The Guardian’s Martin Kettle has an acute analysis — This is the beginning of the end for the coalition — of what the Queen’s Speech has revealed about the Coalition Government.
It’s 20 years since Norman Lamont, smarting from being sacked as Chancellor by John Major, accused the Tories’ last majority government of ‘giving the impression of being in office but not in power’. Well, the Coalition is in office and it is in power (the big long-term reforms from Steve Webb on pensions and Norman Lamb on social care show that). But it is no longer in harmony. Instead we’re trapped in a loveless marriage, forced to stick together because we can’t afford the costs of divorce.
Here’s how Martin puts it:
Yes, it will continue in office, probably for the full two remaining years. It remains united, in political expediency terms at least, by the overarching need to show that the economic strategy followed since 2010 is at last beginning to bear fruit, if it does. It also remains united by the fact that it needs to stay in office for its own credibility. This is not 1923 or 1929, when a variety of alternative coalition configurations existed. Today, there is only one viable coalition on offer. The Cameron-Clegg coalition will therefore soldier on. It is, like the banks, too big to fail.
But the larger animating purpose articulated by the coalition enthusiasts in 2010, the possibility that there was a sustainable liberal-conservative alternative to both Labour and to Thatcherite Conservatism, has failed. The apostles of this view, who certainly included David Cameron and Nick Clegg themselves, wanted to create a compassionate, internationalist, less intrusive, greener and more modern form of social and economic liberalism. True, they can point to some successes along the way, but in the main they have not done what they set out to do – and the new focus on immigration underscores their failure.
All true. My only disagreement would be that Martin dates this ‘beginning of the end’ to this week. No. The Coalition’s beginning of the end dates back much further, to the early part of 2011 when Tory high command, spooked by the thought that the alternative vote might win (as polls then suggested it could), agreed to unleash the dogs of war on Nick Clegg.
They won the battle, but have lost the war.
Battered and bruised, Nick Clegg had no choice but to pursue an active policy of differentiation: any form of ‘Coalition 2.0’ renewal died then. Meanwhile the Tories — spooked again, this time by the rise of Ukip (which AV would have made redundant) — shift ever more rightwards on Europe and immigration, widening the chasm between the Coalition partners.
Here’s Martin again:
The coalition is now little more than the sum of its parts. On the one hand there is a Tory majority that smells upcoming electoral defeat, senses Cameron is a loser, suspects George Osborne has steered the economy on to the rocks and is losing its head over Ukip, which some see as the repository of a truer Thatcherite Toryism.
On the other there is the Lib Dem minority, gripped by being a party of government, focused on the need to hold on to its 57 seats in 2015, massively aware of the possibility of wider eclipse and, partly for that reason, newly uncompromising in its refusal to do the very things over Europe, human rights, supply-side economics and Trident that their increasingly rightwing partners increasingly long to do.
Looking at the Coalition now I’m reminded of Charles and Diana’s marriage. The fairytale (perhaps naive) romance that blossomed happily, then gradually faded, and eventually settled into sullen, mutual resentment, a pretence of togetherness maintained only for the sake of duty.
That’s where we are. No obvious escape. No promise of a happy ending. Just two years of grim endurance.
* 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
Reform own goals
Following the course of the River Leen through Nottingham
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
Alison C
Alex Macfie
Jason Connor
29 Comments
Stephen, the seeds were all there from the beginning of this business. You use the phrase, “perhaps naive” – unfortunately, incredibly naive. All the stuff about untested public school boys has come true. Our terrible failure to negotiate hard with the Tories, and specifically to have people negotiating who did NOT accept the Post 2010 leadership line on the economy. Most of our troubles stem from that. The first thing the party should do, immediately, as a “signal” that this is being recognised, is to reshuffle David Laws out of the Cabinet, and remove him from any role in the next manifesto. This would be a first step, but could at least be shown to Autumn Conference as a token of the way the party should think about moving.
An unnecessarily gloomy article. Coalitions are often about differences of opinion, and it is specifically about winning the argument.
I read quite often on LDV how knee jerk Conservative initiatives are quickly seen to be reflecting public sentiment rather than real long term policy. I can well see that a jittery Conservative party increasingly plays to the crowd. But that can and should be quite different from them Lib Dems getting on delivering our policies in government.
