28 Comments

• Steve Haynes 25th Jun '13 - 2:52pm

  ” Let’s get out of Afghanistan, and stop wasting lives just to postpone talking to the Taliban.

  Let’s get effective oversight over spies and snoopers.

  Let’s listen to health and education professionals for a change. If doctors can save lives with fewer and better hospitals, we must let them do it. Children should stop learning a history written by politicians.

  Let’s remember the nation beyond London. Let’s pump money and jobs toward neglected provinces, saving Sunderland from depression and rescuing the South East from burial under concrete.

  Let’s make voting matter again. Let’s give people real reasons to vote for us.”

  Exactly how do w e do these things if we aren’t in Government? cause as much as I, as a Centrist ( which apparently means I’m ” Pro-Tory”) would love to see a lib dem majority. That is not going to happen for various reasons.

  Has the coalition damaged us? Yes. But Short term damage for long term good is still achievable if we play our cards right. Incidentally, abandoning the coalition in a fit of ” BUT WE CANT DO EVERYTHING WE WANT TO!” is exactly the kind of attitude which will result;t in us being damaged in the long term,.

• paul barker 25th Jun '13 - 2:56pm

  To quote Mrs t or Ian Paisley “No, No, No.”
  Like most Libdems I believe we had no choice but to enter Coalition, if we really put The Country first. 3 years ago Britain was on the edge of being lumped in with Spain & Italy, there were widespread predictions of Unemplyment reaching 4 or 5 Million. The Coalition avoided that but only just.
  As far as “The Polls” & Local Elections go we have been damaged but lets get this idea of continuous decline out of our heads. We have been around 10% in the Polling averages since the beginning of 2011 & our vote share in Local Elections has been around 15% since 2011, I dont expect either figure to shift much till 2015.
  The big question is whether all that tells us anything about The General Election in 2015 ? The honest answer surely is that we dont know, we just have to campaign as though we think we can win because if we dont believe in ourselves no-one else will.

• Steve Griffiths 25th Jun '13 - 5:23pm

  paul barker

  Actually Paisley I recall said “never, never, never” and then did.

• David Allen 25th Jun '13 - 6:13pm

  Steve Haynes: “Exactly how do w e do these things if we aren’t in Government?”

  What we need for 2015 is an inspirational manifesto which will win votes, give us a chance to get into Government, and give us a chance of real influence. Doing the opposite, and campaigning in 2015 as junior coalition loyalists with no real ideas of our own, will give us very little chance of getting back into Government. (Unless, that is, a victorious Conservative Party were to decide to swell their majority by co-opting a much reduced rump of yes-men).

• Tim Oliver 25th Jun '13 - 8:30pm

  I almost stopped reading when the author – entirely without basis – equated centrism with being pro-Conservative. A flawed bit of analysis that left a bad taste in my mouth – as a centrist, a Coalition with either major party is merely a marriage of convenience, not love.

• Luke Tyson 25th Jun '13 - 9:04pm

  I have always been accused of being ‘pro Tory’, ‘crypto Tory’ or ‘Tory-lite’ for liking such centrist ideologies as letting people on low incomes keep more of their money, allowing choice in public services and helping business complete globally so that they employ more people who have more money to spend on products produced by other companies who can employ more people…

  I had always shouted down those accusations. But now, thanks to the author, I see the error of my ways and will fully embrace my love for all things Tory from now on.

• David Allen 25th Jun '13 - 10:53pm

  Tim Oliver, Of course true “centrists” are not pro-Conservative. Perhaps you are a true “centrist”. If so, be aware that your self-description is increasingly being hijacked by the Right.

  It is phoney “centrists”, who use the term as a dishonest euphemism for a pro-Conservative stance, who are the target of my comment. If you doubt that such people are many and increasing, just read Luke Tyson’s post below your own.

  Yes Luke, your key political priorities are about “letting people on low incomes keep more of their money” – i.e. tax cuts across the board; “allowing choice in public services” – i.e. privatisation; and “helping business compete globally” – no translation needed! You then express confected outrage when people identify you as right-of-centre.

  Why don’t right-wing people want to admit that they are right-wing people? Is it shame?

• Tim Oliver 25th Jun '13 - 11:33pm

  My descriptor is not being “hi-jacked” by anyone, Mr Allen – it is you who are imposing your own ideological construction on the label of centrist. The points Luke lists are ones that I would broadly agree with from my centrist position – though I assume in your eyes this reduces me to little more than a Thatcherite lick-spittle, which in turn confirms everything I fear about your own ideological position.

• Stephen Donnelly 25th Jun '13 - 11:51pm

  My only comment on this is : Editorial policy required.

