So: it’s settled. We may not have planned the route together, but if this train crashes we got on it together. Some people asked about the route and some people wondered about the destination but no one suggested that we may as well stay where we were.
By my reckoning well over 1,500 people attended Sunday’s Special Conference. Some dozen or more voted against the motion adopting the coalition agreement. So that’s a 99% vote in favour.
(In fact the coalition agreement seemed to be as popular as proportional representation. A few lost souls voted against reaffirming the party’s commitment to the introduction of PR. Perhaps they had taken on board the invitation to challenge everything. Perhaps they were just in the wrong room.)
Why we voted for coalition
The vote left Nick Clegg embarrassed at the “North Korean result”. It is all the more remarkable for the lack of dictatorship methods: our representatives are not chosen by the leadership. The result is perhaps testimony to two things.
The policy detail is surprisingly often in the Lib Dems’ favour. Ok, there are ropey bits, and we lost things we value, but overall the news debate is about whether the agreement shows Cameron breaking free of the Tory right. Secondly no one could see an alternative left by the distribution of seats in the Commons and (ever since Canute) arguing against the inevitable has lacked backers in politics.
So while the debate had moments of high theory the argument persuading us all was low pragmatism in the end. The level of debate really was impressive. Someone used the word “obloquy”; not to be beaten a speaker in a one-minute floor intervention went for the etymology of French verbs. This is a brave thing to do when given 60 seconds to communicate to over a thousand people. He did it well, but most of us relate better to the fluffy pink handcuffs waved by Linda Jack, one of the objectors to the motion – definitely the best visual image of the afternoon.
“Opposition for us is not a choice. It’s a habit”. And this line of Vince Cable’s proved unanswerable. Must we wait 35 years to the next hung parliament without even trying this time, asked one speaker. No said another who had waited since 1974. At least we had to try. At the least we would learn something for the next time. Even if it is in 35 years.
The Human Rights Act and nuclear power
Did we learn something more about the coalition and its future? I think so. We confirmed the likely flashpoints, apart from tax and spending. Tuition fees, nuclear power, equality, the Human Rights Act and – judging at least by the conference anyway – tuition fees again. The coalition agreement spotted most of these. The Lib Dems do not have to vote with our own government in response to Lord Browne’s report into higher education funding.
Nuclear power stations will receive “no public subsidy” – which brought the Telegraph’s neat if unlikely pun, “Chris Huhne will ensure the coalition is soon out of power”. These sorts of projects receive government subsidies in all sorts of indirect ways rather than straightforward support with construction costs. In particular, risk is often transferred to the state through pre-set prices for inputs, outputs or waste disposal – all of which are essentially insurance products which would be rather expensive to buy commercially. Chris Huhne implied that none would be subsidised.
It seems the Tories must have given a verbal commitment to keep the Human Rights Act. Two ministers, Lord McNally and Chris Huhne, said they would resign if the HRA went. McNally said he knew he was responsible – as a minister in the Ministry of Justice – for the party’s soul. And since Lord McNally seems to be responsible for the HRA as part of his portfolio it seems likely he knows the HRA is safe, rather than that he was putting the future of the coalition on the line on Day 5.
Free Schools
What about ‘free schools’? This is the first line of our education policy now: “We agree to promote the reform of schools in order to ensure: that new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand”. Many of us think it does not matter as no one wants or is able to do this. But if the key is implementation, if Chris Huhne and Lord McNally hold the key on nuclear power and the HRA, then the Tories hold the cards here. Michael Gove is thought to be committed. The Tories and Labour have both given up on Local Education Authorities.
In 18 years, free schools have come to make up 20% of education provision in Sweden. If the system is flexible – and generous – enough they will take off here. They may even become the next council house sales, a vastly popular policy of empowerment offering no clear future for those left behind. One speaker warned of “Balkanising and ghettoising education”.
At present there are hundreds of unresolved questions. Will the National Curriculum apply? Will the Admissions Code apply? Can providers make a profit? Must they employ qualified teachers? What building standards must be met? How will the schools be regulated? Can they be shut down for under-performance? How will sponsors “pre-qualify” to enter the establishment process? How will state schools be shut down in response to falling numbers?
The new Lib Dem challenge: to form policy in government
Somehow we have to respond to government policy development and do so quickly. Can we? What will happen to the party research department now we are in government? Can it respond separately from the civil service? Can it brief ministers on what the options are? Will the coalition committee allow for effective input to policy formation?
