The Independent this week reported that Nick Clegg is holding an “away day” for all 57 Liberal Democrat MPs when he will urge them to hold their nerve and show discipline when faced with public anger over the coalition government’s austerity measures:
They have all been called to next Thursday’s away day at the Local Government Association headquarters in Westminster, where they will be joined by Liberal Democrat peers, council leaders and party officials.
Mr Clegg’s aim to reassure them the party is achieving concrete results from the power-sharing deal, citing the commitment to hold a referendum on electoral reform next year, the increase in income tax thresholds and the creation of a judge-led inquiry into accusations the security forces colluded with torture. He will urge his MPs to sell the achievements during the summer recess to activists ahead of their annual conference in Liverpool in September.
The Deputy Prime Minister will insist that the party is retaining its separate identity in the coalition and ask for suggestions on how the Liberal Democrats can continue to carve out a distinctive political niche.
Party activists involved in coalition arrangements in councils such as Birmingham will spell out how they operated in practice.
Mr Clegg will also deliver a tough message that the party needs to maintain its resolve as the cuts bite. He will argue that to pull out of the coalition mid-way through its five-year term would spell political disaster for the Liberal Democrats.
“We will be toast as a party if we collapse the coalition half-way through. We have to see this through,” one ally said.
The paper then produces eight questions summarising some of the current key issues for the party:
Those Liberal Democrat worries
1. What will happen if the country rejects electoral reform in the referendum planned for 5 May? Where are we left then?
2. The impact of spending cuts: will the worst-off be heaviest hit by the squeeze in the public sector?
3. How can rises in VAT – regarded by many as a regressive tax – be justified?
4. Is our party being used as political cover by David Cameron for even more swingeing cuts than the Tories would have contemplated?
5. As junior members of the coalition, how do we prevent our identity from becoming submerged?
6. How do we develop a distinctive policy platform for the 2012 general election?
7. How do we prevent Left-leaning voters from returning to the Labour fold?
8. What is the party’s exit strategy from the coalition?
So what would Voice readers answer to these key worries?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
74 Comments
Aren’t these the questions we chould have had answers to before intering the coalition ?
Entrering the coalition is like joining a war . You should always have an exit strategy, and ours is not clear or, in my opinion. I doubt we have any idea what will happen in 4 1/2 years time.
Would Nick Clegg have booked a holiday without having any plans for the journey home ?
Well said Nich! It seems to me that all sorts of decisions have been agreed to with absolutely no consultation and no consideration of the impact. Interestingly some of us from FPC have been invited on Thursday, having slipped through the net 😉 (wasn’t sure how welcome I would be) I wonder just how much time we will have to properly air all our concerns? From an FPC perspective I am concerned that our negotiating team seemed more than happy to abandoned swathes of our existing policy, in particular with regard to young people, despite the commitments made in the manifesto and in our youth policy passed at spring conference. I also want to know what the process will be now in terms of our policy being taken up in coaltion, presumably, if the coalition agreement is anything to go by, it will be at the whim of whichever minister is responsible. The irony is that the Tories need us not only to have been able to form a reasonably secure government but also as many have already observed, to give them cover. Now, more than ever we should be using our position to push, and push hard, for our policies and against the worst excesses of Tory indifference on VAT, benefit and service cuts. We are in serious danger of losing our integrity unless there is a lot more evidence of us standing up for what we claim are our values. I don’t remember VAT rises, benefit cuts and 40% cuts to the public sector being part of the coalition agreement……or did I miss the small print?
An away day to Smith Square, SW1? Well that is almost hundreds of yards away from Big Ben.
@Linda Jack
“Now, more than ever we should be using our position to push, and push hard, for our policies and against the worst excesses of Tory indifference on VAT, benefit and service cuts.”
I absolutely agree with you, however, I think the problem is that Nick Clegg and a number of his senior colleagues are quite comfortable with the particularly brutal Conservative policies that you mention. I hope I’m wrong.
It was the bit about the policy platform for the 2012 general election that surprised me.
Several of those look rather less than key issues for the Lib Dems, and more like key issues for Labour.
The “exit strategy” is a general election at the end of the 5-year term. If you’re asking about the campaign for that election, it will be roughly: coalition government is a big improvement over any of the last few we’ve tried, so we should do that again.
Andrew – sorry I don’t understand your point. Which points are “key worries for Labour”? And why should Lib Dems not be worried about them?
Just a guess…
1. What will happen if the country rejects electoral reform in the referendum planned for 5 May? Where are we left then?
It does not matter because Nicholas is having such a wonderful time playing with the toys that will enable him (and Dave and George) to take us back to a pre 1906-1914 level of state intervention (and- naturally- Edwardian levels of health, education and inequality).
2. The impact of spending cuts: will the worst-off be heaviest hit by the squeeze in the public sector?
Predictions here depend largely upon what economist you listen to (and who is paying their salary). We will have to wait and see 18-36 months for a definitive answer based on observational and statistical evidence (though expect statistical massaging on a scale unimagined even under Brownite Labour). But if the answer is ‘YES’ it will be too late for LD’s to get out of the whole they have dug.
3. How can rises in VAT – regarded by many as a regressive tax – be justified?
In apathetic ‘I listen to the arguments a little bit during election time’ Britain the VAT increase will simply be seen as a tax rise on everyone that hits you every single day (rather than in your pay packet once a month/ week). It won’t be liked. Amongst the politicos and activists it is what it is: a regressive tax that eats into the incomes of those with no asset and equity income i.e. not the upper middle and upper classes from whence Dave and Nick hail.
