know what to say. I wonder what the world will look like politically by the time this goes live!
Originally posted here.
It’s pretty defensive of the Liberal Democrat position, unsurprisingly; at times slipping into self-pity, I think. Clegg vividly defends the Lib Dem policy of compromise with the Tories, and claims that he was sidelined by the Tories in order for them to present a picture of a Tory-led government. Behind the scenes, says Clegg, the Lib Dems exerted a disproportionate amount of influence. This may well be true, and it makes sense that they did compromise; idealist or not, I know that politics must involve some compromise, especially in a coalition between the left and the right. I just don’t agree with some of the compromises made.
Clegg seems naively surprised by the extent to which the heart rules the head in the public’s political decisions. He expects a liberalism based on cool reason and logic — despite the fact that his own rise was a highly emotive thing, driven by the hopes of young voters. He’s right that he should have taken more control of the political narrative and shaped it, but I don’t know to what extent that would have helped the Lib Dems in the specific situation in which they found themselves.
His personal-level musings aren’t the key feature of this book, but he does show a healthy respect for David Cameron, and a disgust for Michael Gove that warms the heart. Ultimately, of course he tries to justify what the Lib Dems achieved, or didn’t, during the coalition. But he also makes a fairly convincing case that we need more compromise, more coalitions; we need to temper the current tide of conservatism with a revitalised liberalism. I’m sure from his comments on the Labour party that he doesn’t expect to see Corbyn doing it… in fact, it’s not very clear where he does hope for it to rise from.
I suppose the only answer left is: you and me. Writing this review in advance, just days after Trump became the President-elect of the United States, I don’t know what to say. I wonder what the world will look like politically by the time this goes live!
Originally posted here.
February 7, 2017
With its generous font size, and 264 pages, this is very much at the more readable end of the spectrum as far as political memoirs go -- and why shouldn't it be? Most intelligent people have busy lives and full-time jobs, so a sub-300-page nonfiction book can only be a good thing.
For the most part, Clegg deviates between recounting his experiences in the coalition and commenting on the general state of Western politics and international relations today. Obviously there's a lot about Europe and Brexit. One of the aspects that interested me was his critique of identity politics, although I think he could have been far more vociferous than he actually was.
There is an inconsistency in his argument, though: he talks about the establishment not being "representative" enough of Britain today. For me this is just hypocrisy -- if you think identity politics is a dangerous force then it cannot matter what gender or skin colour those in parliament are. Either, ideas are represented or something else is. You can't try and meet in the middle. This is where liberals are failing: actual liberals need to be far more no-nonsense on this front. You either want your ideas represented by politicians or you want superficial characteristics that don't matter (skin colour, gender, disability status, social background... you get the idea). You can't have both. It's literally not possible. Ideas can come from anywhere, and anyone.
An astute observation that I personally connected with a lot was the idea that nowadays one gets no rewards for being a liberal. Think about it. The Corbynite left are suspicious because you're certainly not signed up to being one of them but your average conservative knows you're not one of them either. Everyone thinks you're secretly something bad. The far-left, which is now the mainstream left, thinks you're a nasty right-winger in disguise. The actual right think you're a top-down, statist, public-sector-is-always-best, let's-open-the-borders-now socialist. Really, of course, they're all wrong.
For the most part, Clegg deviates between recounting his experiences in the coalition and commenting on the general state of Western politics and international relations today. Obviously there's a lot about Europe and Brexit. One of the aspects that interested me was his critique of identity politics, although I think he could have been far more vociferous than he actually was.
There is an inconsistency in his argument, though: he talks about the establishment not being "representative" enough of Britain today. For me this is just hypocrisy -- if you think identity politics is a dangerous force then it cannot matter what gender or skin colour those in parliament are. Either, ideas are represented or something else is. You can't try and meet in the middle. This is where liberals are failing: actual liberals need to be far more no-nonsense on this front. You either want your ideas represented by politicians or you want superficial characteristics that don't matter (skin colour, gender, disability status, social background... you get the idea). You can't have both. It's literally not possible. Ideas can come from anywhere, and anyone.
An astute observation that I personally connected with a lot was the idea that nowadays one gets no rewards for being a liberal. Think about it. The Corbynite left are suspicious because you're certainly not signed up to being one of them but your average conservative knows you're not one of them either. Everyone thinks you're secretly something bad. The far-left, which is now the mainstream left, thinks you're a nasty right-winger in disguise. The actual right think you're a top-down, statist, public-sector-is-always-best, let's-open-the-borders-now socialist. Really, of course, they're all wrong.
April 3, 2017
Described as:
• An exposé
• An appeal to reason
• A cautionary tale
• A defence of the centre-ground
• An honest account
• A call to arms
...and there lies the problem. The book, like most Liberals, is not quite sure what it's meant to be. It does have its moments but far from an essential read.
• An exposé
• An appeal to reason
• A cautionary tale
• A defence of the centre-ground
• An honest account
• A call to arms
...and there lies the problem. The book, like most Liberals, is not quite sure what it's meant to be. It does have its moments but far from an essential read.
June 29, 2024
As with almost anything written by politicians, you can't help reading with (quite a bit of) cynicism. But I actually found it quite difficult to do so here, as Clegg writes with real candour about his experiences in British politics.
The parts that were written about the coalition and explaining the choices that he and the Lib Dems made were really interesting, not least because Clegg and the Lib Dems role in coalition was vilified to the point of caricature from both left and right. Is it actually possible to emerge politically unscathed from a coalition as a junior partner? If not, is it worth the political sacrifice and compromise to enter government and try to make a difference? Fantastic questions which the book also explores with interesting international examples.
But one star does come off the review for the bits where Clegg speculates into the future. The book is very of the moment, written in 2016, but given how much has changed in the last eight years most of Clegg's projections aren't really much more than interesting insights into the political mood of 2016. To be fair, this point would have been less relevant if I read the book soon after its release.
And then another star off for selling your soul to work for Facebook. I started the review by saying I found it difficult to be cynical, but clearly on this last point that's not 100% true. Oops.
The parts that were written about the coalition and explaining the choices that he and the Lib Dems made were really interesting, not least because Clegg and the Lib Dems role in coalition was vilified to the point of caricature from both left and right. Is it actually possible to emerge politically unscathed from a coalition as a junior partner? If not, is it worth the political sacrifice and compromise to enter government and try to make a difference? Fantastic questions which the book also explores with interesting international examples.
But one star does come off the review for the bits where Clegg speculates into the future. The book is very of the moment, written in 2016, but given how much has changed in the last eight years most of Clegg's projections aren't really much more than interesting insights into the political mood of 2016. To be fair, this point would have been less relevant if I read the book soon after its release.
And then another star off for selling your soul to work for Facebook. I started the review by saying I found it difficult to be cynical, but clearly on this last point that's not 100% true. Oops.
October 16, 2016
Overall this is a thoughtful book about the state of modern politics with a lot of shrewd observations and well-made arguments. It is particularly strong in outlining the core failings of modern political, but also societal, discourse and particularly the last chapter is very good on identifying that we have, as Clegg puts it, entered an age of unreason in politics. However, I am less convinced about his argument that the age of reason will ever return - it sounded more like wishful pleading rather than the conviction that it will happen. Despite slaying into the Labour Party at various stages, I also felt that his three main issues identified in the end, economy, inequality, sense of belonginess, are precisely picked up by the Labour Party - even if they are not very successful at it. So what does differentiate the Lib Dems? lastly, if you think you get juicy details about the coalition government you will be disappointed. there is not a lot in it. and despite his appeal to reason and reflection , there is very little genuine acknowledgement that on grand decisions the Lib Dems made a mistake in the coalition.
November 9, 2023
I was not expecting to dislike this as much as I did but broadly my problem is Nick Clegg says there needs to be pluralist less tribalist approach yet talks a lot about different groups set against each other and has written most of the book using the illiberal populist language of some populist politics he says he dislikes.
February 7, 2017
While this book from former UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is not quite an autobiography, a memoir, or a political manifesto, it brings all of these aspects together to make for an insightful read.
Clegg, who led the Liberal Democrats into coalition with the Conservatives after the 2010 general election, writes in clear and logical prose -- as you would expect from a well-rounded liberal. Although this is the case, and he covers topics ranging from Brexit and the future of liberalism to how government operates and indeed how power should be reformed, at times the book reads like an apology for decisions made by the politician.
Why did Clegg go into Government with David Cameron's Conservative Party, despite concerns from voices in his own party like that of the late Charles Kennedy? What led him to support increasing tuition fees, in spite of promises not to do so during the 2010 election campaign? And how did he feel when the party lost dozens of seats in the 2015 election, being reduced down to just eight and to the opposition benches? To his enormous credit Clegg is honest in answering each of these questions, and speaks not only from experience but from the vantage point of someone who has no ulterior motives, having stepped down as Lib Dem leader in 2015.
He also doesn't puff up his achievements, though they are mentioned: increases in the tax-free personal allowance for working people, the Pupil Premium, universal free school meals, and equal marriage are all given appropriate focus and remind us of why the Lib Dems entered Government.
Clegg's reflections are genuinely interesting and retread his journey from liberal messiah to public enemy number one. He rode into Government on a wave of "Cleggmania" in 2010, but very quickly afterwards fell from grace and became a hate figure for both the Left and the Right of British politics. The political centre-ground, heavily eroded since 2015, and beaten and bruised after the EU referendum defeat earlier this year, is where he is still most comfortable and where his voice resonates. That being said, it is hard to gauge how many voters are in this niche market and what its future holds.
The politics of compromise and reason are explained in this book through one of its most famous proponents, but I am left wondering whether Clegg's passionate, pro-European views are already something of the past. However much I hope this isn't so, I couldn't help but hear a man who feels the weight of modern history on his shoulders, and is left looking back at how it all happened. This is a great shame as Clegg still has so much more to offer and should be one of the key voices in the debate on Britain's membership - and departure - from the European Union. His story isn't over yet and it would be fantastic to see him become popular once again with a recovered reputation -- something that I do see happening as so many Brits are unhappy with what seems a messy and self-destructive Brexit process.
All-in-all this is one of the most worthwhile and important political books I have read from recent years. It has a refreshing lack of vanity and the self-deprecating approach taken by the author makes him personable and even at some points very funny. Anyone who works in politics or is engaged in some way should know that this is extremely rare and therefore very welcome!
I would wholeheartedly recommend Politics: Between the Extremes to liberals and pro-Europeans, and of course to everyone with even a passing interest in public affairs.
