2015.
It’s here.
Because of us, we’ve known exactly when the General Election would be since the Autumn of 2010. Taking away the ability of the Prime Minister to slot in an election at a politically expedient time is a good thing.
Anyway, this year is going to bring its challenges, its tears, its tribulations and, we hope, its joys. And they will just start with the General Election in May.
So, fellow Liberal Democrats take a breath, a few swigs of bubbly and enjoy today – for tomorrow and every other day until May 7th, we knock on doors. Nobody will tell our story for us. We have to do it for ourselves with heart and soul. We have a good one to tell. Even at a time when the country was strapped for cash, we did a whole load of good for children, for women, for anyone on a low and middle income. We did a lot of what we said we’d do. Kids from poorer backgrounds are performing better because of the money that Nick Clegg sent to spend on them. Families now have the choice over who takes the leave when a baby is born, something that Nick Clegg had been banging on about for years and Jo Swinson implemented. That policy sums up what liberalism is all about – giving people the right to make choices about their own lives that suit them. Those changes in the mental health system? Driven through by Nick Clegg. Sure, we’re not feeling the effect of them all yet, but the cultural change has been started. That’s why we need Norman Lamb in office as long as possible to finish the job. And there’s our Steve Webb. A proper pensions expert in charge of pensions. He’s done a great job of making sure that the pensions system is fairer for everyone, and more liberal, giving people more choice and power. And then there’s our Lynne Featherstone making a huge difference for women and girls across the world, taking action on sexual violence, education and FGM. And was there not something about same sex marriage too?
In Scotland, our long held ideas are now setting the agenda, with the Smith Commission providing a blueprint for how the constituent states of a federation should relate to each other. It’s early days, of course, but Mike Moore and Tavish Scott played a blinder, getting the other parties to move significantly from their opening positions to ensure a significant and sensible set of new powers would be given to Holyrood.
We maybe need to be a bit more candid about where we got it wrong, where we agreed to things that we shouldn’t. We don’t need to make a major production of it, but it’s important that we are authentic and genuine about our record.
We need to make sure that we are still in the game as a national party at the end of this and that requires us to work together. Britain needs the Liberal Democrats to be strong and active to counteract the fear and scapegoating that the other parties are sinking into, some with more enthusiasm than the rest. That’s much more important than any internal difference of opinion.
We’ve never been more up against it. I believe we can do well and confound expectations in May, though. We have been climbing up a very big mountain in treacherous conditions relentlessly and doggedly since May 2010. So many times people think we’ve been defeated by an avalanche or a bolt of lightening, but we’re still there. We’ve had our squabbles, but the Liberal Democrat family has been remarkable in the way it has stuck together. That’s not to say we have forgotten those family members who are currently estranged, but it could have been a lot worse. It’s important that we continue to stick together up to and beyond May. The cooler and calmer we are, the better the decisions we will ultimately make.
The very last thing I want to see is a period of majority Tory Government or, heaven forbid, a Tory/UKIP arrangement, to illustrate to people exactly what the Liberal Democrats have done to restrain them. We know what that would mean – benefits being removed from young people, the Human Rights Act being put in the shredder, a divisive, unpleasant and distracting referendum on the EU, draconian, illiberal “anti-terror” laws which will perpetuate, not solve, the problems, a rolling back of the size of the state with people abandoned to exploitation by the powerful. And on immigration, the Go Home racist vans would be the least of the policy failings. It’s up to us to make sure that doesn’t happen. We shouldn’t kid ourselves that Labour would be that much better, either.
We are not a split the difference party, though. We are an establishment-busting, planet-saving movement with radical solutions to the world’s problems grounded in a profound respect for every unique individual and the communities in which we all live. We have five months to convince the electorate that we have been putting those values into practice these last 5 years. There is much we can do as foot soldiers to influence the outcome of the election and our country’s future. We all have our own ways of getting our message across. We don’t need to be constrained by scripts from LDHQ, although if they ask, I obviously never said that…
This was meant to be a “Happy New Year to you and yours” type post, not this particular stream of consciousness. It’s funny how things turn out. May 2015 be very good to all of you and give you peace, health and happiness.
The photo used to publicise this post in our featured posts window above is by chris.chabot
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
131 Comments
“We are not a split the difference party, though. We are an establishment-busting, planet-saving movement with radical solutions to the world’s problems grounded in a profound respect for every unique individual and the communities in which we all live.”
That sounds more like the party I used to vote for than the one that Clegg et al have “anchored in the centre ground”.
The lib dems are very much an establishment party. Nothing they have done in office is radical. Name one truely radical lib dem policy.
Do you want to close down religious schools?
Do you want private education to be illegal?
Do you want to legalise drugs?
Do you want to leave the eu?
Do you want to get rid of the UKs nukes?
Do you want independence for scotland?
These are just some off the top of my head examples of changes that would be pretty radical, the lib dems are not radical. Ukip are radical, the greens are radical, even the snp are a little radical. Lib/lab/con are not, they’re just not.
Caron that does give the impression that you are keen for another coalition (with Conservatives?) that includes Liberal Democrats. In a coalition the parties do have to “split the difference” irrespective of their underlying principles. The problem is that any party that is continually in coalition will, through pragmatic necessity, become a “split the difference” party.