• John Doran 25th Jun '13 - 11:56pm

  Christ almighty. The article itself was one of the worst written, ever, on this website, but the responses make me even more convinced that I was right to give up on the party after 39 years. Goodbye Lib Dems! I will await the new manifestation after the 2015 wipeout to see if there is a splinter worth joining. Clegg you are a total see you next Tuesday.

• David Allen 26th Jun '13 - 1:05am

  Guys, the aim of my article was to make a shot at describing a manifesto which we could now be putting forward if Coalition had never happened. I was offering a personal view on how our traditional goals and principles should be taken forward to resolve today’s issues – and inviting you all to say what you thought I had got right or wrong. Of course, I spent most of my space trying to define a clear stance on the economy, today’s defining issue. Then I ended with some brief remarks on other topics, on which I thought Liberal Democrats could put forward attractive, distinctive and effective policies.

  Nobody has really yet made an on-topic response. Yelling “No No No”, or calling for censorship, does not count. It does not provide rational argument or analysis, things I dimly remember we used to think we were good at. The nearest thing to an on-topic response was Luke Tyson’s, which called for us to be the business-friendly party, or at any rate, one of the three or more business-friendly parties.

  Is it that nobody is really interested in us having an independent manifesto, any more?

• Eddie Sammon 26th Jun '13 - 3:26am

  I want to stick up for David Allen. Although I think he was wrong to smear all centrists in his article, I think he does have a point that there are right wingers in the party parading under the guise of centrism.

  I don’t wish to make enemies, but I think the conversation needs to be had. The first stage to centrism is to get rid of all dogma, both right and left wing. I hope to be able to do something a bit more productive about this than just comment on blog posts.

  Best wishes.

• Andrew Tennant 26th Jun '13 - 8:07am

  Of course, with the luxuries of opposition, promising whatever to voters, with no responsibility and no constraints of a budget is easier. But as Labour know now and will find out to their cost should they win the next election, it doesn’t make it any more feasible to deliver.

  We do more good by doing the best of what is achievable than we do shouting and sniping from the sidelines about some fantasy with only a fleeting relevance to reality.

• peter.tyzack 26th Jun '13 - 8:47am

  we do not break the coalition agreement until 2015, (Jan at the earliest) or our opponents will add it to our list of ‘broken promises’ and the facts will be lost in the hype.. and then it will be wipeout for us.
  We need to stick to our course, support Clegg in what he is doing, and prepare our positive messages, which must include a very effective swipe at the tuition fees pledge issue, (ducking and side-stepping is the wrong response to that). Our agenda and message must be that we are the party that should form the government, other parties having so clearly failed; we are the party with the hard-working MPs, the only party with well thought out policies democratically agreed and fully costed.
  All negative thoughts should be squashed as we confidently step up to the job. We not left-leaning, nor right-leaning but out in front.

• Andrew Suffield 26th Jun '13 - 9:10am

  Nobody has really yet made an on-topic response.

  The topic of the article appears to be pointing at various things in sequence and screaming “TORY!”, so on the whole I think we’re better off.

  It’s not much of an argument, and given the extent to which all three parties agree on a lot of things, it’s trivially not the case that everything Tories do is particularly objectionable. So labelling things as being Tory things does not tell us anything about the world.

• Luke Tyson 26th Jun '13 - 11:37am

  David, I am not ashamed to say that I am right wing. I am more right wing than many Lib Dems but not as right wing as most Tories. It is all relative. One only has to look at the Alternative Queen’s Speech to see how confusing a centrist position and a ‘pro-Tory’ one does a disservice to the former.

  The remedies you espouse above are perfectly valid courses of action. However, they are – in my view – based on incorrect observations and unsound inferences, therefore not the right courses of action. Leaving the coalition earlier is not the panacea that many people think it is, the reasons I have for this would make a weighty tome so I’ll spare this comment thread.

  Final point is to echo Eddie. Anyone willing to put their head above the parapet and debate the issues effecting our party and much else deserves some semblance of courtesy. Hope this comment is more productive than the initial (tongue-in-cheek) one.