Clegg, who led the Liberal Democrats into coalition with the Conservatives after the 2010 general election, writes in clear and logical prose -- as you would expect from a well-rounded liberal. Although this is the case, and he covers topics ranging from Brexit and the future of liberalism to how government operates and indeed how power should be reformed, at times the book reads like an apology for decisions made by the politician.
Why did Clegg go into Government with David Cameron's Conservative Party, despite concerns from voices in his own party like that of the late Charles Kennedy? What led him to support increasing tuition fees, in spite of promises not to do so during the 2010 election campaign? And how did he feel when the party lost dozens of seats in the 2015 election, being reduced down to just eight and to the opposition benches? To his enormous credit Clegg is honest in answering each of these questions, and speaks not only from experience but from the vantage point of someone who has no ulterior motives, having stepped down as Lib Dem leader in 2015.
He also doesn't puff up his achievements, though they are mentioned: increases in the tax-free personal allowance for working people, the Pupil Premium, universal free school meals, and equal marriage are all given appropriate focus and remind us of why the Lib Dems entered Government.
Clegg's reflections are genuinely interesting and retread his journey from liberal messiah to public enemy number one. He rode into Government on a wave of "Cleggmania" in 2010, but very quickly afterwards fell from grace and became a hate figure for both the Left and the Right of British politics. The political centre-ground, heavily eroded since 2015, and beaten and bruised after the EU referendum defeat earlier this year, is where he is still most comfortable and where his voice resonates. That being said, it is hard to gauge how many voters are in this niche market and what its future holds.
The politics of compromise and reason are explained in this book through one of its most famous proponents, but I am left wondering whether Clegg's passionate, pro-European views are already something of the past. However much I hope this isn't so, I couldn't help but hear a man who feels the weight of modern history on his shoulders, and is left looking back at how it all happened. This is a great shame as Clegg still has so much more to offer and should be one of the key voices in the debate on Britain's membership - and departure - from the European Union. His story isn't over yet and it would be fantastic to see him become popular once again with a recovered reputation -- something that I do see happening as so many Brits are unhappy with what seems a messy and self-destructive Brexit process.
All-in-all this is one of the most worthwhile and important political books I have read from recent years. It has a refreshing lack of vanity and the self-deprecating approach taken by the author makes him personable and even at some points very funny. Anyone who works in politics or is engaged in some way should know that this is extremely rare and therefore very welcome!
I would wholeheartedly recommend Politics: Between the Extremes to liberals and pro-Europeans, and of course to everyone with even a passing interest in public affairs.
November 24, 2023
Cleggy tells a candid account of his time in office, reflecting on his mistakes and successes. Who knows, if the Tories weren't so adept with power and plumage, the two-party state so tribal and the media so partisan, maybe the story would be different for the Lib Dems. First past the post would have been ditched and we would be living in a liberal utopia safe from the talons of populism.
Cleggy's choice of words really shines, like this: "debate not diatribe, evidence not prejudice, enquiry not dogma." His observations are direct (rough quote following)—"the challenge with the center ground is that compromise doesn't appeal to emotions the way that socialism and nationalism do".
I also like his "Age of Unreason" idea: "reason is underpinned by doubt and open enquiry—both of which are shunned by populist politics," and his mention of Joshua Thomas' ideas on "the age of exhaustion," which theorizes that people retreat from politics and institutions into a world of digital individualism and online self-exploration and hence finding ourselves becomes more important than world-building. Maybe this review backs up that theory...
Cleggy's choice of words really shines, like this: "debate not diatribe, evidence not prejudice, enquiry not dogma." His observations are direct (rough quote following)—"the challenge with the center ground is that compromise doesn't appeal to emotions the way that socialism and nationalism do".
I also like his "Age of Unreason" idea: "reason is underpinned by doubt and open enquiry—both of which are shunned by populist politics," and his mention of Joshua Thomas' ideas on "the age of exhaustion," which theorizes that people retreat from politics and institutions into a world of digital individualism and online self-exploration and hence finding ourselves becomes more important than world-building. Maybe this review backs up that theory...
February 11, 2017
Why read a book written by former Lib-Dem leader, and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, when his party have been relegated to not just an inferior but a practically inconsequential position within UK politics? With only 9 MPs in the House of Commons, and an (albeit not insignificant) support base spread out across the country in a way that stymies any further grabbing of seats (similar to the way UKIP suffers a lack of representation), the chances of any true liberal thought being developed in mainstream politics again is quite small - not least of all with the rise of populist parties.
Well ultimately, being a Lib-Dem voter in 2010 and 2015, as well as a 'Yes to AV' and 'Remain' supporter, I was looking for Clegg's reflections of his time in power, and his strategies to try and regain support across the country; the book delivered on both counts, and was readable and insightful too, without getting bogged down in the minutiae of day-to-day politics. Whether or not you agree with his assessments or plans will most likely reflect your political philosophy, but on the whole I thought Clegg was fair, balanced and thoughtful. As with his time in power, he shows himself again to be a true Internationalist, diplomat, and master of compromise.
To run through some of the ideas that were most memorable to me in the book is to, coincidentally, reflect some of Clegg's primary gripes with current politics. There's an unavoidable degree of truth in his assertion that politics is dominated by "zoetrope", that is, voters will only remember him for his key spotlight moments - Cleggmania, tuition fees, and apology video - and not his small yet no less substantial changes: tax allowance changes, free-school meals, equal marriage, and increasing the minimum wage to change a few. All of these advances (later appropriated by the Conservatives) were wrought through compromise and negotiation; the most important achievement of the Lib-Dems is possibly the governmental stability they established alongside the Tories. Plurality can exist - yet the narratives purported and "story-telling" of the left and right wing look to stifle this. Ed Miliband's ambivalence about AV, for example, and vilifying of Clegg in the name of short term gains will, as is being shown now, shrink the political clout of the Labour Party in the long run (with cross-party pluralism, it's impossible for them to now gain seats of the Tories - a necessity of getting into power).
Another idea which continually came up was why populism has risen - stagnation of living standards/wages of the young leading them to support extremist politics, and the "artificial and unnatural" politicians of Westminster, for example - and the ways in which Liberalism (not defined by the left or right but by pragmatism - can sort this out: tackling the economic deficiencies of modern Britain, solving inequality, and reintroducing a sense of national, unwavering pride, something which has been appropriated by extremist parties, i.e. only the separatist SNP represent 'true' Scotland, UKIP 'true' England, etc. Untangling these above problems will act to stabilise the country and remove the insecurities and anxieties that manipulate voters into looking to and proving a platform for politicians like Farage, Le Pen and Trump.
To conclude, I thought the whole read was a fair and balanced analysis of the current political situation, and evaluation of the Lib-Dem's time in power. I believe the "history books will judge [Clegg's] record more favourably than the voters did in 2015", and that eventually, with application and diligence, "reason, in the end, will win against unreason".
Well ultimately, being a Lib-Dem voter in 2010 and 2015, as well as a 'Yes to AV' and 'Remain' supporter, I was looking for Clegg's reflections of his time in power, and his strategies to try and regain support across the country; the book delivered on both counts, and was readable and insightful too, without getting bogged down in the minutiae of day-to-day politics. Whether or not you agree with his assessments or plans will most likely reflect your political philosophy, but on the whole I thought Clegg was fair, balanced and thoughtful. As with his time in power, he shows himself again to be a true Internationalist, diplomat, and master of compromise.
To run through some of the ideas that were most memorable to me in the book is to, coincidentally, reflect some of Clegg's primary gripes with current politics. There's an unavoidable degree of truth in his assertion that politics is dominated by "zoetrope", that is, voters will only remember him for his key spotlight moments - Cleggmania, tuition fees, and apology video - and not his small yet no less substantial changes: tax allowance changes, free-school meals, equal marriage, and increasing the minimum wage to change a few. All of these advances (later appropriated by the Conservatives) were wrought through compromise and negotiation; the most important achievement of the Lib-Dems is possibly the governmental stability they established alongside the Tories. Plurality can exist - yet the narratives purported and "story-telling" of the left and right wing look to stifle this. Ed Miliband's ambivalence about AV, for example, and vilifying of Clegg in the name of short term gains will, as is being shown now, shrink the political clout of the Labour Party in the long run (with cross-party pluralism, it's impossible for them to now gain seats of the Tories - a necessity of getting into power).
Another idea which continually came up was why populism has risen - stagnation of living standards/wages of the young leading them to support extremist politics, and the "artificial and unnatural" politicians of Westminster, for example - and the ways in which Liberalism (not defined by the left or right but by pragmatism - can sort this out: tackling the economic deficiencies of modern Britain, solving inequality, and reintroducing a sense of national, unwavering pride, something which has been appropriated by extremist parties, i.e. only the separatist SNP represent 'true' Scotland, UKIP 'true' England, etc. Untangling these above problems will act to stabilise the country and remove the insecurities and anxieties that manipulate voters into looking to and proving a platform for politicians like Farage, Le Pen and Trump.
To conclude, I thought the whole read was a fair and balanced analysis of the current political situation, and evaluation of the Lib-Dem's time in power. I believe the "history books will judge [Clegg's] record more favourably than the voters did in 2015", and that eventually, with application and diligence, "reason, in the end, will win against unreason".
December 28, 2016
Before reading this book I considered Nick Clegg to be a decent guy who tried to do the right thing. Sadly this book has altered my opinion of him. The book is one long whinge and moan about how unfair everything in politics is - down to breaking a toe and how hard it is juggling work with children - welcome to the real world! I also found Nick Clegg to be indescribably conceited - his essential message is that the Liberal Democrats did badly in the last election because the electorate are too stupid to understand the Lib Dem message.
May 17, 2019
This books is more of how the author experiences the way politics work within his worldview as a former European officer in the European Commission, as an MEP, MP in the British Parliament and also Leader of the Liberal Democrats and also as the Deputy Prime Minister in the Coalition Government of 2010-2015. It's excellently written in detail of the challenges of being in coalition government, with unpopular yet justified policy changes and reforms, as well the difficult priorities of how to work in an already bloated and elitist Government in Westminster and also in Brussels. His ideals and his overview of politics is well written as if we are listening to the man himself talk about in this book, which is relieving to me.