Unless there is an unexpected dramatic upsurge of support for Lib Dems, I look forward to a period of regrouping and consolidation outside of a coalition. Having shown that a coalition can govern for a full term, it would be a mistake to give an example of a government that cannot.
Keen is not the word I’d use, Martin. Coalition inevitably involves us not getting all our own way and is only worth doing if you can be sure of implementing liberal policies across government. If that’s not an option, then we shouldn’t consider it.
Peter, the party at its heart believes all those things with a passion.
Happy new year Caron.
2015 is going to be the year the last remaining Clegg loyalists finally realise the consequences of their ‘in government but not in power’ strategy. You say: We have been climbing up a very big mountain in treacherous conditions relentlessly and doggedly since May 2010. So many times people think we’ve been defeated by an avalanche or a bolt of lightening, but we’re still there.
You are sadly wrong – the mountain is entirely of Clegg (and his frightfully clever advisors) making and the collateral damage is 2,000 Lib Dem councillors and 40,000 party members. The party is in no state to pull the irons out of the fire.
Given we have lost more than half our elected members at every level (with much worse results at Scottish and Euro parliamentary levels) on what basis do you think the Lib Dems will win more than 30 MPs in May?
Peter Watson 1st Jan ’15 – 12:14am
“That sounds more like the party I used to vote for than the one that Clegg et al have “anchored in the centre ground”.
Dan Falchikov 1st Jan ’15 – 3:50am
“……,Clegg (and his frightfully clever advisors) making and the collateral damage is 2,000 Lib Dem councillors and 40,000 party members. ”
Should that be “anchored in the centre ground” by Clegg and a bunch of fellow anchors?
A look forward to 2015. Guess who said this —
“….I want you to imagine what you will say to people when you knock on their door at the next General Election….
We will have withdrawn our combat troops from Afghanistan, our brave servicemen and women having completed the difficult job we asked them to do.
You will be able to explain that finally, we have a fair tax system where the rich pay their share, and the lowest earners pay no income tax at all.
Our banking levy will have raised £10bn, reckless bonuses for short term gain will have ended, and banks will be lending responsibly again.
Imagine how it will feel to visit home after home that our Green Deal has made warm and affordable to heat.
You’ll be able to tell people they have a new right to sack MPs who do wrong, and that the party funding scandals of the past are history.
You’ll be campaigning alongside Liberal Democrat candidates for the House of Lords.
And if the British people say yes to the Alternative Vote in the referendum next May – forcing MPs to work harder for your vote – then you will also be able to say that the clapped out politics of First Past the Post is gone for good.
To those who are angry now about the difficult decisions needed to balance the budget you’ll be able to show that those decisions have set us on a better course with new growth and jobs that last.
And, finally, you’ll be able to say that all this has been delivered by a totally new way of doing politics.
Never again will anyone be able to frighten the voters by claiming that coalition Government doesn’t work.
Liberal, plural politics will feel natural; the sane response to a complex and fast-changing world. Just imagine how different our country will be.
Britain in 2010 is anxious, unsure about the future, but Britain in 2015 will be a different country. ………”
http://www.libdems.org.uk/nick_clegg_s_speech_to_autumn_conference
Yes — it was the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, from his speech to our party conference in 2010. It is almost as if he had seen the future, so accurate were his predictions!
So in 2015 when you are out there – “…campaigning alongside Liberal Democrat candidates for the House of Lords.” just like he predicted, you will be able to say that the clapped out politics of First Past the Post is gone for good.
We have withdrawn troops from Afghanistan just in time so that in January 2015 we are sending them back out to Iraq again.
Those ‘boots on the ground’ in Iraq in 2015 – exactly as he promised.
You can be thrilled by the clearly expressed view of every voter in the land that we have “delivered by a totally new way of doing politics”.
And won’t you just be bristling with pride when you remind the voters about the world banking crisis of 2008 that – “.reckless bonuses for short term gain have ended, and banks are lending responsibly again.”?
You will be able to explain that finally, “we have a fair tax system where the rich pay their share”.
Because that really has happened, hasn’t it?
Latest Baxter polling this morning gives us 19 seats, getting close to that estimate of 10 -15 I voiced last year. Caron I hope you will approach the election in a realistic way, we cannot afford dreaming of what might be. We turn the public off. There is still time to change. Just following the party line takes us nowhere, Baxter shows that.
Should add importantly Baxter gives SNP 49 seat in Scotland.
Caron – Happy New Year – and thank you for all your wonderful posts over the last year.
@Martin:
” In a coalition the parties do have to “split the difference” irrespective of their underlying principles.”
No, they do not. ndeed, this Coalition qould be a lot better if that poition had been adopted more often. There are two other elements for dealng with certain matters under a Coalition:
(a) horse trading – done far too much within this particular coalition imo because some prominent members of our leadership actually want ed to give away certain steeds.
(b) do nothing.
A coalition partner ‘in the centre {sic} is by no means honour-bound to agre e to do something ‘right of centre’ on every subject under the sun. After all, such a position is considerably-distant from the ‘mean’ position of the electorate in the election which gave rise to the coalition. The same applies to any coalition with an allegedly left wing party.
