The New Statesman’s fair-minded political editor Rafael Behr has written a post-conference post mortem for each of the three parties here. Noting how Tory chief whip Andrew Mitchell’s outburst against police ‘plebs’ hijacked the news agenda, reviving the ‘nasty party’ jibes (“Many Lib Dems didn’t seem to mind their demotion down the news agenda and revelled in the Tories’ discomfort”) here’s what he has to say of the Lib Dem outlook from the vantage of Brighton:
Lib Dems miss the moral high ground
Nick Clegg’s strategists talk about “resilience” as the quality that voters will come to admire in the party. They are banking on the emergence of “grudging respect” for a leader who has endured multiple humiliations but not wavered in his determination to govern. Opinion polls don’t show much sign of that happening.
The party is “battle-weary”, in the words of one senior adviser. “[Lib Dems] long to feel good about themselves again.” The leadership thinks that self-respect can be acquired through dogged determination to carry on governing. The absence of any rebellion against Clegg suggests that the party is willing to give it a go for a while longer. Still, Lib Dem delight in watching Tories squirm suggests the lure of righteous opposition anger is getting stronger.
I don’t think this assessment is unfair. But I don’t think it’s the whole story either. What surprised (impressed) me about the Lib Dem conference was how the party remains hungry for power. I had wondered how far the first two-and-a-half years of Coalition — the U-turns, disappointments, mistakes — would sap the will of the party to want to be in government.
My overriding sense was: not much.
That isn’t, of course, the same thing as suggesting party members are happy with all that the Lib Dems are doing in government. What came across much more was the wish to make this current government better, more liberal — and to be in with a good shout of doing the same after 2015. My take is backed up by two of our recent members’ survey findings:
None of which suggests to me a party longing for “the lure of righteous opposition anger”.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Blondie: Sunday Girl
Liz Saville Roberts to Give the David Lloyd George Memorial Lecture at Gwyl Cricieth Festival
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Gordon Lishman
Roland
David Murray
Tristan Ward
20 Comments
“They are banking on the emergence of “grudging respect” for a leader who has endured multiple humiliations but not wavered in his determination to govern. Opinion polls don’t show much sign of that happening.”
Two words. John Major.
“What impressed me … was how the party remains hungry for power.”
Yes, but to what end? Because our leadership has great ideas which it wants to implement? Or because loss of power would set the seal on failure, whereas hanging on in there and waiting for a miracle to happen sounds better (if you’re not John Major, that is)?
I was on the moral high ground a while back. It’s a little hill just outside Watford. Clear air, beautiful sky, you can see for miles and miles and miles …
But I felt lonely and bored. So I looked down at all the people far away in the valley below, struggling with their cares and woes and emotions and whatnot. And I realized that that was where life is, down there, in the thick of it, in the heat and grime and pollution. That’s where a political party has to be, sorting out the confusions, learning from mistakes, finding the way.
So I ran back down as fast as I could. Maybe I’ll climb back one day, but for the moment there’s work to be done ….
🙂
I believe the Liberal Democrats decisively lost the ‘moral high ground’ – in the eyes of the electorate – with their support for the Conservatives’ reorganisation of the National Health Service. The ‘Fees’ issue was certainly not good for the LibDems, but in my view their support for (possible) huge NHS (rather secretive) commercialisation is, and will, become electorally lethal. All political parties had a similar pitch prior to the last election, namely “no top-down reorganisation”.The Tories and the LibDems were seen to have U-turned on this; this was very unpopular with voters. My view is that the next election will be turned into a “Save Our NHS” affair – very potent stuff – as a result Labour will gain a comfortable majority.
I think it’s all about principles. If we are entering a time where coalition government is to be the norm then holding any party to account for failure to deliver it’s entire manifesto will no longer be relevant. Each party should therefore set out not only policy objectives, but also the principles by which it will negotiate over contentious issues. The trouble is that the Lib Dems appeared to be talking the language of principles in 2010, no more broken promises etc, and then went on to break the highest profile promise that was made.
