BBC BLOGS - Mark Easton's UK
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Is Nick Clegg a hypocrite?

Mark Easton | 11:45 UK time, Wednesday, 6 April 2011

"It is easier to dispose of an opponent's character by exposing his hypocrisy than to show that his political convictions are wrong." I can imagine that Nick Clegg might take some comfort this morning from the words of American political theorist Judith Shklar writing in 1984.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg with school pupils

 

The deputy prime minister is duffed up in many of the papers today for trying to prevent the middle classes from using their connections to get their children valuable internships - after he benefited from just such an arrangement.

The charge is that he is a hypocrite - trying to deny to others what he enjoyed himself. But does the accusation really hold water? Are we saying that no politician can ever pursue reforms to a system because he or she is a consequence of that system?

Many Labour politicians were and are products of grammar schools. Harold Wilson, Dennis Healey, Barbara Castle and Gordon Brown benefited from such an education. Is it then hypocritical for them to argue for an end to grammar schools?

I will guess that those who wish to see more such establishments will say "yes" and those who would have fewer will say "no". In other words, the accusation of hypocrisy is used as a way of avoiding the argument rather than engaging with it.

David Cameron has never denied that he was hauled before the headmaster at Eton having been caught smoking cannabis in 1982. I don't know whether the would-be PM derived any pleasure from his encounter with illegal drugs, but it would surely be perverse if that incident prevented him from campaigning against pot-smoking today.

Similarly, until (as he tells it) 1.45pm on the day in March 1980 that he married Cherie Booth, Tony Blair smoked cigarettes. Should such a past have excluded him from any political activity designed to reduce cigarette smoking among others?

The origin of the word hypocrisy is Greek - hypokrisis - and thought to mean "playing the part". In other words, it is about acting one way in public and another behind the scenes. There is a requirement in the true hypocrite, it seems to me, for the two states to exist simultaneously.

An accusation of hypocrisy against Al Gore promoting his film about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, while criss-crossing the planet in jet-liners may be fair or unfair. But it is, at least, an accurate use of the word. John Major's "Back to Basics" campaign was interpreted as a call for a return to old-fashioned values. Again, fair or unfair, the allegation of hypocrisy related to the questionable moral behaviour of ministers, including the PM, at the time.

What hypocrisy cannot be, surely, is a charge against anyone whose past contradicts their views in the present. If that were so, no-one would ever be able to change their mind or challenge the circumstances of their upbringing.

William Wilberforce, the great reformer, spent his student years gambling and drinking. A religious and spiritual conversion in his twenties saw him become a formidable campaigner against such "immorality". Was he a hypocrite?

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg talks to school pupils

 

In his book Political Hypocrisy: The Mask of Power, the academic David Runciman explores the history of the vice "from Hobbes to Orwell and beyond".

It is a relatively gloomy view of human nature and the motivation of politicians, but he makes the point that: "Because people don't like hypocrisy, and because hypocrisy is everywhere, it is all too tempting for democratic politicians to seek to expose the inevitable double standards of their rivals in pursuit of power and votes."

Negative advertising, he suggests, is the most obvious contemporary example of this: "If you wish to do the maximum possible damage to your political opponent in thirty seconds of airtime, you should try to paint him or her as a hypocrite: you must highlight the gap between the honeyed words and the underlying reality, between the mask and the person behind the mask."

Nick Clegg, however, does not disguise the fact that he benefited from an expensive private education and all the advantages of well-connected parents. He would argue, with some justification, that he is not trying to hide or deny his past.

Indeed, it would be tempting to suggest that the accusations of hypocrisy over his internship come from some of those who would rather not see that particular route of middle-class privilege closed: a case of playing the man, not the ball.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Nick Clegg isn't being hypocritical. It's not his fault that his parents were wealthy and well-connected. He's recognising the unfairness of the system from which he benefited, and is trying to change it. I'm all in favour of his actions.

  • Comment number 2.

    Yes, I agree with the main thrust of this article. Although Nick Clegg comes from a priveleged background, something he is quite open about, it should not preclude him from trying to change things for the future. Would people prefer it if he campaigned for the status quo?

  • Comment number 3.

    I've tried explaining the intricacies of what it means to be a hypocrite many a time in different discussions. It's just one of those terms that people throw out without thinking, such as 'ideological', 'racist' (when there's no actual race involved) or 'immoral'. These things have negative connotations and hence they are used whether or not they're accurate.

    Well done on highlighting this so well.

  • Comment number 4.

    The hypocrisy isnt that Clegg got an unpaid internship (or two). Its that the Lib Dems, were until a they pulled down the relevant page of their website, still advertising for unpaid interns!

    Indeed, I understand that some Lib Dem MPs are STILL advertising for them now.

    In case anyone thinks I am being partisan, I would also call hypocritical any Labour MP who called for unpaid internships to be banned, while benefitting from them him/herself.

    IPSA needs to act on this now. If MPs have work that needs doing, it should be paid for (at Living wage level if not higher) - and that should be funded appropriately.

  • Comment number 5.

    I agree with the comments in so far as I don't think he's being hypocritical on this issue. He recognises the injustices of the system and wants to change it and make it better.

    However, I think he has been hypocritical on other issues. I have constantly heard him bleating on about the fact that "Labour left us no money" whenever he is questioned as to why he trebled fees/scrapped EMA etc etc (e.g. Deputy PMQs yesterday). I find this excuse quite hypocrtical because on the one hand he says we have no money to fund higher level education/EMA, yet on the other, he's championing about the fact that he has found £1bn for his pupil premium, he is able to find £100 million to hold a referendum on AV, he has found money to increase overseas aid, he has found money for a loan to Ireland, he has found money to increase the EU budget contribution by 3%. Thus in truth, it is the not the fact that there is no money left, but rather he is prioritising AV referendum, overseas aid, EU budget, loans to Ireland over higher level education and EMA. I would therefore like to see Mr Clegg become less hypocrictical and yielding the Conservative line when questioned on his decisions to do things that he said before the election he would not do, and instead start defending why he is spending money the way he is (i.e. on loans to Ireland, AV referendum, EU budget increase etc etc).

  • Comment number 6.

    A hypocrite?, a joke springs to mind. He is clearly a person who thinks he is someone but isn't.
    Going off a bit in relation to unpaid internships and others working for nothing.

    I very much believe that if you are working, then you should get paid. Unless you are working for a charity.