Post-Eastleigh we should be much more upbeat about the next 2 years
I agree with William . While Stephen is correct that the Coalition was never going to be the same again after the Tories behaviour on the AV vote, the fact is that compared to many other governments’ 4th Queen’s Speech, this one is reasonable. There is some good stuff in there, and the fact that it isn’t crammed with legislation is hardly something to complain about, when we have rightly spent the last decade attacking Labour for producing too much legislation instead of focussing on governance and delivery.
Here’s an alternate view from Peter Oborne:
“This Queen’s Speech proves that the Coalition is still going strong”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10044271/This-Queens-Speech-proves-that-the-Coalition-is-still-going-strong.html
“The fairytale (perhaps naive) ”
That sums it up perfectly. The Tory Party is, and post-Thatcher, always will be, a political party based on sowing division, promoting the self-interests of the elite and courting xenophobia. Cameron’s gloss pre-2010 was a mere PR exercise. Those in the Lib Dems who thought this coalition really meant the sunlit uplands, are forced by ‘events’ to think again.
The sad thing is that the alternative – Labour – are not a real alternative. There are people in it who genuinely care about the poor and marginalised but the Blair era has infected them with the same neo-liberal reactions.
If there is a next time in coalition, with either of these bankrupt, philosophy and values -lite parties, we need to be on our game from the start and never pretend it is a love-in. We have the right values and we have to believe in them.
In other words, we need to be true to ourselves and our values.
Stephen, you quote extensively from Martin Kettle. but personally I preferred the other Politics Home top ten article by Peter Oborne,. He outlines the positive work done by the quad +2 over the last year and ; explains how while the backbenchers quarrel, the q+2 have agreed the programme put forward in the Queen’s speech.
I have come to admire Oborne as a very perceptive writer is not afraid to put forward a view contrary to the rest of the analytical journalists.
So while Martin Kettle and Steve Richards write write gloomily about the beginning of the end for the coalition, Oborne points out the very radical nature of the pensions and welfare reforms proposed in this Queen’s speech; and they are quite remarkable reforms. Who would have thought a few years back, that we would be in government and that our Steve Webb would be the minister to bring forward necessary pension reforms that Labour did not tackle.
There is also an amusing article in the Statesman about Nick v Nigel.
Come on Stephen, cheer up, the best is yet to be.
I don’t think that the Kettle and Oborne articles are as different as they first appear. Both seem to be highlighting the strength of the coalition at the top (Cameron, Osborne, Letwin, Clegg, Alexander, Laws) and the fragility below that.
I couldn’t resist a chuckle at Peter’s little joke. Anyone who can portray Cameron, Osborne and Letwin as being political heavyweights , and then top it all with Clegg, Alexander and Laws while keeping a straight face, should have a sure fire career in stand up comedy.
If “we” cared about the electorate and the country, rather than clinging to power, it would be a good idea to hold an election. Austerity isn’t working, and clearly George Osborne is politically incapable of doing anything different. Vince Cable doesn’t seem to have any economic views any more.
That’s the way out. Maybe we should have a conference debate about whether the orange book crew really do represent the party.
This seems merely to set up an Aunt Sally – that Clegg/Cameron were plotting a long term Liberal/Tory merging, merely to knock it down. The present coalition was the only credible outcome of the 2010 election and it will last until the 2015 election because there is still little alternative. In the 2015 election, going on the results of the locals and likley trends over the next two years, Labour will be the largest party, but 20-30 seats short of an overall majority. The Libdems will loose a handful of seats it took off Labour in the last Parliament, keep most of its others, and even perhaps gain the odd one or two curtesy of UKIP. It will have 40-50 seats. The logic will be a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, and as unlikely as it seems, EdMilliband as Prime Minster. Meanwhile the Lib Dems will continue to get bits and peices of its manifesto implemented. After 2015 it is likely to get other bits implemented. Messy thing politics.
“Battered and bruised, Nick Clegg had no choice but to pursue an active policy of differentiation:”
Are you saying that Nick Clegg did not make this sudden wise move from choice? 🙁
I never liked the Marriage metaphor, it always was & remains a business arrangement, friendship was a useful extra not a vital ingredient.
The Tories are getting in a pathetic lather over UKIP, they seem to have lost all their courage. Thatcher would have been disgusted.
The big lesson to learn from The Coalition (& it couldnt have been applied in 2010) is that next time we must take more time & insist on both Parties taking the decision down to the roots, some sort of emergency Conference on both sides. Perhaps the Agreement could be signed by all MPs & Peers, ideally in front of cameras ?