@theakes
“Latest Baxter polling this morning gives us 19 seats, getting close to that estimate of 10 -15 I voiced last year.”
If you refer back you will see that you were actually predicting 10-12 seats last year, and expressing “delight” 6 months ago when the highly dubious electoral calculus was also then predicting 19 seats.
Even though the 2014 local elections could in no way be described as good for us, it is more pertinent to note that, on the basis of those results, Rallings & Thrasher in the Sunday Times projected 37 Lib Dem seats to be won in 2015.
Also, the detailed Ashcroft polling suggests that Rallings & Thrasher are nearer the mark than your own 10-12 (or is it now 10-15?) guesstimate.
Simon rather pedantic? If you check all my missives I spoke of 10 -15 several times. Baxters electoral calculus was not far off with our seat delivery at the last election, others at the time were talking of 70 -80 plus etc.
If this party is to have a long term future it needs a period in opposition, to renew, refresh have a vision for the 2020’s. Without that it will, well you do not need me to spell it out.
Quote from JT’s post – “You will be able to explain that finally, we have a fair tax system where the rich pay their share, ….”
I’d love to know how this claim would be evidenced, for as I understand the total income removed by the state of each decile still sits at about 30%, after both taxation and benefits are factored in.
This essentially continues the same trend set up by labour, and not greatly different than the 90’s tory government before it (though more lumpy in distribution). There is an argument to say the coalition has improved the mechanism of transfer, in dismantling the horrific brown’ian tax-n-benefit edifice, but the resulting mix is much the same.
I am very happy that all deciles should lose no more than one third of income to the state, and moreso still that mechanism to achieve this has been simplified, but that is not what is climed above!
Now that NY is nearly over we can stop looking backwards & moaning. We enter the Year as a united Party, facing increasingly divided Tories & Labour. 2015 is the Year when the old 2 Party systems dies & we are the only real alternative in England & Wales. Lets all believe in ourselves & stop believing our enemies.
Simon Shaw 1st Jan ’15 – 11:11am
Simon Shaw is quite right when he says — “.. the 2014 local elections could in no way be described as good for us…”
But I bet given half a chance paul barker will explain to us all how May 2014 was a great leap forward for the party and the early signs of that much predicted ‘paul barker upswing in support in the polls’.
He has promised us repeatedly month after month that as soon as we get to 2015 there will be a remarkable increase in support for the party when the voters start to think about the election.
He has explained his theory about how fixed term parliaments put Liberal Democrat voters to sleep for five years (although he has never explained why a similar sleeping sickness does not befall the supporters of other parties).
Well we are here in 2015 and just as paul barker has so often predicted ……..,,..,,,,,,,,
@Paul Barker. Why do you think 2015 is the year the old two party system dies?
As for the Lib Dems being the alternative to Tories and Labour they are most certainly not. There is very little difference between the Lib Dems and the Tories/Labour.
UKIP and the Greens are real alternative to Tories and Labour in England, the Lib Dems are very much a Status Quo Establishment Party, tinkering with a few minor details is not radical and not much of an alternative.
In Wales and Scotland there are also nationalists as an alternative, as for Northern Ireland I really don’t know enough to comment about politics there.
If support for the Liberal Democrats remains low, I would have thought that the best way to prevent the complete destruction of the party would be to not go into coalition with anyone, but to start rebuilding the reputation of the party in the eyes of the electorate.
I’m not a politician though.
John Tilley: How about letting up on the relentless (and repetitive) negativity until after May’s election? [New Year’s resolution perhaps?]
I realise that you have your reasons and your personal back history but can you not see how OTT you are? Perhaps you could take a leaf out of Matthew Huntbach’s approach which includes hard nosed pragmatism with his pointed criticism.
You have your points: there is a lot to be disappointed about; clearly at the start of the coalition virtually no one appreciated the enormity and power of the forces that oppose Liberal reforms; however Caron does make a good case for the beneficial aspects of Lib Dems in coalition. Before 2010 many claimed that coalition government was not possible in the UK, perhaps you too are of that view and want to feel vindicated, nonetheless, I urge you to set your sights on what needs to be done after the next election: I think that your untempered negativity before May will not help you to be listened to afterwards.
@JohnTilley 1st Jan ’15 – 12:31pm
Well Paul Barker certainly does have form. Here is one of his predictions for this years GE from 2012:
“If we are into predictions, mine is that 2015 will see a partial & temporary return to 2-Party politics, with Tories & Libdems each getting a third of the vote & Labour reduced to 3rd Party rump.”
http://labourlist.org/2012/02/could-the-lib-dems-split/
@Jayne Mansfield 1st Jan ’15 – 1:38pm.
Absolutely. I am personally hoping for a small Labour majority. The present leadership group can not be trusted with the future of our party and especially to have a strictly policy-based, business-only relationship with the Tories.
My prediction, if one were needed, is that if we were to be taken into another coalition with the Tories, our party would be split from top to bottom and we would absolutely haemorrhage our left of centre membership and vote.
A period in opposition is not only vital ‘to start rebuilding the reputation of the party in the eyes of the electorate’ but, most importantly, for us to restate and recommit ourselves to what we stand for as a party following the lost years of the 2007 – May 2015 period. If we do not do this, the Greens will, within one or two parliaments, stand a very good chance of replacing us as the main alternative to Labour.