  • Comment number 7.

    Surely its hypocracy to espouse one thing whilst actually doing the opposite? Making it more difficult and more expensive for many, many tens of thousands of children, of middle to poorer income housholds, from acquiring a college/univerity education, surely our weighs a few hundred intern-ships. In addition that most intern ships are in politics, the media, fashion and the law does this not also indicate what a unreal world these policians inhabit? In addition to decry nepotism,
    whilsts having directly benefitted from it yourself does make Glegg`s conversion to
    equity seem a little hollow.

  • Comment number 8.

    You are right he is not a hypocrite in this case, nobody can be tarred with the actions and opinions of their distant past as long as their change is real and current actions are not hypocritical.

    The charge against Clegg is that he is a liar. He and his Party stood at the Election on the Labour Parties economic strategy but are happily implementing the Tory strategy. The rights and wrongs of the argument for either strategy are irrelevant, the lack of mandate for what is happening is real and worrying and Clegg is guilty as charged.

  • Comment number 9.

    As has been said, regarding spending, its not that there is no money. Politics is about where you choose to spend and tax. Clearly the coalition deem it necessary to spend millions (so far) lobbying for UN intervention in Libya and then expending the military hardware etc. This is their choice, there was no direct threat to the UK from Libya - a country no less morally ambiguous than Saudi, Yemen, Bahrain etc etc etc...so its about choices. Chioces which the voters of the last election were not presented with (NHS reforms), for example.

  • Comment number 10.

    So hypocrisy is "acting one way in public and another behind the scenes".

    Saying that unpaid internships should be scrapped while your party continues to use them and the same day announces that interns will not be paid "this year" seems to fit that definition pretty closely to me.

    Or perhaps it's just a U-turn, like his one on Fees. Maybe Nick is changing his policies so quickly nowadays that he LOOKS like a hypocrite ...

  • Comment number 11.

    Clegg is not a hypocrite; he is simply on the winning side in the class war. Look closely at his actions and policies and he is entirely consistent.

  • Comment number 12.

    A few years ago I thought there was a tribunal case that set a standard for active work experience (and therefore I presume internships - what is the difference?) as being the same as employment and therefore covered by minimum wage legislation. Whatever happened subsequent to this that still allows unpaid positions?

  • Comment number 13.

    Whether or not Mr.Clegg is a hypocrite is irrelevant.Those to whom he was a hero,a generational pin up boy,a role model, who flocked to vote for him in their university constituences think he lied.

    You can`t lie to children,it`s never forgiven.I know,the exigencies of coalition.It was those pledges,something personal there,and the stream of broken promises floating down the embankment.No-one made him join a coalition,but then he`s a free market liberal and instinctive tory.

    Won`t survive,can`t.Wasn`t just one thing but everything.Tuition fees,the economy,EMA,the NHS....Mr.Clean is damaged goods,he knows it,his party knows it.Better the Tories offer him one of those Tufton Bufton constituencies now so he can retire with dignity.

    But the tories hate him too,O dear.If it was just hypocrisy he would probably survive.This is worse,it`s political miscalculation on an epic scale.

    They`ve never been a political party,just a spectrum of opinion.The profile of their voters says it all.Less knowledgeable,smaller proportion of activists,less likely to vote.They`re the genteels who find politics distasteful,have no real opinions.Holes in the air.

  • Comment number 14.

    I thought hypocrisy had become Cleggys middle name.

    Oops school boy error!!

  • Comment number 15.

    This is very true - it's a very emotive line of argument to call someone a hypocrite but if you take this line virtually every single politician who has ever advocated social reform would also be a hypocrite as they have almost universally been from the upper classes

    Good, logical post

  • Comment number 16.

    is nick clegg a hypocrite does a bear crap behind a tree. its purely academic.
    we will find out after may,s council elections.

  • Comment number 17.

    To follow on from 13,what`s a boy to do! He`s bright enough,not exceptional.The back office of political parties,the city,journalism are full of these characters.Well connected,plausible,no special talent except a need to succeed.

    They always underestimate the demands of politics as a forum to display their skills.In one of the bigger parties they make departmental minister but not leader.Or they gravitate to smaller parties like the Lib Dems where damaging misjudgements and character flaws are disguized or forgiven.

    It`s part of a secret trajectory of failure.

  • Comment number 18.

    Is it not the case that the 'sins' of the father being transferred to the young naive son. What would be hypocritical is the opposition to public schools but sending one's children to one but it would not be if having attended one's self.

  • Comment number 19.

    Being a hypocrite is saying one thing in public and then doing the opposite behind the scenes. So maybe something like pledging to scrap tuition fees whilst at the same time planning to barter it away in a coalition negotiation. Campaigning against greater upfront cuts in public services, at the same time planning to change your stance because you think it might be politically and economically expedient.

    Yep - Cleggy's a hypocrite all right (but not in the case of internships!).

  • Comment number 20.

    Saying that "from today" all interns working for the Lib Dems will be paid, and then retracting that statement the next day is not hypocrisy. A generous term would be "blagging".

  • Comment number 21.

    Off course Clegg is a hypocrite, one only has to look at his parties drug policy to realise it. He is allowing the Misuse of Drugs Act to be maladministered, he stood up and back decriminalisation and now we hear nothing. He is allowing the Auton ruling and no doubt ever more draconian rulings to send peaceful people to prison for growing a few plants. All that is needed is a small amendment to the MDA and this country would be saving £17.8 billion p.a. sorry to go all off topic, but the man is a hypocrite whichever way one looks at him.

  • Comment number 22.

    7. At 13:20pm on 6th Apr 2011, Steve wrote:
    Surely its hypocracy to espouse one thing whilst actually doing the opposite? Making it more difficult and more expensive for many, many tens of thousands of children, of middle to poorer income housholds, from acquiring a college/univerity education, surely our weighs a few hundred intern-ships.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is patently false. This has not occurred. The University fees are entirely unrelated to your family background. Not as penny is paid until after university, and then the repayments are taken as a percentage of the amount of your salary that is above the repayments threshold - which was increased by 40% to £21,000 per annum.

    As such, repayments are much lower as a proportion of monthly income, the tapered interest rate is progressive, and university becomes a great equaliser of people from different backgrounds.

    Repayments are based on your final salary, which is dependent on your degree and not your background.