• bcrombie 26th Jun '13 - 12:19pm

  We are gallopping along in time (soon be 2014 if the speed that 2013 has passed has been an example) and it will then be 18 months from ther GE

  I expect we shall start seeing Labour set out their policies in the next 6-9 months – timing would be right for a 2015 campaign – and we can then see whether they will continue in a NuLab direction or have a different approach. My own view is we will see some fudging, as is normal, but with the focus on limiting further cuts by implementing tax rises and borrowing for growth

  I think we can already see what the Tories would do if in Government – essentially an even more right-wing approach than we have seen already. Focusing on ideologically driven cuts to the public sector and more involvement of private firms in delivery-free schools, NHS privatisation, LA outsourcing etc etc. If they win a majority I am frightened of the mandate that would give them as I do not see any indications of empathy

  For the two older parties the path that the will, or should, follow is becoming clearer. What is not clear is how the LD will approach 2015 as their position is more complex. In essence you have been in Government with being in Government. There have been some successes but many things that you would never in a million years have implemented yourselves, and also not a few that explicitely go against part policy. I do not see that much that has been done that goes directly against Tory policy – for them it is more about omission (gay marriage being an exception but that still has a way to go yet)

  I am really finding it difficult to see how you can extricate yourself and distance yourself from a Government which has been dominated by the Tories coherently. A break such as leaving the Coalition on a point of principle may be one way, dumping the leader may be another, changing policies to become more ‘2010-2015 Government’-based could be an option.

  To me this the 64 million dollar question but many on here are focusing on the other two parties. The more you call for ‘well what would Labour do?’, I ask myself ‘what would the LD do?’ – I really have very little idea.

  I must say as well that having Laws being in charge of the manifesto does not fill me with confidence and to my mind is a grave error of judgement (not for the first time) by the leadership

• David Allen 26th Jun '13 - 2:40pm

  Andrew Suffield said, “The topic of the article appears to be pointing at various things in sequence and screaming “TORY!””

  When you write a mini-manifesto, the usual technique is to start by saying what your opponents are doing wrong, then say what you’d do instead. Following that approach, my piece (paragraphs 3 to 5) provides 3 adverse mentions of the Tories and 3 adverse mentions of Labour (plus one adverse mention for the Labservatives!). After that the tone goes positive and I talk about what I think we should be offering to do. I deliberately made a balanced attack on both our opponents – before 2008, that’s how we always played it.

  It seems that nowadays, loyalist Lib Dems don’t believe a piece of political writing is balanced unless it is overwhemingly harder on Labour than on the Tories, against whom we pull all our punches. Strange, that.

• David Allen 26th Jun '13 - 5:55pm

  Tim Oliver said: “I assume in your eyes this reduces me to little more than a Thatcherite lick-spittle, which in turn confirms everything I fear about your own ideological position.”

  Brilliant! First put some Dave Spart language into my mouth, then tell me that it confirms your view that I am Dave Spart!

• David Allen 26th Jun '13 - 6:00pm

  Peter Tyzack said: “All negative thoughts should be squashed”.

  Going to set up the National Socialist Liberal Democrats then, are you Peter?

• David Allen 26th Jun '13 - 7:36pm

  bcrombie,

  “I ask myself ‘what would the LD do?’ – I really have very little idea.”

  Wow, a genuinely thoughtful response for a change! Well, I have to agree your point. Clearly, almost no Lib Dem on this site is prepared either to agree with my “mini-manifesto”, or to explain where they disagree. Ed Miliband has rightly been criticised for being vague and vacillating, but he has been a lot more forthcoming than my party. The latest campaign, about the desirability of creating jobs, could almost have been designed to meet a “motherhood-and-apple-pie” specification.

  I am genuinely puzzled as to why. Miliband, I think, was scared by the critics who accused him of being too bland, and has started to do something about it. Why haven’t we?

  Perhaps it’s that the Cleggies want to make a definitive repudiation of the sort of traditional centre-left policies I describe, but are too scared that it will harm them if they do it too early? One can only guess (or, of course, go away and find someone else to vote for…)

• Andrew Tennant 27th Jun '13 - 8:09am

  @David Allen
  Nothing in your ‘mini-manifesto’ was anything new to a Liberal Democrat – you talk of motherhood and apple pie and yourself serve up a meagre slice.

  I won’t join you in bashing my own party who, I think, are doing a tough job in difficult economic times. I respect the choices that they are having to make and the personal sacrifice they are risking in 2015 to keep the country solvent and to start to make our economy internationally competitive again so we see the benefits in the longer term.

  Opposition is easy – you produce a big long wish list and whine to the media about how what can’t be delivered isn’t being delivered. Governing is hard, and some people are not prepared to deal with it.

• bcrombie 27th Jun '13 - 8:25am

  Andrew Tennant

  Governing is easy if you don’t care about the people you are affecting

  Let us see the same rhetoric and financial penalties against the rich

  And don’t say the top 5% have been hit hardest – that is based upon estimations on the Laffer Curve that are, to say the least dubious, and also misses the point that since 1979 there has been stagnation in the vast majority of people’s living standards except for the massive transfer from the poor to the rich

  I don’t think that Osborne finds many of these decisions that hard, and neither does Alexander.

