The Economist’s political commentator ‘Bagehot’ this week surveys the attitudes of Lib Dems towards the Coalition at the mid-term point — I particularly like its opening:
THE Somerset village of Chew Magna, with its sleepy pub and Georgian houses, seems an odd setting for prognostications about Britain’s political future. But prognosticate the local Liberal Democrats do. “In 40 years’ time, people will look back and ask: what was all the fuss about being in coalition?” says Dine Romero, a councillor. Her colleagues nod. Multi-party government, they agree, is here to stay. “I like coalition—on principle”, asserts a sprightly 91-year-old.
We all know the reality, of course — Lib Dem involvement in the Coalition has seen the party take a pasting in the polls and at local elections. And yet:
Liberal Democrat members nationwide seem strikingly grown-up about the concessions their party must make in coalition government. Surveys by the Lib Dem Voice website show that support for the coalition has fallen just seven percentage points, from 84% to 77%, since it was formed in 2010. Only 9% want the marriage dissolved this year. … A comparison of recent polls by Conservative Home, a website for Tory fans, and Lib Dem Voice suggests that roughly twice as many Liberal Democrats as Tories want the coalition to survive until the election.
The article briskly cuts to the heart of the Coalition dilemma… pluralist Lib Dems believe in the virtues of Coalition; purist Tories long for the simplicity of single-party rule:
“Pluralism does not take us forward,” argues Barry Macrae, a Conservative on the Bath and North East Somerset council. “It’s a compromise on what time of day it is.” One Tory councillor in London groans at the mention of the deal. “It’s a bloody nightmare,” she opines conspiratorially. “The Lib Dems are complete wusses.” … Lib Dems claim that their passion for coalition is philosophical in nature, but it also has pragmatic roots. The party has long relied on a power base in local government, where coalitions are common. And national coalition government is their only chance of remaining in power after 2015. Their dismal polling numbers suggest that storming out and triggering an election before then would be suicidal.
It concludes with a warning to Tories counting on a post-2015 majority:
Egged on by uncompromising party members in the constituencies, ministers are delaying awkward decisions on airport capacity, the EU and energy until then, apparently convinced that coalition is a blip. They may well be wrong. If so, it is in their interests to come to terms with compromise. As one Liberal Democrat in Chew Magna sagely remarks: in this age of coalition, “you can be purist in opposition, but not in government.”
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Sixth Sense
Has Ed Davey overreached as the party's federal leader?
Lib Dems urge sanctions and Olympic boycott on China over Uyghur genocide
Jeff
Peter
Simon Pike
Hywel
12 Comments
@”Liberal Democrat members nationwide seem strikingly grown-up”
The Economist is right.
Two and a half years ago, I was expecting civil war in the party over the awful things we’d have to concede when dealing with the worst peacetime deficit in UK history. I think I owe the party membership an apology. I underestimated them.
I talk to a lot of members, and my experience echoes the Economist. Most members dislike the Tory party (and continue to fight them hard in local elections), but they understand the incredibly difficult job of the leadership far better than I expected: that Nick Clegg has to fight for what we believe in, but also prevent the coalition descending into an acrimonious squabble.
Going into the next general election we have to demonstrate that Coalition government is better government. That the Lib Dems in government have made a real and constructive difference.
Party out of power for 90 years pleased to share power. Arrogant SOBs who expected to to have Government to themselves not pleased to share power. And The Economist is surprised?
LOL @Terry
Great. But how do we get the voters to understand this? How do we break through the communication barrier?
All it has done so far is make us the whipping boy of both the left and the right, neither of which can forgive us for ruining their cosy duopoly of power. If we emerge from the next GE with more than 30 MPs, we’ll be lucky.
The general public still doesn’t understand coalitions and we haven’t been able to explain it to them.
Although I hate the coalition and our complicity in punishing the poor we must be doing something right if the Tories hate it more than we do! Keep it up and maybe they will clear off altogether.
The point is that we know we would take a pasting at any early geneal election while nursing the hope that things will be better for us in 2015.
The Tories think they would sweep to victory on a hard right anti-European manifesto despite the current Labour lead in the polls.
@ Brian D
“Although I hate the coalition and our complicity in punishing the poor”
So that will be “punishing the poor” by insisting on the Pupil Premium, raising the personal allowance and increasing benefits in line with inflation i.e. higher than working people’s pay rises.
That kind of “punishing the poor”?
And there was me thinking we were just trying to repair the disaster Labour bequeathed in the public finances by restraining some of the explosion in benefits payments….
No, that would be punishing the poor by cutting services, national and local, forcing disabled benefit claimants to undergo sadistic assessments designed to fail over half of them, making benefit rules for ordinary claimants even more onerous and unpleasant than before (and introducing mandatory and coercive elements which should offend any liberal, which I assume you are), capping housing benefit (leading inevitably to the kind of population transfer policies which we excoriated the Soviets for), transforming health services (primary users – poor and lowpaid) into revenue streams for the private sectors, ensuring that government-favoured schools are well-funded. I think that’s what Brian D meant.
“leading inevitably to the kind of population transfer policies which we excoriated the Soviets for”
Has anyone ever created the Communist version of a Godwin? A Stalwin perhaps……………..
My impression is that there’s also some divergence between the armchair membership and local activists.
Mike C.
Hang on a minute, weren’t many of those things introduced by the last Government? That… Labour one? Do Labour oppose them now, you know, those people who support the notion of regionally-adjusted benefits, who encouraged the use of NHS facilities for private healthcare, and who presided over a vast boom in property prices, pushing rents upwards in the process?
And, for most people who work, we were priced out of inner London a decade or more ago. Why is it that inner London should be populated entirely by the wealthiest and the very poorest? Why not call for action to enable mixed, more diverse communities in London’s zones 1 and 2?