Happy New Year. The article makes me excited for the year coming, even if I disagree with parts of it.
Things won’t be easy, but I have whiggish-like faith that things are going to improve.
Thoughts also go to those who won’t be with us for the new year and to the new lives arriving. 🙂
What is clear is that another coalition with the Conservatives will destroy this party, probably for ever.
Tony
While I do not believe in Paul Barker’s psephological millenarianism (which like all such faiths will ultimately disappoint its followers) I agree with the gist of his and Martin’s comment that it is time to set aside our internal quarrels and campaign for the election of a strong group of Lib Dem MPs in 4 months time. We need to keep a strong parliamentary party to provide a base from which to rebuild this party, and whatever my disagreements with them over the last 5 years I do not wish to see them replaced by a bunch of Labour or Conservative placemen.
Whatever the outcome of the election, I hope and believe that the disastrous flirtation with neoliberalism that has brought the party to its knees can finally be ended.
My ge15 prediction:
.act – the exchequer has never managed to part the nation from more that 38% of GDP in the form of tax on any sustained basis. Right now, post-crisis, we are taking 42% (and spending even more), so outside a determined ideological u-turn we can expect this to fall back to the trend over the next few years.
Implication – Now, is that enough raw cash to enable your ambitions for government intervention? If not; are you willing to campaign on a manifesto for more taxes to do more good things?
Tory coalition with the DUP and SNP. Supply and confidence will be fine for the SNP, they just need to agree the budget to safeguard their block-grant.
Government: 301 Tory / 24 SNP / 09 DUP
Opposition: 271 Labour / 30 Lib-Dem / 03 SDLP
Other: 05 SinnFein / 03 Plaid / 01 Alliance / 02 UKIP / Green 01
UKIP will squeeze tory and labour vote, but will only hold Carwells’ seat and one northern Labour seat. Greens will squeeze both Labour and Lib-dems, but get just one. SNP will squeeze both Labour and Lib-Dem’s, making huge gains, but remain the second largest Scottish party. Tories will benefit from economic competence at a time of euro-instability, but be hampered by boundaries. Labour will be ham-strung by their leader and their policy guns being spiked by the tories.** The Lib-Dem’s will barely hold their credibility as 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system with 30 seats.
The key point here is that Labour cannot win as it has not answered the question; without money to spend what is the purpose of the party? This is why they are being squeezed by everyone, and the boundary advantage cannot change that fate.
Tony Greaves: You are at the centre of national politics and in some measure contributed to the coalition
as a member in the Lords. Could you not amplify your remarks? With Cameron hell bent on an unspecified ‘renegotiation’ and a hopeless referendum, how could a further coalition with the Tories be conceivable? Last time the great carrot was electoral reform; given how the Tories did the dirty on us, surely there is nothing there. The Tories can have no policy carrots to offer.
In any case if we lose lots of seats, doesn’t that put us in a similar position to Labour in 2010? What would happen if the party were enticed into an agreement with Labour? Would that be as damaging (for other reasons)? I think that a Labour led administration would rapidly become enormously unpopular and, as now, suffer further vituperative disparagement from both sides.
@Tony Greaves
“What is clear is that another coalition with the Conservatives will destroy this party, probably for ever.”
If you mean in 2015, then I’d broadly agree with you.
What also needs saying is that a coalition with Labour in 2015 would be even worse for our Party.
Martin
Do you not think you are being a bit naive? Whilst I agree. with you that The Tories can have no policy carrots to offer. Policy carrots were not the basis of the 2010 coalition?
Clegg and the Orange Bookers had prepared the ground in the months and years before 2010 for a coalitiom with the Conservatives. You don’t have to believe me just read the books by Laws and Gerard — they have been quite open about it.
Position, status , patronage, peerages, sinecures, squads of special advisors, these are the carrots that will already have convinced Clegg and co that they want to continue with their public school chums for another five years.
Any party member outside the magic circle of those who will benefit from the patronage that comes with office should expect absolutely nothing from a second coalition with the Comservatives other than another five years of appalling Conservative Government and withdrawal from Europe.
Happy New Year to you all.
Dan, I think we’ll do better than expected in May because of the unprecedented level of work going on in our key seats. This election has been going on for quite some time now and we are doing reasonably well in seat polls, e.g. Ashcroft. We are doing rubbish in national polls, which is worrying.
I think we would have been in just as bad a position if not worse if we’d not gone into coalition and a second election in 2010 had elected a majority Conservative government. We would have got the blame for failing to step up at a time when the country needed stable government and would have lost many seats then.
@Simon Shaw 1st Jan ’15 – 4:14pm
What also needs saying is that a coalition with Labour in 2015 would be even worse for our Party.
Like you Simon, I am completely opposed to any coalition post the next GE but I really can’t see how a coalition with another centre left party can be worse than a coalition with a right of centre party. There are many topics I disagree with Labour on. Their heart is often in the wrong place – especially on libertarian and environmental issues – but at least they have a heart; which is more than can be said for the Tories.