@Paul: I think the big thing that the party has learnt, was learnt during the birth of the Coalition, and that is how to handle making a coalition agreement. Something tells me that if (as I suspect many in certain quarters of the Party secretly hope) a Lib-Lab Coalition does come to pass next time, then we will hopefully be a lot aware and mindful of how to go about making such an agreement, and how more importantly the limitations of such an agreement.
“and the new focus on immigration underscores their failure.”
I agree with this, immigration always has been the Cinderella of politics; a policy area that Politicians can take a cowardly retreat to in times when they need something that is emotive and allows them to look tough without upsetting the majority of people who can/will vote.
The fundamental problem this Coalition has had is the failure of its economic policy. This has emboldened the Tory right and the rise of UKIP has put more pressure on all the political parties to shift to the right. Can this Coalition continue after 2015? Sounds like a nightmare to me.
Would a marriage tax break convince them to stay together? 😉
“Post-Eastleigh we should be much more upbeat about the next 2 years”
Very little in the Eastleigh result to be upbeat about as our vote share drop there was of a scale similar to other byelections.
“both Parties taking the decision down to the roots, some sort of emergency Conference on both sides. ”
And don’t really see what that does – ultimately both leaders will be presenting any agreement to their parties in what is effectively a “back me or sack me” vote. It’s only worth the parties having a debate if it can debate meaningful points (which ours didn’t) and can propose amendemnts to the agreement (which again ours didn’t). Certainly I think that a post 2015 coalition agreement debate will not be the North Korean-esque leaders rally that Birmingham was in 2010!
“David Cameron and Nick Clegg … wanted to create a compassionate, internationalist, less intrusive, greener and more modern form of social and economic liberalism.”
I think they just wanted to create a stronger right-of-centre grouping which would appear broader and crucially, get more votes. The compassionate green windowdressing has been something just Cameron switches on and off at will. Meanwhile, the real business of dismantling State health, education and welfare has moved along swimmingly, irrespective of the temporary unpopularity of the government who are getting on with it.
Moggy said: “The logic will be a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, and as unlikely as it seems, EdMilliband as Prime Minster.”
thereby explaining why his logic will in due course collapse. Neil Kinnock, whose leadership deficiencies were comparatively slight, also held a commanding lead in mid-term protest polling. It fell apart, as will Miliband’s, when an election approaches and the voters subject him to a proper critical examination. The same applies to UKIP. I’m afraid my bet is on Cameron and Clegg to be back in that rose garden, with the same insincere smiles and the same disastrous programme, after the 2015 election.
@ David Allen: Spot on.
” EdMilliband as Prime Minster.”
“…thereby explaining why his logic will in due course collapse. Neil Kinnock, whose leadership deficiencies were comparatively slight,
It comes to something in politics doesn’t it, when one can look back to the 1980s and look relatively favourably at Neil Kinnock as a leader of the Labour Party. I think it’s because he actually believed in something – he had a philosophy.
I’m blowed if I know what Miliband believes or indeed what Labour actually stand for – except – we’re not as scary as the Tories and we might say something nice once in while about the NHS and Teachers – and – we want a slightly more fair society than the coalition but we’ll keep neo-liberal economic principles.
We need an alternative to the Quad plus 2 and right-wing ideology, badly.
““Post-Eastleigh we should be much more upbeat about the next 2 years”
The haberdashers of Emperors spin rather more than they sew – and are hopeless at ‘bobbin’ and weavin’. 🙁
one thing that’s obvious from the post on Libdem Voice, the LIBERAL PARTY side of the the LIBDEMS blame the SDP side for the LIBDEM problems and the SDP side of the LIBDEMS blame the LIBERAL PARTY side for the LIBDEM problems
Stephen Tall
Looking at the Coalition now I’m reminded of Charles and Diana’s marriage. The fairytale (perhaps naive) romance that blossomed happily, then gradually faded, and eventually settled into sullen, mutual resentment, a pretence of togetherness maintained only for the sake of duty.
But sorry, HOW did it ever come about that this was viewed as a “fairytale romance” in the first place? I certainly saw it right from the start as “sullen, mutual resentment, maintained only for the sake of duty”. I don’t think most members of the party saw it as a “fairytale romance”, I don’t think the agreement to support it which went through the party’s democratic machinery put it that way. I think a great many, probably the majority, of party members saw it as an unfortunate necessity forced on us by the Parliamentary balance following the 2010 general election. Even those who were fairly enthusiastic abut it surely saw it as much more a hard-headed business agreement than a “fairytale romance”.