4. Is our party being used as political cover by David Cameron for even more swingeing cuts than the Tories would have contemplated?
An unequivocal YES! Osborne himself was reported as telling nervous backbenchers this very point in the notorious Spectator piece a few weeks ago.
5. As junior members of the coalition, how do we prevent our identity from becoming submerged?
By leaving the formal coalition and supporting a minority Tory government once the AV referendum is out of the way and honouring those parts of the coalition agreement that were in your manifesto.
6. How do we develop a distinctive policy platform for the 2012 general election?
Personally I think we will have an election in mid 2013….!! If the election *is* in 2015 and the coalition is still intact going into that campaign then the Lib Dem vote will simply be eviscerated: most probably because Nick and the wet Tories will agree a deal whereby sitting Lib Dem MP’s are not opposed by official Conservative candidates thereby beating in the impression that the parties are ‘as one’. It will be an indirect way of constructing a permanent coalition…or rather a take-over that will result in a split with the orange bookers joining with Dave’s Cameroon’s. *If* the coalition lasts until 2015 in a chummy way that is. A BIG ‘if’.
7. How do we prevent Left-leaning voters from returning to the Labour fold?
Sorry- that horse has bolted: though not all back to Labour. Some to the Greens as well. But that element of your vote is over-and-out. Get over it.
8. What is the party’s exit strategy from the coalition?
Options:
(a) Nick and fellow rightist Orange bookers join Dave’s tea party voluntarily and leave mainstream and left Lib Dem party completely in the lurch. A few senior ‘names’ join the new ‘post new labour’ labour party. Liberals are back to single figures for the next five general elections.
(b) The majority of the Lib Dem party (that is not Orange bookite i.e. FPC) demands PLDP cedes from coalition and Nick agrees
(c) same as (b) but Nick refuses and party splits
(d) There isn’t one
Vat rises, service cuts and benefit cuts are less key issues for the Lib Dems? Did I read that correctly? Good Lord, if you feel a referendum on AV and less CCTV are going to save you for electoral oblivion you must inhabit a parallel universe far removed for reality.Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of the Lib Dems streaming full ahead to wipeout at the polls ,but i’m astonished how few of you seem to realise the course you are on.Long may it continue.
AJ – yes you have totally read that wrong!!!
@bob
do you think the next election is really that far away.
things can happen very quickly indeed, the AV ref should hold it together untill may 5, but then anytime after that the house of cards will come down over any issue. in my book
“most probably because Nick and the wet Tories will agree a deal whereby sitting Lib Dem MP’s are not opposed by official Conservative candidates thereby beating in the impression that the parties are ‘as one’.”
I think that might be a very difficult offer for much of the Lib Dem parliamentary party to refuse.
But I’m sure it will be made only if Cameron considers that the advantage of a pact to the Tories in Con/Lab seats will outweigh the prospect of the Tories simply hoovering up 30+ Lib Dem-held seats in which they are the challengers.
Either way the party’s destiny is very much out of its hands.
I agree that Labour have far more issues. They’ve shit on the economic carpet and ran off. In coalition talks they were incoherent with most choosing opposition rather than dialogue in the hope that they could return in a few years without having to see, hear or talk deficit and regain power upon vast spending promises on austerity Britain.
Now that’s what I call a risky strategy! That’s quite funny actually!
And Labour’s VAT rise would have been higher than 20%!
The Lib Dems have 5 years to show a difference for their involvement in coalition – already able to show an opposite approach to Labour by increasing tax on the wealthy via CGT and reducing tax on the lowest earners with a higher personal allowance. 5 Years to show how more Lib Dems will make a better parliament and a fairer Britain.
And Labours election theme? Blair & Brown held our kids ransom – we had to do those bad things but they’re gone now – honest!
The most important thing for MPs and the membership is to back our Ministers, we will be able to push further and harder against the tories in the coalition if we remain united. The most important thing for our Ministers is to push further and harder against the tories and to demonstrate this to MPs and members. In government the devil is in the detail and our Ministers can do a lot to ensure more liberal outcomes if they understand and use that to their advantage.
Above all we have to remember that (whatever Cameron says) the tories aren’t really our new friends – they’re Conservative politicians. We’re in bed with a bunch of vipers who will happily use the coalition to wipe us out and reposition themselves in the centre ground. Vince and Nick will need to be Indiana Jones if they want to come out of the other side alive!
The cuts in jobs and services are unnecessary and cruel; the VAT increase is unnecessary and cruel; whatever positive policies can be traced to us will be forgotten beneath an avalanche of social collapse (yeah, collapes – what do you think will be the consequences of 1.4 million sackings?). This coalition was badly negotiated, badly thought through, and half baked. It should have been based around very limited objectives – reducing the deficit by focussing on the banks, the investment sector, and the wealthy who got wealthier – and constraining it for a limited period, 2 years maximum. What we have now is a poisoned chalice from which we will be forced to drink every sodding day, and an emerging raft of Thatcherite policies for which we will be morally responsible. We’ve blown any chance of cutting the idiocy and the agony out of the financial policy – we should pull the plug now and maybe we can save some of the party. Oh, and be more effective at controlling the Tories from outside. Oh yes.
O.K. 1, We signed a contract, if the Tories stick to their side of the bargain we must stick to ours. Losing would be bad but not the end of the World.
2, too soon to tell.
3,I am not sure it is .