I can see how your comments may have truth electorally (in many Lib Dem held seats) but have a lot more trouble with them in terms of actual socio-political values. I personally believe a genuine realignment of the centre-left is long overdue and that post May-2015 simple tribalism will be the greatest force then preventing this.
Why do people persistently refuse to ‘read Nick Clegg’s lips’?
Try reading his New Year’s Message … (again for those who already have).
He could not he clearer about his intentions. As he has always been.
So the questions will be, will the Party support him and his proposed deal and secondly what will he and his supporters do if they do not get majority support for his proposal?
Its all jolly fascinating but one thing seems certain we are going to get battered in May, the only argument is the full extent. Regrettably there appears no way to avoid it. Who else would want to lead in such a scenario? The tragedy is that much may well have been avoided had somebody grasped the mettle last year. But that is history. It is now about refreshing, reviving, rebuilding and leadership post May 2015.
@Stephen Hesketh 1st Jan ’15 – 5:28pm
“I personally believe a genuine realignment of the centre-left is long overdue and that post May-2015 simple tribalism will be the greatest force then preventing this.” … and obviously the FPTP electoral system!
Stephen Hesketh and Simon Shaw
I too would prefer no coalition from 8th May if not sooner.
But a key difference between Labour and Conservative is membership of the EU.
Membership of the EU used to be important to Liberals. I hope it still is. The Miliband Labour view is very close if not identical to our own as we go into the 2015 election.
The Conservative slide to withdrawal under Cameron is one of the most dangerous threats to the UK, it’s economy, people’s jobs amd freedoms.
Even if Cameron survived as leader of his party — the head-banging proto-UKIP mass of Conservative backbenchers will drag him and the rest of us out of Europe.
Strikes me that a coalition with Labour would be nowhere near as bad as propping up the xenophobes and millionaires.
What I read in these comments, as usual, is a stream of people with their heads in the clouds. No, not the ones saying the Lib Dems aren’t in as bad a way as they might have been. The ones who think that the answer is one of: get rid of Clegg/stay in opposition/hate the Tories/lurch to the left etc etc You come across as rubbing your hands with glee at the idea that the people in the party they don’t agree with will get their come-uppance come May and then … no, everything won’t go back to “normal”.
Think back to 2010. Coalition with the Tories was never going to be easy or win us shedloads of votes. But any other option would have been worse. At least we have had the chance to do some good liberal things in government, and we have confounded the pundits by still being in government 5 years on.
Things are not rosy. We will lose seats, and we have lost a lot of good people. But never again can anyone say we can’t govern or are just a protest party.
And the fact remains, if you are a liberal, you won’t fit into any of the other political parties around. So stick with this one and fight for what you believe in. You are more likely to be able to get liberalism from the Lib Dems than from anyone else.
John and Stephen: Simon Shaw will explain for himself, but I think it is a judgement on how the Party will be hit. Most Lib Dem constituencies have the Tories as challengers. I suspect he is thinking that if there is a sharp swing against Labour, we being tarred with the same brush, are likely to lose many of these seats.
As I wrote earlier, if Labour do manage to form a government there will be a strong swing against them; a racing certainty. I think Labour’s unconstructive opposition to coalition policies has raised expectations that will be impossible to fulfil; with a noisy UKIP/Tory right anti EU agenda Labour have shown every sign that their response will be in disarray and their attitudes to immigration is muddled and unlikely to improve. Although they will make honest efforts to repair the damage Cameron has caused in relation to the EU, anything that they do will be wilfully mischaracterised by media shenanigans. The obloquy routinely heaped on Clegg will be quickly transferred to Miliband and Balls in spades. 2010 was a good election to lose, 2015 will be an even better election to lose.
The 1st thing I would say is go & read Nick Sparrows article on The Official Political Betting site. The research he covers demonstrates that Online Polling was a big con from the start, they arent just innacurate, they distort actual Politics. A rough average of recent Online Polls give us 7.5%, a similar average of Phone Polls give us 11%.
Crucially, we have things to say in the upcoming campaign & our main rivals dont. We are united & they are divided, with every prospect of those divisions opening up.
Prue: I am very much with you except for what to do after 2015.
Bill: Could you suggest what Clegg or any other leader should be saying in a 2015 message? Do you think it would be realistic to say that the Party will have no more truck with coalitions? I think it might be possible for the Party to set the bar high so that an agreement would in practice be unlikely – given that both Tories and Labour will be refusing to discuss the possibility of coalition with Lib Dems, I suspect such a strategy would tend to be overlooked by the media.
“We are not a split the difference party, though. We are an establishment-busting, planet-saving movement with radical solutions to the world’s problems grounded in a profound respect for every unique individual and the communities in which we all live. ”
Maybe but that is not what the pre-manifesto says, and it wasn’t what Nick said in his New Year Message. And it wasn’t evidenced by the behaviour of MPs over their votes on Judicial Review when they voted against liberal principle because they were told it would lose seats if they didn’t.
As it stands this is not a party worth working or voting for.
Prue Bray,
Spot on! A nice outbreak of commonsense amid all the pointscoring.
Well done!
In the run-up to 2010 I warned a number of party colleagues that the hung parliament they hoped for would be a challenge for the party.
It has been! There have been mistakes and – sadly – I’d have to mark Nick Clegg at no more than 4 or 5 /10.
