Like most voters. I dislike negative electioneering. It does nothing but give the impression that politicians behave more like little children who cannot share their toys than like the people in whose hands we should be placing the safety and economic wellbeing of the country.
That said, we can be confident that there will be plenty of negativity about, particularly as the Conservatives try to distance themselves from the steadying effect that the LibDems have had within the coalition. So I wonder if we should take this opportunity to get negativity out of the way now, before we get on with what really needs to be said in the election campaign proper.
- A Conservative government would look after the wealthy and is less likely to be interested in the wellbeing of the ordinary citizen of this country than the interests of its direct supporters – those who provide its funds. A strong wealth creating section of the community is essential in order to provide economic growth, but their interests should always be balanced by the need to ensure fairness for everyone else. How often will a Conservative politician really mean that, or enact policies that bring it about?
- If we end up in coalition with them again, we will be obliged to rein in their more extreme plans
- A Labour government would tend to look after the interests of the unions who founded, and still bankroll, it. They see high spending and taxation as the solution to all economic and social ills. Whatever we may think about David Cameron, his expression about ‘fixing the roof when the sun was shining’ is highly resonant in view of the way we entered coalition with massive debts, built up over many years.
- If we end up in coalition with them, this time, we will need to manage their tax-and-spend plans so that they do not start to accumulate problems for the next generation. Again.
- But supposing the electorate voted in such a way as to produce a coalition involving UKIP? That, surely, would result in policies leading us out of Europe, something that might chime with popular preconceptions about that body, but would almost certainly be contrary to the interests of every person in the UK.
- There is even the possibility that Labour would have to form a coalition with the Scottish Nationalists, who could wipe them out north of the border. Should this occur, it could lead to the break-up of the union, despite last year’s referendum result. Even worse, it could result in the UK government having to give away far too much to Scotland in terms of cash and control, impoverishing the rest of us and failing to address the West Lothian Question.
Only if the LibDems are involved in a government with a significant number of seats will the country thrive. It is not just that we can limit the excesses of whichever is the main party in parliament; it is an opportunity for us to press for policies that reflect our core values of respecting every individual.
For the election campaign, we need to focus on what matters, not what the pollsters tell us is important to voters. Polls are always influenced by the perception of those asking the questions – and analysing the answers.
* Stephen Phillips spent his entire career in financial services, spending the last decade writing on insurance, investments, pensions and mortgages. Latterly, he also wrote a monthly economic review that was issued to the clients of a large number of independent financial advisers. He has been a member of the party since 2013.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Peter Martin
Simon
Ben Austin
Matt Wardman
Neil Hickman
22 Comments
Here we go again, coalition, will people never learn.. This is the last thing the party needs. It has a leader who is ignored and not listened to, it has a message that most of the public do not want to hear and lets face it coalition has been bl….. awful for the party. We need to rest, refresh, reorganize and direct our energies in opposition to what this country requires in the 2020,s. Can you imagine going into the leadership debates with the current leader and the current message.
dear dear dear me
Another LDV article pretending to be ‘balanced’ but very much nicer to the Tories and keeping bangig on about the unions with very little mention of the millionaire individual Tory donors. Very similar to Clegg did at the weekend
I am now on the same page as Dave Allen – if you want to have a role as a radical liberal, and left of centre (I hope) party you need to restart and probably split.
This party is now Tory-lite and the hubris of the title of this thread is laughable
Stuart, I do not intend to sound ‘Tory lite’. I dislike big donors from either end of the political spectrum. Money should not be allowed to drive ideas, that should be IDEAS.
The title of the article was intended to catch the eye, rather than suggest an oncoming cataclysm. But you never know …
I am not sure what Stephen Phillips takes to be “a significant number of seats”; would that be something like what we have now? In which case, I could, with a great deal of trepidation say OK.
The author is more or less following Nick Clegg’s usual line. I can see that it is very tempting to paint both Labour and Conservatives as extremists, because it is clear that this is what they will do to each other. This line will be a big problem if a positive portrayal of Liberal and Democratic principles gets lost along the way. Apart from putting such a positive view, I find it hard to see Lib Dems can otherwise do in response to Labour and Conservatives. Even if Nick Clegg and others in the leadership privately felt that the best for the party would be to stay clear of another coalition, I do not think they could say much different at this stage.