4, no, bloody silly question.
5, by standing up for ourselves; we have a good case. Not by bleating & whingeing at any rate.
6, too soon …
7, too many different groups bundled up in one there.
8, We need a plan for if the Tories pull out. Otherwise, No Exit before 2015. See 1, above.
“We signed a contract” – what, you mean we signed a contract to be a weak-as-dishwater figleaf? To be frank, El Cleggo bounced us into this. It was foolhardy to make a committment for the entire life of a parliament; it should have been for 2 years, which could have been looked upon as a pilot project, say, for a longer period if we thought it justified. 5 years? Of this? Give me strength.
we signed a contract- blank cq maybe
more importantly on behalf of who Nick Clegg and his cronies or the peeps who voted for you
the problem is this gov ios not representing the wet tories and the mainstream LD it is representing the Thatcherite wing of the Tory Party and the wets wont speak up for fear of being labled traitors by the Torys and the LD leadership seems to want to out hardman the thatcherites to prove themselves.
Apparently this awayday is to urge coalition discipline on the MPs AND help carve out a separate identity – eh? If you see a 1918 style coupon election heading your way best run like hell in the other direction.
It seems that people like the cuts according to the opinion polls, that is until the cuts impact upon them. Are we back to the days “there is no such thing as society”. It would seem so as people are lining up to suggest more cuts to the government on top of what is already happening. What future for our children and other vulnerable groups.
“The most important thing for MPs and the membership is to back our Ministers, we will be able to push further and harder against the Tories in the coalition if we remain united. The most important thing for our Ministers is to push further and harder against the Tories and to demonstrate this to MPs and members.”
Ministers first, please. You can’t just leave it to Simon Hughes. Show us some independence. Don’t just tell us that because the Tories are a bit better than Labour on civil liberties, everything is all right. Prove to us members that you’re worth backing!
Er, Rob Sheffield, hate to break it to you but if you check out the IFS figures you will see that the spending cuts being proposed would take the country back to 2002 levels of public spending (that is, five years in to the Blair government). Edwardian-style state intervention would still be some way off.
“Er, Rob Sheffield, hate to break it to you” blah blah blah
‘Er’ Ed I hate to break it to you but what I actually said was:
“It does not matter because Nicholas is having such a wonderful time playing with the toys that will enable him (and Dave and George) to take us back to a pre 1906-1914 level of state intervention (and- naturally- Edwardian levels of health, education and inequality).”
‘state intervention’ comprises not just spending but also laws and regulations that protect people, communities, their health, their education, their working conditions, their built environments etc etc
You ought to learn to read things properly 😉
PS do you understand the significance of 1906-1914….?
Paul, why should that deal not be a possibility – that is after all what happened in the late 40s / 50s with a couple of Liberal MPs. It would seem quite likely under certain circumstances?
The apparent glee with which the Coalition government is announcing their programme of cuts tends to indicate that the initial rhetoric of reluctance in the face of circumstance is giving way to a government showing it true colours (the bluest of blue).
The sort of cuts being proposed are incredible – either in the sense that they won’t happen or, if they do happen, they will do significant damage to key services. The education agenda is clearly ideological – cut funding to state schools but find money to support free schools (for which there is no real evidence of any benefit) – and I fear that today’s health announcements, if they are of the dimensions that have been suggested, will be worse.
The state surely cannot and should not do everything. But there are some things it can do better than any other sector, when the objective is to protect the vulnerable and allow all members of society to achieve their potential. Many LibDems would not, I would have thought, find that statement too objectionable. But there seems very little evidence the Coalition’s current agenda to suggest this is a position it endorses. It appears a straightforward attempt to dismantle the state, regardless of the wisdom of doing so. For every apparently progressive step it takes (better index linking of pensions) it takes several steps backward elsewhere (switching from RPI to CPI for other benefits, and now for private pensions).
In some senses the eight points identified by the DPM are key questions. But they are posed rather tentatively. We don’t know the answer to 2 but the balance of probability will be yes because they are heavy users of services and have little alternative. The answer to 3 is surely that this is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have broken an election commitment and it cannot be justified in any plausible way. Any attempt to do so looks like mealy mouthed squirming and buying in to the tory party line. The answer to 4 is almost certainly yes, but it isn’t quite the right question – isn’t the right question not whether the cuts are worse than the tories would have implemented anyway (which is a rather hypothetical issue to worry about), but whether the consequences of the cuts that are being implemented are acceptable when viewed from a LibDem perspective? The answer to 7 is “nothing” unless it is possible to demonstrate clearly and soon how, in some concrete rather than trivial ways, the LibDem presence in the coalition has moderated the slash and burn tendencies of the reactionary right. At the moment the broad perception is that the LibDem’s are fully signed up to the agenda. That is doing damage even before the implications of the cuts really hits home. Once that happens it will be too late to start saying ‘we warned them and they didn’t listen’.
Self-evidently there is a tension between showing that the coalition has a unified agenda and retaining a distinctive identity. My best guess is that if the balance continues to be struck where it is at the moment (unified front rather than distinctive agenda) then in the long term the LibDem coalition ministers/other orange bookers will become increasingly disconnected from the rest of the party, which becomes increasingly unhappy with the way things are going. The distinctive identity would not then be articulated by those elements of the leadership implicated in the coalition agenda.
Top of my list for the awayday.
Please explain this 360 U-Turn :
Nick Clegg’s speech to the Lib Dem spring conference 2008….
