Even before the results of Thursday’s various polls were known, there was quite a bit of chatter about how energy secretary Chris Huhne is positioning himself to become Lib Dem leader. Unfortunately, much of this chattering was carried out by people who clearly don’t know very much about the Liberal Democrats – or at least pretend not to – and consequently much of the analysis was almost certainly wrong.
One person who does understand the Liberal Democrats is Julian Astle, former advisor to Paddy Ashdown, and here’s a sample of his take on Huhne’s recent behaviour on his Telegraph blog:
Most likely, Huhne is trying to influence the debate within the Liberal Democrats about how best to play the game of coalition politics. That debate, in caricature, has two contrasting positions: the “all-in” approach of Nick Clegg, whereby the Lib Dems claim ownership of the entire coalition agenda, and the “all-out” approach associated with the party’s vociferously anti-Tory President, Tim Farron. Huhne is offering a third way: a serious approach to government and power, but with added grit. Of the three positions, Huhne’s is the one that most Lib Dem members would probably sign up to.
Unfashionable as it may be, it is worth repeating the dangers of moving too far in this direction, however.
First, the fact that won’t go away is that both the coalition partners are in deep trouble if this government fails. Ensuring it succeeds therefore, remains the overriding objective for both Cameron and Clegg. Any tactical adjustments that undermine this strategic imperative need to be avoided.
Second, the Lib Dems, for whom a second parliament as a junior partner in a coalition government represents the height of their realistic ambitions, don’t just have their own reputation to consider. They are also playing for the good reputation of coalition politics; for the strategically crucial prize of breaking the perceived link between coalitions and weak, fractious, ineffective government. They have made a good start, but the battle hasn’t yet been won and early gains can be quickly reversed.
And third, demonstrating the party’s distinctiveness and protecting its identity, while still maintaining coalition cohesiveness is not easy. Skilful politicians – and despite the battering he’s taken in recent months Nick Clegg remains just that – may be subtle and nuanced enough to pull it off. But most Lib Dems (and Conservatives), when told to turn the volume up from 5 to 7, will turn it up to 10. The result? A four-year public squabble that will alienate voters.
You can read Julian’s full piece here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Peatling Parva by-election sounds like an episode of a sitcom
Ninewells Community Garden Big Biodiversity Bash #dundeewestend
UN panel raises concerns about impact of Labour's welfare bill
Reform turn up in time for the end of the meeting
Peter Martin
Andy Daer
David McDowall
Mohammed Amin
Graham Jeffs
5 Comments
What voters want to see from the Liberal Democrats is that the party is a moderating influence on the government. Instead it has given in on academies and free schools, it has accepted Osborne’s economic policy on deficit reductions – and the policy is currently not working, and it tripled tuition fees after saying it would abolish them.
This is a right wing government and the Lib Dems have not done enough for the electorate to appreciate what they have done in government. Clegg’s approach up to now has failed and he has lost all credibility.
The Coalition Agreement had necessarily to be put together in haste with the input of the four negotiators (chosen by the Leader) and Nick plus his team. I suppose that the Party President had some input also.
That team was not representative of the Party as it is constituted either in the Policy Committee or in Conference.
75% of that agreement was unexceptionable to most Liberal Democrats and would have passed through Conference, but the most important parts including the acceleration of action on deficit reduction would not have, nor would the wording in agreement relating to the receipt of the Brown Report.
Most ‘mistakes’ this year for which the Party has been rightly punished, followed from the ideology and policies held by this leadership coterie. Its policy and tactical decisions have been inept. It has led to the destruction of the Leader’s reputation on his previously strongest suit: trust.
No politician ever comes back when that is lost, and Astle’s blog in the Telegraph as ever reveals Leadership thinking. This feeble attempt to shore up its position and discredit a colleague shows just how worried the Clegg coterie is. Nor will Tavish Scott’s decision have eased its concerns for itself.
This is therefore a key moment for the Parliamentary Party, the Policy Committee and the Conference to grasp back their rightful and constitutional influence usurped by the present leadership.
We should begin by demanding that the production of Agreement 2 starts with the proper contribution of our ministers, our Parliamentary Party, Our Policy Committee and the September Conference.
Agreement 2 is not so urgent that it should be conducted in secret by Alexander working with the Conservatives before it has been considered by the Policy Committee and passed through Conference.
Taking time and allowing the Party to contribute to our opening stance would be good for policy formation, good for negotiation tactics and good for the country at a time when Government action in Year One, as directed by Agreement 1, is so obviously failing to bring economic recovery.
” a second parliament as a junior partner in a coalition”?111
No, no: a thousand times NO.
But also highly unlikely. I cannot see any probability of there being sufficient LibDems in the next parliament to make it a viable proposition.
There is a small possibility of being the junior partner in a coalition after the next general election. It might be even worse for the party to join, but as Julian Astle says there might be a long term benefit by making coalition governments more acceptable.
There really can’t be an Agreement 2, however we need to stick to Agreement 1 and if it isn’t in it then Conference should have the final say in what we agree to do in government, after all Conference did agree to the Agreement. There is the problem of a plan B and how this can be agreed as it could be seen as being against the coalition Agreement.
The issue of trust needs to be addressed and a change of leader might not really address it. Maybe it can only be addressed after the next General Election.
Oh well it looks like you will have to look somewhere else for your next leader or leaders – though if thinks carry on as they are there will be precious little to lead. As to those who don’t want to be a junior partner in a coalition could I suggest a reality pill or two – because I don’t think the option of being a senior partner is going to be available for a rather long time. In the meantime perhaps a little though should be given to the rather large ideological split within the LibDems – which I’m afraid is more than obvious to anyone who knows more than a few LibDems. Some of us still have a lot of respect for the Liberal Party of Keynes and Beveridge.