When the coalition was formed it was clear there was a meeting of minds between Clegg and Cameron and the two party leaderships. The vision was of a “joint agenda” – a radical and reforming government that would tackle several of the great UK problems: the gargantuan budget deficit, widespread welfare dependency, constitutional reform, NHS restructuring, etc. The mood was “can do”. No issue was too big, or too totemic to tackle.
The 5-year coalition of a centre-left party and a right-wing party would create a government of moderate centre-right, with the centre of gravity over the Ken Clarke/Michael Heseltine territory. It would be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and sane towards Europe. It would, in all honesty, be little different in world outlook to Blair’s 3rd term, but it would be devoid of the authoritarianism, contempt for rule and law, and messianic self-belief of Blair and his government. Also gone would be the continual pet-project obsessions of the New Labour clique – symbolic laws based on political correctness, 1980s student feminism, hunting, etc. Cameron appeared happy to be a PM in the “One Nation” Tory mould who would leave a reforming legacy – he appeared to have moved to the centre just as Blair had.
While this was not a vision that a majority Lib Dem activists eagerly welcomed, it was one I was happy to sign up to. My preferred government would always be a Lib Dem one with a libertarian slant. But failing that I prefer Ken Clarke to John Reid any day of the week. But remember the context: the Tories had come first in the General Election by a substantial margin, and the Labour government had been destroyed. To have a moderate and liberal, reforming, centre-right government replace a theoretically centre-left government (but in reality, a substantially centre-right one), given the circumstances, would actually be a remarkable “save”, given that just a few months before the election everyone was expecting a ghastly Thatcherite win, perhaps by a landslide. More importantly, this was a vision that I believe actually had majority backing in the British public. It was people wanting this vision that gave John Major in 1992 the biggest haul of votes in British history. (They didn’t get what they wanted, though. Nor did Blair give it to them either.)
Cameron and Clegg had an informal agreement that both would avoid getting too drawn into the AV referendum so as to prevent conflict at the top. Moderate Tories signed up to the vision above seemed to have accepted that the positive boundary changes (eliminating Labour bias), combined with AV (removing some anti-Lib Dem bias) would be a neutral effect overall on the Tory seat count, but transfer inherent Labour bias towards Lib Dems. AV would even allow the possibility of a second coalition term by favourable preferencing, and as long as the Tories retained a moderate image, AV wouldn’t punish them.
But something happened around new year 2011…
Part two will be here on Lib Dem Voice, same time tomorrow.
Cllr Mark Wright is Cabinet member for Efficiency and Value for Money on Bristol City Council and was the GE candidate in Bristol South in 2010.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
8 Comments
Gah! A cliffhanger!
Despite being what you would regard as insane towards Europe I to rejoiced at the news of the coalition because the Conservatives manifesto was a triumph of liberalism and seeing the Lib Dems support it, and bring in their own policies such as the pupil premium and higher tax allowance really was fantastic.
Cable and Huhne have spoilt the experience somewhat, their behavior is reminiscent of the dying days of Labour’s government and personally I think they should have already been sacked.
“I prefer Ken Clarke to John Reid” well put. Pity the coalition govt is not packed full with the likes of Clarke (not Charles!). Mind you, beneath that suede wearing, jazz tapping, cigar chomping manner lies a Tory.* That’s our central dilemma is it not? The creative tension between wanting social justice and the liberal means to achieve it.
Look forward to next instalment.
[*Just see what he’s doing to legal aid for the poorest. Not somehting we agree with – see Julian Huppert, Tom Brake, and Yvonne Fovargue make our distinct voice heard on the subject. ]
I prefer Ken Clarke to John Reid any day of the week
John Reid never worked for an industry that kills millions annually, never sold cigarettes to children in developing countries and never attempted to resist bans on tobacco advertising. If there is an amoral monster in government it is Ken Clarke, a man whose liberalism extends to encouraging multinationals to peddle poisons to children in the name of profit.
Many Tory ministers are decent people, Ken Clarke is not one of them.
Good opinion piece Mark.
I can’t agree with Charles and g’s comments. This is not a one party government, and there is no manual for managing a coalition at UK level because there hasn’t been one since the last war (when of course we also had an extended parliament and an electoral truce). I would have hoped that both parties in the coalition might have talked more with their sister parties in the rest of Europe (eg. the CDU and FDP in Germany) to learn how to manage a coalition, but instead there are signs that the Senior Civil Service has run rings around them (eg. the way redundancy payments for the higher paid civil servants have been protected at the expense of middle income earners).
It is important that Vince Cable is in the Cabinet, and good that the PCC has criticised the ‘entrapment methods of Torygraph reporters.. As for Chris Huhne, he has been a loyal member of the Cabinet, and he was one of the first Lib Dems to forsee that a coalition with the Tories might have to be considered if the General Election gave nobody an overall majority. I can’t see anything wrong with him speaking out against the like of Warsi on the conduct of the No2AV campaign. This was an issue where it was known that the two parties had different policies.
g
“John Reid never worked for an industry that kills millions annually, ” – g, like it or not, cigarettes are legal, and frankly anyone dying from taking up smoking anytime after the 1970s should have known better. yes, they kill people, but so does fatty foods, too much sugar, cars etc etc Ken Clarke may have the occasionally monstrous policy and poltiical views, but suggesting that his employment in a tobacco company is reason to hate him is way off piste. Anyway, he practices what he preaches – he smokes himself!
Part 2:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-end-of-the-vision-pt-2-24126.html
The vision was of a “joint agenda” – a radical and reforming government that would tackle several of the great UK problems: the gargantuan budget deficit, widespread welfare dependency, constitutional reform, NHS restructuring, etc. The mood was “can do”. No issue was too big, or too totemic to tackle.
And then came But something happened around new year 2011…
—————–
The damage was done when the Liberal Democrats signed up to the coalition deal at the election. Nothing to do with the turn of the year, many people from the outset have warned you that the Liberal Democrats were making a mistake.
After the recent elections, is the message not clear enough ?
—————————-
Unfortunatly, the whole program was not one that you bothered to get electorally approval from. It was a back room smoke filled deal. Hence the massive loss of votes, many, many people disapprove.
Many in the electorate are angry because you took votes garnered on a platform then 5 minutes later when and did the opposite and signed everyone up to Thatcherite cuts ? How can you be happy with that ?
NHS restructuring ? That was definitely not mentioned, and the Conservatives were at pains to say ‘safe in our hands, and no top down restructuring’
If this was really the program why didn’t you stand on this platform at the election ? It wouldn’t be so bad if the liberal democrats had been honest about it, at least it would be a democratically mandated position.
I find utterly mystifying that you fail to see Mark, how undemocratic it all is. It is not that the electorate don’t get the message, it is clear enough, people understand. And the NHS, if the Liberal Democrats do not stop this bill and allow privatisation and defragmentation, with whatever trimming around the edges that you manage, the electorate will not forgive the Liberal Democrats for a very long time.
——————————————