“This talk of alliances comes up a lot. Everyone wants to be in our gang.
So I want to make something very clear today.
Will I ever join a Conservative government?
No!”
Our Party Primadonnas Norfolk and LindyLooz dive in with typical abandon; but these are people who were always very critical of the Party before the coalition so they now happy to have more ammo to use.
As an ordinary member it makes me observe the cult of personality that thrives in our Liberal Democratic midst.
If your vanity demands that your opinions are important to the Party, and you have failed to become an MP,a good alternative is to become a successful blogger or to get yourself elected to the FPC. You can then become what one website refers to as an “eminense grise of so many LD conferences”
I agree with those who say that we have got to make this coalition work or we are toast; mainly because if we don’t make it work it demonstrates beautifully the anti-PR dogma of “weak government”
And as for the VAT rise as a step too far in affecting the poor and needy, I calculate that as a state pensioner the extra 2.5% will make very little difference to my lifestyle! Council Tax is by far the biggest tax I pay.
I am glad that we now have quality leaders brave enough to take us into shared government; I did not expect to see it in my lifetime..
Elizabeth.
Elizabeth- “I am glad that we now have quality leaders brave enough to take us into shared government; I did not expect to see it in my lifetime..”
If this coalition continues all the way to 2015 as the Lib Dems have not managed to engineer an exit at a time and manner of their own choosing….then you really are toast. But I guess- being a pensioner- you have already seen that before in your lifetime.
Political history- like military history- has a way of repeating itself.
@roy
did he really say that have seen his thing onQ time but did he really say :-
“This talk of alliances comes up a lot. Everyone wants to be in our gang.
So I want to make something very clear today.
Will I ever join a Conservative government?
No!”
I know things change but as a polaticean what the heck was he doing saying “never” I thought that was the first lesson Politiceans learned.
Quite interesting to read the follow-up to the Independent article, helpfully headlined “Is Clegg the man leading Lib Dems into oblivion?”:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/is-clegg-the-man-leading-lib-dems-into-oblivion-2023808.html
“Only two months after entering government, the Deputy Prime Minister is beset by colleagues concerned that his support for the Tories may cause irreparable damage to his party.
…
The call for unity comes after a series of internal protests at coalition policies spilled into outright defiance of the leadership. A handful of Lib Dem backbenchers have already attempted to frustrate the Budget proposal to increase VAT to 20 per cent.
Now, almost a dozen Lib Dem MPs have gone public with their opposition to the Education Secretary Michael Gove’s decision to scrap more than 700 school building schemes.
…
“I am not enjoying government,” one senior Lib Dem MP said last night. “We are being asked to defend some ugly policies but it is hard to say what we have got to show for it in return.”
…
But Richard Grayson, vice-chair of the Lib Dems’ federal policy committee, said the position of a centre-right grouping at the top of the party – and now in Cabinet – was causing unease within the party at large. He said: “We have a leadership that tends to see the state as a problem, rather than the means of solving problems. The coalition has allowed the [Lib Dem] leadership to pursue its zeal for cutting public spending.”
“In the long run I see only tears for the Lib Dems,” said Professor George Jones, of the London School of Economics. “The party will split. Some will be absorbed into Cameron’s progressive Cons party. Some will move over to Labour. Others will be in a small independent Lib Dem party. Their only hope is electoral reform, if they want to be more than a party of protest.””
Elizabeth I really have to take issue with your analysis. Firstly, I am in the Lib Dems because I am a Liberal Democrat – I have not been consistently critical of the party as you suggest – since you seem to be an avid reader of my blog you ought to know that. I was a strong supporter of Nick Clegg in the leadership election and still agree with him on many areas of policy, but the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should sit back like naughty children – be seen and not heard, heaven forbid that we should ever question our leaders! Well, our leaders got to their positions on the shoulders of the ordinary members like you and me.We make much of our internal democracy – that means that our leaders represent us and our democratically decided policy. It is not the rank and file that has abandoned its principles and values in order to jump into bed with the Tories for goodness sake!!! Now, I know there are a sizeable minority in the party, like you, who are on the right and therefore will never grasp our horror at what is happening, but we are predominantly, as Richard Grayson (will you write him off as a primadonna as well as he doesn’t agree with you?) points out, a centre left party. The preamble to our constitution clearly states that “no one should be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity” the reason I am in this party and the reason I will continue to speak out against what is happening at the moment – clearly this doesn’t bother the likes of you. Maybe you are a nice healthy middle class woman, with a good income and no worries about your or your families future. Bully for you. I am sorry but I have spent most of my life working in deprived communities, I am in politics because I believe in a fairer more just society, if that sometimes means challenging those who seem to have lost sight of those values in the pursuit of power, so be it.
“Maybe you are a nice healthy middle class woman, with a good income and no worries about your or your families future. Bully for you.”
I think you make unwarranted assumptions about someone’s motivation. You don’t know – and your statement comes across as a little prejudiced.
I think the word “Maybe” was key in that sentence Paul…? I too have been a Lib Dem for many years, and wish I had the patience displayed by Linda, however, this was such a quantum leap by the party I love that I fear I might have to jump ship. The idea suggested by some that we simply need to sit back and give the coalition a chance without even questioning is the most UN liberal thing I have heard…but very reminiscent of the 1980s Tory attitude….shameful that any Liberal could hold such an opinion, and all power to Linda for questioning it
Link to Richard Grayson’s article in the New Statesman:
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/07/liberal-democrats-social-party
@Keith
You should list the reasons that you think you should leave.