In future Parties need to give an indication of where the definitive red lines are, and their approach to other issues. It is possible to hold the moral high ground and compromise, so long as those who voted for you know where there will be no compromise.
Of course this will also require Ministers to be open and honest about the extent of their influence (so please no more 75% nonsense). Some blatantly Tory policies have been implemented without so much as a murmur. We need clear statements where Lib Dems disagree but are obliged to support. If, as many expect, the number of Lib Dem MP’s reduces then be honest about the limitations of their influence in any post 2015 coalition.
Stephen,
I don’t know your background in the party, but I presume at some time you lived, worked and campaigned in Oxford. If I am wrong please accept my apologies but it shouldn’t weaken my argument.
Liberal Democrats have always been about seizing power and then ensuring that it is dispersed in ways that followed the ideal encapsulated in the phrase ‘helping people take and use power’.
The record of Liberal Democrats in Oxford and Oxfordshire are both typical of that determination and exemplary. Which is why I am surprised that you can be shocked that Conference ‘remains hungry for power’.
It is a myth that we glory in opposition and find government irksome, and I don’t think you help by perpetuating that story line. It also permeated the writings of David Laws in 22 Days in May – even though he had been the MP for Yeovil where once again our district and county councillors have been remarkable accepters of responsibility, redistributors of power and creators of opportunities and life chances made possible only by either gaining majorities or in working constructively in coalitions and minority administrations.
Why is it an attractive myth of a certain type of Liberal Democrat? It is part of the line only they were willing to ‘take’ us into power and only the present leadership could ‘force’ Liberal Democrats to take tough decisions.
Those who say this can have no idea what it was like to have responsibility for running an authority in the 1980s and 1990s with Secretaries of State like Heseltine (who introduced Grant Related Assessment to cut grant income to councils), Baker (capping?), Ridley (poll tax) and the like. Tough choice had to be made daily in that environment and that’s where many of our best people cut their teeth.
Not all ‘tough’ tactics are right. Making wise decisions with the opportunity of power is what motivates all the Liberal Democrats who I have known, without exception. They stood each day and through many nights living on this moral highground.
Sorry Stephen, there is almost no chance of us being in a coalition post 2015. If by some massive fluke we are, I fear there will be little left of the party by 2020, especialy if our leadership continues to perform as poorly as it has done so far.
I’d offer a constructive response, but I couldn’t get past the first line “The New Statesman’s fair-minded political editor Rafael Behr”.
Having read the NS, Rafael Behr is either the political editor, or he is fair-minded. The evidence suggests he cannot be both.
Big Dave’ who says ‘My view is that the next election will be turned into a “Save Our NHS” affair – very potent stuff – as a result Labour will gain a comfortable majority.’ I say dream on! It will be the economy (stupid!) that determines the outcome. If it recovers people will remember that it was spendthrift Labour who by running continual deficits when times were easy accentuated the pain we are suffering now. They will rightly reject the two Eds who were after all, as Gordon’s lackeys most responsible for this incompetence.
Anyone who runs the next GE Campaign on a “Save the NHS” card must be challenged very hard about how they plan to fund it.
Leekliberal. I couldn’t disagree more (with respect)!. Let me make clear that I am not remotely suggesting that Labour will deserve to win in 2015 (or whenever), but there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that they will. Also let me say that I think the LibDems should connect much, much with voters. If they did they would find voter animosity towards them is severe – inexplicably so. In my – very personal experience – the order of priority of political issues that are dear to voters’ hearts are (1) The National Health Service; and (2)—(100) just about everything else. In my opinion Mr Clegg and his 50-odd MPs, as well as Shirley Williams and co., showed incredible naivety in not realising this. Earlier this year the Liberal Democrats together with the Conservatives appeared (rightly or wrongly) to be enthusiastic about “selling off” the NHS to anonimous capitalist outfiits. And this without having the remotest assent from voters. The LibDems should not have have touched this with a barge-pole, they should just have said NO. The NHS ‘reorganisation’ went down with voters far worse than Clegg or your Party seems capable of imagining. Ed Milliband and Andy Burnham might seem a bit “geeky”, but given an open goal their grasp of detail will put Labour into power. I have been around a long, long time. I belong to no political party. In 2010 I voted LibDem.
