Clegg's gaffe
With so many other important developments around at the moment - financial and political - Nick Clegg might just get away with his horrendous gaffe when he said the basic single state pension is about £30 pounds when it is in fact £90.70, three times as much.
In normal times, it would be an error which Clegg would find hard to lie down. It badly undermines attempts to portray him as being in touch with ordinary people. Pensioners are a huge and growing constituency, and they're more inclined to vote in elections than any other age group.
But I suspect Gordon Brown would have been in a lot more trouble had he made the same error. Or David Cameron, as it would have added to his image of coming from a wealthy background.
Have you noticed, by the way, that Nick Clegg seems to have a thing about the figure 30 when embarrassed by a reporter's question? Thirty, of course - or up to 30 - was the number of lovers he claimed to have had.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 17th Sep 2008, JunkkMale wrote:Talking of gaffes...
I am presuming the phrase being looked for is 'lived down'?
Then again, maybe not. Hard to tell these days.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 17th Sep 2008, JunkkMale wrote:I of course meant to write 'live down' before hitting 'send'.
How I miss the preview others offer.
'Anyone got a £3.5B spare for a proof-checker?', he asked, sheepishly:)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 17th Sep 2008, barriesingleton wrote:LET HIM WHO IS WITHOUT GAFFE . . .
Too easy.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 18th Sep 2008, jack4ireland wrote:Is this not stock in trade for MPs? :)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 19th Sep 2008, David Mercer wrote:Last night’s focus group report was fascinating. Of course the statistics proved nothing, but the scale of the final vote (3 for Brown, 3 for Cameron, and 20+ for Nick Clegg) indicated that something significant is happening to the political landscape. Not least Cameron was disliked (even by the floating voters) as much as Brown.
In part the vote for Clegg may be about the Obama effect; better the devil you do not know – until the Republicans introduce someone who is even less known. In part it may be Clegg’s diffidence. Up until now this has been seen as a major disadvantage. Last night showed that it can be read – correctly? – as integrity; he actually listens to the questions and tries to answer them. Understandably, that honesty seems to be very welcome.
In terms of policies Clegg and his team, especially Vince Cable, may be pursuing a very clever strategy. In the first interest they have shocked everyone, not least their own party, with their tax-cutting agenda. This seems to be counter-intuitive, given their history, but it does distinguish them from the grey consensus of the two other parties.
Even cleverer, I suspect, is where this policy is going. Up until the Thatcher government all parties (including the Tories) were in favour of progressive taxation; that is the rich pay more tax than the poor. Thatcher cancelled that socialist idea and left the tax burden more or less equally on both. Brown, as Chancellor, didn’t challenge this; and - by his various amendments (meant to hide tax increases by locating them elsewhere) – actually moved us to a regressive tax system. The rich now pay relatively less tax than the poor.
The Liberals may be on the verge of rediscovering the fairness of regressive taxation. I can’t see that being unpopular.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)