I like how he warns about how politics can sometimes make those idealists to be disillusioned and also being disappointed that some of their ideals are blockaded by stubbornness and silos made those in the elite. This book is a must read for those who feel that the current worldview that populism and also the increase polarisation of politics can be held back with reason, debate and intellectual discourses. I could recommend this book to those who feel that binary politics should be remain in the relics of the past where it should never always about us vs. them, but of compromise and solutions. However, Clegg has overlooked into the deeper problems beneath the blame game he continuously mentioned in this book. Even his decisions back in Government can sometimes be questioned despite his past ideals of Liberal and Centrist politics. His analyses of British politics and Brexit is also spot on where he clearly distinguishes the ironies and the misinformation and voter persuasion, and also hypocrisies of the two-party system in the UK. Even with his disdain towards those who don't agree with the Lib Dem views, at least I would've wish he acknowledge the inadequacies and the inequality of voter choice and further dive into the symptoms of why Populism is rising and the resurgence of Far-Right Politics in the West not just within the hollow tube of Liberalist thought but more towards the humanity and the compassionate view of how Liberal values should work in this era of political uncertainty and rejection of views outside the political binarism and echo chambers.
It's just as a Labour voter in the UK, I felt that Clegg has the sense of pride for what he did during his years in Government, where I felt it was his to blame. Him constantly blaming the Tories is baffling yet he was one of the orchestrators of what the Tories did in Government. I had to admit that the Lib Dems liberalised of how the Tories work in Government, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is much powerless in the Government and the voters manifested their disappointment towards them as they were nearly eliminated in the House of Commons in 2015 and many of the supposedly woke and liberal youths are now swaying towards Labour under a rejuvenated and youthful Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn before the Brexit debate fiasco.
Overall, this book is must read for political enthusiasts here in Malaysia where the resurgence of racist views of Malay supremacy, racial distrust and prejudice, and also the problem of conformism reign supreme. I also want to add that even though some of the view Clegg wrote are of Western Liberal in nature, the essence of this book should also be taken into consideration and of utmost importance that, politics should not always be confrontational but of conversational, compromising and reasonable, not emotional, fearist and hateful.
I like how he warns about how politics can sometimes make those idealists to be disillusioned and also being disappointed that some of their ideals are blockaded by stubbornness and silos made those in the elite. This book is a must read for those who feel that the current worldview that populism and also the increase polarisation of politics can be held back with reason, debate and intellectual discourses. I could recommend this book to those who feel that binary politics should be remain in the relics of the past where it should never always about us vs. them, but of compromise and solutions. However, Clegg has overlooked into the deeper problems beneath the blame game he continuously mentioned in this book. Even his decisions back in Government can sometimes be questioned despite his past ideals of Liberal and Centrist politics. His analyses of British politics and Brexit is also spot on where he clearly distinguishes the ironies and the misinformation and voter persuasion, and also hypocrisies of the two-party system in the UK. Even with his disdain towards those who don't agree with the Lib Dem views, at least I would've wish he acknowledge the inadequacies and the inequality of voter choice and further dive into the symptoms of why Populism is rising and the resurgence of Far-Right Politics in the West not just within the hollow tube of Liberalist thought but more towards the humanity and the compassionate view of how Liberal values should work in this era of political uncertainty and rejection of views outside the political binarism and echo chambers.
It's just as a Labour voter in the UK, I felt that Clegg has the sense of pride for what he did during his years in Government, where I felt it was his to blame. Him constantly blaming the Tories is baffling yet he was one of the orchestrators of what the Tories did in Government. I had to admit that the Lib Dems liberalised of how the Tories work in Government, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is much powerless in the Government and the voters manifested their disappointment towards them as they were nearly eliminated in the House of Commons in 2015 and many of the supposedly woke and liberal youths are now swaying towards Labour under a rejuvenated and youthful Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn before the Brexit debate fiasco.
Overall, this book is must read for political enthusiasts here in Malaysia where the resurgence of racist views of Malay supremacy, racial distrust and prejudice, and also the problem of conformism reign supreme. I also want to add that even though some of the view Clegg wrote are of Western Liberal in nature, the essence of this book should also be taken into consideration and of utmost importance that, politics should not always be confrontational but of conversational, compromising and reasonable, not emotional, fearist and hateful.
May 11, 2020
I really really liked this book it was v informative and despite being written by former lib dem party leader Nick Clegg it did not come across as blatant party propaganda at all. Instead there was a reasoned argument supported by facts throughout that has encouraged me to look further into the lib dem party to form my own opinion. Moreover Clegg focused the main bulk of each chapter on extremist politics in the UK whilst also considering extremism worldwide. Lastly there was a lot to gain from Clegg’s views on the EU and the Brexit referendum, especially his breakdown of why certain voters voted the way they did considering a variety of economic and social factors. 3 stars is a bit of a scam but the only downside was that this is not a simple read. Parts of it went over my head because I am not experienced in extremist politics, and a lot of googling was required- although this added to the sense of satisfaction that I was learning something new.
Read
July 12, 2022Generally a good read if you are interested in Politics in the UK. Clegg touches on his political career and much more focus on the Coalition government. Justifying why he agreed to from the coalition with the Conservatives, Western Liberal values and EU referendum vote. At the end of every chapter he tries to link his thoughts on why in his opinion politics is becoming more "extreme" and there is a shift to the far left/right in the west. According to Clegg The answer to that is subtle liberalism basically a centre left politics and a form of coalition between Labour-Libdem to throw the Tories out of gov. His argumants for staying in the EU were poor, a lot of excuses on not delivering on the Tuition fees and the Political reforms promises. Repeating what he considers achievements in gov and trying to challenge tories policies whilst in gov to protect lower paid citizens, yet accepts a high position Job at Facebook few years later.
July 17, 2020
Part memoir, part manifesto, this book provides some insights into the coalition government, and Clegg's vision for liberalism after the Brexit Referendum.
Clegg's reputation is, of course, somewhat tarnished and this book doesn't go far to restore that: his reflections on where the coalition went wrong are generally focused on process and messaging rather than outcome (he also characterises it at being centrist when the balance of the 5 years were centre-right, even after allowing for LD policy wins), and his "vision" is one of liberalism as a moderating force.
Ultimately, his is a politics of triangulation - for those wanting a book on Liberalism, look elsewhere.
Clegg's reputation is, of course, somewhat tarnished and this book doesn't go far to restore that: his reflections on where the coalition went wrong are generally focused on process and messaging rather than outcome (he also characterises it at being centrist when the balance of the 5 years were centre-right, even after allowing for LD policy wins), and his "vision" is one of liberalism as a moderating force.
Ultimately, his is a politics of triangulation - for those wanting a book on Liberalism, look elsewhere.
July 14, 2017
An enjoyable overview of British politics in the aftermath of the EU referendum.
Clegg is broadly accurate in the areas where mistakes were made. But it's not hindsight that made so many of them apparent. Many of us recognised the brick walls that he ran towards with enthusiasm.
His analysis of the future has been overtaken somewhat by the 2017 General Election but remains of interest.
He, most maddeningly, misinterprets Roy Jenkins goals of political reform. And then comes up with his own vision which is no different. Grrr .....
Clegg is broadly accurate in the areas where mistakes were made. But it's not hindsight that made so many of them apparent. Many of us recognised the brick walls that he ran towards with enthusiasm.
His analysis of the future has been overtaken somewhat by the 2017 General Election but remains of interest.
He, most maddeningly, misinterprets Roy Jenkins goals of political reform. And then comes up with his own vision which is no different. Grrr .....
December 29, 2017
i did not like this book: it felt preachy and i failed to relate to the narrative voice, clegg. i felt as though clegg was essentially saying no matter what your beliefs you should vote for me as i am the middle ground, and the only possible person to be elected is me. i’m not particularly partial to this idea; centre parties have always, to me, seemed fake and populist, so i am a biased reader but this book really annoyed me.
August 15, 2021
I went into this with a mixture of feelings about Nick Clegg. I voted for the first time in 2010, and it was for the Liberal Democrats. I was intensely politically ignorant, not understanding or knowing much about our political system or the different parties, and barely following the news, but I had absorbed some of the 'Cleggmania' in the air. Later, I absorbed the feelings of betrayal that surrounded the Coalition and the tuition fees debacle, and all the negative feelings towards Clegg among students (I was a student at this time).
Later still, I developed a mental image of Clegg as someone naïve and completely out of his depth in government and media management - this mental image of Clegg was a sympathetic one, and was born out of a belief that the intense hatred directed at him following the tuition fees debacle was probably excessive. I also have a strong impulse to want to believe the best in people, that people make mistakes but are generally trying to do good - this makes me want to avoid villainous caricatures and try to understand people as flawed humans where possible, although I appreciate some people are just dickheads.
I came out of Clegg's book with a far more negative view of him; the book constantly frustrated me. The leftist meme 'Liberalism: The Highest Stage of Cringe' came to mind a lot. Clegg comes across as overconfident, smug, and dismissive towards people who don't share his views. He characterises non-liberals as over-emotional, irrational, illogical, unrealistic, extreme, in contrast to the Liberal Democrats' rational, moderate, logical, realistic politics. He derides 'populism' on the left and right, but also admits to having used populist strategies in 2010, which led to Cleggmania. However, he thinks it was fine for him to do this because he's a reasonable, rational, logical Lib Dem, in contrast to today's over-emotional and irrational populists, and besides, it wasn't his fault if the voters had irrational and unrealistic beliefs which they projected onto him, was it?
'I felt at the time that I was becoming a screen onto which people were projecting their hopes and aspirations, some of which were not realistic. A gap opened up between who I was and what my supporters imagined me to be.'
The words 'rational', 'reasonable', 'realistic', 'logical' and similar cropped up so frequently when describing the Lib Dem position that it became a running joke in my head, and I was tempted to go through the book highlighting them all. Clegg comes across as one of those people who thinks everyone else is irrational and illogical but him; he fails to understand how his values and biases alter his perception of what is logical, realistic, rational. In another life, Clegg might have been a Shapiro-esque character telling voters that facts don't care about their feelings - hell, there's even a subcategory of racists who call themselves 'race realists', and argue that their racism is grounded in logic, reason, realism, rationality. Simply describing your political views as logical, realistic, rational, and reasonable, does not mean they will seem that way to someone else.
The idea of the Lib Dems as the party of reasonable, rational, logical policies - in contrast to over-emotional populists and the two major parties - goes completely out of the window when we get to his explanation for the tuition fees debacle. It turns out that many of the Lib Dem higher ups had serious misgivings about the policy of reducing or scrapping tuition fees: Clegg thought it was unrealistic; Vince Cable thought it was 'fiscally incredible' and 'financially unsustainable'. However, they were unable to convince the (presumably over-emotional, irrational, illogical) wider party, so it was put in the manifesto and was part of their campaigning.
