Posts Tagged "Liberal Democrat Party"

Countering the Coalition 5: A Few Lib Dem Legends

In the days following the General Election, the Liberal Democrat Party changed drastically. In Part Four, I looked at how Labour should treat the Lib Dems in a temporary coalition, now in Part five I intend to look at the party in the longer term.

In a Politics Show debate between the three prospective chancellors, Andrew Neil asked a flailing Vince Cable “Isn’t the greatest myth of this election your reputation?” In some respects, he was right, because when the Liberal Democrats joined the Tories in government several myths surrounding the party were proven and others were dispelled.

It has now proven beyond doubt that the party is a broad grouping of people from across the political spectrum, or a rag-tag mob of unprincipled opportunists, depending on your register. Clearly, however, it can no longer be suggested that the Lib Dems are somehow more to the Left than the Labour Party because with the exception of a few collaborators like Frank Field a Lab-Con pact is unthinkable let alone a full-blown grand coalition like in Germany.

Gone too is the myth that the Liberal Democrats are “equidistant” between Labour and the Tories as Paddy Ashdown had hoped. They best they can hope for now is to be known as watered down Tories, but considering that they are making up the numbers in a Tory government (as I set out in Part Four) this will be unlikely to comfort Labour tactical voters or anyone who voted Lib Dem to stop the Tory candidate.

Most importantly, we can no longer say that it doesn’t matter whether you vote for them or not because “they’ll never get in.” We now know that they can get ‘in’ and after all the interfering in the electoral system, it is quite possible that a permanent feature of government will have the Lib Dems ‘in’. Fortunately, though, it is still true that whether you vote for them or not, their policies will never be implemented, just those of the party with which they side.

This presents an extraordinary opportunity for Labour. As the one and only party of opposition (ignoring ‘others’) we can legitimately and effectively steal what made the Lib Dems unique as a party, which is to take away the catchphrase of “the other two parties.” Throughout the debates, Nick Clegg tried continuously to emphasise or create similarities between Labour and the Conservatives. With the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives together, both of which will be, defending their identical record in government (taking credit themselves for successes and blaming the other party for failures) the work is already done for us.

The Lib Dems threw away their independence as the third party; they are no longer a protest vote and can no longer claim to be an alternative, real or otherwise. It is now clearer than ever that it is up to Labour to resist the damaging austerity of the new conservatives, and the ones Cameron is leading as well.

The idea of the Lib Dems as an alternative to the Tories as a kind of Labour substitute is an important one. It leads me to explain in more detail a point I made briefly in part Four, which is to examine the case of the MoDem in France.

The MoDem is almost identical to the Lib Dems, from its orange/yellow colours, to its centrist rhetoric to its composition of left and right factions. It also provides an interesting precedent for what might happen to the Lib Dems in Britain from which we may draw some conclusions.

In the Presidential elections in 2007, the MoDem leader Francois Bayrou won a surprisingly large 18% of the vote. This gave the party a certain element of confidence before the local elections in 2008, at which he tried to assert his party’s independence as the ‘third force’ in French politics. The strategy was to refuse ‘bipolarisation’ and make deals on a case-by-case basis. Depending on local factors, the MoDem decided either to go it alone, campaign alongside the Socialists or campaign alongside the conservatives. Consider the difference between what Lib Dems say and do in the North with the words and actions of Lib Dems in the South.

The strategy was confusing and opportunist, and showed just how little independence it really had as a third party, provoking internal dissent (notably in Lyon, a large socialist city) and their vote fell considerably.

The decline continued in the European Union Parliamentary elections in 2009, where the MoDem vote dipped from 12% to 8%, and it officially lost its ‘third force’ status to the Greens. There were two main criticisms that explained such a failure. The first was the MoDem’s lack of an ideological spine; the second was that the campaign focused itself too much on the personality of its leader. The parallels for Britain should be evident. Finally, in the Regional Elections in March 2010, the MoDem secured its worst score ever of 4.2% leaving the movement essentially moribund.

