The editorials of two newspapers today sum up the alternative ways in which this past week’s Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth has been regarded – both internally by party activists and externally by the media. (Who knows what those members of the non-politically obsessed public thought, if anything, of the whole thing?)
The Times is pretty scathing of the party’s week in its leader column, Missing the Liberal Moment:
This week has been an opportunity lost for the Liberal Democrats. As the week unfolded, the excitement dissipated. With an election on the near horizon, with the Labour Government’s lease on power coming to an end and the Tories not yet commanding enthusiasm, this week has been an object lesson in how not to seize the day. …
There has been a lack of passion and urgency. When Nick Clegg attacks David Cameron, the anger sounds contrived. The party sounds earnest and bland, not full of radical liberal vigour as an anti-Establishment third party needs to be. The policy vacuum of both the Government and the Opposition leaves plenty of available space. Instead of filling it, the Liberal Democrats have fallen into quarrelsome disputes about mansion taxes and tuition fees. A week ago Mr Clegg offered an impressive vision of the Lib Dems’ destination. In the week since, he and his party have shown no inkling of how to get there. …
The only way to break through is for the Liberal Democrats to project a sense of purpose and certainty. This week they showed neither. Their role is to get out in front of policy issues, to stand up to the Government, not pretend they are set to replace it. They should be bold and savage in the positions they take. This week they were cautious and tame. It is time for some real change.
On the other hand, there’s glass half-full optimism of The Independent under the headline The Liberal Democrats remain ahead of the curve:
… we should not make too much of the disagreements in Bournemouth. The Liberal Democrats have always held more open debates on policy at their conference than the other parties – and that is often a healthy process. Moreover, whatever presentational or managerial errors might have been made this week, strategically Mr Clegg and his team got a lot right.
Their calls for curbs on public sector pay and middle-class benefits such as child benefit will – and have – upset people. But the alternative of mirroring the timidity of the other two parties on spending would have been a missed opportunity. … Every party admits that serious spending cuts and tax rises are going to be needed in the years ahead. But only the Liberal Democrats, to their credit, have thus far come out with specific plans on what they would do to close the deficit. …
The Liberal Democrats can make the most headway by speaking with a distinctive voice, remaining independent and keeping ahead of the ideas curve of British politics. Despite the upsets, Mr Clegg’s party emerges from this week’s conference having achieved those key objectives.
Which comes closest to representing your view on this week’s conference?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Electrification of the Midland Mainline is paused yet again
Ninewells Community Garden Big Biodiversity Bash #dundeewestend
UN panel raises concerns about impact of Labour's welfare bill
Reform turn up in time for the end of the meeting
John Waller
Peter Martin
Andy Daer
David McDowall
Mohammed Amin
11 Comments
Clearly my view is the latter. But its the general perception that’s important.
The Times editorial is not specific about what policy positions the Lib Dems should take in contrast to their current position.
The economic recession is not of the making of the Liberal Democrats, but in common with all political parties in the run up to the next general election, we have to bear the consequences. We can either con the electorate in promising things that we cannot deliver, or we have to be realistic with what we can offer and risk being accused of lacking ambition.
The main hope for the Liberal Democrats would appear to be in the run up to the next general election that the popularity of Vince Cable will start to rub off on the party as a whole.
After all, who else could you possibly want to be chancellor in these difficult times?
“The main hope for the Liberal Democrats would appear to be in the run up to the next general election that the popularity of Vince Cable will start to rub off on the party as a whole.”
And the main fear would be that the popularity of Vince Cable will simply rub off?
I imagine the Times editorial had been wriiten before the conference, the Times was determined to rubbish us from the start with its ‘is your journey really necessary’ cartoon. Prompting me to ask is my Times subscription really necessary.
Well what do you expect from the right-wing press? They always rubbish us because we are the only party committed to making Berlusconi-style cross-media ownership illegal, so the loathsome Murdoch would be forced to choose between Sky TV, News International or Sky Broadband.
