Mr. Clegg's Liberal Spirit

Nick Clegg's speech to Liberal Democrat delegates at the party's conference in Birmingham was a punchy, if optimistic one, which will sow the seeds of the party's role in power for the next four years.

It is precisly 30 years since David Steel encouraged activists to 'go back to your constituencies and prepare for government'. Unlike the Liberal Assembly at Llandudno in 1981, Mr. Clegg's address cannot be written off as an eccentric dream. Instead this was a speech from a leader whose party is still coming to terms with the realities of governing. Whilst optimistic in tone, it had a defensive air to it, but this was necessary to both the party's, and Mr. Clegg's own, political survival.

His delivery was sharp and to-the-point. He launched a full -scale attack on the Labour party, accusing them of creating the economic deficit the Coalition is struggling to tackle. His rehetoric was persuasive enough; he asked the audience to imagine what Britain would be like if Ed Milliband and Ed Balls were in charge of the economy.

He defended his government's record on cuts, before addressing the controversial issue of student tuition fees, a matter which finalised much of the resentment the electorate now feel towards the Liberal Democrat leader, and reassured both party activists and the wider public that the very nature of the Coalition remains to govern in the 'national interest' as opposed to the 'vested interest' of the other two parties.

And he, somewhat cleverly, used the public reaction to the recent Summer riots to his own advantage, arguing that the 'horrified' response to the wreckage resulting in voluntary action through clearing up communities was a more powerful example of what is good in Britain than what is bad; an embodiment of the country's 'Liberal spirit'.

Mr. Clegg will hope his upbeat message will win back the support of disillusioned Lib Dem voters.

If nothing else, his speech demonstrated the sort of 'muscular Liberalism' he advocates so passionately. And he certainly 'punched above his weight', an admirable acheivement considering the party's disastrous result in the English local elections and the AV referendum earlier this year, coupled with speculation over the Deputy Prime Minister's own political career , after rumours that he'd told his wife Miriam he would serve in office for only one term, something which he has since resolutely denied.

One has to admire Mr. Clegg for his skill at maintaining a united front from within his own ranks, many of whom still espouse a natural loathing for all things Tory. Do not be surprised if there is a long-awaited rise in poll rating aprroval for the Liberal Democrat leader.

Make no mistake. This was Mr. Clegg reaffirming his position as a radical progressive who also happens to be the second most important man in the country. And, like the Human Rights Act, he is very much 'here to stay'.

The bigger the truth, the bigger the libel .....

Definition of a ‘gagging order’ –a legal action undertaken by an individual to shut someone else up. As simple as that. Nobody can blow the truth any further. And the truth can never get out.

Private matters remain private. Or, at least, as private as possible.

It is something which can only ever be reserved for the rich. Those with wealth buy their privacy. Those without the position of affording such luxuries can expect every aspect of what goes on ‘behind closed doors’ publicised exhaustively by the media in an unsympathetic and often persecutory manner. This, however, occurs very rarely. It is only usually the rich and famous who are followed in this way at all.

It only seems natural that celebrities should be the ones who are stalked by the press and have all sorts of interesting facts about their pasts dug up or rumours of the present investigated, seeing as they are the ones who can cope financially either in the case of a ‘gagging order’ being implemented or whether they choose to sue an individual or organisation for circulating falsities about them or their families.

Clement Freud once said on American television ;‘the bigger the truth, the bigger the libel’. It is perhaps truer now than at any other time in the past.

The change to the practice of ‘super-injunctions’ is a just and necessary measure which will ensure an end to abuse of the system on the part of well-known figures. Time and time again we have seen famous actors, broadcasters, sports stars, and politicians, able to block stories concerning their private lives from reaching the printing rooms so as to avoid being the ‘victims’ of journalistic witch-hunting.

It is now common practice for a ‘celebrity’ to pursue this line of action and find themselves voicing their concerns in our courts, keen to prevent any closeted skeletons from being exhibited in the public eye. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of these stories must be true; the individuals involved would not be so desperate to resort to legal measures in the first place if they were not. In doing so, they are, somewhat foolishly, only drawing further attention to themselves. As a result, the entire purpose of having an injunction implemented becomes laughably discredited.

Thus, ‘news’ of alleged extra-marital affairs, parliamentary expenses, et al are inevitably leaked, circulated, and exposed in a way which significantly damages the reputation of the ‘celebrity’ concerned. A better source of advice for such people would be to hold their hands up high and admit their own embarassing faults, so as to avoid any sensational garbage which may well arise through self- denial.

Those who defend the rich and powerful have recognised, quite rightly, that their monopoly over what does and does not get printed in our newspapers must draw to an end. Even the dreadful public relations ‘guru’ Max Clifford (a man who is consistently on the side of the celebrities he represents and is given far more air time than he deserves) has openly admitted that the present system is totally untenable and proclaimed the change as a welcome step in the right direction.

Our celebrities and public figures have a responslibility to the rest of us. They are to act as role models for us all, regardless of age, gender or ethnicity. If they acknowledge that they remain just as fallible as every other human being they will gather far greater respect and forgiveness from the general public. It is this policy of honesty and openness which should not only be in the interest of the rich and famous, but should also precipitate more responsibilty on the part of those journalists so quick to point the finger.

Liam Elvish
19 June 2011