Why was this Lib Dem conference cheerful? Simple: because it mattered.

The Economist’s pseudonymous political commentator Bagehot devotes his column this week to the Liberal Democrats, analysing the mood of serenity which prevailed at this year’s party conference to the surprise (and chagrin) of the media.

He notes that activists were cheered by the anti-Tory rhetoric that pervaded speeches by Tim Farron, Chris Huhne and Vince Cable, believing this differentiation will in turn demonstrate to the electorate that the party is punching above its weight — that Nick Clegg is, in the words of Tory MP Nadine Dorries, “the boss”.

Many Lib Dems argue that Tory-bashing is good politics, and long overdue. It is true that differentiation does have a strategic aim: persuading voters that the Lib Dems are not powerless puppets in a Tory government. But those same Lib Dems underestimate the emotional temptations to which they are giving way.

The Lib Dems think it unfair that they are hated. They think (rightly) that inconclusive election results and a mood of national crisis made joining the Tories in the coalition last year the responsible thing to do. They can tolerate self-sacrifice: Lib Dems enjoy the moral high ground. What they cannot bear is that many on the left suspect them of enjoying high office. At one fringe meeting, Mr Huhne was asked how he planned to spend his “30 pieces of silver”. That explains why attacks on the Tories cheer Lib Dems so: they can live with being martyrs, but not with being thought Judases (especially when many, if not most, would prefer a coalition with Labour).

The grassroots, in short, are cheerful for alarmingly self-regarding reasons.

More accurately, I think the conference acted (as they are largely intended to when you’re a governing party) as a pressure valve. Party members, sore from one of the most disastrous years in its recent history, gathered together to offer each other some solace, and to cheer each other up.

Parties are extended families, often falling out with each other, but always there for each other when times are toughest.

They are also tribes, defined as much by who they are not as by who they are. That tribalism found an outlet in anti-Tory jokes (that no-one could find it in themselves to laugh at Labour signifies Ed Miliband’s irrelevance). The Lib Dem leadership will be relaxed that activists find comfort laughing at Eric Pickles rather than passing a conference vote demanding his resignation.

What struck me, observing goings-on in Birmingham from afar, was that Lib Dems were enjoying remembering that we are a proud, independent, resilient party, a party that takes relish in bouncing back each time the media writes us off.

But what struck me most was that the party has a much more sophisticated understanding of the dynamics of power than much of the media. The Lib Dems’ internal democracy has driven each and every leader to distraction at times. Liberals are by nature sceptical, cussed, pernickety. But for a junior partner in Coalition that is a huge strength.

We saw it play out in the Coalition negotiations: the Lib Dem negotiating team had a much stronger hand for being able to say, quite truthfully, that certain policies were critical if the membership were to be convinced to vote for a Lib/Con pact. The result? 75% of the Lib Dem manifesto made it into the Coalition Agreement.

And we have seen it play out again more recently with the NHS reforms, when the Lib Dem leadership was able to manouevre Health secretary Andrew Lansley into accepting key concessions directly as a result of votes passed at the Lib Dems’ spring conference.

The Lib Dem membership has realised the power it now wields: a vote at conference can now shape government policy. No wonder there was such a sense of cheerfulness, no matter our current opinion poll ratings.

Bagehot argues that the party leadership and its membership are at odds, that while the membership is gleefully indulging its soft-left muesli-eating tendencies, Nick Clegg is steering a solo course:

The optimism around Mr Clegg is more calculating, and more focused on the world outside the party tribe. … Come the next general election, the Clegg camp believes that Labour will have less economic credibility than the coalition. They also hope that within the coalition, the Lib Dems will be seen as more compassionate than the Tories—and as less in hock to powerful interests, from trade unions to bankers, than either big party. But coalition credibility comes first.

I don’t believe there’s such a simple binary at play here.

I think party members very well knew what this conference was about: licking our wounds, safely sounding off against a political enemy we have been forced to ally with, strengthening the leadership’s resolve in those areas that most matter.

For once the purpose of a Lib Dem conference was clear, strategic, important. What we saw this week wasn’t indulgence or self-absorption: it was focus. Lib Dem Focus.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/25355 for Twitter and emails.

4 Comments

  • “a party that takes relish in bouncing back each time the media writes us off”

    I’ll believe this bounce when I see it.

    Judging by the opinion polls of the last year or so, the party’s coefficient of restitution is currently close to zero.

  • Martin Pierce 23rd Sep '11 - 6:26am

    I suspect both are right. Inside the party the conference was a necessary part of licking – and healing – some wounds and as Stephen says there is a bit of family coming together at a difficult time. Unfortunately none of this is either here or there for the electorate who are probably thinking a mix of (a) the LDs always took the moral high groung, generally anti Tory but then jumped into office with them at the first opportunity, (b) they started off all rosy (literally, in the obviously ghastly even at the time Downing St garden love-in) but as soon as the going gets tough they start hitting out at their supposed partners (c) the economic strategy feels much more Tory than LD (though Clegg himself seems personally far too comfortable with it), therefore if it goes right Tories will benefit and if it goes wrong we will look very stupid indeed, and (d) that tuition fees breach of trust thing just won’t go away (its not the issue itself that’s the problem, it’s the trust, and it’s not the manifesto commitment that’s the issue but the PERSONAL pledges all candidates (including me out in West Ham) signed and were indeed encouraged to sign by HQ.

  • I agree completely with Martin that it was the personal pledges (videoed in the case of our leadership) which fuelled the lack of trust thing.
    In several conferences now – including a Vince fringe meeting at this one – I have sought assurances that this would not be allowed to happen before the next general election. If the Party made a clear statement that our candidates were being advised not to make any pledge to any interest group but rather rely on our manifesto as a statement of firm intention I think the public would understand that. No such assurance has been forthcoming.

  • +1 for Martin Pierce. A lot better analysis than anything I have seen in the media, or this article. Granted that the Lib Dems needed a good cheer after the last year’s debacles. But, as far as the rest of the population is concerned, we just came across as living in our own comfort zone, without demonstrating the will and understanding necessary to address the nation’s challenges.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User Avatarbcrombie 18th Jun - 4:21am
    Matthew Fair point
  • User AvatarDavid 18th Jun - 2:47am
    Universality of benefits is a political strategy, not an economic one and certainly not one about moral principal. The idea is that if you can...
  • User AvatarJeremy Davis 18th Jun - 12:46am
    All benefits should be taxed, some are and some aren't. Unless all means tested benefits are restricted to one level, with the inevitable cliff-edge, the...
  • User AvatarDavid Allen 18th Jun - 12:31am
    Matthew, I think you are offering an alternative strategy for May - June 2010. You are arguing that we should then have said something like:...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 17th Jun - 11:54pm
    Simon Hebditch I think this campaign illustrates a problem that I have written about before. The so-called “differentiation” strategy won’t work. As far as the...
  • User AvatarStephen Donnelly 17th Jun - 11:54pm
    The depressing thing about this list is that the criteria for selection seems to be membership of the political - media establishment . The present...
Tue 18th Jun 2013
Wed 19th Jun 2013
Thu 20th Jun 2013
Fri 21st Jun 2013
Sat 22nd Jun 2013
Sun 23rd Jun 2013
Wed 26th Jun 2013
Thu 27th Jun 2013
Sat 29th Jun 2013
17:00
Sun 30th Jun 2013
Mon 1st Jul 2013
Wed 3rd Jul 2013
19:30
Thu 4th Jul 2013
Sat 6th Jul 2013
Sun 7th Jul 2013
Mon 8th Jul 2013
Thu 11th Jul 2013
Sat 13th Jul 2013
Sun 14th Jul 2013