BUT BUT BUT I’d also have to point out that others – Featherstone, Webb, Baker, Lamb have solid achievements that would scarcely have happened under a Conservative administration (especially one with a small majority provided by rightwing headbangers). Of course, we would have had an easier time – and probably some byelection triumphs to celebrate.
And then in 2014 or 2015 we might have achieved the balance of power, and ……. oh ……
@Prue Bray 1st Jan ’15 – 6:11pm
Prue, I do recognise some of what you say but I think few wish to see a lurch to the left, simply a return to mainstream Lib Dem values following the distinct move to the economic right intentionally driven by the of our own party’s centre-right during our time in government.
Re: “But never again can anyone say we can’t govern or are just a protest party.”
If we suffer a significant loss of seats, we begin to move back into ‘wasted vote’ territory and I think it is going to be some time before we can the electorate will take us seriously enough even to be considered worthy of casting their protest votes for us. We have become part of the career politician problem rather than part of its solution.
Re: “And the fact remains, if you are a liberal, you won’t fit into any of the other political parties around. So stick with this one and fight for what you believe in. You are more likely to be able to get liberalism from the Lib Dems than from anyone else.”
OK, I can agree with what you say – and in effect this is what many of us have been doing but if I personally remain static as a green egalitarian Liberal and my party shifts and then sets root as an equidistant centre party with neo-Con economic values, what then?
All politics is about coalition and compromise and I would, in my wards and constituency, continue to work and vote for mainstream-value Lib Dems but I would personally find it difficult to remain a party member should similar conditions of leadership, internal political balance and coalition engagement continue in the next parliament.
This probably means I simply feel greater loyalty towards the conditions of life and liberty of ordinary people, nationally and internationally, rather than to a party and its career leadership.
@Martin 1st Jan ’15 – 6:21pm
“Simon Shaw will explain for himself, but I think it is a judgement on how the Party will be hit. Most Lib Dem constituencies have the Tories as challengers. I suspect he is thinking that if there is a sharp swing against Labour, we being tarred with the same brush, are likely to lose many of these seats.”
I agree with this point – hence my comment in my own post: “I can see how your comments may have truth electorally (in many Lib Dem held seats) but have a lot more trouble with them in terms of actual socio-political values.”
Simon and I actually live in the same Tory-facing, Lib Dem-held constituency! I was asking a philosophical/value-based question.
@crewegwyn 1st Jan ’15 – 7:25pm
“A nice outbreak of commonsense amid all the pointscoring.”
Nice bit of point scoring crewegwyn 🙂
My personal choice would be for a Labour majority in 2015.
If however that was not going to happen and the parliamentary arithmetic’s gave us the option of a Lab / Lib coalition I would hope that the Liberal Democrats would agree to one. After all the party has spoken for decades about “plural politics” being good for democracy. Unless that is the party only means plural in the sense of coalitions with the Tories.
The Liberal Democrats also said that they went into government to provide “stability” what would that say to left of center voters if the Liberal Democrats did not stick to those values in 2015 if it meant a coalition with Labour?
It would see even more left of center voters abandoning the party for decades to come.
@Hywel 1st Jan ’15 – 6:56pm
I agree – so I’m not quite sure on what basis another poster could claim, “… We are united & they [our opponents] are divided, with every prospect of those divisions opening up.”
Having said I agree with most of your post, I will however be working for my excellent local mainstream Lib Dem MP!!!
@Martin – I forgot to say that I certainly do agree with your comment: “2015 will be an even better election to lose.” I partly wish Labour a (sub-30% vote) victory in part because of all their cheap point scoring and cynical positioning during this parliament. 🙂
matt: When Lib Dem politicians say things like “it is up to the electorate to decide” and “what happens will be determined by how votes are cast”, I hope that there is an unstated acknowledgement that if there is a significant reduction of MPs and much lower support, the Party will not have the support to justify taking part in another coalition. It is a question of consent. O f course, if there is healthy Lib Dem support, I am sure this would be taken to mean that the Party should offer to provide stable government in coalition (probably, depending on how seats add up, with Labour).
@Stephen Hesketh
“Martin 1st Jan ’15 – 6:21pm
“Simon Shaw will explain for himself, but I think it is a judgement on how the Party will be hit. Most Lib Dem constituencies have the Tories as challengers. I suspect he is thinking that if there is a sharp swing against Labour, we being tarred with the same brush, are likely to lose many of these seats.”
I agree with this point – hence my comment in my own post: “I can see how your comments may have truth electorally (in many Lib Dem held seats) but have a lot more trouble with them in terms of actual socio-political values.”
Simon and I actually live in the same Tory-facing, Lib Dem-held constituency! I was asking a philosophical/value-based question.”
The reason why I said that I believe that a coalition with Labour in 2015 would be even worse for our Party (meaning electorally) is that I think we would be seen as complete political whores. If we “jumped into bed” with Labour, then people really would start to believe the lie (ironically mainly put around by Labour) that we were willing to anything for “ministerial limousines”. The consequence is that we would be largely cease to exist as a viable Party by 2020, particularly as so much of our electoral strength in 2015 – 2020 will be Tory-facing.