  Can you also explain how our economy risks becoming insolvent when the debt is in a currency we print? This attempt to equate the finances of a country with a household is laughable and was used by Osborne and Alexander from the beginning which helped destroy confidence in the early days of this Government. We have been massively printing cash to give to the banks – why are we not bankrupt yet?

• David Allen 27th Jun '13 - 12:20pm

  Andrew Tennant,

  “Nothing in your ‘mini-manifesto’ was anything new to a Liberal Democrat”

  It’s incredible the contortions people will put themselves through to avoid saying whether they agree or disagree with what I have proposed. OK, traditional Lib Dem policies have included (for example) borrowing to invest, opposing unnecessary wars, supporting the poorest in hard times, and an active regional policy. The question is whether we should now maintain such policies and update them to the present day. I say we should. You (and several others in this thread) dodge away from making a clear statement either way.

  “Governing is hard, and some people are not prepared to deal with it.”

  Certainly, the sort of broad statement of principles and key goals which I have drafted has to be followed up with detailed policy development, negotiations with stakeholders, all sorts of messy compromises when real life problems arise, etcetera – not to mention the recognition that coalition is a whole new ball game. However, a party worth voting for has to start by making it clear to the voters what it is in business to aim to do. So one needs to start with a mini-manifesto. To denigrate such a starting point, simply on the grounds that it hasn’t yet tackled any of the next stages, is just another cop-out. By you.

• Benjamin Mathis 27th Jun '13 - 1:44pm

  I don’t really want to wade into the name-calling. It is quite clear that there are people in the Lib Dems to whom liberalism is anathema. Such people are to be found both on the self-defined left and right. People who want to ban things “for people’s own good” and people who see no need to protect civil liberties – such people exist. Far from proposing any kind of “purge,” I say we should simply be making it clear by what we do and say that such views are not compatible with our values.

  Which brings me to my main point. Much as we may dislike the content, the “grassroots” of the Tory party recently came up with their own Alternative Queen’s Speech. They set out very starkly what they would like to see in government if they were not held back by us. But where is the equivalent “purist” Lib Dem programme? It is true that we have long (well before 2010) suffered from the fact that the public could not always easily predict what we would say about any given issue and that we have often seemed to have precious little ideological core.

  Perhaps what we need to do (in our own way) is something like what Peter Bone et al did for their position – actually produce something of an alternative vision. Not a manifesto for election but a snapshot of what Liberals would be doing if we ran the ship right now today.

• David Allen 27th Jun '13 - 1:58pm

  Benjamin,

  Right! That is precisely what I have aimed to do. If you would like to offer your own alternative vision, I’d like to see it!

• Andrew Tennant 28th Jun '13 - 6:27am

  @David Allen
  I won’t offer much credit to someone doing half a job and fairly poorly.

  I’m with you on avoiding wars, on investing in education and building up people’s autonomy. I’m with you on ending government prescriptiveness in the school curriculum, on reigning in the power of state employees, and reforms to our voting system. So is the coalition though – that’s a given. What else have you got?

  @bcrombie
  You think our economic problems can be fixed through money printing? By creating inflation and pricing ourselves out of imports? By costs expanding faster than salaries? By individuals being able to afford ever less of what they want or what they had before?

  The country might technically escape insolvency, but its people wouldn’t. For such a policy see Zimbabwe.

• bcrombie 28th Jun '13 - 8:26am

  Andrew Tennant

  We are already massively printing money!

  Borrowing to invest at historically low interest rates is a viable proposition advocated by many better economists than me (and you as well I imagine, although your self-appointed role of efficiences superman may cover this as well).

  The economic miracle we have seen since 1979 based on the relaxation of credit rules and globalisation was bought into by all political parties and we are now reaping the rewards(!). The only people who have gained in real terms are the rich but these are the only ones now protected from the consequences

  We heard yesterday that property prices in London/SE are still flying upwards, job creation in the private sector is not aligned to where the growth is needed and that we have one town where the average house price is more than £1 million – let you gusee which county it is in.- With all this wealth generated you would assume that it would be fuelling or have fuelled significant groqwth in the economy. Instead we see the same onld focus on wealth generation by playing with money and not actually doing anything productive with it (of course all underwritten by the BoE )

  What we can see is the abject failure of the Coalition to reign in this inequality and exacerbating it by cutting spending on the most vulnerable (although by how much is difficult to tell according to the IFS)

  The problem is not an easy one to solves and is the fault of many Governments in many countries having a dogmatic approach to economics – but politically-driven slashing of budgets followed by a smoke and mirrors capital spending promise for 5 years hence is not the way to do it!