The MoDem lost because they failed to win credibility. The question we have to pose is whether the act of being in government makes the Lib Dems more credible, to which I would say no. Though they have a little bit of experience for a handful of ministers, they have lost or thrown away everything the party had tried to establish since the 1980s. They abandoned their position on Tuition Fees, they abandoned their position on cuts and it can only be a matter of time before the voters abandon them.

If Labour lost its soul during its period in office, the Lib Dems have sold theirs for a few ministerial cars (which Cameron then took away). Our job now is to make sure Labour remains credible in Opposition, which I shall discuss in my sixth and final article.

Countering the Coalition 2: Why the coalition will go the distance

At the start of the hung parliament, our instincts told us that the coalition would be unstable and probably break down within a year or two. Be it out of No Confidence from parliament or confidence that the Tories could win a majority alone, as Harold Wilson did in 1964. On the contrary, everything we have seen so far suggests that this coalition will be able to continue for the duration of the parliament.

Primarily, coalitions do not break down as easily as we are prone to think they do, and they last for as long as they need to last. Cameron can no longer call an election as it suits him, not least because he would need to include his deputy, who happens to be leader of a different party, it will even be constitutionally unavailable pending the introduction of Fixed-Term parliaments. Given the games the two parties are playing with 55% and 66% and dissolution votes being different from No Confidence votes, the framework is being set to keep the coalition in government for the whole five years.

If the coalition is going to be constitutionally secure, it is also structurally sound. We might have assumed that more Lib Dems would be feel uneasy working with the Tories but there has been little resistance so far, with the exception of a little tantrum over the rise in VAT. There seems to be very little dissent and no defections yet.

However, the VAT rise may be revealing. The parliament is young and the government has yet to face any real stress tests on difficult decisions where there exists a huge canyon between policies. With the exception of the Euro currency crisis, “Europe” as an issue is unlikely to arise as it did over the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. The economic crisis is over and slowly recovering, giving the government a temporary sense of direction as it aims to reduce the deficit, which will keep the two parties on the same path.

The real pressure will come when by-elections and councils start to swing, but until then we have no effective barometer. Thus far, the Liberal Democrats have shown themselves to be much closer than anyone had expected, and coalitions have gone the distance between much more distant colleagues.

The regional government of the Generalitat in Catalonia has been governed by a coalition of three parties (a ‘tripartit’), and is now just a year away from the end of its mandate. They have been able to stick together despite mutually exclusive policy differences; that is to say, one party is against independence and the other is for it, as we might imagine a Labour-SNP coalition in Holyrood. The tripartit has been relatively successful in implementing and delivering a program. A government with three voices and three leaders gives itself to certain incoherence; the government will spin “normal constructive debate” but it inevitably gives the impression of disunity and confuses the public.

On a national level, it is more appropriate to draw a parallel with cohabitation in France. Cohabitation, where the President was of one party and the Parliament was of another, occurred three times. There was the widespread assumption that the public institutions would halt, and there would be political deadlock until the next election. This never happened because they found a way to work together; in essence power, responsibility, and the realities of government; something with which the Lib Dems are wholly unaccustomed, kept them together.

The Cohabitation governments were inevitable when Presidential terms were seven years and parliamentary terms were five years, but there was a constitutional provision for it but our constitution (or lack thereof) means that on the one hand the Coalition is flying blind. On the other hand, it also means that they are free to move and adapt with little constraint. As constitutional reform is on the agenda, they have even more freedom to set precedents for the future.

The coalition only exists because no party could win a majority. Depending on the effects of tampering with the electoral system, this is not the New Politics, but we are stuck with it for now at least.

The day the music died

I watched the government change in 90 minutes last tuesday.

It was quite a powerful moment, I think, for everybody involved, whether Labour, Tory or Lib Dem.