I suppose that our disappearance as a Party by 2020 could result in a “genuine realignment of the centre-left”, but I’m assuming that isn’t what Stephen envisages. 🙂
@Martin
“matt: When Lib Dem politicians say things like “it is up to the electorate to decide” and “what happens will be determined by how votes are cast”, I hope that there is an unstated acknowledgement that if there is a significant reduction of MPs and much lower support, the Party will not have the support to justify taking part in another coalition.”
I totally agree with that.
If, as I expect, we lose a third or so of our 2010 seats and vote, then I believe that our refusal to take part in a coalition in 2015 will be seen as an honourable decision. We would be saying “The people have spoken and we respect their decision”. In turn the electorate would respect us.
@JohnTilley :
“Should that be “anchored in the centre ground” by Clegg and a bunch of fellow anchors?”
A mariner writes:
If one’s anchor, in whatever ground, is on an insufficiently generous cable then when the tide turns against one, one is sunk.
@Prue Bray:
“Think back to 2010. Coalition with the Tories was never going to be easy or win us shedloads of votes. ”
Quite, which is why the content of Coalition and the operation of it both required a degree of competence which was sadly lacking – despite the depth of talent and experience across the country which was available t o the leadership.
Prue, I argue two reasons why Clegg should not be leader: 1) with any other leader we would gain both more MPs and more votes, because we would be at the very least be listened to and belived; and 2) because the Marshall, Laws, Clegg, Reeves, Astle strategy is not one of equi-distance. The strategy pursued by Marshall and Laws since the Mid-Noughties and lead by Clegg since 2007, is one that predetermines deals with Conservatives, until, they would argue the withering of the Labour Party; and thus any other leader will be wiser in any and every post- election scenario and therefore a better option for the future of the Party.
In Clegg and Co’s hands we will either continue some kind of joint undertaking with the Conservatives or be split assunder if they cannot gain a majority for that position post May 2015. Either way, if Clegg leads us into the election the future of the Liberal (Democrats) as an independent and viable political force will be limited to a very few years.
Martin, I understand that you think the public statements are tactical. I happen to think they are strategic. As I have said before, we shall have to wait to see which of us is right. In the circumstances, I shall keep on warning people of what I believe is the Leadership’s well documented strategy.
If we were to have a change of leader, even at this late hour, we should be stronger in May and have more options. I think we would lose a number of MPs to the Tories shortly after but I hope that number can be limited – see the life and times of Sir John Simon for an idea of this.
If we do not have a change of leader we shall divide in the Special Conference of late May of this Year. The ground warriors will be adrift and the air warriors will be a single step from the Conservatives – that step being liberal conservatives, with or without capital letters.
Simon Shaw 1st Jan ’15 – 8:59pm
I do accept your point regarding political whoredom but given the choice only between that and being a Tory lackey, I’d go with being the tart 😉
I think we can agree the safest option would be to hope for the honourable position outlined in your reply to Martin.
I agree with Simon Shaw on his comments about any Coalition post-2015
My view on the potential results would be
Tory-LD Coalition
The end of the LD as a viable party in their own right. 10 years of being in Coalition and supporting a number of extreme policies would make them really the equivalent of the FDP. What the ‘social’ liberals would do would be interesting as in the long-term it may be a good thing. That is assuming there is much left after another 5 years of the Tories had finished with the country
Labour-LD Coalition
As Simon says it would make the party look unprincipled. This perception is entirely down to the terrible handling of the practicalities of coalition by the leadership since 2010. The die was cast in the first few hours and the management has been atrocious
Tory Majority
Would allow some time for reappraisal of the future direction but would the LD be an effective opposition to policies they voted for? I think there would be much derision if you try to come across as a principled opposition and I doubt Labour would be holding out any hand of friendship. The left would despise you as being seen as complicit in a Tory majority. May be unfair but could be the reality
Labour Majority
Again would allow reappraisal of future direction and would be a more credible opposition but it will be very difficult to do without a good leadership. Going through the lobbies with the Tories may be a problem.
I really do worry about the future of the party as there are no easy options and it will require a strong leader post the 2015 GE. I still think the LD, or a party similar, are needed but you are in danger of being squeezed out by the Greens and, perhaps, also Miliband. I think Miliband is an interesting political character who may surprise a few people. I like the idea of having somebody in charge who is not a photofit politician – the LD would normally be a home to someone like that.
Anyway we shall see what happens but it is going to be a difficult ride and will take some brave leadership – something the guys you have at the top are lacking in. I cannot vote for you in 2015, after that I will see what happens
Remember that Nick Clegg will still be Leader in the days immediately after the elections. So any decision on what the Party should do if there’s a hung Parliament will be primarily down to him. But at that point the Liberal Democrats will most likely be the fourth largest party, maybe fifth — so the Lib Dems will more likely be spoiler than kingmakers. Indeed, in the event of a hung Parliament, we should be thinking of negotiations, not with the Tories or Labour, but with the SNP and others, to maximise the power of the non-duopoly parties by acting as a bloc.
I realise that this sort of calculation is likely to cause offence to many, but I don’t see any other way that the Lib Dems will stay relevant after this May.