    But do you know what the ironic thing is? It's that fewer people from poorer backgrounds will go university, but not as a result of the measures themselves - no, it'll be because people like you who don't know what you're talking about are going around convincing people they can't afford something that is free at the point of use.

    Repeat a lie often enough, and people start to believe it. When fewer people from poorer backgrounds apply, it'll be your fault, and not the fault of the progressive measures brought in by the Coalition.

  • Comment number 23.

    Hes a two faced liar, never had any intention of doing the right thing. Got to were he is after promising many people that he would make thier lives better, that he would push for medical acceptance of cannabis as a treatment for many illnesses......
    then students.. 9k to educate per year...
    He lined the nation up bent them over and.....

  • Comment number 24.

    I have been moderated for a rather long time so I will put my point in slightly more parliamentary language.

    I agree with the tenor of the blog Clegg is not a hypocrite for wanting to change a system that he benefitted from. He would be a hypocrite if he found a job for one of his own children through his extensive networks in Tory Britain.

    His crime is a different one and is that of broken promises to the electorate and helping to push through policies for which there is no mandate:

    Tory Economic strategy when he campaigned on slower and shallower cuts.
    Tuition fees trebled campaigned to remove them
    NHS reforms, I don't know who campaigned on these
    EMA
    etc, etc, etc

    This is not hypocracy, there is another name for this...........

  • Comment number 25.

    Bryhers wrote about Lib Dem voters.

    They`ve never been a political party,just a spectrum of opinion.The profile of their voters says it all.Less knowledgeable,smaller proportion of activists,less likely to vote.They`re the genteels who find politics distasteful,have no real opinions.Holes in the air.


    Those who find politics distasteful have plenty of knowledge which is why they find it distasteful. Our voting system makes supporters of smaller parties either vote tactically or not bother to vote at all(Yes to AV!). I'll forgive your condescending comment and offer you the code for blockquote.

    Use angular brackets(more than less than signs) instead of square brackets:

    [blockquote]"clearing up Nuliarbore's mess.....Grim up north London.. etc[/blockquote]

    "clearing up Nuliarbore's mess.....Grim up north London.. etc


    I've tried above to show the code exactly but it runs the code it even with the special ampersand codes instead of the brackets.

  • Comment number 26.

    Spirit_of_56

    'This is not hypocracy, there is another name for this...'

    Coalition government.

    If you don't like it vote aganst AV.

  • Comment number 27.

    I thought volunteering was to be encouraged under the 'big society'.

  • Comment number 28.

    23. At 14:56pm on 6th Apr 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    "then students.. 9k to educate per year... "

    If you think it only costs 9k to educate people for a year, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is highly subsidised *still*. It amounts to about 60% of the cost.

    When put in perspective, your complaints on tuition fees are entirely unjustified. I do happen to agree on cannibis, though, knowing 3 people with MS.

  • Comment number 29.

    The only thing Nick Clegg is denying to others is a cosy entree which they wouldn't otherwise deserve.

    If they're good enough, the introduction will get them the interview but nothing more. Then they're up against everyone else, and what's wrong with that?

    I suspect that the majority of those who get internships on the grapevine would get them through a more formal process, but there will undoubtedly be cases of unworthy occupancy.

    It takes some brass neck though to say that Clegg is a hypocrite for wanting to broaden access to the best jobs. I'm sure Simon Heffer wouldn't be against that!! And he's as right wing as they come.

  • Comment number 30.

    Nick Clegg is a Politician, ipso facto he is a hypercrite. Every politician sells their principles for the taste of power.

    It is a deeply disappointing feature of the human condition.

  • Comment number 31.

    At 14:53pm on 6th Apr 2011, Marnip wrote:
    "The University fees are entirely unrelated to your family background."

    Wrong they are completely related! The rich will pay the fees up front, and the poor will have theirs reduced through fee waivers. You will get the situation were you have three people doing the same job, getting the same salary but one paying 10% of his salary to cover his student loans just because his family was not rich or poor enough. Very progressive!

  • Comment number 32.

    26. At 15:26pm on 6th Apr 2011, jobsagoodin wrote:
    Spirit_of_56

    'This is not hypocracy, there is another name for this...'

    Coalition government.

    If you don't like it vote aganst AV.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Didn't you notice that this coalition came about despite first past the post?

    We all know that politicians are mostly self serving, so my referendum vote will go whichever way the least MPs would like. I think I already know the answer to that.

  • Comment number 33.

    Whilst I have no great liking for Clegg or the reality deniers in his party, he is no more of a hypocrite than most other politicians, Cameron promising toughness and displaying cowardice, Milliband pretending to have answers to the problems he helped to cause. Politicians by their very nature are dishonest ; why else would they choose such a career ? There are no honest politicians, though a few may be less deceitful than others. Coalition government is a recipe for more deceit, and changing voting systems will not lead to honesty, in fact it will only saddle us with more of the second grade more deceit and more incompetence.

  • Comment number 34.

    Is a criminal who gives up crime and then tries to persuade others to stop a hypocrite? So Clegg’s parents put in a good word and got him a job – blame his parents not him, not that there’s actually any blame involved though because at the time it was not considered wrong. Times and attitudes change however, so it doesn’t mean he’s wrong to try to stop it now. At the very least I hope they manage to stop the unpaid exploitation of youngsters by companies dangling a possible job as a carrot. As for stopping it completely, well I don’t think that will ever happen, particularly in the murky world of politics, where nobody gets to the top without a nod & a wink from the right people.

  • Comment number 35.

    Marnip 22
    "The University fees are entirely unrelated to your family background. Not as penny is paid until after university, and then the repayments are taken as a percentage of the amount of your salary that is above the repayments threshold - which was increased by 40% to £21,000 per annum."

    Indeed,if your parents are wealthy they pay fees up front and you incur no debt.The majority,the "squeezed middle" incur a large debt of £27000 and rising since most universities will charge full fees to cover the cost of humanities and social science courses slashed by 80%.

    The small minority of students from the poorest 10% will benefit,but are so few the changes represent a huge direct and indirect tax on higher education.Of course people will be put off,especially as most arts and social science qualifications are classed as mickey mouse degrees by the tabloids and some broadsheet journalists who should know better.

  • Comment number 36.