Students were a demographic where the Lib Dems were especially popular; Lib Dem MPs signed a pledge promising to vote against tuition fee increases, and Clegg made online videos advocating a policy he thought was absurd, irrational, illogical, unrealistic. Almost like he was a populist anti-establishment politician using unrealistic policies to win votes.
According to other accounts of the coalition, Clegg was warned (by George Osbourne no less) that supporting increasing fees would be political suicide for the Lib Dems, and he was given the option to abstain on the vote. In this book, Clegg does not mention that he was given this advice or option; he simply insists that raising the fees was the rational, realistic, logical thing to do.
You can certainly make the argument, as Clegg does, that raising both the fees and the earning threshold did improve universities, increase student numbers, and was effectively a graduate tax for higher earners - but the optics of Clegg's tuition fees decision was terrible: Nick Clegg, the Betrayer, leader of the spineless, treacherous Lib Dems, who would dispense with their principles for a taste of power. One of Clegg's 2010 party political broadcasts had him saying NO MORE BROKEN PROMISES - the Lib Dems are still thought of by many as the Party of Broken Promises.
The Conservatives took most of the credit for the Lib Dems policies that were implemented and were popular - such as raising the Income Tax Personal Allowance, which was featured heavily in the Conservative 2015 campaign. I had a personal encounter with a Tory using it as an argument in their favour.
Clegg was utterly naive about media management, publicity, propaganda - he assumed truthful information about the work he was doing would flow naturally out of government and inform people about everything the Lib Dems were up to. Instead, hardly anyone knew what they were doing, which made them look pointless. I could not believe that Clegg - by this time he was in his 40s, had been an MP for five years and leader of his party for three - could be that monstrously ignorant both of the importance of the media in creating political narratives and of the biases of said media.
Clegg's explanation of his reasons for going into Coalition are convincing; there was no good outcome, and arguably coalition may have been the best outcome of a bad bunch, especially if the Lib Dems managed to implement some of their policies. Although, I can't help but wonder which of Clegg's choices, if made differently, led to a far better alternative present. That'd be a fun episode of Marvel's 'What If...?'
They made holding a referendum on electoral reform a core point of the Coalition Agreement, because such reforms could benefit the party in future. However, he did not think too much about the optics of the anti-establishment party appearing so enthusiastic about teaming up with the party most associated with the establishment - to him, the coalition was the reasonable, rational, logical thing to do.
'But what seemed logical to me appeared deeply unsettling to many people who had voted for the Liberal Democrats...'
A chapter is devoted to the difficulties faced by the Lib Dems trying to implement electoral and House of Lords reform. Clegg imagines himself continuing the reformist Liberal tradition, from Earl Grey's Great Reform Act to Lloyd George's post-WW1 expansion of the electorate; however, he fails to reflect on the circumstances that surrounded those earlier reforms. Those reforms were implemented due to huge public pressure, protest, and fear of outright revolution.
The initial blocking of Earl Grey's Reform Act by the House of Lords led to riots across the country (Nottingham Castle was burnt down in the Reform Riots - it was owned by a Tory who was very vocal in his opposition to reform); the suffragists and suffragettes had long campaigns, and in the aftermath of both WW1 and the Russian Revolution, political reform was a way to calm an angry populace who had come home from war only to live in slums and have no say over their government. The MPs advocating those earlier reforms could get the doubters on side by arguing that the alternative might be full blown revolution.
During the electoral reform referendum, both the Conservatives and Labour supported the No campaign, and the by-then deeply unpopular Lib Dems were the face of Yes. There was no wider public pressure for reform. The No campaign used Clegg's unpopularity in their campaign, and 'the dream of electoral reform was crushed.'
Clegg's failure to reflect on the circumstances around earlier reforms makes his obvious conclusion sound ignorant:
'The fact that the British political system appears to be so immune to change - and so in hock to the vested interest of the two larger parties - will only strengthen the hand of populists who argue that real change requires more extreme action. The more the vested interests in Westminster set their face against overdue reform, the more ferocious the reaction to mainstream politics will become.'
No shit, Nick, but having the threat of such extreme action happening is probably the only way to get enough MPs to pay attention. It was what led to the earlier reforms, after all - not a mild-mannered and unpopular politician politely asking his colleagues to do the logical, reasonable, rational thing, but a warning that if the people's demands weren't met, the alternative to reform would be much worse. I'd prefer this not to be the case, but history, and Clegg's own tale, argue otherwise.
Other accounts of the coalition describe the Tories being shocked at the naivety of the Lib Dems: how willing they were to go into coalition, how much they were willing to compromise to get a few of their policies implemented, and how little they seemed to think about the electoral costs of coalition. After the signing of the Coalition Agreement, William Hague went home and said to his wife, "Well, we have formed a government, but we might well have destroyed the Liberal Party."
A chapter is devoted to the history of coalition governments in various countries; Clegg lists example after example of coalition governments ending disastrously for the minor party. Sometimes the minor party rebounds in popularity, gets into coalition again, and then once again it is punished at the next election. The few examples he lists of minor parties being rewarded electorally for going into coalition are when both parties are on the left. This is exactly the stuff that the Tories are elsewhere described as having been shocked that the Lib Dems didn't know about when agreeing to coalition - since their main goal in government was to reform the voting system in such a way that would make coalitions more likely, it was bizarre that they didn't know much about how coalitioning parties faired elsewhere.
Another chapter is devoted to the relationship of the Lib Dems with the two main parties. This involves Clegg reflecting on how his politics was shaped by the his early years as an MP, and how this contrasted with other, older Lib Dem MPs, who hated going into coalition with the Tories. The Lib Dems of Clegg's age built up relationships with the Tories during their time opposing New Labour together, in defence of civil liberties against War On Terror legislation - this was 'one of the early bonds that kept the later coalition together'. Older Lib Dems - who were there for the SDP breaking away from Labour and then merging with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats - retain a fondness for Labour, hoping for an anti-Conservative alliance with them, and perhaps eventual coalescence if the differences can be overcome. This was an interesting exploration of how political views and biases are shaped by differing life experiences.
In 2015, the main selling point of the Lib Dems was that they would prevent either of the two major parties from being too extreme in their opposite directions. In 2010, their campaign had argued that Labour and the Conservatives were too similar to each other and it was time for change; in 5 years, the Lib Dems had gone from the party demanding change to the party that was scared of the other parties changing things too much, a support-destroying strategy if ever there was one. Clegg's political career is over, and the Lib Dems have, as yet, failed to bounce back. Indeed, 'Lib Dem Fightback' became a meme, and I don't even know off the top of my head who their leader is these days (I just Googled it: Ed Davey, apparently).
Last year, I read books by Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and Alistair Darling, and I came out of them with a grudging respect for, and a greater appreciation of, them as flawed individuals, limited in their knowledge and experiences, doing their best based on the values they believed in - despite my disagreements with and reservations about each. Nick Clegg's book, however, pleasantly written and largely enjoyable as it is, has surprised me by making me feel far more negatively towards him than I did before.
Later still, I developed a mental image of Clegg as someone naïve and completely out of his depth in government and media management - this mental image of Clegg was a sympathetic one, and was born out of a belief that the intense hatred directed at him following the tuition fees debacle was probably excessive. I also have a strong impulse to want to believe the best in people, that people make mistakes but are generally trying to do good - this makes me want to avoid villainous caricatures and try to understand people as flawed humans where possible, although I appreciate some people are just dickheads.
I came out of Clegg's book with a far more negative view of him; the book constantly frustrated me. The leftist meme 'Liberalism: The Highest Stage of Cringe' came to mind a lot. Clegg comes across as overconfident, smug, and dismissive towards people who don't share his views. He characterises non-liberals as over-emotional, irrational, illogical, unrealistic, extreme, in contrast to the Liberal Democrats' rational, moderate, logical, realistic politics. He derides 'populism' on the left and right, but also admits to having used populist strategies in 2010, which led to Cleggmania. However, he thinks it was fine for him to do this because he's a reasonable, rational, logical Lib Dem, in contrast to today's over-emotional and irrational populists, and besides, it wasn't his fault if the voters had irrational and unrealistic beliefs which they projected onto him, was it?
'I felt at the time that I was becoming a screen onto which people were projecting their hopes and aspirations, some of which were not realistic. A gap opened up between who I was and what my supporters imagined me to be.'
The words 'rational', 'reasonable', 'realistic', 'logical' and similar cropped up so frequently when describing the Lib Dem position that it became a running joke in my head, and I was tempted to go through the book highlighting them all. Clegg comes across as one of those people who thinks everyone else is irrational and illogical but him; he fails to understand how his values and biases alter his perception of what is logical, realistic, rational. In another life, Clegg might have been a Shapiro-esque character telling voters that facts don't care about their feelings - hell, there's even a subcategory of racists who call themselves 'race realists', and argue that their racism is grounded in logic, reason, realism, rationality. Simply describing your political views as logical, realistic, rational, and reasonable, does not mean they will seem that way to someone else.
The idea of the Lib Dems as the party of reasonable, rational, logical policies - in contrast to over-emotional populists and the two major parties - goes completely out of the window when we get to his explanation for the tuition fees debacle. It turns out that many of the Lib Dem higher ups had serious misgivings about the policy of reducing or scrapping tuition fees: Clegg thought it was unrealistic; Vince Cable thought it was 'fiscally incredible' and 'financially unsustainable'. However, they were unable to convince the (presumably over-emotional, irrational, illogical) wider party, so it was put in the manifesto and was part of their campaigning.
Students were a demographic where the Lib Dems were especially popular; Lib Dem MPs signed a pledge promising to vote against tuition fee increases, and Clegg made online videos advocating a policy he thought was absurd, irrational, illogical, unrealistic. Almost like he was a populist anti-establishment politician using unrealistic policies to win votes.
According to other accounts of the coalition, Clegg was warned (by George Osbourne no less) that supporting increasing fees would be political suicide for the Lib Dems, and he was given the option to abstain on the vote. In this book, Clegg does not mention that he was given this advice or option; he simply insists that raising the fees was the rational, realistic, logical thing to do.
You can certainly make the argument, as Clegg does, that raising both the fees and the earning threshold did improve universities, increase student numbers, and was effectively a graduate tax for higher earners - but the optics of Clegg's tuition fees decision was terrible: Nick Clegg, the Betrayer, leader of the spineless, treacherous Lib Dems, who would dispense with their principles for a taste of power. One of Clegg's 2010 party political broadcasts had him saying NO MORE BROKEN PROMISES - the Lib Dems are still thought of by many as the Party of Broken Promises.