You should consider whether you might have any influence on those.
You should equally consider the things you support that are coming from the position of the Liberal Democrats within government.
You should consider what the alternatives are, for you personally, which might be Labour, Greens, or outside of politics altogether.
You should consider why you never went down those routes before, and whether those impediments remain, whether they are immutable and whether they are serious.
You should consider that there will be a new General Election in 2015 and whether you wish to be able to influence the platform that the party should stand on in that election.
You should take your time, there is, ultimately no great haste. Nothing will change overnight.
And if you do leave, you should tell us why?
I hope you will stay and fight your corner.
Every political party is made stronger by those who disagree with its direction, but choose to remain, in order to help it find a better narrative, a better politics and a better process.
Above all, you should not think that you are being silenced for voicing doubts.
The problem that many have on this forum is that many making the most noise have never been friends of the Liberal Democrats in the first place.
You are not one of those, and so all Liberal Democrats should welcome your contribution, even when critical.
@ Paul Mckeown
I hope you will stay and fight your corner.
Well said…
Splits when they come are usually unheralded and the overt causes seemingly trivial. Lib Dems have signed up to a highly dangerous venture to dismantle the state as we know it, seemingly at whatever the cost. The Labour party if it had the nous would move an amendment to the Costitutional Bill to give a wider choice at the proposed referendum and specifically including STV. What then should be the Parliamentary Party response?
Elizabeth
Posted 12th July 2010 at 2:03 pm
“I agree with those who say that we have got to make this coalition work or we are toast; mainly because if we don’t make it work it demonstrates beautifully the anti-PR dogma of “weak government””
this is the impossible bit for the LD gov it is plaim for all, including the Tories, it is also an increadbly week basrgaining position to have for 4 years 10 months, I have no idea why a leader would be so stupid as to put his party in this possition.
@tony
“this is the impossible bit for the LD gov it is plaim for all, including the Tories, it is also an increadbly week basrgaining position to have for 4 years 10 months, I have no idea why a leader would be so stupid as to put his party in this possition.”
Cameron is determined not to allow this government to fail, as he doesn’t wish to allow Labour a sniff of government. That’s why this government is left-leaning and liberal. The Liberal Democrats have a good deal, given the size of their parliamentary faction. The ultimate sanction of being able to cross the floor and then veto anything untoward gives the Liberal Democrats a decent negotiating position. The threat is, as always, stronger than the execution.
Paul, fair criticism, (tho one you don’t level at Elizabeth who makes a lot of assumptions about me without knowing me and without saying maybe) what I should have said was maybe you LIKE ME – don’t think I am prejudiced against myself! I also agree with your advice to Keith, wise words and echoing what I am saying to pals who are talking of leaving. For the first time in my life I understand those who stayed in “New Labour” despite being vocal opponents of the rightwing drift of the party, one wonders just how rightwing the party would be now if they had left?
And Tony spot on! The problem frankly at the moment is that we don’t have PR and yet have been forced into a position that would not arise if we DID have PR! With PR our options would have been to take a much more comfortable route to work with those whose values we do at least to some extent, share. As it is we have been forced into a position which Richard Grayson correctly points out leaves us as a centre left party lead by a centre right leadership.
@paul
I do not accept the idea that this is a left leaning gov or indead a centreist one, or light blue which it needs to be.
as for the nogotiting position it is not as you say, due to the consequances for the LD party being “toast”, the Torys can allways say “well we tried” sort of thing.
.
@tony
I dispute that the Liberal Democrats are “toast”; that is merely your wishful fantasizing.
This current government is, in many ways, more left-leaning and liberal than the previous Labour government was.
Paul, would be interested in your definition of “left” in this context? Although I agree with the “more liberal” comment, wouldnt be too difficult to be more liberal than the last government now would it?!
“You should consider that there will be a new General Election in 2015 and whether you wish to be able to influence the platform that the party should stand on in that election.”
Considering what’s happened over the last couple of months, seeking to influence a Lib Dem election platform must rank as one of the most pointless of human activities!
@Paul…..I’m not sure, after the recent Budget and the VAT rise, The cutting of the School building projects and the complete ignorance of much economic advice on spending, that this government will ever be seen as “left leaning”…(However much New Labour imploded)…
As for your advice, I think I have pretty much gone through all of your suggestions. I will of course give it time, but I do not want to be in the position where I stand idly by and watch so many of the principals that I have fought for over the years, be destroyed for what would appear to be the sniff of power. That might seem harsh, but it is certainly the way that I, and many others see the situation. How many New Labour supporters felt that they had been betrayed with the War? I would suggest that a large proportion of the membership and support in general feels that way about the coalition. Dissent is one of the principals that I hold dear, and one which I believe is a right in our party, but, and without wishing to be overly critical of Elizabeth, if you are almost accused of disloyalty for disagreement, then perhaps it is time to move on….Time will tell I suppose, but what is happening now to the Liberals it what happened with new Labour,,,I do not want to wake up one day and find the empty shell of what was a once great party, and I feel that we are on that rocky road already.
@Linda Jack
Thanks for your response.
I cannot for the life of me understand how the electors of Mid Bedfordshire would elect a [torrential string of expletives] like Nadine Dorries to represent them in Parliament. A box of frogs, so long as it had a blue rosette. Worse still, how the blue blazes would any rational Member of Parliament, elect her to the Health Select Committee. Her disordered beliefs make her, in my view, entirely unsuited to the role.