    Marnip @22
    "Repeat a lie often enough, and people start to believe it." Well at least you practise what you preach
    Have the tuition fees that students will pay substantially increased or not?. Has the EMA scheme (proven to improve access for poorer/disadvantaged student) been substantially curtailed? You may chose to be misled by the Central Office line others may question it with good cause. You'll pay less per month (don't mention it will be for longer). You won't pay until you earn more than £21000 (don't mention how many students are likely to earn less than £21000 for more than a small part of their working life or come to that who will pick up the bill for those who don't). The debt expires after 30 years. (great they can look forward to getting a mortgage and having children at 52 and more seriously again who picks up the bill for those who haven't managed to pay it all back - kicking the can down the road ring any bells?).
    Now either this new tuition is a charitable arangement whose cost will be met years down the road or it means that many/most ex students will pay back a substantially larger amount over a longer period of their working life.
    To add insult to injury we are told by the same people that taking on large debts was one of the 'naughty' things we all did too much of in the noughties.
    Personally that's why I'd say you, like Nick C, are not being entirely straight about this.

  • Comment number 37.

    31. At 15:59pm on 6th Apr 2011, sk84goal wrote:
    At 14:53pm on 6th Apr 2011, Marnip wrote:
    "The University fees are entirely unrelated to your family background."

    Wrong they are completely related! The rich will pay the fees up front, and the poor will have theirs reduced through fee waivers. You will get the situation were you have three people doing the same job, getting the same salary but one paying 10% of his salary to cover his student loans just because his family was not rich or poor enough. Very progressive!

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, a great proportion of people can pay 9k up front, can they? And then living costs? There's only rich and poor in your world, are there?

    It's stupid claims like 1/3 students get loans, and 2/3 are rich enough to pay up front, that makes you seem like you haven't a clue.

    The only difference between this system and the one I went under is that there is a tapered interest rate, and now students pay 60% rather than 40%. It is infinitely more progressive than the last system, which is the comparison being made.

  • Comment number 38.

    One of the many politicians who have displayed hypocrisy was Diane Abbott, who sent her own son to a private school, while spouting the line that the current Labour government were doing a fantastic job in state education.


  • Comment number 39.

    31. At 15:59pm on 6th Apr 2011, sk84goal wrote:

    "You will get the situation were you have three people doing the same job, getting the same salary but one paying 10% of his salary to cover his student loans just because his family was not rich or poor enough."

    Had to go back to this bit. No, it won't be 10% of their salary, because you only pay back 9% on the amount above the 21k threshold.

    Here's an example, as you've clearly been too lazy to bother doing it yourself:

    Let's say the poorest graduate who is still having to make repayments is earning £21,500 a year gross.

    Now, the threshold is £21,000. So, they pay back 9% per year on the £500 above that threshold. 9% of £500 is £45 per year.

    Per month on a simplistic basis, that's 45/12 = £3.75 per month.

    You are moaning about £3.75 per month out of a monthly gross salary of £1792, that you earn BECAUSE of that education. You should be ashamed when there are kids starving all over the world. If you can't find £3.75 worth of savings a month on that salary then you're incapable of living on your own anyway.

  • Comment number 40.

    . At 15:08pm on 6th Apr 2011, DH Wilko wrote:
    Bryhers wrote about Lib Dem voters.


    "They`ve never been a political party,just a spectrum of opinion.The profile of their voters says it all.Less knowledgeable,smaller proportion of activists,less likely to vote.They`re the genteels who find politics distasteful,have no real opinions.Holes in the air."

    DH Wilko wrote:

    "Those who find politics distasteful have plenty of knowledge which is why they find it distasteful. Our voting system makes supporters of smaller parties either vote tactically or not bother to vote at all(Yes to AV!). I'll forgive your condescending comment and offer you the code for blockquote."

    Not so,I`m citing survey evidence.Those in the middle are the most volatile electorally,more likely to change their vote in the course of the campaign,a smaller proportion of activists compared to other parties,more influenced by press and TV coverage when they are exposed to large amounts of political material.

    They are also less knowledgeable and less interested in politics.

    You can put this down to the breakdown of the old agencies of political socialization and their replacement by media,now Twitter and facebook.Mass membership of the main political parties peaked at around a million each in the 1950 election,it is now 150.000 and falling,trade unions as agents of political socialization are also in decline.However the CBI and IOD,Masons and Rotary for the local elites continue to flourish.The Lib-Dems are a kind of excrescence on the corpse of a participatory democracy.

  • Comment number 41.

    #26 Jobsagoodin

    Sadly for you I will be voting in favour of AV for all sorts of reasons, like the current system gives electoral majorities to the largest minority, (we have suffewred Thatcher and Blair and they never obtained a real majority of the electorate) many MPs have seats for life and significant parts of the population are never represented by their MP etc. etc.

    Just because Clegg decided to jetison his manifesto to get power for the first time in 80 years doesn't mean the principle of coalition government won't work. After all the weak governments in Germany, Scandinavia etc all rely on PR (admittedly a better and fairer system than AV) have Coalition Governments and appear to have managed the pre amd post crisis period a lot better then we have.

  • Comment number 42.

    The reality is the BBC doesnt pay its interns excluding transport costs. TRUST ME

    As this is the case what kind of students do you think eventually can afford to take these positions? Higher middle class graduates or working class ones?

    The issue isnt internships, although secrecy is an issue, its pay. Unpaid internship positions are the equiviant of filtering out working class applicants. Why is there no goverment support for small business offering internships at the very least?

    However having said that real working class people who need these positions dont have the time to spare commenting on this article so the real people in this debate (comments) are not even being heard.

    This about it, the only people complaining about what Mr Glegg is saying are the stakeholders affected in this debate, middle and upper class parents who happen to be running the media.

  • Comment number 43.

    Nick Clegg has lost all credibility.
    Every time he opens his mouth, as a former supporter I wince and can hear his opponents rubbing their hands with glee as he sets up another own-goal. e.g. student fees, oh dear, oh dear.
    Worst of all, he's sold his party up the river for AV that looks highly unlikely to come to pass, i.e. nothing.
    Shame

  • Comment number 44.

    "Just because Clegg decided to jetison his manifesto to get power for the first time in 80 years doesn't mean the principle of coalition government won't work."

    There are a lot of badly informed views being posted here and that is really said.
    Firstly, a manifesto should not be considered an unchangeable document. Look at Labour, their manifestos over the 13 years they were in power claimed lots of things (including Electoral reform) that they always seemed to backtrack on once they were voted in on a huge majority.