The Conservatives took most of the credit for the Lib Dems policies that were implemented and were popular - such as raising the Income Tax Personal Allowance, which was featured heavily in the Conservative 2015 campaign. I had a personal encounter with a Tory using it as an argument in their favour.
Clegg was utterly naive about media management, publicity, propaganda - he assumed truthful information about the work he was doing would flow naturally out of government and inform people about everything the Lib Dems were up to. Instead, hardly anyone knew what they were doing, which made them look pointless. I could not believe that Clegg - by this time he was in his 40s, had been an MP for five years and leader of his party for three - could be that monstrously ignorant both of the importance of the media in creating political narratives and of the biases of said media.
Clegg's explanation of his reasons for going into Coalition are convincing; there was no good outcome, and arguably coalition may have been the best outcome of a bad bunch, especially if the Lib Dems managed to implement some of their policies. Although, I can't help but wonder which of Clegg's choices, if made differently, led to a far better alternative present. That'd be a fun episode of Marvel's 'What If...?'
They made holding a referendum on electoral reform a core point of the Coalition Agreement, because such reforms could benefit the party in future. However, he did not think too much about the optics of the anti-establishment party appearing so enthusiastic about teaming up with the party most associated with the establishment - to him, the coalition was the reasonable, rational, logical thing to do.
'But what seemed logical to me appeared deeply unsettling to many people who had voted for the Liberal Democrats...'
A chapter is devoted to the difficulties faced by the Lib Dems trying to implement electoral and House of Lords reform. Clegg imagines himself continuing the reformist Liberal tradition, from Earl Grey's Great Reform Act to Lloyd George's post-WW1 expansion of the electorate; however, he fails to reflect on the circumstances that surrounded those earlier reforms. Those reforms were implemented due to huge public pressure, protest, and fear of outright revolution.
The initial blocking of Earl Grey's Reform Act by the House of Lords led to riots across the country (Nottingham Castle was burnt down in the Reform Riots - it was owned by a Tory who was very vocal in his opposition to reform); the suffragists and suffragettes had long campaigns, and in the aftermath of both WW1 and the Russian Revolution, political reform was a way to calm an angry populace who had come home from war only to live in slums and have no say over their government. The MPs advocating those earlier reforms could get the doubters on side by arguing that the alternative might be full blown revolution.
During the electoral reform referendum, both the Conservatives and Labour supported the No campaign, and the by-then deeply unpopular Lib Dems were the face of Yes. There was no wider public pressure for reform. The No campaign used Clegg's unpopularity in their campaign, and 'the dream of electoral reform was crushed.'
Clegg's failure to reflect on the circumstances around earlier reforms makes his obvious conclusion sound ignorant:
'The fact that the British political system appears to be so immune to change - and so in hock to the vested interest of the two larger parties - will only strengthen the hand of populists who argue that real change requires more extreme action. The more the vested interests in Westminster set their face against overdue reform, the more ferocious the reaction to mainstream politics will become.'
No shit, Nick, but having the threat of such extreme action happening is probably the only way to get enough MPs to pay attention. It was what led to the earlier reforms, after all - not a mild-mannered and unpopular politician politely asking his colleagues to do the logical, reasonable, rational thing, but a warning that if the people's demands weren't met, the alternative to reform would be much worse. I'd prefer this not to be the case, but history, and Clegg's own tale, argue otherwise.
Other accounts of the coalition describe the Tories being shocked at the naivety of the Lib Dems: how willing they were to go into coalition, how much they were willing to compromise to get a few of their policies implemented, and how little they seemed to think about the electoral costs of coalition. After the signing of the Coalition Agreement, William Hague went home and said to his wife, "Well, we have formed a government, but we might well have destroyed the Liberal Party."
A chapter is devoted to the history of coalition governments in various countries; Clegg lists example after example of coalition governments ending disastrously for the minor party. Sometimes the minor party rebounds in popularity, gets into coalition again, and then once again it is punished at the next election. The few examples he lists of minor parties being rewarded electorally for going into coalition are when both parties are on the left. This is exactly the stuff that the Tories are elsewhere described as having been shocked that the Lib Dems didn't know about when agreeing to coalition - since their main goal in government was to reform the voting system in such a way that would make coalitions more likely, it was bizarre that they didn't know much about how coalitioning parties faired elsewhere.
Another chapter is devoted to the relationship of the Lib Dems with the two main parties. This involves Clegg reflecting on how his politics was shaped by the his early years as an MP, and how this contrasted with other, older Lib Dem MPs, who hated going into coalition with the Tories. The Lib Dems of Clegg's age built up relationships with the Tories during their time opposing New Labour together, in defence of civil liberties against War On Terror legislation - this was 'one of the early bonds that kept the later coalition together'. Older Lib Dems - who were there for the SDP breaking away from Labour and then merging with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats - retain a fondness for Labour, hoping for an anti-Conservative alliance with them, and perhaps eventual coalescence if the differences can be overcome. This was an interesting exploration of how political views and biases are shaped by differing life experiences.
In 2015, the main selling point of the Lib Dems was that they would prevent either of the two major parties from being too extreme in their opposite directions. In 2010, their campaign had argued that Labour and the Conservatives were too similar to each other and it was time for change; in 5 years, the Lib Dems had gone from the party demanding change to the party that was scared of the other parties changing things too much, a support-destroying strategy if ever there was one. Clegg's political career is over, and the Lib Dems have, as yet, failed to bounce back. Indeed, 'Lib Dem Fightback' became a meme, and I don't even know off the top of my head who their leader is these days (I just Googled it: Ed Davey, apparently).
Last year, I read books by Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and Alistair Darling, and I came out of them with a grudging respect for, and a greater appreciation of, them as flawed individuals, limited in their knowledge and experiences, doing their best based on the values they believed in - despite my disagreements with and reservations about each. Nick Clegg's book, however, pleasantly written and largely enjoyable as it is, has surprised me by making me feel far more negatively towards him than I did before.
July 24, 2018
Admittedly, this book will be of limited interest for those who do not follow politics in the UK but I think it has enough good arguments for people interested in the current political moment in Europe and beyond as well as liberals of all ilk -or just people wanting to read an honest assessment of the current assault on liberal ideas and its possible defences- to grant it a hearing. Nick Clegg comes across as a humble, and yet passionate defender of liberalism. He understands liberalism in politics as the aim to 'disperse' power through democratic means from those who accumulate too much of it, the use of reason to create better and more sensible policies, the philosophy that argues for discussion and compromise to reach imperfect solutions that trump fundamentalism and silver bullet remedies yielded by strongmen like "build a wall" Trump, Putin, Salvi, Orban or Erdogan - each one of them with their expiatory groups to place blame on in case things don't work out. In a time of increasing inequality and fear of loosing out to the ever increasing gap between the ones able to take advantage of global opportunities and those left behind. Liberalism has seen its aims questioned by the rise of populism and nationalism and every wannabe tyrant riding the wave of discontent by offering unquestioned bumper sticker policies. We have seen this rise in populism from the right and the left and many one-issue parties.
Nick Clegg comes across as humble because he, perish the thought!, admits his own mistakes as a Deputy Prime Minister in the Cameron government. He spends some time detailing how his difficult tenure was marked by compromises that made Labour regard him as a traitor and Conservatives more of an obstacle than anything else. He wastes no punches criticising an electoral system rigged to favour the two party options despite the actual vote numbers. Moreover, he lays out some very good reasons why the two parties, Labour and Conservatives seem to have lost sight that the nostalgic return to the past risks missing the boat. For example, Labor is loosing votes to nationalists of the Scottish kind (SNP) and the home grown kind (UKIP). The new layers of identity are shattering the strict left and right divisions and creating many other opportunities for parties embracing the pressing issues of the heart, rather than the head. You ignore the heart at your own peril. Conservatives follow a more traditional politics of self-interest and reliance on older voters
while the idealism of Corbyn appeals to purist and idealists. Meanwhile, a beleaguered press competes with social media to attract attention by foregoing balance and nuance.
He spends some time justifying his dismay at Brexit. Both from a economic point of view, as the messy negotiations start to take place while the UK realises that geography can't really be dismissed and that Europe remains the big share of Britain's market and that some form of free market will still require adhering to common rules; and from the political and cultural standpoints as England looses standing on the international arena precisely by not being at the heart of a coalition of 20 plus countries. He recognises "the gap between the supranational reality of modern decision making and the strength of national political loyalties creates a space in which a host of slights, grievances and suspicions can take root". Clegg spares no punches against the EU bureaucracy and gives some good examples of the type of problems it generates: from the definition of 'chocolate' taking thirty years in the making to the pompous behaviour of representatives from all countries. But he is definitely a 'remainer' and has a unique perspective on the different perceptions of the European project. He thinks and I agree that the complexity of the decision could not possibly have been captured by a referendum based on fears of immigration leaving aside all the myriad of other consequences big ans small from fishing to air-plane traffic.
He is keenly aware of the usual criticism toward liberals as some out-of-touch internationalist urban and over educated elite. He thinks this is hogwash and that liberalism needs to become proud again. Not only because of its staggering achievements in the past but because it holds great promise for the future. He admits liberalism has fallen out of step with a few issues, namely immigration and the lack of a comprehensive police on the outside borders of the EU. But his defense is passionate.
Reason lies at the heart of liberalism, "modern liberalism stems from the enlightenment, from the power of science, from the Reformation and the rejection of divine rule'(...) "Superstition, convention and myth are the tools of unreason by which individuals are kept in their place. Reason is subversive because it has no respect for tradition or custom or hierarchy."
This is why education lies at the heart. Because education is the great liberator of people's potential.
Most right-wing criticism seems to say that well, science gave us the atomic bomb, that traditional institutions like the family and Faith that used to give anchors to the individual have been eroded by liberalism and left us with no aim beyond our own selfish self-realisation. This might be true but I think the solution against disengagement is not just dialling back the clock and going back to a time when many felt disenfranchised precisely by those institution.