She represents the poisonous views of an element of the Conservative party, which, happily, have mostly been silenced by this Liberal/Conservative coalition government. Who knows what Cameron would have been forced to implement if he had had to pander to that element in order to sustain a minority government.
It will be interesting (without wishing to investigate the arcana of the internal selection processes) to see which candidates will be selected to contest by-elections for the Liberal Democrats during this parliament. I do hope that the leadership have the good commonsense to give a fair chance to signed up members of the awkward squad, such as yourself. It would show maturity and openness to criticism. It would also show that the Liberal Democrats remain an inclusive party.
Good luck.
@Anthony Aloysius St
If that is what you truly believe, why are you wasting your time here?
You say that you gave up leafleting for the Liberal Democrats two years ago, because you realised that they might allow the Conservatives to form a government. I consider that an indication that you don’t actually believe in a Liberal Democrat mainstay, co-operative government, at all, but prefer instead the usual bipolar disorder.
How do you think the Liberal Democrat party should act in the current situation?
What do you disagree with in the current government’s published agenda?
What would you prefer?
I understand that you are not happy, but not being happy, is not an influential political position.
“The Awkward Squad” 🙂 I like that!
@Keith Badham
Hang around; sign up! 🙂
Thankyou very much, Anthony Aloysius St, for providing the link to Richard Grayson’s article, which takes us back ultimately to a pamphlet he has published through Compass, a leading Labour left faction. It has forced me to re-evaluate the man as a serious thinker, who I am afraid I had shallowly dismissed previously as another individual who rode to fame on the coat-tails of leadership preferment. Sorry, Richard.
Many of the points he makes ring oh so true for someone who joined the Liberals under Grimond’s leadership, and there is no doubt that what I prefer to call the radical wing of the Lib Dems should take seriously his echoing of (was it Mao’s) the call to “organise, organise, organise”. Unfortunately some of the party’s attempts to do this – eg through the Chard Group, have been bedevilled by personality issues, and widely accepted dismissiveness from people who ought to know better, but who command some degree of deference from many in the party.
@paul
toast was in qoutes therfore I was qwouting someone, that someone was:- Elizabeth
Posted 12th July 2010 at 2:03 pm therfore your assertion about this being my wishfull thinking is wrong, this is a very real concern for peeps and if it is not then should be, of course the threat to leave could be a powerfull tool but I think not for reasons as stated.
sorry there should be a just in there
@paul
toast was in qoutes therfore I was quouting someone, that someone was:- Elizabeth
Posted 12th July 2010 at 2:03 pm therfore your assertion about this being just my wishfull thinking is wrong, this is a very real concern for peeps and if it is not then should be, of course the threat to leave could be a powerfull tool but I think not for reasons as stated.
thats better
Paul
If you can’t tell what I’m unhappy about by now, I really must be wasting my time here. Though probably no more so than the little band of assiduous loyalists.
Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes. Twice before, the old Liberal party was subsumed and fractured by close partnerships with the Tories. It is starkly clear that this is happening again. The truth is that the difference in ethos between the Tory and Liberal Democrats is a yawning gulf – no amount of good LD policies will make up for the Thatcherite slash-and-burn deficit-reduction policy currently about to descend. Yet Nick C has determinedly signed us all up for it, while mouthing words like ‘new’ ‘progressive’ etc etc. I think that yes, indeed, the party is toast – it has already taken a worse hit in the polls then either of the other two, for the simple reason that our supporters KNOW that our fundamental ethos is miles away from standard Toryism. Job losses and social decay will be blamed on US because we are keeping the Tories in power; the accelerated stealth privatisation of the NHS will be blamed on US because we are keeping the Tories in power; the disintegration of state schooling into a patchwork of 19th century fiefdoms will be blamed on us because….we’re the ones keeping those unspeakable expletives in power. There is no way this coalition is going to last 5 years, not a hope in hell, therefore we have to decide how much of the party can be saved and how soon to go. My opinion? – pull the plug now.
@mike cobley
I disagree that the dystopian policies that you portray are those that this government is pursuing. If you wish the Liberal Democrats to leave government, how do propose that restraint would be applied to the extreme libertarians and the hangemflogems that lurk on the right of the Conservative party? Your “pull the plug now” advice seems to me to be a policy of dispair. If you can’t abide that the Liberal Democrats should share government with the Conservatives, do you think they should share government with Labour? In that case, don’t you surely reduce the Liberal Democrats to being a caucus of the Labour party? What is the point in your mind, then of having a Liberal Democrat party at all? Fundamentally I disagree with you. The point of a political party is to gain power in government and to implement as much of the party’s policy objectives as possible. And I think, given the parliamentary arithmetic, that the Liberal Democrats have managed to negotiate a reasonable deal.
What do you suggest?
Anthony, do please tell me, then what you are unhappy about?
And why do you think the “loyalists” are wasting their time?
Again, please tell me, what in your view is the point of the Liberal Democrats?
It seems to me that you inhabit a universe in which the Conservative party represent a fundamental evil, in which case, I wonder why it is that you suggest that they have regularly formed governments in our country? Is everyone that votes Conservative tarred with the same evil? Surely politics is about equilibrium, and three consecutive Labour governments had swung too far, the country voted for a correction. Isn’t one of the fundamental reasons for the existence of a centre party, like the Liberal Democrats, under a FPTP voting system, to ensure that there is an alternative to form a government if both the party of the left swing too far left whilst the party of the right swing too far right?