I do think that each time our representatives speak out they should preface their remarks with ‘in a Liberal and Democratic society ….’ and then contrast the statement with the effects of Labour and Conservative policies.
I have no truck with accusations that Lib Dems are “Tory Lite” and are not ‘Labour Lite’ enough. Such accusations are simply off target and fail to appreciate what social Liberalism is about (though not so different to those who are firmly wedded to an idea of centrism).
We know that if the conservatives get in power there will be a referendum on Europe and we know that when Labour were in power they did not hand power over to the unions or tax and spend. So why not forward liberal policies point out the good stuff the Lib Dems did in government and stand on them rather than trying to pretend Labour and the Conservatives are more exetreme than they are. You cannot plan for a coalition. They’re rare chance occurances in a FPTP electorial system not something that you can work towards. Even if there is a hung parliament this does not mean that there will automatically be a coalition of any kind. A hung parliament simply means stalemate. The assumption of any party fighting under this system as got to be that they can win. This is in fact what the SNP did. what the greens hope for etc. You fight on your own platform and anything else that happens is a pure quirk of the electoral system, Nick Clegg took the Lib Dems into power because the result were split not because his tactics worked. . It’s like football aim for a draw and there is a good chance you will lose. There’s a very real danger that the Lib Dems will come 4th or possibly fifth. All Clegg is doing with this latest home goal is ensuring that every single opponent can stick a poster up that says ” Vote Lib Dem get Tory” or in the case of the Tories ” Thanks for the help, but we can handle it on our own from here”. Aim to win. Have a vision, Say what the Lib Dems will do. offer the electorate something. The rest is a bonus.
Martin
I don’t really care if you have ‘no truck’ with my view – my vote belongs to me and not to you! And I see very view people on here complaining that the party is ‘Labour-lite’ – such a view would be preposterous based on the experience of the last 5 years. The only people who think this are the right-wing of the Tories who are not happy that welfare claimants are not publicly executed!
Read the comments above and those of Clegg at the weekend – it was either Dave Allen or John Tilley who expressed the same view on Clegg’s speech on another thread
I don’t think the electorate will buy this simplistic message. Tories + Lib Dem = good, Tories + UKIP = disaster, etc. It is naïve to think that people are going to vote for the Lib Dems in order to choose the coalition partner. If the polls are right, they will not vote for Lib Dems at all.
The Lib Dems in coalition seems to have destroyed the party’s traditional vote, so pitching the whole election strategy on the Lib Dems entering another coalition as a centre ground party might just finish the job.
Stuart Moran: you failed to read my comment, I wrote not ‘Labour Lite’ enough, and I pointed out that this attitude falls into the same trap as those who advocate centrism. Your vote is entirely your own – that happens to be a Liberal sentiment – and if you happen not to be a Liberal, if you happen not to understand Liberalism then the only rational reason you might vote Lib Dem would be for tactical reasons..
Martin, what could the Party be saying?
Alex Marsh has come to your aide. His blog today is titled, Senior Lib Dems talk Coalition. Of course, if you scan this quickly it reads, perhaps more truthfully, “Senior Lib Dem STALKS Coalition”
I hope Alex doesn’t object to me cutting and pasting from his excellent ‘line’ for the leadership to take
http://www.alexsarchives.org/2015/01/senior-lib-dems-talk-coalition/
“The party is confident in itself. Voters should support it for what it stands for. If electoral cards fall such that a coalition is a feasible outcome then it stands ready, as it did in 2010, to work in the national interest to bring the country stable government that delivers on Liberal Democrat values. If coalition negotiations, with whichever party, do not look like they will result in an agenda that would sufficiently further those values then our participation such a coalition might not be possible. The party is not interested in being in government at any price.”
Bill: I can certainly sign up to that. However, it is really on the economy where I see the difficulty. I find it hard to see what the Party can say that does not give the impression that it is more or less ‘splitting the difference’. Having Danny Alexander rather than Vince Cable as the economics spokesman does not help; quite apart from Vince Cable’s nimble handling of interviews, he still has some respect as the politician who did anticipate the crash.