It will also be my first taste of Opposition, and although I am sure many of my Labour colleagues will be panicking; and indeed with Gordon Brown’s immediate resignation a lot of people are going on and on about a nice big friendly debate. I’ll talk about the leadership election nearer the time.

A few people on Facebook have interpreted my reaction as slightly bitter and angry, as I was quite relentless against the Lib Dems in particular during the campaign and of course after the election.

In fact, I feel somewhat relieved; the bitterness is actually enthusiasm. I’m enthusiastic about laying into the Tories, and I can’t wait to land some body blows on the Libs.

On to more serious political thoughts though: the coalition.

I have to lead off with a big “I told you so.” After all the nonsense about the Liberals replacing Labour as the progressive party and Labour coming third, they still managed to do worse than in 2005.

The Tories didn’t do very well either; we denied them the majority they so took for granted. Of course Labour lost though, I certainly don’t deny that.

You almost (not quite) have to feel sorry for the Lib Dems, after all that hype. It was like the electorate was holding out the football for Charlie Clegg and pulled it away at the last minute.

On to the coalition, I approve of it. I think it was the only viable option apart from a minority Tory government. However, the Lib Dems have been put in the worst possible position (bent over squarely…) as they were almost obliged to prop up a weak Tory result.

You can be sure that when it falls to bits, and fall to bits it most assuredly will, the Libs are the big losers out of all of this. Don’t take my word for it though, take a look at what the BBC things on their coalition agreement page. The Tories are already trying to push a confusing “55% rule” with the goal of being about to kick out the Libs whenever they need to.

Before I get back to regular business, let me say something to Lib Dems voters: you’re right to feel betrayed. You probably voted tactically to keep the Tories out (particularly in Bath, where Foster significantly increased his majority) only for them to go and join up anyway! Vote yellow, get blue.

Friend and colleague Jack Penrose loves to say “Lib Dems are just Tories who haven’t been mugged yet.” and it looks like he’s right; the Libs are about to get mugged… by the Tories.

In conclusion then, it looks like Game, Set and Match to the Tories. Although, Cricket is probably more their game, so I’ll say Labour is out after some very good innings, the Libs have scored a duck and now the Tories are up to bat.

Finally, just to add to my (surprising) sports metaphors:

You’ve only seen me playing defence, so just wait until you see me in an offence position!

Lib Dems in blatant hypocrisy shocker!

Three months after David Cameron held a public meeting in Bath, Nick Clegg, better known as leader of the Shadow Conservative Party, has managed to find time in his busy, busy, schedule to do likewise.

When Cameron came to visit, the Lib Dems criticised the Tories over the amount of information participants were asked to give, claiming that the meeting would be rigged or filled with Tory apparatchiks. They smarmily added that their meetings are open and honest.

Now, even by their own criteria, the Lib Dems have failed. They are now under fire for asking that residents sign up online and receive an e-ticket.

“Nobody wants to come to my party.”

It could be suggested that the Lib Dems are getting scared. With a majority of 4,638 and a certain sentimental element to it, Bath could be in danger of falling to the Tories, despite being Lib Dem since 1992 when Tory Party Chairman Chris Patten helped win the General Election despite losing his seat.

In principle, I see nothing wrong with the fact that people are asked to register because it helps organisers get a good idea of the numbers. On top of that, they can prioritise local residents.

If only there was some easy and simple way of proving identity, without the awkwardness of a passport or the need to know how to drive. Some sort of card, for your identity, like all other nations have. That’d be a radical idea, though just the sort of thing the Lib Dems oppose.

When Cameron came, he was warned that residents would ask questions regarding the Bath Transportation Package, which directly contradicts Conservative policy on Green Belts. He avoided and refused to answer the question for fear of embarrassing his Tory Council.

This time, with Clegg, I have no doubt that seagulls will be top of the agenda.

