The television debates among the leaders of three main parties competing in the legislative elections that will be held on the sixth of next month were almost a lesson in journalism, not politics. Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, emerged as a strong figure following the first debate, and a ‘Cleggmania' swept the country. We also read that this inexperienced young politician is the British Obama, that he is a new Churchill – or the most popular British politician since Churchill- and a website affiliated to the New York Times went as far as drawing comparisons between him and Jesus Christ, or the saviour. The infatuation with the leader of a party that has been present and known for years made it seem as though the British media discovered Clegg suddenly on the evening of one given Thursday. In my opinion, the exaggeration of his performance is crude and unprofessional, especially given what I know about his background: he completed his secondary education in Westminster, one of the most prestigious British secondary schools ever, located across the Parliament Square. He then went to the University of Cambridge, and both the school and this university teach their students the principles, or arts, of public debating. Moreover, there are clubs where students can compete and where Clegg trained, and where my eldest daughter also trained (she studied in Westminster and Cambridge and for this reason, I never won a debate with her yet). The Second debate, which focused on foreign affairs, ended in a draw, causing the British press to retreat to their traditional allegiances and to write in reflection of their prejudices without any objective evaluation of the issues in question at the debate. The right-wing The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph newspapers launched personal attacks against Clegg on the eve of the second debate, and after Clegg was compared to Churchill, he was now being compared to Hitler because of a statement he made. I read the following headlines after the debate: Daily Mail: Now Cameron counter-attacks The right-wing The Times: Cameron Ahead of Clegg. Brown the third man The leftist The Daily Mirror almost mourned Clegg and his chances of winning: One foot in the Dave The liberal The Independent said that David Cameron and Gordon Brown focused on personal attacks, but that Clegg stood up for himself: This time it's personal The liberal The Guardian: Clegg weathers the storm The right-wing The Daily Telegraph: Cameron fights back In other words, the London papers wrote their wishes based on their traditional allegiances, and I did not see any objective analyses free of personal bias. The third and final debate will take place tomorrow, and will focus on the economy, which means that Gordon Brown will be in a strong position. He was the Secretary of the Treasury before becoming the Prime Minister. Nonetheless, I expect the London newspapers to voice their support for their chosen candidates, regardless of what will be said or overlooked tomorrow. When I wrote about the legislative elections in Britain last week, I did not mention the Liberal Democratic Party at all, because the Liberal Party (the term Democratic was added to it following the defection of senior members in the Labour Party who joined the Liberal Party in the seventies) has not won any elections in 104 years. Moreover, my interest in the subject was primarily focused on the foreign policy of the ruling and opposition parties, and I have complained that there is little difference between Labour and the Tories when it comes to foreign affairs, as both parties support the U.S policy, which effectively means supporting Israel despite its occupation and crimes. These two parties have also endorsed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which Britain has been taking part. There are a number of public opinion pollsters, and I have not seen any number of them agreeing on the percentages of support that any of the three parties have among the voters. However, most of the polls indicate that the elections will bring about a ‘hung parliament', which means that no party will manage to win a majority to rule alone. This increases the chance of a coalition between two parties: while the Liberal Democrats are closer to Labour, Nick Clegg is not on good terms with Gordon Brown, and I believe that the two politicians cooperating is a very difficult matter. The possibility of a coalition, regardless of which party will enter into it with the Liberal Democrats, brings us back to the issue of foreign affairs. This is because Nick Clegg always took an independent stance. For instance, he opposed the war on Iraq which he described as being illegitimate, criticized the Israeli war on Gaza, and also considers the ‘special relationship' with the United States to be a subservient lopsided and asymmetrical relationship that costs Britain both financially and in terms of Britain's reputation, while being unrewarded. But Clegg's views must be on the right track, because the American Likudniks are attacking him sharply. Even today, they still support the war on Iraq, and the death of a million Iraqis as a result is something positive for Israel and the American Likudniks. I do not think that if Clegg entered into a coalition with Labour or the Tories, the fundamentals of traditional British politics will change. However, this might ease up some of its pro-American and pro-Israeli extremism, and in the end, Clegg is a professional politician who places his and his party's interests above the interests of others. [email protected]