Not much of a solution, but my two ha’pence on economic matters would be to hear more from Vince Cable and less from everyone else!
“A vote for the Lib Dems needs to be a vote for liberalism, not for coalition. Unlike liberalism, coalitions are not inherently virtuous”.
I am sure that will get widespread agreement, until I revel that it was a Jeremy Brown tweet one hour ago.
theakes 5th Jan ’15 – 5:44pm
I think you say almost everything that needs to be said really. The only bit missing from your: “This is the last thing the party needs. It has a leader who” … ignores and does not listen to his own party.
NO TO ANOTHER COALITION – IT WOULD VERY LIKELY SEAL THE FATE OF OUR PARTY.
@Stephen Donnelly 5th Jan ’15 – 8:28pm
But being a JB comment it interestingly omits the capital L’s!
what would a liberal and democratic view as to how much is ‘ too much’ devolution of cash and ‘control’?
Totally agree with Glenns comments about it really being a question of Vision (or lack of) and what the party stands for on the big issues. It is not really about trying to be popular, rather its about presenting viable/pragmatic solutions to important issues affecting the country. What this contest should not be about as far as this party is concerned-in my view;
a) Not about bashing other parties & branding them with all kinds of fancy terminology . It’s about presenting an honest/true representation of what we believe in on the big issues (.).
b) Not about generating negatives vibes within the party about approach and/or leadership due to performance. It’s kind of like starting a marathon by shooting yourself in the foot. I am all for change of leadership but would like the approach to be one that does not split the party.
Above all we need a leadership the can unite the party under a clear vision that represents our core values and a new approach in delivering the message to the electorate. A leadership that has the confidence to help develop a re-evaluation/re-assessment structure that continues to assess policies/approach and one that is driven from grassroots level.
Just a thought.
Stephen Phillips, I guess you must be coming up to your 2nd anniversary as a member of the Liberal Democrats. it is always good to get the opinions of someone who sees things with fresh eyes. As a new boy you will not be carrying baggage of the days when Liberal Democrats successfully ran large city councils with a Liberal Democrat majority.
You start your article by saying — “..Like most voters. I dislike negative electioneering.”
If that is so you must be very disappointed in the leader’s speech yesterday which was 95% knocking other parties and 5% contrived and mostly meaningless attempts at soundbites
Although others have pointed out that despite disliking negativity, most of your own article is knocking copy.
After your serving of negativity you jump to the grand non sequitur that — ” Only if the LibDems are involved in a government with a significant number of seats will the country thrive “.
Having condemned other parties you say that the only government that can “save the country” is one that contains lots of them along with a smaller number of Liberal Democrats.
What are you trying to save the country from? Logic ?
Are you mounting a campaign to “save the country” from rational thought ?
“Only if the LibDems are involved in a government with a significant number of seats will the country thrive. It is not just that we can limit the excesses of whichever is the main party in parliament; it is an opportunity for us to press for policies that reflect our core values of respecting every individual.”
The trouble is that we said all that last time round. And the nation gave us our chance to show what we would do. We have now established a clear track record. Just in case the public might conceivably think otherwise, our leaders have been at pains to explain that this track record provides a pretty good guide to our future intentions. Not that this really needed saying, except perhaps to a few party activists who haven’t yet felt able to recognise what use the Party wants to make of their activism.
That’s what the public will decide upon.
And to follow on from my previous post: Some are arguing that we should ask the voters to adopt an alternative objective – to elect a good constituency MP, and forget about the fact that we are choosing the next government. Thus for example, the Lib Dem candidate for Gordon, Christine Jardine, recently put out a long and eloquent statement which clearly demonstrated her firm grasp of local issues in Gordon and her enthusiasm to tackle them. QED, said several commentators, there we have a candidate worth voting for.
But there is an element of dissimulation, if not dishonesty, in taking such an approach. Sure, if you agree with what the Lib Dems plan to do as a national Party, then it is a nice bonus to be able to vote for a good local candidate. But only that.