Nick Clegg is married to a Spaniard and he has quite a good grasp of politics in Spain. His Dutch ancestry also gives him some good insights on the Netherlands scene. He sees the similarities between groups as diverse as Trumpists and the academic purists of 'Podemos' in Spain in the left or the Catalan nationalists that question the 'catalanism' of anyone that does not want independence (same for Scots that don't vote SNP and have their very Scottish-ness questioned". Neither of these groups and others popping all over Europe and America can admit they might be wrong, Both inhabit a world of 'rabid certainties'. Liberals are patriots, they embody in England that most English of qualities,
"Above all liberalism is an optimistic creed because it believes that individuals, left to their own devices an empowered to take decisions by themselves, will generally make good decisions. A Conservative takes a more pessimistic- no doubt they would say realistic- view of human nature, in which the pecking order is broadly conserved, traditions upheld, hierarchy applauded and claims about progress regarded with scepticism. A Socialist believes that the state is the battering ram of progress, that society is composed of interest , groups and classes to which the individual is subservient. A socialist government enhances society by tackling the groups and vested interests that stand in the way of the needs of the disadvantaged, a laudable aim, of course, but one that elevates class above the individual. "
"The problem of liberalism ids that optimism, reason and compromise don't fare well in a climate of fear, No one fearful of a terrorist attack wants to hear that there should be limits to what the state can do to keep us safe."
Nick Clegg comes across as humble because he, perish the thought!, admits his own mistakes as a Deputy Prime Minister in the Cameron government. He spends some time detailing how his difficult tenure was marked by compromises that made Labour regard him as a traitor and Conservatives more of an obstacle than anything else. He wastes no punches criticising an electoral system rigged to favour the two party options despite the actual vote numbers. Moreover, he lays out some very good reasons why the two parties, Labour and Conservatives seem to have lost sight that the nostalgic return to the past risks missing the boat. For example, Labor is loosing votes to nationalists of the Scottish kind (SNP) and the home grown kind (UKIP). The new layers of identity are shattering the strict left and right divisions and creating many other opportunities for parties embracing the pressing issues of the heart, rather than the head. You ignore the heart at your own peril. Conservatives follow a more traditional politics of self-interest and reliance on older voters
while the idealism of Corbyn appeals to purist and idealists. Meanwhile, a beleaguered press competes with social media to attract attention by foregoing balance and nuance.
He spends some time justifying his dismay at Brexit. Both from a economic point of view, as the messy negotiations start to take place while the UK realises that geography can't really be dismissed and that Europe remains the big share of Britain's market and that some form of free market will still require adhering to common rules; and from the political and cultural standpoints as England looses standing on the international arena precisely by not being at the heart of a coalition of 20 plus countries. He recognises "the gap between the supranational reality of modern decision making and the strength of national political loyalties creates a space in which a host of slights, grievances and suspicions can take root". Clegg spares no punches against the EU bureaucracy and gives some good examples of the type of problems it generates: from the definition of 'chocolate' taking thirty years in the making to the pompous behaviour of representatives from all countries. But he is definitely a 'remainer' and has a unique perspective on the different perceptions of the European project. He thinks and I agree that the complexity of the decision could not possibly have been captured by a referendum based on fears of immigration leaving aside all the myriad of other consequences big ans small from fishing to air-plane traffic.
He is keenly aware of the usual criticism toward liberals as some out-of-touch internationalist urban and over educated elite. He thinks this is hogwash and that liberalism needs to become proud again. Not only because of its staggering achievements in the past but because it holds great promise for the future. He admits liberalism has fallen out of step with a few issues, namely immigration and the lack of a comprehensive police on the outside borders of the EU. But his defense is passionate.
Reason lies at the heart of liberalism, "modern liberalism stems from the enlightenment, from the power of science, from the Reformation and the rejection of divine rule'(...) "Superstition, convention and myth are the tools of unreason by which individuals are kept in their place. Reason is subversive because it has no respect for tradition or custom or hierarchy."
This is why education lies at the heart. Because education is the great liberator of people's potential.
Most right-wing criticism seems to say that well, science gave us the atomic bomb, that traditional institutions like the family and Faith that used to give anchors to the individual have been eroded by liberalism and left us with no aim beyond our own selfish self-realisation. This might be true but I think the solution against disengagement is not just dialling back the clock and going back to a time when many felt disenfranchised precisely by those institution.
Nick Clegg is married to a Spaniard and he has quite a good grasp of politics in Spain. His Dutch ancestry also gives him some good insights on the Netherlands scene. He sees the similarities between groups as diverse as Trumpists and the academic purists of 'Podemos' in Spain in the left or the Catalan nationalists that question the 'catalanism' of anyone that does not want independence (same for Scots that don't vote SNP and have their very Scottish-ness questioned". Neither of these groups and others popping all over Europe and America can admit they might be wrong, Both inhabit a world of 'rabid certainties'. Liberals are patriots, they embody in England that most English of qualities,
"Above all liberalism is an optimistic creed because it believes that individuals, left to their own devices an empowered to take decisions by themselves, will generally make good decisions. A Conservative takes a more pessimistic- no doubt they would say realistic- view of human nature, in which the pecking order is broadly conserved, traditions upheld, hierarchy applauded and claims about progress regarded with scepticism. A Socialist believes that the state is the battering ram of progress, that society is composed of interest , groups and classes to which the individual is subservient. A socialist government enhances society by tackling the groups and vested interests that stand in the way of the needs of the disadvantaged, a laudable aim, of course, but one that elevates class above the individual. "
"The problem of liberalism ids that optimism, reason and compromise don't fare well in a climate of fear, No one fearful of a terrorist attack wants to hear that there should be limits to what the state can do to keep us safe."
October 28, 2016
I enjoy Clegg's diction, he has always sounded like a well rounded, pragmatic politician, shying away from populism he. After a historic coalition government of 2010-2015, he faced a brutal defeat. But to a casual observer (like myself), it wasn't evident that the coalition itself was far from ideal. Clegg addresses the nuances of coalition negotiations, the lack of readiness of the establishment when it came to sharing of power, his failure to communicate the liberal democratic message while in a conservative-led government etc.
Clegg doesn't sounds terribly apologetic, he tries to view the past decade with retrospect and admits failures on several occasions. What's most positive about the book, a thing that is evident throughout, is Clegg's staunch belief in the superiority of liberalism and his optimism for the future, despite growing discontent in all parts of Europe and beyond.
Clegg tried his best in a political system designed for small parties not to succeed. He deserves credit for pushing for change he believed in. And in staying humble and authentic. The audiobook is narrated by him, which is a nice touch as well.
The book doesn't bring any new or surprising information, but it's a really pleasant overview of liberal democratic values and Clegg's mission to push this agenda while in the government.
Clegg doesn't sounds terribly apologetic, he tries to view the past decade with retrospect and admits failures on several occasions. What's most positive about the book, a thing that is evident throughout, is Clegg's staunch belief in the superiority of liberalism and his optimism for the future, despite growing discontent in all parts of Europe and beyond.
Clegg tried his best in a political system designed for small parties not to succeed. He deserves credit for pushing for change he believed in. And in staying humble and authentic. The audiobook is narrated by him, which is a nice touch as well.
The book doesn't bring any new or surprising information, but it's a really pleasant overview of liberal democratic values and Clegg's mission to push this agenda while in the government.
October 12, 2019
It was responsible of the Lib Dems to coalesce with the Tories. The choice was between governing in the only available combination or not at all.
Clegg describes the Scot Nats as a party of undisguised national chauvinism that a hapless Labour govt had danced to the tune of, a fear exploited by the Tories and used again against their erstwhile coalition partners. He recommends a rewiring of politics with liberals demonstrating a patriotism of their own - himself decamping to America for Facebook money to show the way – a patriotism of pride in a self-confident, outward-looking, innovative nation strengthened by membership of the EU, not dissimilar then from the Scot Nats’ contradiction in terms of ‘independence within Europe’, subject only to a Franco-German hegemony. In 2015 Angela Merkel and François Holland didn’t bother telling Britain they were going to meet Putin over the Ukraine.
He slightly misinterprets what the electorate were up to in voting Lib Dem; it did long for a change, wanting Labour out but distrusting the Tories, until they should prove satisfactory, whereupon it went the whole hog.
I have to agree that a political party that is not prepared to take risks to put its ideas into practice isn’t much of a party at all, like Sinn Fein isn’t, pleading national chauvinistic purity instead of sending its seven MPs to Westminster, yet we are prepared to sacrifice our country for the sake of a united Ireland that isn’t worth anybody’s dying for, handing it on a silvered platter to who haven’t the political nous to take it for themselves.
He defines the fault of liberalism that it is a philosophy of rational enlightenment, of logical reasoning, that doesn’t affect the emotions whereas populism does, offering blame of others for frustration, like the Scot Nats and Irish blame England to the extent the latter call in the EU against Britain instead of negotiating how the Good Friday agreement might be sustained after Brexit if it chose to stay in the EU itself and not come out, as it went in, with us but motivated by nationalism rather than economic self-interest and despite its French partner refusing the use of its ports across the Channel as an alternative to using Britain as a land bridge to Europe. Clegg admits he himself tapped into a mood the populists are tapping into, a sense of grievance and desire for change that George Osborne and his press team shortly derailed in Clegg’s own case. Osborne was also against the referendum over the EU but it was he who was derailed by the result of that. The Lib Dems came unstuck over their unrealistic adherence to no tuition fees when they would agree in government to an abandonment of that policy. He thinks that’s because the Lib Dems went with their heart over head when it was a rational miscalculation of what to do for electoral gain. At no point does he contemplate that in a time of cheap money the government should not have been following a policy of fiscal austerity but adhere to Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling’s that was successfully addressing the recession. Fixing the economy was put down to the fiscal orthodoxy of the Tories, who made any policy their own that helped them whatever their initial resistance. The Lib Dems had moderated the Tories but that too worked to Tory advantage with the public. The Lib Dems had served their purpose and could be dispensed with.
He says the self-belief of politicians they have something special to contribute that gives them the right to make the rules everybody has to live by isn’t normal. It helps if you went to a private school and on to Oxford and Cambridge. Eton gives the mediocre a self-confident gloss. Politicians can confuse the noise on social media with public opinion. He fears the obtrusiveness of social media might result in unrepresentative parliaments of robots, monk and nuns. Boris Johnson should be putting paid to that fear.
He wielded a veto because the government depended on the Lib Dems for its majority and democratic authority. Decisions were made by him and Cameron or with George Osborne and Danny Alexander in addition. Left to their own devices, the Tories favour the rich over the poor. That they’re the party of the rich isn’t news. In politics money talks. Without it parties can’t compete.
A liberal principle is that power should be administered openly and accountably except for intelligence. The civil service and senior Tories blocked the extension of freedom of information to private sector contractors providing services to local authorities. Once covert surveillance capabilities can be held to account now by judges and parliament.