Even to continue putting it this way, Stephen, is ENORMOUSLY damaging to the party. So why do you do it? It makes us look not just naïve, which most of us are not on this sort of thing, especially the many of us who have been involved in difficult balance of power situations in local government, but also people who were hiding their real opinions or people who only ever really wanted power. Stephen, even by using those words, you are joining forces with our enemies by supporting the lines they use to attack us.
A big part of the problem our party is facing was because this marriage analogy was pushed about a lot at the start of the coalition, it has been hard to escape from it. This often happens – when a new thing is started what is said about it right at the start sticks, even if that new thing moved away from that very early on. As a sort of example, the SDP was only for the first few months of its existence trying to be a “Labour Party Mark II”, so working primarily on taking Labour votes. But because this is how it was put at the start, it was seen that way ever since, and so to this day the 1980s are written up as “the SDP split the Labour vote and so let the Conservatives in” – which is in blatant disregard of the facts, which are that every poll on people voting SDP showed them equally divided between Labour and the Conservatives in who they would vote for if there was no SDP or Liberal candidate.
A marriage implies something based on love, or at least close agreement. We did NOT have that with the Conservatives, at least most of the party’s members did not. We were NOT going into it because we loved the Conservative Party and wanted to be united with them. A marriage also implies something long-lasting and hoped to be permanent. We did NOT go into the coalition with the aim that it would be anything like that. I am sure it would have been voted right out by the Special Assembly had there been a hint that the coalition was an engagement to be married, something that would move to a permanent merger of the two parties.
A marriage, at least here in the UK and at this 21st century, implies an equal partnership. The coalition was not. With 57 LibDems MPs to 306 Conservative MPs it could not be. We also did not have the bargaining power of being able to go into an alternative coalition with Labour if the Tories treated us badly. We were not given equal shares of power in the coalition, the balance reflected the balance of seats. The reality always was that our power in it was equivalent only to that of a few dozen MPs on the right-wing fringe of the Conservatives, just a small force Cameron had to balance off. We were forced into it by situation and by duty. Had we not gone along with it, Cameron would have been appointed PM leading a minority Conservative government, and he and the press and the Labour Party would have worked to make sure we were wiped out in the general election he would have called in a few months time on the lines “I can;t govern in this situation, give me a majority so I can do my job properly”. Anyone who thinks Labour wouldn’t have been his allies on this need only think of how those elements of Labour who were vocal in the AV referendum used precisely this pro-Tory line to argue the “No” case, and so far as I can recall there was not a single Labour MP who was loud enough on the other side to counter the impression that Labour was solidly anti-AV.
Even those were relatively keen on the coalition ought to have seen that given the tough economic situation, the government was going to have to do a lot of things that would make it unpopular, so it made sense for us not to want to be seen as too closely associated with it. We didn’t have to be. We could have just told the truth – it was a largely Conservative government pursuing largely Conservative policies, so a very long way from our ideal, we accepted it only because as democrats we have to accept the will of the people, and it would be irresponsible to make the country ungovernable in the Beppe Grille way by opposing even the formation of a viable government.
So, just how did it come to be written up as a fairytale romance marriage? If it was press reporting, our leader should have stamped down on it hard right away, made clear this was NOT what it was. Doing this right from the start would have saved our party a lot of the damage it has endured. But if it was our leader and those surrounding him actually pushing it that way, then not only have they done so without the democratic consent of the party, they have done something which shows staggering incompetence. I myself, as anyone who looks at my postings from the time, said this at the start. I predicted exactly how it would go, and it has. I don’t think I was the only one. To put this as poor Nick Clegg forced “to pursue an active policy of differentiation” only after the AV referendum is an admission of a huge mistake being made. Any canny politician ought to have seen this one coming, it shouldn’t have required the AV referendum to show that the coalition was not a “marriage” and should not be handled as such.
So, what do we do with incompetent people? What are those at the top of our party arguing when it comes to other people? Performance related pay for teachers was in the Queen’s Speech. We have had lines put forward by top Liberal Democrats about head teachers being sacked if they don’t meet targets for exam pass improvements, and about other public service workers being forced to work under a regime where if you get things wrong, you lose your job. We are forever being told that the way to get things moving is to make it much easier to sack poor performers.
OK, so does anyone at the top of our party have the DECENCY to say “We got it wrong, we shouldn’t have let this fairytale marriage idea get promoted as how we see the coalition, I am sorry for my part in it, I resign”?
