Nick Clegg: Short-term pain is the way to achieve long-term gain

When governments lose sight of their overriding purpose for being in power, the glue that holds them together dissolves. We saw this in the latter years of Labour's time in office. A directionless government, without the underpinning of a clear purpose, inevitably ended in factionalism, intrigue and bankruptcy.

This is a mistake we will not repeat. There are two animating purposes of this coalition Government. The first is to bring about a radical redistribution of power from central government to local communities and people.

The other guiding purpose is to govern for the long term – to take the necessary steps now to ensure a fairer and more prosperous future.

Politicians are often accused of being obsessed with the short term. But it should be obvious that politics is not uniquely guilty here. In commercial and personal life, short-term temptations can trump longer-term benefits, too.

In business life and the financial markets, the temptation to drive for short-term profits can sometimes undermine long-term prosperity.

When remuneration packages are tied into the performance of shares over a very short time-span, the long-term result is often a weaker corporate sector. The best companies – the ones built to last – look well beyond quarter-on-quarter profits.

And as individuals, most of us are acutely aware that short-term

desires can trump our long-term interests. This is hardly a new problem. Temptation is part of the human condition. Oscar Wilde declared that the only way to be rid of temptation is to yield to it.

It is hard to know, historically, whether we are more myopic than our ancestors. But it is clear that the range of temptations is greater in a world of plenty – just think for a moment about the food and drink being offered for sale all around us, all of the time.

And the range of entertainment available to us has bloomed beyond recognition – TV, computer games, cinema, social networking sites, music quickly downloaded on to our iPod.

Myopia is not a problem restricted to SW1. But it is also clear that politics is often poisoned by short-termism. This is, after all, a profession in which a week is said to be a long time. Politicians stand accused of being incapable of thinking beyond the next election, the next parliamentary session, or even the next 24-hour news cycle. Sometimes the accusations ring true.

Again, these are not entirely new problems. The Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said: "A politician thinks of the next

election. A statesman thinks of the next generation."

I think there is some evidence that politics has become more afflicted with short-termism in the recent past, while many of the problems we face take on a longer-term dimension. Communication, both international and national, becomes faster by the year. And the sheer scale and velocity of the news media has undoubtedly altered the way politics is conducted.

When you read, today, the diaries of Winston Churchill or William Gladstone, spending weeks travelling to conduct diplomatic missions,

or on preparing a single speech to Parliament, it is like entering a different world.

Nobody wants to turn back the clock, of course. But given the pressures of modern politics and government, we need to work very much harder to keep our sights on the long-term consequences of our decisions.

I think there are three principal symptoms of contemporary political myopia.

First – an over-reliance on media relations and media management or, if you prefer, "spin".

Second – the increase in the turnover of government ministers. The average tenure of a government minister in the last Labour Government was just 1.3 years. Chris Mullin, in his excellent diaries, records the view of Janet Andersen, a former Labour whip and minister, on Tony Blair's attitude to junior ministerial posts: "He regards them as sweeties to be handed out to keep the children happy."

The third – and most important – symptom of short-termism is the failure to confront long-term problems requiring uncomfortable short-term solutions. Climate change; pensions; social care; social mobility; fiscal deficit; welfare reform – the list is long.

I am not trying to score party political points here. The accusation of short-termism has to be levelled at the political class as a whole. And while the previous Labour governments failed in many areas, there were some positive steps, too. Granting independence to the Bank of England, for example – a policy first advocated by the Liberal Democrats – was a bold investment in long-term economic success.

Similarly, the previous Government's introduction of a statutory commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the Climate Change Act of 2008 was an important step towards a greener future.

At the end, however, there was no energy left to tackle the long-term challenge like political reform, public services reform or welfare reform.

We also know that decisions taken for the long-term are, in the short-run, difficult, painful or unpopular – or all three. I knew before the election how difficult it was going to be just to sort out the public finances.

I am under no illusions about the significant political risks we are

now taking by now facing up to these difficult decisions. But I am equally clear that denying the need to sort out the public finances would lead to bigger problems in the longer term, and would be a betrayal of the prospects and prosperity of future generations.

I did not come into politics to pore over the Government's budget

figures like a beady-eyed accountant. But balancing the books is

something we have to do today, so we can go on to do the things we want tomorrow: create a sustainable, balanced economy; provide the best life chances for all our children and young people; and build a society of growing opportunities and social mobility.

Nick Clegg is the Deputy Prime Minister and Sheffield Hallam MP. This is an edited extract of a speech that he delivered to the Institute for Government yesterday.