And one more thing – if the party wants to be radically different from the other two in the way MPs earnings are treated, why haven’t we adopted a policy that would treat MPs interests, consultancies, directorships etc as councillors’ interests are treated – ie you are barred from speaking, voting or lobbying on any matter that relates to your (or your close family’s) pecuniary interests.?????!!!!
When right-wing newspapers like the Times ask for the Liberal Democrats to be “bold and savage” they mean “adopt right-wing policies of the sort we want”. They won’t stop until British politics is offering three different variations on Thatcherism. If it’s bold and savage, but not tired old “free the rich” stuff, it’ll be condemned as silly and unrealistic.
Look, for example, at how the Times treats Vince Cable’s attempt to open the debate on property taxation. This really was quite bold, seeing how it has become a political no-no to question the idea that income tax is the only fair tax, and it could get quite savage (watch how the rich fight back on it to see savage). But it isn’t what people living in big houses or their friends writing for the Times want, so it’s rubbished. The Times ought to know that taxes on property have a long history in Britain – tax on imputed rental income was part of the system until 1963, for example. The Liberal Party’s long-held view that community created land value should be returned to the community shows that for the Times to suppose property taxation is a Labour Party socialist idea is just showing how much it has lost the sort of authority which would be demonstrated by a real knowledge of history.
Right, so we’re just perfect, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is just mischief-making by the right-wing press, so everything’s OK!
Anyway, it was a great closing speech, and let’s not worry that it hardly made the headline news, because 50 million people will read it on our website, and then they’ll see that all our problems have gone away.
Er, don’t we need to give all this a little more thought?
David Allen
Right, so we’re just perfect, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is just mischief-making by the right-wing press, so everything’s OK!
No, who’s saying that? If you think I was, you couldn’t be more wrong – haven’t I written enough elsewhere to show that?
I am saying that the right-wing press will always report us just how they want to report us. Whatever we do. They will urge us to become more right-wing, tantalisingly holding out the hope they’d run the “Vote Liberal Democrat” line at the next election if we do so. So they’ll always run those little comment columns with the line “the Liberal Democrats should adopt extreme right-wing economics because that’s what true liberalism is about”. They’ll always puff up and promote as visionaries and bold thinkers those in our party who want to move it to the right, they’ll always ignore or condemn as silly nobodies those in our party who want to move it left. They’ll always find something in our party which can be put as the silly left against the sensible right, and argue the problem is the silly left. But it doesn’t matter how much we jump to their tune, at the end they’ll still support the Tories.
The fact that a small tax on a tiny number of very wealthy people was held up by the commentariat as a more important and damaging thing to our vote than an issue which financially benefits hundreds of thousands of young people is a good illustration of this.
Sorry Matthew, it wasn’t really your post I was responding to. You don’t have a complacency problem! Some people do.
yes, I agree it was a really good closing speech.
But, the criticism of the Independent about poor presentational management has to be accepted. Here are two examples: Stewards of conferences should nudge those who nod off in front of the leader (or anyone else) to wake up, if they had a late night go back to bed. The photo in one of the nationals of Nick taking his Q and A session, with someone dozing off on the second row, and while Ive nothing against fat old bag-ladies who look as if they have walked in from the bus-shelter, do they have to sit on two chairs on the front row?
Second example, how about the PR advisors tipping off the cameramen where to find the front-bench team names having seen in confidence Nick’s closing speach, and knowing that the likes of Julia Goldsworthy, etc, are to get a mention, by name? They found Vince and one or two others easy enough, but, if half a dozen names are to be singled out, surely they can either be rounded up and told to sit up on the platform, or, on the front bench of conference where the cameras can do a cut-away? OK, it might need nifty footwork and its easier to say in hindsight, (having spent four years in party HQ press office in the Dark Ages), but, its no longer the Liberal Assembly, when nobody cares and nobody is taking notice…today, timing, and presentation, is so, so important.
The Tories dont want the blue-rinse brigade to dominate the front few rows of their conference, so, are told to go and sit somewhere else – a bit of stage management wouldnt go amiss, given that stage and background must have cost real dosh, to ruin things with silly slip ups on someone’s party is inexcusable.