Alex Salmond, I feel sure, will ask voters in Gordon to vote either for the SNP or against it, on the basis of their views on the overriding national issues. I’m afraid I think that appeal is rather more direct and honest than a campaign devoted primarily to local issues would be.
(Another bite-size instalment…!)
Indeed, I also think that Clegg is, in a sense, being reasonably honest with the voters at this stage. He is telling them he wants to get back into coalition government. This is plainly true, and the fact that the idea is anathema to most of his activists who have their heads screwed on is neither here nor there. Clegg intends to ignore them, and that’s that.
The “soft Tory” campaign is, therefore, no more than a statement of fact as the leadership sees it. If what you want is a Tory government which does not rely on a partnership with UKIP or on the acquiescence of the Peter Bone faction of the Tory Party, then vote Liberal Democrat. If you don’t, don’t. And for heaven’s sake, don’t let it sway you that the Lib Dem candidate is a nice fellow, or an able local councillor, or someone with whom you share a long history of campaigning.
The country is split down the middle between moderates/centrists & people who want “Real” Toryism or Socialism. The difference of course is that moderates & centrists, by definition, find it possible to co-operate. For those Voters The Libdems are the only Party who can guarantee moderation. Those are the people who would like to see us in Goverment again, if they could believe that a vote for us isnt wasted. We have to convince the Voters we can get a respectable result but first we have to convince ourselves.
I am posting here as a lifelong LD voter. Not a member but one of those who you need to get elected members
At the last election I did not foresee the joy that Clegg would have at joining with the Tories. My mistake and I cannot complain too much about the reality of the coalition but can try to make sure it does not happen again
Personally I would like to see the LD focusing on what their values are and what the would do. This approach of Clegg, essentially begging for another coalition is a disastrous strategy
I would like a (genuine) LD Government with a clear idea of what would be their policies if this was the case. What I will never support is another Government that includes Tories
The impression given by Clegg is this is what he would like. His speeches and actions, such as replacing Cable with Alexander, reinforce this
I cannot see how I can ever vote for a party that would allow a further term of Tory power. As the posters say here constantly LD don’t have a lot of influence due to the numbers and it is clear another coalition under FPTP is unlikely to be LD in character
As Clegg has been so clear in his desire for a coalition he has also to say which was party he would prefer to go in with based on their policies/manifesto. I do not see how this equidistance and attempts to keep all options open. He surely must have a preference and he has a duty (I believe) to tell us what it is
I would challenge all of the posters on here to say who would be their preferred coalition partner ( in the unlikely case you have the opportunity to be involved). Your leader has said he is actively focusing on a coalition so I think the question needs answered as to who is the best option
My view: Labour. If there is any possibility of the Tories being in Government post 2015 then you can forget my vote. LD working with Labour looks to me a much more attractive prospect than 5 more years in of this. It would need a new leader and the red lines should be defined at the manifest launch so we all know that they are realistic and achievable. It would also allow the other parties’ reaction to be heard. Remember that a good tactical vote from about supporters can help you, I don’t see the same being with tactical Tory voters. These ABT voters have been used to supporting you since 1997 and are relatively accessible (although I doubt Clegg as leader helps you much)
Paul barker
What is so great about being a ‘centrist’ To me it is a nothing word in this context.
I feel we are now feeling the affects of globalization keenly and we need leaders with courage and conviction to see us through it. At the moment we have, in my view, a fairly extreme neoliberal Government in charge, supported by the media, the wealthy and the establishment
What I want to see is a rethink of what we want our country to look like and a centrist position is still far too the right of where I want it to be. I want to see someone standing up for the people like me and ensure that we have equality of opportunity as much as we can. That the rich have to be held to the same standards as us and cannot opt out of society
I worry we have reached ‘peak democracy’ and the future is in the hands of the rich in the west using the undemocratic states in the East to provide the cheap labour to undermine us, whilst at the same time ensuring a corruption of our democratic processes through voter manipulation, gerrymandering and undermining of the whole concept
We have gone too far to have a centrist approach. We need radical revaluation of what our future will look like. One thing we could start with is ensuring every vote counts and that all the feudal mummery is removed. The power has to reside with the people and in their name.