    The Lib Dem manifesto was their statement of intention IF THEY HAD BEEN ELECTED TO POWER. They were not. They came third in the election and have just 8% of the MPs in the House of commons. That means that at best, they could support another party to get some of their policies (or influences) acted upon, rather than forcing another election (in which their vote would go down) or letting a minority government limp along and be unable to take to tough decisions needed to dig us out of the hole Labour left us in.

    I have heard both Clegg and Simon Hughes say that with regards to Tuition fees, they "were stuffed". If they had been voted into power on their own they would not have increased tuition fees and would have sought to get rid of them during their term in office. But both the other main parties were not only in favour of fees but were in favour of increasing them, so they realistically had no chance of getting their policy in place as part of a coalition.

    What they have tried to do is make the system fairer than it was, something that would never have happened under a Labour (who introduced the system) or Conservative government.

    So, to students reading this - they didn't betray you, they were just unable to do what they wanted. If you want fees scrapped, the ONLY way it will happen is to elect a purely Lib Dem government.

  • Comment number 45.

    Those that have a life experience, decide that it was wrong, and change are generally good people experiencing personal growth.
    Those that have a life experience, decide that it was wrong, and keep doing it anyway are generally bad people experiencing at least one of the seven sins.
    In conclusion, let me say something that was said long ago and with which I agree strongly: "Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
    But having said this, I also support civil/court action against those who cannot seem to stay within legal parametres, you know - those that seem to need help to become good people.
    In answer to your specific question, I cannot know, anymore than you can know, whether Nick Clegg is a hypocrite; the answer rests in his heart.

  • Comment number 46.

    I'm so glad that in some corner of the media, someone has sensibly explained why the shrieks of 'hypocrisy!' are ridiculous. I wish we saw more journalism like this.

  • Comment number 47.

    Hypocrisy comes in many forms. How is it that virtually every time a senior politician of any party holds a photo shoot with children or students, regardless of the scholastic venue, those from ethnic minorities outnumber white pupils by several to one? This is evident in the current pictures shown on the BBC web and TV. What are these unbalanced metaphors trying say? Some may argue that this is politically correct over kill and it does nothing to further the advancement of the minorities. I for one would agree as on one hand it patronises none whites and on the other it is transparently unrealistic. Given the contrived format of this latest batch of images, in my view, what the public relation boys have done is make Clegg look gauche and condescending. This is the complete opposite to that intended and which adds to the tiresome latest long list of superficial silly spinning by Dr Liberal Feather- weight. If he wants to project a policy of social mobility for all this is not the way to successfully proceed given the pictorial evidence on this occasion. Interestingly reference social mobility; pro rata to population currently the most successful higher education students in the UK are Orientals followed by Asians, whites come next and last but not least those of African ancestry.

  • Comment number 48.

    Quercus 44

    You are writing nonsense.No-one forced Mr.Clegg into a coalition.He went because`s he`s a free market liberal and instinctive Tory.

    As far as he and Mr.Hughes being "Stuffied" by tuition fees,they were free to vote against them.

    Students think he lied.Mr Hughes equivocation won`t save them.They`ve lost the only thing of valiue in politics,-trust.

  • Comment number 49.

    Of course he's not a hypocrite! What, so the choices are status quo or revolution? He wants to see reform, egalitarian reform to improve equality. Liberals have been reforming the system since victorian times - breaking down barriers from the inside.

  • Comment number 50.

    "The Lib-Dems are a kind of diseased growth on the corpse of a participatory democracy."


    You don't like them then? Fair enough. I'll spare you the baffling vitriol. People sometimes want to vote but don't want to vote Labour or the Conservatives . I was writing in defence of those people rather than Nick Clegg and the lib dems. Most people have a knowledge of politics but are less idealogical.

  • Comment number 51.

    Easton is wrong; my Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991) makes it clear that 'hypocrisy' has overtones of intent to deceive. Whether that involves a 'change of mind' later on, or the simple fact of willing to deceive, is I think immaterial.

    They are hypocrites indeed, all of them, despite Easton's vapid blandishments.

  • Comment number 52.

    Does anyone actually accept this fig leaf? if so your all either lost in a dream world or have the long term memories of a gold fish. Most politicians are in place to assure the continuity of the status quo at our expense and to tell us any old crap to distract us from demanding the truth about arms, education, employment and social mobility. They manipulate the BBC to propagate this bull and most people lap it up like manor from heaven whilst they carve up the spoils between them, justifying what ever best supports their ideology as being "right and proper". Every four years they offer us the illusion of an election but the choice is basically "death by MauMau". None of these plastic hypocritical sycophants hold any real power or even have any solutions to the huge problems we are faced with. In the mean time people get on with their lives as they always have, knowing that they can never trust what a politician says. For instance both leaders have campaigned for cannabis reform in the past, then they loose their bottle when they get into power. if something is right, it is right! instead they suck up to little Britain in order to keep their jobs.

  • Comment number 53.

    #1 Mincepie Murderer is far too kind.

    "Nick Clegg isn't being hypocritical. It's not his fault that his parents were wealthy and well-connected."

    He could have run away from home....

  • Comment number 54.

    So why did Mr Clegg jump ship so easily and then decide that all his "great Liberal principles" were far too much of a joke to stand in the way of his lust for power? The toff must have no honour, no integrity and no empathy with ordinary people.

  • Comment number 55.

    I always thought hypocrisy was essential if you wished to be a politician, along with mendacity and the ability never to answer a question.

  • Comment number 56.

    This is issue is rightly raised by the media, but it is not the biggest issue with Clegg.

    The liberals campaigned as a left of centre, reformist party. They attracted votes from people who's greatest desire was to ensure that we did not once again suffer the damage of a tory government.

    Clegg then took the power given by those votes and used it to put the tories into power.

    This is the reason that Clegg has gone from being the golden boy of british politics, our most trusted party leader, to be being a pariah. He is now at the point that even a labour leader will not be seen with him for fear of being damaged by association. If current polling intentions remain, his party may well effectively disapear as a parliamentary party at the next election.

    The tawdry way in which he got an internship is the least of Cleggs worries.

  • Comment number 57.

    Whilst it may be okay for someone who has taken an illicit drug to still compaign against it many years later without risk of being labelled a hypercrit this is not the case for Cameron.

    Because Cameron lobbied government as a back bencher in his early career calling for reform of all drug laws and the legalisation of cannabis.

    Today in 2011 there is even more evidence that it would be a good policy than there was then yet Cameron now is suddenly against such a move.