There is a real danger for the Lib Dems that they will be seen as a party which either bows to the Conservatives’ demands on issues (e.g. Immigration) or are just “Nay-Sayers” on others (e.g. Europe) – indeed in the latter case the Conservatives are engaging in frequent kite-flying for THEIR voters which they know they can’t deliver on.
The Lib Dems need to propose SOLUTIONS and have the Conservatives become the Nay-Sayers , otherwise in the eyes of the electorate the choice will be either strengthen the hand of the Conservatives and let them rule unimpedeed OR give Labour a free hand to govern.
Right now the Lib Dem perspective is becoming buried under the “Coalition” identity and the international experience on this is the major coalition partner tend to get the credit for popular policies whereas the junior coalition party (or parties) get the blame – and it is usually a lot easier for the electorate to “punish” a smaller party.
Spot on Stephen – the rise of UKIP is the antidote to Tory hubris over winning the AV referendum. Let us hope the split right wing vote costs them lots and lots of seats.
Matthew Huntbach
“OK, so does anyone at the top of our party have the DECENCY to say “We got it wrong, we shouldn’t have let this fairytale marriage idea get promoted as how we see the coalition, I am sorry for my part in it, I resign”?”
Of course not. Perform badly as a Westminster politician and you are either moved sideways or promoted – you’ll only get sacked if the Daily Mail or Telegraph scent enough blood. Meanwhile the cosy pensions, perks and high salaries plus ‘long holidays’ (well what’s sauce for the goose etc…), cushion the blow, should it occur.
Brilliant, very perceptive article … But above all it is extremely sad situation… it raises the unknowable counterfactual question as what might have been iif the Tory right had not gone out on a rampant attack !?
John Innes
it raises the unknowable counterfactual question as what might have been iif the Tory right had not gone out on a rampant attack !?
Given that there has never been a Parliament in my lifetime (and probably well before) where the Tory right hasn’t gone out of a rampage attack, that’s a very counterfactual question.
I believe that the excellent analysis by Matthew expresses the views of the overwhelming majority of party members as distinct from the custodians and majority contributors to Lib Dem voice.
BrianD, I really wish that were the case. But if it is, why can’t they have the guts to DO something about it? Something more constructive than slowly dropping out of the party drip,drip,drip.
I’ve been making this point continuously in Liberal Democrat Voice since the coalition was formed. At first I was treated as some sort of silly pessimist, or a fringe left-winger who ought to …, well we know what Richard Reeves said, and even though billed as “senior adviser to Nick Clegg”, was never slapped down by the leadership for saying it. While I do sense more of a coming round to my point of view, it still seems to be all behind-the-scenes grumbling, nothing more.
@Matthew: While I often find myself nodding in agreement with a fair amount of what you say, I do believe that you, yourself, sometimes suffer from a sense of wishful thinking. How could any Coalition Government, especially one about to do some very unpopular things, ever survive if even those forming it are openly saying they do not want to it. In fact, judging by the way the British electorate is no better at taking some self-responsibility than the British Government, if the Coalition at its birth did as you wanted and said, we are only doing this because you (the electorate) forced us to, the electorate would have been even more volatile than they already were.Like any Government, the Coalition needed to portray a sense of stability and solidity if it was to be taken: seriously on an international scale; trusted by business; and most importantly, not overly antagonistic towards a temperamental electorate.
So, while I agree with you, I do feel that practically speaking, at best, for us to have been so open about our own discontent with the matter would have done us no more favours than the way the Leadership did act.
The coalition was a necessary response to the election result in the light of the financial crisis. The agreement wasn’t at all bad but its major weakness was committing to deficit reduction trumping everything else without any indication of how the deficit was to be reduced.
Nick Clegg and others in both parties and the media went overboard and said things that were too enthusiastic. Some of those people almost certainly did see the coalition as an opportunity to shift the centre of British politics and transform the Liberal Democrats into something like the German FDP. That agenda is still out there. For its health and for its survival the party needs to be debating basic values and strategy. That is happening to some extent, but people around the leadership see open debate of things like economic strategy as too dangerous to allow.
Eastleigh showed we could still mobilise the troops and fight hard to grind out a win, but in the public eye it was a victory for UKIP and we’re now seeing the consequences not only in a turbulent Conservative Party but in good Liberal Democrat campaigners who lost to UKIP candidates whose contempt for local government was shown by their ignoring of all local issues.
We need to engage with political reality and power, as we have for a long time in local government, but we also need to rediscover our heart – and it isn’t in the coalition.