Here’s today’s Observer editorial. Essentially, it argues that Nick Clegg has no choice but to join with Labour now. I hope Clegg does make that choice, but The Observer’s piece is so eliptical in it’s search for self-justification it ends up being nonsensical; intellectually dishonest even.
The ‘Vote Clegg get Cameron’ line was rubbished by the Guardian and the Observer. More significant, perhaps, was that they put electoral reform at the front end of their argument (both papers took the same line); an argument, by the way, which sounded more ‘small c’ conservative than the Telegraph when the Guardian stressed the paper’s Liberal tradition of the 1800s. So never mind social and economic outcomes, the main thing was, for the Observer and Guardian, electoral reform.
In the piece above, therefore, the Observer editorial notes that the outcome of the election vindicates their election editorial. Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?
I’m not in any sense opposed to electoral reform, nor to the principle of a progressive alliance with the Lib Dems. But how is it possible to argue right now that the outcome of the election in any sense vindicates the Guardian group choice(s)? As far as we know (contra the hype in the piece about the Lib Dems getting the best result ever) the Lib Dems made no progress at all on vote share and formerly Tory/Labour switchers simply returned to the Tories in many marginal seats. How is that in any respect an expression of the public perspective upon electoral reform?
Of course it isn’t. It’s a literally pathetic attempt by the Guardian group to self-justify in the face of many of his own brilliant writers arguing for an emphasis on the social and economic issues the public truly prioritise – and therefore for a Labour-supporting editorial.
I appreciate that other newspapers endorsed the Lib Dems. It’s just that I haven’t seen post-hoc self-justifying crap like this from them yet. Let’s see what tomorrow brings.