    And why? Because he percieves such policies as politically damaging and now that he is in power and actually has somthing to lose he does not have the conviction or the honestly to follow thorugh with it.

    So Cameron is a MASSIVE hypercrit.

  • Comment number 58.

    Typical, try to justify an argument to suit being in denial. The plain answer is YES! The man could not even kie straight in bed.

  • Comment number 59.

    50. At 22:40pm on 6th Apr 2011, DH Wilko wrote:

    "The Lib-Dems are a kind of diseased growth on the corpse of a participatory democracy."


    "You don't like them then? Fair enough. I'll spare you the baffling vitriol. People sometimes want to vote but don't want to vote Labour or the Conservatives . I was writing in defence of those people rather than Nick Clegg and the lib dems. Most people have a knowledge of politics but are less idealogical."

    Either you burn with a hard gem like flame or you join the mediocre middle.

    Who are these people who have a knowledge of politics but are less ideological? The majority of voters have incoherent attitudes.Their political choice is based on two factors: One is elites who have their confidence,the second is issues which affect them directly.

    Then you also need to distinguish between a voter who is motivated by ideology,like SC,RR,N and FS,and those who have a contextual grasp of politics and make choices on the basis of information as well as sentiment.

    A feature of the present government is the very rapid decline in public confidence.It took Labour ten years,this one has barely made ten months.Far more damaging to Mr.Clegg`s party,they thought he was different,cleaner,purer,untainted,Galahad.

    The idea that most people have a knowledge of politics puts you firmly in the Lib-Dem camp.



  • Comment number 60.

    Mr Clegg is not a hypocrite. The British people are the hypocrites.

    They are the ones whose preference is to watch mindless tv, (as illustrated by many of the ill informed "contributions" here) contribute little to nothing towards society, complain about taxes and then be the first to complain about any reduction in services those taxes are generated to provide. That's ignoring the more obviously un-balanced comments!
    The decline in British society and the current lack of any "stiff upper lip" is saddening. It's all emotion and "i feel," frankly who cares what you feel what are the facts. Many of the comments here clearly illustrate the complete lack of factual basis for peoples opinions, these apparently being based on their emotions. Sad.


    As for tuition fees, internships etc. the vast majority of graduates are a complete and utter waste of time, their degrees are meaningless. It is only once they have spent a significant amount of time actually working that they contribute to the business. A practical degree that delivers real skills is of use, such as engineering, anything with media in the title should result in the entire faculty being sent to work as manual labour.

    Just my thoughts you understand.

  • Comment number 61.

    @58

    You are desperately trying to make data fit your opinion. People don't vote rationally, big surprise.
    I'm also not sure what exact revelation you think you are supplying. As for the "rapid decline in public confidence," gosh a government that makes (necessary) cuts is unpopular, i won't be coming to you for the lottery numbers this week.

    Despite your wrapping your comments in a pseudo scientific approach you are not proving or revelling anything of significance.

  • Comment number 62.

    Oops the previous should have read @59

  • Comment number 63.

    The excuse they're currently using that "you dont have to pay back your student lone until you graduate and are earning £20,000 +" wont last, its just to get this by in the short term. Once the higher fees are established for a few years then they will change that to a system where you have to pay back straight away as they realise that graduates on mass will be fleeing to Australia and America to work rather then stay here and pay them back. The political class take the peoples labour for granted which is very dangerous in a competitive global job market. the only people left will be the underclass who will reject government and corporate expectations.

    it would be far better to invest in the british people and give them an incentive to stay here and improve EVERYBODY'S quality of life, and build co-operative and comercial society. We need to ween our selves off the opium of the banking sector as they are pure poison. let them leave and be someone else's problem. The future will be the Green Economy lets get in whilst the gettings good.

  • Comment number 64.

    "The majority of voters have incoherent attitudes.Their political choice is based on two factors: One is elites who have their confidence,the second is issues which affect them directly


    Then you also need to distinguish between a voter who is motivated by ideology,like SC,RR,N and FS,and those who have a contextual grasp of politics and make choices on the basis of information as well as sentiment.


    The idea that most people have a knowledge of politics puts you firmly in the Lib-Dem camp.


    Do you remember 'CEH' Bryhers? I do.

  • Comment number 65.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 66.

    61. At 14:35pm 7th Apr 2011, itzig66 wrote:
    @58

    "You are desperately trying to make data fit your opinion. People don't vote rationally, big surprise.
    I'm also not sure what exact revelation you think you are supplying. As for the "rapid decline in public confidence," gosh a government that makes (necessary) cuts is unpopular, i won't be coming to you for the lottery numbers this week.

    Despite your wrapping your comments in a pseudo scientific approach you are not proving or revelling anything of significance."

    I sense it`a the decline in confidence that has incensed you.Mr.Cameron`s problem is you need a high degree of national consensus to carry through the change he and his colleagues envisage.Reaction to tuition fees and the "pause" over the NHS shows tha consensus is missing and needs to be built.

    Mr.Osborne doesn`t help.Addressing some business people today he said that the Portuguese bail-out, like Greece and Ireland, are examples of what happens when you don`t cut hard enough.

    The problem for two of the three guilty parties is they have been cutting for years,keep coming back for more help from the ECB and IMF.A suspicion is growing that cuts aern`t working,economies continue to slide,unemployment and deficit grows.

    There is an alternative strategy,why is it that conservatives always,pathologically must, pretend theirs is the only show in town?

    Finally,you say I "desperately try to make data fit my opinion." I didn`t present data,merely qualitative analysis born of mature reflection.



  • Comment number 67.

    DH Wilko

    "Do you remember 'CEH' Bryhers? I do."

    I clearly don`t,but with links to the military I refuse to do abbreviations.

  • Comment number 68.

    All MPs are hyprocrits its the nature of the job, and there are too many of them. Many remain as MPs living of the state for too long and there should be limit in the number of years they can serve.

  • Comment number 69.

    Clegg is not a hypocrite. This charge is identical to the notion that anyone who attended an independent or grammar school must be somewhere on the right wing, as it is morally wrong for them to be on the left.

    Absolutely absurd.

  • Comment number 70.

    Some of the comments on here are truly bizarre.

    To call Nick Clegg a hypocrite because he believes that something that has helped in in his career is unfair and should be changed is clearly absurd.

    Every single one of us can remember things we have done in our past which have gained us an advantage. We may now believe that this kind of thing should not be allowed.