“And why do you think the “loyalists” are wasting their time?”
I would guess for the same reason that you said you were going to stop posting here a few days ago!
And I’m sorry, but I really don’t believe that you can be unaware of what I’m unhappy about. If you really are, that can easily be remedied by reading the comments I’ve already made.
As for your question about what the point of the Lib Dems is, it’s a tough one.
I was pro voting reform before, but if the coalition are going to use it to stitch up the election, then i will be voting no
in the referendum. And i will be voting Labour instead of tactically voting LibDem. PR or bust i am afraid.
Was that the big reform? replace Labour and carry on ignoring anybody who votes for something other than the big 3(same) policies/parties.What a sham your party has become, Democrats HA,HA,HA.
@ Paul McKeown
I think you’re mistaken in trying to frame the Labour party as the party of the left; its record over the last 13 years clearly demonstrates that it was subverted by Blair’s rightwing cabal. The Tories may have birthed PFI but it was New Labour who expanded it and turned into a huge vampire scam-machine sucking vast sums out of the public coffers. There may have been a few socially positive policies – minimum wage etc – but these are what’s known as a sop. From the outset they made it clear that they were going to serve up government budgets on a silver platter for the private sector (as in the NHS and education, and defence etbloodycetera). And now we see that the Tories are gagging at the chance to do the same but with the pedal to the metal!
As for applying restraint to the neanderthals in the Tory party, thats an Orwellian argument – ooh, you dont want Mr Jones to come back, do you? Whether govmt policies are vile or vile-plus wont be a matter of discrimnation by the public – they will be right to say that we enabled the Tories desire to throw 100s of thousands of people on the dole, to private sectorise the NHS, and to fragment the education system. And they will be right because it is true.
As for the fundamental reasons for the party’s existence, well, I dont agree that it is to be at the centre – our reason to be is to reform the institutions and services of government to enhance and expand the nature of democracy and quality of life. The fact of the matter is that all the worst problems that we face, as a nation and as a world, derive mainly from the greed and power lust of the Right wing, therefore it is incumbent upon us to present to the country a radical, reforming centre-left alternative. Because otherwise, there will be THREE parties squabbling over the right wing of British politics.
@mike cobley
Okay, you have a vision. How to implement it? And what to do now?
A big test for the Parliamentary Party and its commitment to upholding Liberal Democrat values, as opposed to propping up Cameron’s Tories, will be Lansley’s proposals to “reform” the NHS.
Consider the following:
(1) Lansley is a long-term opponent of the NHS and has financial links to private health and pharmaceutical companies.
(2) At present, PCTs, which are run by independent accountants and administrators, monitor the performance of GPs. If GPs monitor their own performance, how many “reds” will they get? When my local PCT Chief Executive said “many of the GPs in this borough are rubbish”, he said something that no doctor will ever say on pain of professional death.
(3) Lansley’s proposals mean that patient care will deteriorate and PEOPLE WILL DIE.
The Liberal Democrats have the Parliamentary votes to stop this madness. Are we going to use them?
@Anthony Aloysius St
I desired to stop posting, because I was fed up of the Astroturf and the trolling. That, for the most part, seems to have died down, no doubt temporarily. What is left are Liberal Democrats, or former Liberal Democrats, so the conversation actually does have some point.
What I would really like to understand is what you think the Liberal Democrats should do, and why you think that that might be feasible. It seems to me that your council is one of despair, and that we should just fold up the party. Are we not achieving anything of value at all? Can we never achieve anything of value? Who, in that case, would be capable of carrying forward your desired agenda?
And one more thing.
The lack of discussion here about the proposed NHS changes is astonishing. What is being proposed is quite contrary to what is said in the coalition agreement, which explicitly promises to end “top-down reorganisations” of the NHS, and to make the NHS more accountable through directly elected representatives on the boards of the PCTs.
That’s all been ripped up. Do the Lib Dems agree? Do they disagree? Are they even interested? All I can see about Health on this site is an article about the timetabling of PE in schools!
I think Anthony makes several good points.
I keep hearing the question “What should the Lib Dems do?”…I think the answer is really rather simple….End the coalition, lets have a minority Tory Government, and lets have clear votes on all issues in the HOC. Surely that would be more progressive than this false alliance?
Paul M – nice to know that you’re on board 😉
If I were proposing a new vision, I would have to lay it out clearly in a statement of principles, or at least as a discussion document for circulation. But there’s a snag – I am a writer and I have to deliver a novel to my publishers by end of September, so time for side-projects is just not available at the moment. The other aspect would be substantive discussions at the Fed conference – and again, cant go, stuff to do, etc.
But I intend to keep talking here, and sharpening the old skeptical scalpel over the coming weeks. And if a week is a long time in politics, god help us over the next coupla months.
Alex M (12th July): In your otherwise very perceptive post you say: “In some senses the eight points identified by the DPM are key questions.”
Sadly, I think you’ll find that it was Nigel Morris of the “Independent” who came up with these eight points. He made a good fist of it, but I fear he did so without help from the DPM. There is no evidence that Nick Clegg is giving any thought, for example, to point number eight, “What is the LibDem exit strategy from the coalition?”
“I keep hearing the question “What should the Lib Dems do?”…I think the answer is really rather simple….End the coalition, let’s have a minority Tory Government, and lets have clear votes on all issues in the HOC. Surely that would be more progressive than this false alliance?”
Best answer as yet to Paul M’s straw (orange) man oft-repeated question.