Nobody ever really wants to pick Nick for the team

Mark Reckons has commented on David Cameron’s proposal of a Tory / Liberal Democrat alliance. (Here’s the link to that)

In his piece, Mark shrewdly challenges Cameron to “prove it!” (Something the media tend to forget) and suggest that if the Tories are serious about an alliance, they should back Proportional Representation, no, sorry; he says “a proportional voting system”.

The problem is that Mark has ignored the fundamental problem with Lib/Lab/Con relations.

Nobody ever says they want the Lib Dems on their team and really means it.

Nobody wants to come to my Party

The Lib Dems were going to enter a Lib-Lab pact in 1997, (until I think my MP Don Foster made some remarks on the Today show and brought the whole thing crashing down?) and the Lib Dems demanded some sort of PR. The response was “I’m sure we’ll get round to something.”

Now, the Lib Dems are offered a Lib-Con pact… they want some sort of PR! It might just be their only aspect of continuity.

This is the problem with a 3 party system; it naturally screws up the balance of power. Labour and Conservatives can always find one bit of common ground, the Lib Dems should not be in the position of Kingmaker where the government is formed by whoever they support. Coalitions are naturally unsustainable that way. Perhaps if the Greens were more powerful we would see the cycle of Lab-Green coalitions against Tory-Lib ones, though I suppose that’s down to PR.

Cameron’s message at the moment is hardly friendly, if the Libs want to become a Gvt/Opp party, making our party system match with that of Canada, then their best way to achieve it is not “Ally with the Tories so we can become their enemy in the future.”

Nick Clegg has been sensible enough to reject Cameron’s poisoned apple. His best strategy is to continue being Lib Dem and try to collect the rag-tag bunch of “other” voters, instead of trying to fight the big boys in the sixth form.

Nick Clegg is completely satisfied with Labour

While many dismissed Nick Clegg’s article in the times as self-important waffle, as they do with everything Nick Clegg says, they have also missed the fundamental point he was trying to make.

The point is that Labour, since the downfall of the Liberals, has been the party of the many and not just the few.

A lot of his article was suggesting that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have always been in a tag-team of the left, and that the choice was now between Lib and Con instead of Lib and Lab as it was in 1997, 2001 and 2005, when they were hoping to be in a tag-team of the right.

Clegg made a very rosy (ho ho!) assessment of Labour’s achievements despite the current difficulties. To save you wading through to find the subtle but strong message in his 800-or-so words, here are a few quotes, mostly in context.

“Do you know the way to Sesame Street? Is it Left… or Right?”

Where he acknowledged that Labour has always been a dominant force for progressive politics:

The Liberal Democrats now offer a new rallying point for a resurgent progressive movement in Britain, replacing Labour as the dominant force of progressive politics.

Then he said that the Labour Party had far better answers and was able to respond to great social change and the challenges of war, all while being on the side of working people:

The Liberal Party was unable to respond coherently to great social change and the challenges of war, and lost its place to a Labour Party that, with its collectivist instincts and focus on the emancipation of working people, had far better answers.

Then, perhaps exaggerating a little, he praised Labour for establishing real social mobility in Britain:

We live in a society where people are no longer rigidly defined by class or place, no longer trapped by a culture of hierarchy.

The Lib Dems announced on September 17th (when Clegg’s article was published) that they were going to try to steal seats from the Labour Party. The next day, September 18th, we read that they are going to try and steal seats from the Tories. (Source)

Clearly the fact the Lib Dems believe they have to emulate either the Labour Party or Conservative Party to try and steal one or the other coloured seats show they really lack their own identity. Jumping to the left then stepping to the right, whichever way the tide goes, shows how much they are consumed by their own ambition to become a party of Government.

Though admittedly joining the Liberal Democrat Party was a strange way to manifest that ambition.

The Lib Dem conference begins today (you heard it here first). Coincidenally, I am at a conference in Montpellier for “Desirs D’avenir.”