    Regarding the point that he is "only in it for power", well we shall see.

    If he is purely a career politician then he will defect to the Tories and be given a safe seat.

    If he is a conviction politician (which I am sure he is) then he will defend his Sheffield seat and run the real risk of being defeated.

    The Lib Dems are doing a very good job in Government, If you read the newspapers or watch the BBC (Anrew Neil anyone?) then they will try to tell you otherwise.
    They desperately need a strong voice in the media telling the public what is actually happening - not party political propoganda.
    The BBC used to fill this role but are now giving airtime to the vacuous rantings of the Labour Party who , basically, have nothing to offer in the political debate.

    Nick Clegg is a honest and honorable man. His party is outnumbered six to one in the coalition with the Tories.
    Many of their ideals have had to be put on hold. But what they have achieved so far is greatly out of proportion to the political mix of the coalition

    Yes, their flagship idea on tuition fees has had to go, but the 10% starting rate on tax, re-establishing the pensions link to earnings etc etc have had av great impact on the more worthy causes in our society.

    We need someone to publicise these achievements in a more rational manner.

  • Comment number 71.

    Jim Pilling 70

    "Lib Dems are doing a very good job in Government, If you read the newspapers or watch the BBC (Anrew Neil anyone?) then they will try to tell you otherwise.
    They desperately need a strong voice in the media telling the public what is actually happening - not party political propoganda.
    The BBC used to fill this role but are now giving airtime to the vacuous rantings of the Labour Party who , basically, have nothing to offer in the political debate.

    Nick Clegg is a honest and honorable man. His party is outnumbered six to one in the coalition with the Tories."

    Your difficulty is that the big story of the coalition are the cuts.The marginal tax changes achieved by the Lib-Dems are swamped by changes in benefits which bear heaviest on the poorest.

    It was that election broadcast,the broken promises of the other parties floating down the embankment,the "pledges" that followed on tuition fees.A pledge is personal,politics is trust,that`s been forfeited especially for the kids in the university seats who saved the Lib-Dems from a disastrous showing in the General Election.

    Factor in the U turn on the economy,"We only saw the books at the weekend",EMA,the swingeing changes to the NHS which Mr.Clegg is trying to sell, and you sense the depth of betrayal a lot of nice people feel.

    I don`t share it.I have always known that Mr.Clegg is more of a free market liberal than liberal democrat whose natural home is on the right.Class and political polarization is typical of economic crisis,the Lib-Dems are now a part of the conservative party struggling to retain an identity.

  • Comment number 72.

    70. At 00:55am 8th Apr 2011, Jim Pilling wrote:

    Nick Clegg is a honest and honorable man.
    =========================

    I think that is border line delusional.

    We have a bloke who made unequivocal commitments on tuition fees and then did the oposite when in power. That is lying, not honest.

    To state that he is out voted by the tories is no defence. He chose to go into that coalition knowing full well the nature of the people he was allying himself with. He sold out for a temporary ego boost of power. Now both he and liberals are the paying a high price in popularity and votes - roll on the local elections.

    Sorry for the classical reference, Clegg reminds me of Faustus - sell your soul to the devil for brief period of glee but get ready to pay the price later.

  • Comment number 73.

    If you support the voucherisation of university education of the humanities, if your party goes around saying that the nation has 'maxed out its credit card', as though a government does not have the monopoly on the nation's printing press (seigniorage), and if you support the revivification of grant-maintained schools in the guise of 'academies', and the NHS...and the...and the..Then, yes, that's hypocrisy given their election campaign.

    Not that this absolves the UK's media, such as it is.

  • Comment number 74.

    While all of the examples Mr Easton quotes, from David Cameron's cannabis experience all the way back to William Wilberforce's rakish youth, may not be hypocrisy in the strictest sense of the word, they are all similar in the fact of illustrating someone having the pleasure or the benefit of the act and then denying that same experience to others. Not hypocrisy but certainly a catalogue of the holier than thou saying "do as I say, not as I do".

  • Comment number 75.

    Isn't politics the science of hypocricy?

  • Comment number 76.

    @22
    I have a problem, and believe it is a form of hypocrisy or blatent two-facedness, when Vince Cable and others make these same points: that students won't be affected by the level of fees, they'll pay so little over such a long period, etc. etc. And then in the next breath talk about price sensitivity and creating a market in which students will choose universities based upon the fees they set.
    Which is it? If the fees will affect students' choice of university, why will they not affect the choice of whether or not to go to university?

  • Comment number 77.

    Yes. Does one need to say anything more?

  • Comment number 78.

    If a hypocrite is a rare breed of snake which slithers between opposing directions depending on how the wind is blowing then yes, he is a hypocrite.

  • Comment number 79.

    Of course he isn't. He is in government now and has to make decisions - and compromises. Something the electorate doesn't generally do. They are all me, me, me and me. Besides who are the idiots in the first place that said 50% of kids can go to uni for next to nothing when the country can't afford it. 5% yes, 50% definitely no.

  • Comment number 80.

    Is Nick Clegg a hypocrite? yes he is, even more than the rest of them. Anyone stupid enough to vote for the libdems (or rather the tories), again, clearly have sense.

  • Comment number 81.

    I will never put up student fees LIB/DEMS Hypocrite or Fib/Dems? or We cant' afford it the greedy bankers' must have a bonus.

  • Comment number 82.

    No. He was always a Tory.

  • Comment number 83.

    No not really, he is a self interested politician, they can be what they like when they like. It's of no interest to him what we think.

  • Comment number 84.

    Yes, he is a hypocrite, caught between a rock and a hard place, I reckon he has a deal to becom pm though.

  • Comment number 85.

    There should be a new dictionary definition for politician "hypocrite"

    This should answer your question, howevever he is worse than most but he has managed to consign himself to the scrapheap of British politics which will allow him to return to the EU gravy train which I am sure was his master plan all the time.

  • Comment number 86.

    Nick Clegg is a hypocrite.Remember in the past he and his wife worked in the European Union parliament for Leon Britton a hardened Tory from the Thatcher government.How he ever got to be a leader of the Lib/Dems amazes me as in latter years the Lib Dems were left of centre to even the Labour party which shows the sort of person we are actually dealing with.He now is trapped between a rock and a hard place and crossing the floo of the commons is his only option with a safe seat in the Tory heartlands for his loyalty to Cameron.He cannot expect to retain his existing seat at the next election even if he lasts that long.He has let down his own constituants with his misleading statements and excuses for a continuing change of policy which does little for his overall integrity. A career politician who has no real values or principals.