Missomole
I am assuming from your last post that you suggest that the LD follow the current policy as practised by the Coalition and so are indistinguishable from the Tories
I think Behr is probably right to observe that, “The leadership thinks that self-respect can be acquired through dogged determination to carry on governing”. I have heard similar remarks before.
The leadership may think that but I don’t! What on earth has ‘dogged determination’ got to do with it. A goodly fraction of the electorate are just as likely to conclude (wrongly in my view) that they simply want to keep their snouts in the trough for longer.
I think the electorate will reward whoever offers the most credible (as in rings true to their experience) explanation of what’s going wrong and offers a plan on how to fix it. But that is difficult – really difficult – so best steered around.
@bazzasc – Are you making a point, or just listing assumptions you are choosing to make about mine?
Missomole
Well your comment seems to suggest that ‘saving the NHS’ is optional as it will be expensive. What is your point there? My assumption was that you are supporting the current bill and Government policy which is different from that of the LD
Bazzasc – the elephant in the room is NHS rationing. No party is prepared to address the thorny issue of real inflation in health care. Carrying on as we are is unsustainable and will continue to disappoint.
bazzasc – Saving the NHS is optional, designing it was optional, establishing it was optional, and so is sustaining it.
My original comment was quite clear as far as I can tell, it refers to any party, and an election campaign, it indicates nothing about Liberal Democrat Policy, and nothing about the Coalition Government, however, if you want to assume things, obviously you can and that would be beyond my control.
As tabman has pointed out, all UK political parties have a problem with the NHS, (excepting the small extremist parties, some of who can suggest revolutionising the entire way the UK economy works, because they are only seeking votes in odd and unusual constituencies), the problem is coming up with an electable method of paying for it. My personal target with the NHS is just to spread that information to as many people as possible, in order to increase the chances of someone , anyone, coming up with that elusive idea.
I am being non-political. Ah yes, it is true that we Brits want an NHS that provides: first-rate clinical service 24 hours a day, seven days a week; with no waiting lists; the best hospital facilities, equipment and staff; whilst providing an unlimited supply of the best drugs available…..and so on. All this whilst the basic rate of income tax stands at 20%. The figures just don’t add up. We want European-standard healthcare with US-style taxation. Various studies seem to indicate that our health service – which could be more efficent – does provide very good value for money when compared to other health systems aroung the world. Nevertheless, the £billions spent on the NHS are not enough – it it something of a bottomless pit. SO, I believe that we are long past the point where politicians can claim that status quo re. funding the NHS is sustainable – it is not. Therefore politicians of all political parties should be honest with the electorate and ‘tell it as it is’, that is to say that without big increases in revenue there will be big cuts in what the NHS can do. We need a political party to obtain a madate for an increase in the tax rates of perhaps 2—5% across the board for health funding. Not much to ask! I can’t see any other option.
@ BIGDAVE – thank you, yes to everything you said, except the very last sentence. I think we need a multi-party agreement to charge that tax, somehow protected from individual party policy, or future alterations.
All parties are missing the moral high ground while emphasising the more expensive reactive policy approach, such as is currently expected of the NHS, and is not challenged by figures such as Mr Behr.
Spending priorities are distorted because the public debate is distorted – for example, accidents caused by drunk or intoxicated drivers are still a massive killer on the roads. Protecting A&E units is protecting the status quo, and that’s no solution – the solution is fewer drivers drinking.
Labour and Conservatives can continue arguing about what British culture is, LibDems want to change British culture.