In the past, in opposition, we would have waited while the policy was formed, and objected as it passed, and then once it passed. A representative from Cambridge addressed Conference about how to do politics now the party controls the council and the government. One answer is that we must help form policy. We need answers to all of these questions about free schools. Michael Gove will have civil service advice. We will not. We need a system which allows us to have a knowledgeable input on numerous policy areas without asking the civil service to develop a detailed programme and, at the same time, possible alternatives to it.
That surely is the next stage. Working out how to contribute to policy formation in government. That may help make our next conference half as harmonious as this one.
* David Lawson is a Lib Dem member in Lewisham.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Nonconformistradical
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
13 Comments
With the media reports we might have thought this would be a tough sell and so surprised the agreement was backed so decisively. Though I do wonder if Charles Kennedy done himself any favours as in my view this turned out to be the only credible option though it was a challenging proposition. Of course it won’t be plain sailing in this difficult climate but I will be so glad to see Liberal Democrat policies enacted.
I agree that policy is the most important consideration but are others satisfied with the ministerial positions and did Nick really not want a department? of course I know he is responsible for political and constitutional reform but the party does not hold any of the top positions, though I l knew Chancellor or Foreign Secretary were unlikely.
“A few lost souls voted against reaffirming the party’s commitment to the introduction of PR.” – Huh. I guess it’s a big tent in some ways but… has there really been a dozen or so frustrated hold-outs, dreaming of the day a referendum on STV is held so they can vote to retain FPTP? Makes me think of these people: http://www.conservativeelectoralreform.org/
“Michael Gove will have civil service advice. We will not.”
Did conference say anything about a) shadowing departments in which we don’t have ministers and b) short money.
James Cole – He is officially in charge of political and constitutional reform etc: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2010/05/her-majestys-government-49840
You raise interesting questions about the ‘Free’ Schools proposal. Do we really want our schools run for profit? Only today this story broke in the USA, who have profit making schools – http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/05/17/white-hat-charter-school-lawsuit.html?sid=101
The Anti Academies Alliance has a Briefing on ‘Free’ Schools, and the damage they have done in Sweden. https://sites.google.com/a/antiacademies.org.uk/aaa/Home/international/sweden/thecaseagainstswedishstylefreeschools
Sweden are closing down their Academy schools as a result of under-performance.
“Per Thulberg, director general of the Swedish National Agency for Education, said the schools had “not led to better results”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/feb/09/swedish-style-schools-wont-raise-standards
Free Schools:
The Tory idea is a copy of the “Swedish Model”. One of the problems in education at the moment is that we seem to have imported the “celebrity culture” into policy making, rather than looking at the facts. The successes of the local authority comprehensive school don’t get the headlines, their failures do – occasional successes of academies are front page news, their failures aren’t.
When you look at independent (or even rightish) studies very few of the current proposals for school governance hold up to scrutiny. Academies, although costing more than community schools with generous start up grants, have not improved results when you compare Value Added scores and there is evidence that where they might claim to have improved results this is likely to be by altering the intake (higher exclusion rates and cover selection) or devaluing the curriculum The Swedish Model has been heavily criticised in Swedent. For more information go to
http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/
It is a tragedy that David Laws has signed up to the Tory line.
Jane – David Laws is Chief Secretary of the Treasury, he is not in the education department so it’s hardly fair to say he’s signed up to “the Tory line”.
David Laws may now be the Chief Secretary of the Treasury now but he was the Lib Dem spokesperson on education and was pushing “sponsor managed” schools which were not significantly different from the “free” schools idea except for retaining some element of local authority control.
I have to confess to being deeply disturbed by the entire concept of allowing parent groups to take over schools. Many people must have seen the recent article in The Guardian by Chris McGreal talking about probable take over of the Texas schoolboard by a group of christian evangelists/social conservatives who believe, amongst other things, that the US is a country founded by God and the slave trade was a sensible triangular trading arrangement.
Having mulled over the coalition agreement its staggering what policies aren’t in there. I suspect an early challenge will be policy making in areas on which the agreement says diddly squat. the difficulties will be
– The lack of Lib Dem “Silos”. With only two departments headed by the Lib Dems and only 3 departmental cabinet ministers the party will be on the back foot on policies in Conservative headed departments.
– “Events dear boy, Events” give power to Cabinet ministers as the needed speed of response can be cited as a reason for not discussing things.
– When you are drawing up an agreement the default position is nothing as there is no agreement. Now in coalition the default position will be either civil service advice or Tory policy ( ratio of nearly 6 to 1 on MP’s ) The dynamics will make it harder to get radicalism in areas where the agreement says nothing.
Jane – the difference is that sponsor managed schools didn’t rely on taxpayers’ money though I believe
Gove should read more Jonathan Swift…
http://tinyurl.com/34k4cr2