  • Comment number 87.

    I think if the truth be known - that Nick Clegg now realises what he has taken on in joining a coalition with the Tories.

    It is not as he thought - an equal partnership - he is out manouvered - out guessed and out played at every step of the way and thus he cannot ever realise his potential.

    He is not hypocritical, but neither is he totally above board and true to his principles - He has to remove the shackles and restraints of rising unemployment - rising young unemployment and stop being drawn into tittle-tattle arguments The tories are njo friends of the liberal party so tell them to get lost a time or two and stick up for yourselves more - You won't get another chance !

  • Comment number 88.

    In my personal opinion, Mr.Clegg is NOT a hypocrite and it's time that other Politicians & Media judged their own failings - especially the BBC, who have done nothing but joined Labours pathetic tirades against the Lib-Dems since the Lib-Dems turned down Labours self-seeking offer - in order that Labour could remain in power. THAT is the epitome of Hypocracy.

    Time for the BBC to be TRULY Politically-unbiased - 13 years is ENOUGH.
    I am a Conservative voter and consider the Lib-Dems to be TOO PC...

  • Comment number 89.

    A member of of The Mother of all Parliaments a hypocrite?...........well I never!

  • Comment number 90.

    How on earth can Nick Clegg even think he comes across as an endearing M.P.? Surely even he should know by now that he has done so much damage to the Lib/Dem cause, that his party has been put back 40 or so years back?
    I have never voted for his party, but, some of it's members i have had a good deal of amount of time for. Paddy Ashdown for one. Here is a person that you could truly believe? Never a one to go back on his word? unlike the present bunch!
    I think the general population knew the Tories would go along the lines of government as they are doing, but honestly thought that a Coalition with the Lib/Dems would "Temper" Tory plans of bringing this country to it's knees? That is why the oublice will NEVER again give the Lib/Dems a secong chance? As for the new voting system-----No Chance! It would err on the side of electing more Lib/Dem M.P's!

  • Comment number 91.

    Aren't most politicians?

    Many are so out of touch with the real world that it is laughable for them to even try and understand the issues being faced in every day soceity.

    This is the nearest the Lib Dems will get to power so I suppose Clegg is making the most of it.

  • Comment number 92.

    My son wasn't going to bother voting in the last election as he didn't think it would make any difference.

    His wife harangued him to vote, telling him that people fought and died to get the vote for future generations and it was his duty not to let them or the country down.

    So they both voted LibDem hoping for a change to the Thatcherite policies we have suffered since 1979.

    After the result and the coalition came about she said to him,

    "Y'know I see what you mean, I don't think I'll bother the next time"

    At least Charles Kennedy was honest and open about his views, Clegg is a cold, calculating egotist who couldn't care less about the damage he is doing to his party or the country.

  • Comment number 93.

    i voted lib dem in the last two elections(yes i am sorry)i thought, in my political naivety, they were the party for "all the people"so you might say i should aplaude this man on his annoucment to deplore nepotism??but the memory of him and dave stood side by side brings me to the point of political nausea and a need to vomit. i cannot bring myself to trust this man(i use the term loosely)or his party again.i think he will find out what the decent people of this nation thinks of him in the comming elections..ps.i will be voting for the AV despite my revulsion for him and his party....

  • Comment number 94.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 95.

    Not a hypocrite - just yet another MP who has been forced to make decisions for the WHOLE Country - rather than for certain sections of it - thanks to Labour's blitz on the National-Finances and their 'special-provisions' for Minorities:
    SOMEONE has to think of the WHOLE of Britain...

  • Comment number 96.

    No, Nick Clegg isn't a hypocrite because he once benefited from a class system based on backdoor favouritism for certain sections of the population and exploitation for the rest. Like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, he originates from a privileged class. The problem for Clegg is that he can hardly claim to have seen the errors of this system and now be working for change. He is the governing deputy of a Prime Minister who in the brief time he has been in power has created more peers than any of his postwar predecessors. Clegg is in partnership with the Conservatives. The name says it all: no change, and as far as possible, a return to the class system of 200 years ago.

  • Comment number 97.

    Why is Clegg complaining about a system that he has himself benefited from?
    Why, in the 60s were London Dockers drawn from members of their own Families.
    This business of patronage is not the preserve of the "upper classes" and the sooner those railing against it stop showing their jealousy the better.
    David Cameron is right.

  • Comment number 98.

    Nothing wrong in this as long as it feeds through to consistency in policy and action too. Clegg talks about fairness in opportunity access, Cable then resists Cameron's curbs to the influx of immigration,......great......but our local Lib Dems here in Surrey actively oppose relaxation to the planning laws and the building of affordable housing forcing our young people and immigrants to go live in poorer, cheaper. usually Labour voting areas. The Lib Dems have lovely theories but faced by the implications of their thinking still support their out of touch grey haired voters and cannot deliver much that benefits our struggling younger generation. At least Cameron et al have made an effort on practical, joined up thinking.

  • Comment number 99.

    1 You can't establish or insist on the meaning of a word like 'hypocrite' by appealing to its Greek etymology. Words mean only what they mean in the currency of use, and this can change over time.

    2 Using that current coinage, Nick Clegg is hypocritical about the issue of having obtained a Brussels job through his father knowing Lord Carrington and asking him to fix it, because he could have had the guts to refuse this seedy way to a job, and insisted on standing on his own two feet in the fray with the rest of us who lack his social connections.

    Using your examples of David Cameron's school drugs and Tony Blair's pre-marital smoking, Nick Clegg could at least do as they have done and express regret for his lack of moral stamina over taking a job this way.

    I'm staggered. I graduated more than a decade earlier than Nick Clegg, and I thought that a meritocracy was already well established in the UK at the time. How wrong and how naive I was. No wonder I didn't get that job.........

  • Comment number 100.

    Nah! Clegg is right on this subject. The old school boy network is very terrible in GB. Whatever the government talks about sex equality, they can do nothing to help educated women for career development.

    When I was younger, I went to a lot of job interviews in famous universities; the selection panel took notes and made great compliments on my speech and showed appreciation on my experience, but the jobs were not offered to me. Sometimes, I felt my ideas were stolen in the interview processes. My friends told me that it is operating as “who you know”, not “what you know” in the UK.

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.