The need to compromise entails justifying ideas in the face of scrutiny. He justifies the coalition on the basis of a traditional liberal attachment to pluralism, of parties acting as best can to follow the will of the electorate, as Jo Swinson isn’t doing with her advocacy of Remain despite a referendum decision to leave the EU. He believes there is something sacrosanct about the individual, an oddly religious view. New Labour’s disregard for civil liberties bonded the Tories and Lib Dems in defence of them. He thinks the SNP and Tories rely on each other for identity and purpose. It’s clear the government had no answer to Brexit’s ‘Take back control’. ‘Don ‘t risk it’? Please!
He admits to a democratic deficit in the EU, civil servants making decisions that should be made by democratically accountable politicians, voters ignorant who their MEPs, powerful legislators, are.
He analyses the causes of populism, despairing that when fear grips the heart, there’s little point liberals answering with an analytical response of the head. The banks still create money that isn’t invested in business. His optimism that in the end reason will win against unreason is facile and begs the question his ‘reason’ is reason and his ‘unreason’ unreasonable. After all le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point. The British voted for Brexit with their hearts.
Clegg describes the Scot Nats as a party of undisguised national chauvinism that a hapless Labour govt had danced to the tune of, a fear exploited by the Tories and used again against their erstwhile coalition partners. He recommends a rewiring of politics with liberals demonstrating a patriotism of their own - himself decamping to America for Facebook money to show the way – a patriotism of pride in a self-confident, outward-looking, innovative nation strengthened by membership of the EU, not dissimilar then from the Scot Nats’ contradiction in terms of ‘independence within Europe’, subject only to a Franco-German hegemony. In 2015 Angela Merkel and François Holland didn’t bother telling Britain they were going to meet Putin over the Ukraine.
He slightly misinterprets what the electorate were up to in voting Lib Dem; it did long for a change, wanting Labour out but distrusting the Tories, until they should prove satisfactory, whereupon it went the whole hog.
I have to agree that a political party that is not prepared to take risks to put its ideas into practice isn’t much of a party at all, like Sinn Fein isn’t, pleading national chauvinistic purity instead of sending its seven MPs to Westminster, yet we are prepared to sacrifice our country for the sake of a united Ireland that isn’t worth anybody’s dying for, handing it on a silvered platter to who haven’t the political nous to take it for themselves.
He defines the fault of liberalism that it is a philosophy of rational enlightenment, of logical reasoning, that doesn’t affect the emotions whereas populism does, offering blame of others for frustration, like the Scot Nats and Irish blame England to the extent the latter call in the EU against Britain instead of negotiating how the Good Friday agreement might be sustained after Brexit if it chose to stay in the EU itself and not come out, as it went in, with us but motivated by nationalism rather than economic self-interest and despite its French partner refusing the use of its ports across the Channel as an alternative to using Britain as a land bridge to Europe. Clegg admits he himself tapped into a mood the populists are tapping into, a sense of grievance and desire for change that George Osborne and his press team shortly derailed in Clegg’s own case. Osborne was also against the referendum over the EU but it was he who was derailed by the result of that. The Lib Dems came unstuck over their unrealistic adherence to no tuition fees when they would agree in government to an abandonment of that policy. He thinks that’s because the Lib Dems went with their heart over head when it was a rational miscalculation of what to do for electoral gain. At no point does he contemplate that in a time of cheap money the government should not have been following a policy of fiscal austerity but adhere to Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling’s that was successfully addressing the recession. Fixing the economy was put down to the fiscal orthodoxy of the Tories, who made any policy their own that helped them whatever their initial resistance. The Lib Dems had moderated the Tories but that too worked to Tory advantage with the public. The Lib Dems had served their purpose and could be dispensed with.
He says the self-belief of politicians they have something special to contribute that gives them the right to make the rules everybody has to live by isn’t normal. It helps if you went to a private school and on to Oxford and Cambridge. Eton gives the mediocre a self-confident gloss. Politicians can confuse the noise on social media with public opinion. He fears the obtrusiveness of social media might result in unrepresentative parliaments of robots, monk and nuns. Boris Johnson should be putting paid to that fear.
He wielded a veto because the government depended on the Lib Dems for its majority and democratic authority. Decisions were made by him and Cameron or with George Osborne and Danny Alexander in addition. Left to their own devices, the Tories favour the rich over the poor. That they’re the party of the rich isn’t news. In politics money talks. Without it parties can’t compete.
A liberal principle is that power should be administered openly and accountably except for intelligence. The civil service and senior Tories blocked the extension of freedom of information to private sector contractors providing services to local authorities. Once covert surveillance capabilities can be held to account now by judges and parliament.
The need to compromise entails justifying ideas in the face of scrutiny. He justifies the coalition on the basis of a traditional liberal attachment to pluralism, of parties acting as best can to follow the will of the electorate, as Jo Swinson isn’t doing with her advocacy of Remain despite a referendum decision to leave the EU. He believes there is something sacrosanct about the individual, an oddly religious view. New Labour’s disregard for civil liberties bonded the Tories and Lib Dems in defence of them. He thinks the SNP and Tories rely on each other for identity and purpose. It’s clear the government had no answer to Brexit’s ‘Take back control’. ‘Don ‘t risk it’? Please!
He admits to a democratic deficit in the EU, civil servants making decisions that should be made by democratically accountable politicians, voters ignorant who their MEPs, powerful legislators, are.
He analyses the causes of populism, despairing that when fear grips the heart, there’s little point liberals answering with an analytical response of the head. The banks still create money that isn’t invested in business. His optimism that in the end reason will win against unreason is facile and begs the question his ‘reason’ is reason and his ‘unreason’ unreasonable. After all le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point. The British voted for Brexit with their hearts.
February 6, 2017
An insightful look at the inner workings of the coalition government from a man who, unbeknownst to most, had an incredibly important say in every single policy issue (Cameron and Clegg both had to approve all policy).
Clegg shows takes us on a warts and all tour of Westminster.
Most interesting for me was his look at the worrying rise of populism, not just in the UK but globally, and his passionate call for a return to the centre ground and liberalism, something that feels more vital today more than ever.
Clegg shows takes us on a warts and all tour of Westminster.
Most interesting for me was his look at the worrying rise of populism, not just in the UK but globally, and his passionate call for a return to the centre ground and liberalism, something that feels more vital today more than ever.
Read
October 9, 2016Clegg starts off reasonably well and there are some astute insights. However ultimately the book is poorly written, with clear parts where a researcher has inserted "supporting facts".
it was also frustrating to see Clegg extol the virtues of pluralism in one moment and then later essentially declare the moral supremacy of liberalism and lump any political position with which he disagrees into the category of "anti-globalisation populism".
it was also frustrating to see Clegg extol the virtues of pluralism in one moment and then later essentially declare the moral supremacy of liberalism and lump any political position with which he disagrees into the category of "anti-globalisation populism".
November 27, 2016
An excellent insight into the years of the coalition (especially the challenges of being the smaller partner!)
I enjoyed the writing style and came away with renewed respect for Nick Clegg and what he tried to achieve in government.
Useful for anyone looking to gain an insight into the Liberal Democrats, the flaws and features of British democracy and the current challenges liberalism is facing at present.
I enjoyed the writing style and came away with renewed respect for Nick Clegg and what he tried to achieve in government.
Useful for anyone looking to gain an insight into the Liberal Democrats, the flaws and features of British democracy and the current challenges liberalism is facing at present.
March 7, 2021
Clegg is highly politically literate and articulate, and this book is short but chock-full. Interesting (and a bit depressing) to read an anticipation of how brexit would pan out, rather than the shambles we got lol. Optimistic but sobering, would recommend for politics noobs like me.
January 8, 2017
I found this book about Nick throwing his toys out of the pram and saying how wonderful am I. Underneath all this, I feel Clegg is a solid family man- it's a shame this book is boring.
August 26, 2019
18.07.25
December 17, 2023
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/politics-between-the-extremes-by-nick-clegg/
Published in 2016, just a year after the catastrophic defeat of the Lib Dems under the author’s leadership in the 2015 election, this is both an apologia and a call to consciousness. Clegg is clear about his mistakes, and in general accepts some share of the blame; though at time of writing, he still didn’t quite grasp how bad the debacle on tuition fees was in terms of betraying the trust of a lot of his own party’s core and new voters; he still didn’t realise how bad a mistake the AV referendum was in the first place, rather than going for proportional representation at local government elections in England and Wales which the Conservatives would likely have accepted; and while he accepted that the austerity narrative was fatal for his own re-election chances, he doesn’t appreciate the Lib Dems’ own role in that. Certainly what pushed me (temporarily) out of the party in 2013, despite having voted for Clegg as leader in 2007, was that Lib Dem ministers seemed to be exulting in the welfare “reforms” that purported to help the disadvantaged by giving them less money, and I could not take that. Come 2015 the Lib Dems needed a good and coherent narrative of what they had achieved in government, did not have it, and are still paying the price.
Those blind spots aside, the book is a very interesting reflection on UK politics as seen from the vantage point of the leader of the minority party in the UK’s first coalition government since 1945. I accept some of his points. First, a centre-left coalition in 2010 would not have worked. The numbers just were not there, and there would have been another election in six months which the Conservatives would have won with a large majority after the economy tanked. Second, of course the Lib Dems in government were never going to get everything they wanted. However, they made some bad strategic choices about what to get, and I think failed to respond to the tactical sneakiness of the Conservative establishment – especially Gove and Osborne. Third, it is the norm rather than the exception for junior coalition partners to lose seats, often a lot of seats, at the next election. (Though perhaps the Lib Dems could have prepared better for this both internally and with external messaging.)
The central message of the book is that the liberal centre of politics still matters, and is deserving of support, in an age of increasing populism. 2016 of course was the year of Brexit and Trump, and populism clearly remains very strong. Although I still count myself a liberal, it’s rather difficult to point to liberal successes since 2016. The Belgian prime minster right now is from the Flemish liberal party, who are currently polling at 8%, with the far-right Vlaams Belang in the lead with three times as much support. (And that’s just figures for Flanders, rather than Belgium as a whole.) The ruling Liberal Party in Canada is currently polling fourteen points behind the Conservatives. Whatever you may try to assert about being right in the long term, it looks like today’s voters are looking to the extremes.