A minority government with transparent multi party voting based on political principle. Rather than a grubby coup led by the orange men into a government with an anti-state platform as an ideology not as practical policy where it is the best option.
This is the best way of avoiding a split 1-4 years down the line which will leave a rump liberal party (having lost people on both flanks to mother parties) in single figures at general elections for decades (again).
Pau M- the coalition is ‘left leaning’? Utter nonsense- get your political science books out !
This is the oldest Orwellian trick in the book- if you call that apple an orange for long enough and keep repeating it then some will actually start to believe you. It is why Nick keeps on calling this government ‘progressive’ !!!!!
The list of right wing policies this government has adopted is long and shameless and quite obvious: against that litany of neo thatcherite small state vandalism simply having less CCTV, not sending convicted criminals to prison, having someone who can speak Spanish in Spain and Dutch in the Netherlands/ Flanders and having a referendum on a non-proportionate change to the voting system does not a Progressive platform make in a million years.
Elizabeth
Our Party Primadonnas Norfolk and LindyLooz dive in with typical abandon; but these are people who were always very critical of the Party before the coalition so they now happy to have more ammo to use.
No, this is rubbish. I remember both being ultra-loyalist party members before the election, to the point where both had annoyed me (always more of a cynic, but I have been a member of the party a long time – I’m not going to run away) for that at times.
What has annoyed me more than anything about this coalition situation is the readiness of a few of those in this new extreme free market fringe of the party (no such thing existed until a few years ago) to use it as an excuse to try and purge the party of long-standing members who do not share their politics. There’s been quite a few comments kike this in these columns, mostly from people who do not have the honesty to use their full names.
As I’ve given up any idea of a career in the party, I’ve been more open than anyone on the alternative exit strategy – leaving the coalition early. It’s not something that should be done at all lightly, but people who have more influence than I have should be thinking about it even if they can’t be public that they are.
If the promised effects of the coalition’s economic policies are not showing in – well, how many years, but less than five – we may have to say “This isn’t working, we’re out of it”. This exit strategy involves a quick re-branding, which probably means a new leader, unless Nick Clegg is prepared very forcefully to lead it. It needs to be clear we gave it time to work and we went into it for the good of the country and accepting that the Tories in some sense “won” the election and we did not.
@mike cobley:-
IMHO
the reason the LD are “TOAST ” at the minute is that they have stopped representing the people who voted for them,
I will not repeat the argument for the only changethat will make that so put by BOB SHIEField.
democracy does actually require people to have a degree of honesty and some effort in representing the peeps they voted for, it also requres that to some extent the elected gov is representative of the general will, this one is not, to be honest the same could be said of later Blair years and Brown gov, but they are gone now and this Gov will not be judged on the Brown Gov record but its own. With regard to the economic crises that led to the reccession it is a damn site more obviouse to peeps than the oil crises and economic woes of the 70’s so ~I fail to see how the present gov can scapegoat Labour for the mess the present gov is about to create.
Now I really do not know what chioces the party is going to make but reckon that with time they deminish, would reckon that before the end of the party confrences there is the option to leave like ROB says after then you will have to ditch Clegg as leader after may the 5 it is Toast time
“If the promised effects of the coalition’s economic policies are not showing in – well, how many years, but less than five – we may have to say “This isn’t working, we’re out of it”. This exit strategy involves a quick re-branding, which probably means a new leader, unless Nick Clegg is prepared very forcefully to lead it. It needs to be clear we gave it time to work and we went into it for the good of the country and accepting that the Tories in some sense “won” the election and we did not.”
Applaud the practical politics of this post. If I were a LD (and I’ve voted for you on many many occasions and almost joined the SDP) it is what I would probably be saying.
Though I still think a minority government is what the population voted for: as there were no ‘coalition groupings’ going into the election as there are in most continental countries so you know what you *might* be voting for as well as *who* you are voting for. Plus of course they take between 2 and 3 months to agree a genuinely blended platform: not this “us Tories will take that part of your manifesto and you support us on these elements that were not in ours as they would have meant we would have lost”.
Nick-and orange posters here- simply repeating the totem that ‘this is a 5 year deal’ (even worse this is a ‘contract’ !) is absurd to the point of being extremely reckless.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/14/boris-johnson-london-spending-cuts
I noticed the above link and thought that it contrasted to the position in Shiefield, Boris trying to stop cuts in London and Nick bringing them on in Shiefield.
ummmm coments???
Today’s the day, of course, for the Awayday. Not seen anything on TV about it – is there any publicity being made of it, or is it hush-hush (apart from here!) Hopefully, someone attending may post something later.
Matthew, thanks for coming to my defence, although me? annoying? the mere suggestion! And I agree with your analysis btw.
Tony – re awayday, clearly it will be confidential in order for people to feel able to speak their minds, although having been asked not to tweet or blog about it I did point out that if I come out this afternoon sold on the coalition I would think they would want me to shout it from the rooftops! No doubt there will be a statement of some kind and I will obviously be at liberty to share my contributions – folk will just have to read between the lines of the tone of my following blogs as to what may or may not have transpired 😉
Sometimes I get confused to say the least on the subject of education. We now have educated young people to a level for university. How many will achieve their goals? We encourage young people to stay on at school or college, then we they have the taste for education, you could finish that one. I am in my early 60’s doing a BA in Law, and loving it, the more I learn the more I want to. That’s the problem with education. I have every sympathy for those who wish to achieve in their lives. I could say, I just do not understand how things are working at present.