Just over 100 days into coalition, it’s becoming clearer how the Parliamentary Party (in the Commons) is shaping up and where dissent is likely to come from in future. As I’ve argued previously, overall the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party has been remarkably united over the last few years. (Even the ousting of Charles Kennedy was conducted with a remarkable degree of speed and agreement amongst MPs, especially when compared with the long-running leadership agonies in Labour and, pre-2005, the Conservatives.)
Coalition is putting that Lib Dem cohesion to the test in new ways and we’re starting to see who the key players will be. As ConHome reported, it was Andrew George and Mike Hancock in the morning’s papers criticising Philip Green’s appointment to advise on public expenditure savings.
Andrew George voted for the ‘establishment’ choice in both the 2006 leadership and 2010 deputy leadership contests (his vote in the 2007 leadership contest is not known) and was one of the rebels on the free schools (Academies Bill) vote in Parliament. Mike Hancock’s voting record for leader/deputy leader has been more mixed (two establishment votes, one non-establishment vote). He too has being a rebel since May, twice in his case – on both the Academies Bill and VAT.
Add in Simon Hughes himself, backed by the party’s leadership during the deputy leadership campaign to become the official voice of dissent (or, as The Independent puts it, Lib Dem with a licence to attack), and the names to watch as the new dynamics within the Commons Parliamentary Party develop are becoming clearer.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Ian Christie on the pioneer British filmmaker Robert Paul
Ravensworth Castle visit
Kemi Badenoch's dismissive attitude towards local government
Tories select former neo-Nazi activist for Somerset council election
Sandy Walkington
Jana
cim
Stephen Gosling
SteveTrevethan
10 Comments
“overall the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party has been remarkably united over the last few years… compared with the long-running leadership agonies in Labour and, pre-2005, the Conservatives.”
Having just 57 MPs helps!!
But yes, all in all dissent in our party recently has been relatively small. It’s still early days though of course!
“Having just 57 mps helps”
Not true actually, it is far easier to fall out in a small group. In a larger group, its easier to bury dissent and fallings out on the crowded benches, in a smaller group there is nowhere to hide it.
I think one reason that our party manages to remain more united is we are a little bit more grown up about the whole process. We accept that it is not disloyal to disagree with official policy in some cases rather than expecting the salvish loyalty that both the Labour and Tory leadership seem to expect.
From my point of view I would expect our MPs to honour anything in the manifesto or coilition agreement as they all signed up to both of them. Beyond that as long as they are following liberal democrat principles, there is room for disagreements.
Pray who are these “establishment” and “non-establishment” choices? I’m guessing Ming Campbell was the establishment choice after Charles Kennedy’s resignation, but otherwise I’m in the dark.
Also, surely Andrew George and Mike Hancock rebelled on the Academies bill, not free schools legislation as none has yet been brought forward?
free schools will be academies and the Bill allowed the creation of new schools ie free schools. A point that had to be clarified in the House of Lords if you read the debates on the first day of the Bill.
@nigel: Thanks, I didn’t realise that. But surely there is a Free Schools bill being drafted in the Department of Education at the moment?
Niklas: the establishment choices were Ming Campbell, Nick Clegg and (in the deputy leader contest) Simon Hughes. I’ve also edited the post to make the academies/free schools bit clearer.
@Mark: Thanks 🙂
So I take it the “establishment” in the party contains the old activist hands, ex-leaders, senior Lords and backbenchers and so forth. I.e. not the same people Richard Grayson described in the New Statesman as the “leadership”, who he says are driving the party in a narrowly small-state direction. Otherwise Simon Hughes could hardly be considered an establishment choice, nor really Ming Campbell.
Niklas: not really, because – for example – in the Deputy Leadership contest Simon was backed by the leadership/establishment, essentially as the preferred voice of official dissent.