One of the points of Clegg’s book that has dated most since 2016 is the assertion that Labour is unelectable. That was perfectly true under Jeremy Corbyn, whose flaws were manifest, but it’s obviously not true now, when the Tories are desperately claiming that an opinion poll result showing them less than twenty points behind is evidence that they can cling on. Keir Starmer will win next year’s election, and win big. The curious thing is that this is probably also good news for the Lib Dems, who have tended to do well when Labour does well. There is clearly a large-ish group of voters who normally vote for the Conservatives, will never vote Labour, but will vote for the Lib Dems, if they can be persuaded that they don’t need to fear a Labour government. If you plug the current poll numbers into Electoral Calculus, the Lib Dems make substantial gains just on a direct swing from Conservatives to Labour, and tactical voting is likely to magnify that. In the 1997 election, when Labour got a huge majority, the Lib Dems went from 18 to 46 seats, an increase of 156%. To equal that scale of gain next year, they’d need to go to 28 or 29 from the 11 of 2019 (now 15, thanks to by-election gains), and that seems very plausible. It won’t get them into government, but it puts them back in play for a future hung parliament.
Anyway, I read less about UK politics than I used to, but I am very glad I read this.
Published in 2016, just a year after the catastrophic defeat of the Lib Dems under the author’s leadership in the 2015 election, this is both an apologia and a call to consciousness. Clegg is clear about his mistakes, and in general accepts some share of the blame; though at time of writing, he still didn’t quite grasp how bad the debacle on tuition fees was in terms of betraying the trust of a lot of his own party’s core and new voters; he still didn’t realise how bad a mistake the AV referendum was in the first place, rather than going for proportional representation at local government elections in England and Wales which the Conservatives would likely have accepted; and while he accepted that the austerity narrative was fatal for his own re-election chances, he doesn’t appreciate the Lib Dems’ own role in that. Certainly what pushed me (temporarily) out of the party in 2013, despite having voted for Clegg as leader in 2007, was that Lib Dem ministers seemed to be exulting in the welfare “reforms” that purported to help the disadvantaged by giving them less money, and I could not take that. Come 2015 the Lib Dems needed a good and coherent narrative of what they had achieved in government, did not have it, and are still paying the price.
Those blind spots aside, the book is a very interesting reflection on UK politics as seen from the vantage point of the leader of the minority party in the UK’s first coalition government since 1945. I accept some of his points. First, a centre-left coalition in 2010 would not have worked. The numbers just were not there, and there would have been another election in six months which the Conservatives would have won with a large majority after the economy tanked. Second, of course the Lib Dems in government were never going to get everything they wanted. However, they made some bad strategic choices about what to get, and I think failed to respond to the tactical sneakiness of the Conservative establishment – especially Gove and Osborne. Third, it is the norm rather than the exception for junior coalition partners to lose seats, often a lot of seats, at the next election. (Though perhaps the Lib Dems could have prepared better for this both internally and with external messaging.)
The central message of the book is that the liberal centre of politics still matters, and is deserving of support, in an age of increasing populism. 2016 of course was the year of Brexit and Trump, and populism clearly remains very strong. Although I still count myself a liberal, it’s rather difficult to point to liberal successes since 2016. The Belgian prime minster right now is from the Flemish liberal party, who are currently polling at 8%, with the far-right Vlaams Belang in the lead with three times as much support. (And that’s just figures for Flanders, rather than Belgium as a whole.) The ruling Liberal Party in Canada is currently polling fourteen points behind the Conservatives. Whatever you may try to assert about being right in the long term, it looks like today’s voters are looking to the extremes.
One of the points of Clegg’s book that has dated most since 2016 is the assertion that Labour is unelectable. That was perfectly true under Jeremy Corbyn, whose flaws were manifest, but it’s obviously not true now, when the Tories are desperately claiming that an opinion poll result showing them less than twenty points behind is evidence that they can cling on. Keir Starmer will win next year’s election, and win big. The curious thing is that this is probably also good news for the Lib Dems, who have tended to do well when Labour does well. There is clearly a large-ish group of voters who normally vote for the Conservatives, will never vote Labour, but will vote for the Lib Dems, if they can be persuaded that they don’t need to fear a Labour government. If you plug the current poll numbers into Electoral Calculus, the Lib Dems make substantial gains just on a direct swing from Conservatives to Labour, and tactical voting is likely to magnify that. In the 1997 election, when Labour got a huge majority, the Lib Dems went from 18 to 46 seats, an increase of 156%. To equal that scale of gain next year, they’d need to go to 28 or 29 from the 11 of 2019 (now 15, thanks to by-election gains), and that seems very plausible. It won’t get them into government, but it puts them back in play for a future hung parliament.
Anyway, I read less about UK politics than I used to, but I am very glad I read this.
December 19, 2025
This memoir was an enjoyable read! Clegg is clearly an adept, well-read writer whose views are well considered and thoughtful. Having read a number of political memoirs recently, Clegg, more than any other, was willing to articulate his worldview, beliefs, and policies and engage in both the merits and tradeoffs of each. This book is not a blow-by-blow of his time in government nor a chronological account of his political career. Rather Clegg sporadically dips into his significant political moments whilst making a broader argument for his liberal world view. I did prefer this style of a book to that of Gordon Brown's who laboured in his account of the merit of particular policies, which at times, was a bit dry. Clegg's account was compelling, entertaining and interesting and he won me over on a number of issues.
Points of agreement:
The Lib Dems probably did have to enter government with the Tories and a failure to do so would have led to a snap-election and the likely decimation of the Lib Dems.
Being the smaller coalition party is challenging. Although tuition fees continues to dominate the narrative around the Lib Dems time in office, even if an alternative tuition fee model had been adopted, it is likely that some unrelated issue would have arisen that would have crippled them at the subsequent election. I don't think it was practically possible for the Lib Dems to have done well in the 2015 election whilst being an effective coalition partner in government.
What I found interesting:
'Power resides where men believe it resides'. Clegg speaks of his initial disinterest in where his offices were located, whether he was in a specific photo and other symbolic markers of authority. Having been the dominant force in UK politics the Tories understood that the perception of power is power. Controlling the imagery and geography of government is a means to controlling the messaging and narrative and the Tories were a master of it.
The physical toll that politics enacts on politicians. Good politicians work inordinately hard and it is a real and significant sacrifice. The current expectation—particularly on the leaders— to be across the detail of every issue in government, to lead and communicate constantly whilst being sleep deprived, stressed and eating poorly is not conducive to good governance. Holding politicians to account and maintaining high expectations is evidently necessary but is it reasonable to expect politicians to be across every issue at all times? Does this lead to genuinely talented individuals leaving or avoiding politics?
What I disagreed with/ thought was excluded:
The book lacked a proper analysis of the extent and degree of the cuts made by Cameron and Osborne. Austerity was the signature policy of the coalition government. There is now a broad consensus that some spending/ tax cuts were necessary but the extent of the cuts made were excessive and damaging. Clegg is happy to claim the successes of coalition government (equal marriage act, development aid, raised income tax allowance) often stating that these were Lib Dem policies which the tories later adopted and were credited for. He also argued that the Lib Dems were a great moderating force tempering the most fetishized ideological desire of the tories- in which case should he have not prevented the scale of the spending cuts imposed?
Clegg does to his credit explain why university funding had to be reformed, why 'the can couldn't be further kicked down the road' and why a traditional loan system would have been ineffective. I don't believe that the agreement reached for the funding of tuition fees was the worst conceivable system as it is at the very least progressive and the debts do expire after 30 years. That said, the system that was eventually decided is still ridiculous. As a consequence of the size of the loans relative to incomes, and the incredibly high interest rates on the loans, many students end up paying a graduate tax for 30 years which may only service the interest on the loan. For many middle-income individuals this means the effective tax burden on middle income families can be around 50%. I struggle to believe that there was not an alternative system that would not have created such a burden on middle income earners.
Overall, I thought this book was a well written account and is certainly one of the more interesting political memoirs I have read!
Points of agreement:
The Lib Dems probably did have to enter government with the Tories and a failure to do so would have led to a snap-election and the likely decimation of the Lib Dems.
Being the smaller coalition party is challenging. Although tuition fees continues to dominate the narrative around the Lib Dems time in office, even if an alternative tuition fee model had been adopted, it is likely that some unrelated issue would have arisen that would have crippled them at the subsequent election. I don't think it was practically possible for the Lib Dems to have done well in the 2015 election whilst being an effective coalition partner in government.
What I found interesting:
'Power resides where men believe it resides'. Clegg speaks of his initial disinterest in where his offices were located, whether he was in a specific photo and other symbolic markers of authority. Having been the dominant force in UK politics the Tories understood that the perception of power is power. Controlling the imagery and geography of government is a means to controlling the messaging and narrative and the Tories were a master of it.
The physical toll that politics enacts on politicians. Good politicians work inordinately hard and it is a real and significant sacrifice. The current expectation—particularly on the leaders— to be across the detail of every issue in government, to lead and communicate constantly whilst being sleep deprived, stressed and eating poorly is not conducive to good governance. Holding politicians to account and maintaining high expectations is evidently necessary but is it reasonable to expect politicians to be across every issue at all times? Does this lead to genuinely talented individuals leaving or avoiding politics?
What I disagreed with/ thought was excluded:
The book lacked a proper analysis of the extent and degree of the cuts made by Cameron and Osborne. Austerity was the signature policy of the coalition government. There is now a broad consensus that some spending/ tax cuts were necessary but the extent of the cuts made were excessive and damaging. Clegg is happy to claim the successes of coalition government (equal marriage act, development aid, raised income tax allowance) often stating that these were Lib Dem policies which the tories later adopted and were credited for. He also argued that the Lib Dems were a great moderating force tempering the most fetishized ideological desire of the tories- in which case should he have not prevented the scale of the spending cuts imposed?
Clegg does to his credit explain why university funding had to be reformed, why 'the can couldn't be further kicked down the road' and why a traditional loan system would have been ineffective. I don't believe that the agreement reached for the funding of tuition fees was the worst conceivable system as it is at the very least progressive and the debts do expire after 30 years. That said, the system that was eventually decided is still ridiculous. As a consequence of the size of the loans relative to incomes, and the incredibly high interest rates on the loans, many students end up paying a graduate tax for 30 years which may only service the interest on the loan. For many middle-income individuals this means the effective tax burden on middle income families can be around 50%. I struggle to believe that there was not an alternative system that would not have created such a burden on middle income earners.
Overall, I thought this book was a well written account and is certainly one of the more interesting political memoirs I have read!
Displaying 1 - 29 of 102 reviews