@Simon Shaw: “If, as I expect, we lose a third or so of our 2010 seats and vote, then I believe that our refusal to take part in a coalition in 2015 will be seen as an honourable decision. We would be saying “The people have spoken and we respect their decision”. In turn the electorate would respect us.”
I suspect you will lose more than half your seats and more than half your vote. Which can you give me the names of 35 seats that you expect to keep?
Bill le Breton said: “Why do people persistently refuse to ‘read Nick Clegg’s lips’?… He could not be clearer about his intentions.” and “In Clegg and Co’s hands we will either continue some kind of joint undertaking with the Conservatives or be split asunder if they cannot gain a majority for that position post May 2015.”
I agree. But as David-1 points out, the Lib Dems will be bit-part players alongside up to four other small parties with comparable parliamentary strength – SNP, DUP, probably UKIP and possibly the Greens too. One can readily imagine the Tories on (say) 300 seats looking to perm the magic 325 votes from (say) 20 LD, 20 UKIP, 25 SNP and/or 10 DUP. In those circumstances, a Tory/Lib Dem alliance would not be a governing coalition like the one we have now. However, a strong alliance with Clegg would be of huge advantage to a Tory PM, who would then be able to play off all the other minor parties against each other, and survive vote-by-vote by winning over only one. Without such an alliance, a Tory PM would always need to win over at least two minor parties, a situation which would be far too unstable to last.
Clegg will therefore have a lot to offer the Tories, even on a measly 20 seats. After all, he will be far more biddable than Farage, Sturgeon or the DUP. He will therefore be able and willing to strike a quick deal, one which puts himself back into Cabinet and offers a few other nice-looking policy fireworks too. He will then say “Well hey, haven’t things changed, what a surprise, cough cough! I was of course intending to make way for someone like Tim Farron, but with all this good luck, I’ll just have to stick around for the next five years of right-wing reform, won’t I?”
We are also defending a large proportion of our local council seats in May and how well we do at that could be just as important to the party’s future as how we do in the General Election.
@Mr Wallace 1st Jan ’15 – 10:39pm
“I suspect you will lose more than half your seats and more than half your vote. Which can you give me the names of 35 seats that you expect to keep?”
Mr Wallace – that is not a worthy or sensible question. You will undoubtedly appreciate that even if we were to lose half of our vote (which is not inconceivable) under FPTP and with Lib Dem MPs frequently polling better than the party itself, we could indeed hold 35 seats. My own prediction at present however is that it will be closer to 25-30.
Tony Dawson 1st Jan ’15 – 9:16pm
But how many mariners would choose to use a millstone as an anchor?
@Stephen Hesketh :
But how many mariners would choose to use a millstone as an anchor?”
Any port in a storm? 🙂
I guess not if the harbourmaster scuttles your ship with you in it. 🙁
@David Allen :
“Clegg will therefore have a lot to offer the Tories, even on a measly 20 seats”
You are assuming, in your scenario, that 19 Lib Dem MPs, having just lost 60 per cent of their seats and another load of councillors, will allow Nick Clegg to ‘offer’ anything on their behalf to anyone. Seems unlikely to me.
Mr Wallace
“Simon Shaw: “If, as I expect, we lose a third or so of our 2010 seats and vote, then I believe that our refusal to take part in a coalition in 2015 will be seen as an honourable decision. We would be saying “The people have spoken and we respect their decision”. In turn the electorate would respect us.”
I suspect you will lose more than half your seats and more than half your vote. Which can you give me the names of 35 seats that you expect to keep?”
If you are really interested then why not find out the names of the 37 seats that Rallings & Thrasher (the country’s acknowledged esperts in the field of elections) projected as Lib Dem wins last summer in the Sunday Times on the basis of detailed 2014 local election results.
Of course, if we happen to secure less than 37 seats it makes my argument even more strongly.
David Allen writes, “as David-1 points out, the Lib Dems will be bit-part players alongside up to four other small parties with comparable parliamentary strength …”
I think that is to miss the special interests of Clegg and Cameron in continuing association.
Clegg and his followers have a clear vision of the Party that they are creating. They saw Ashdown as the pioneer in this direction. (Of course ground warriors saw him as an icon too). They were deeply critical of the way Kennedy baulked against this direction. They will do everything to avoid risking the next leader undermining their ‘progress’ in transforming the Party into one of Government. My guess is that their best option for a new leader continuing their approach is Lamb, but they would prefer not to lose Clegg. As in all radical movements (which theirs is i.e. root and branch change from what went before) if at first you don’t succeed in realizing the stated vision/transformation you shift the horizon for the goal i.e. to the next Parliament. In 2015/2020 they will argue the new core vote will materialize on the basis of continuing confidence in the LDs as a party of government, serious and beyond protest.
Meanwhile Cameron has a win win in reaching out to Clegg privately now and publicly immediately post election day. It either splits and destroys the LDs as an independent force. Ashcroft polls sees him taking 10 to 13 LD seats in May. Leaving 20 more available either as liberal conservatives following a fresh deal or as 2020 winables if the LD party is neutered by years of internal division. Would he get it through his Party? Would his Party topple a PM in the months after successfully keeping them on the Government side of the house and the patronage trough?
Finally, would the figures add up? The above assumes they would. But it is quite a good bet. Sure 30 to 40 SNPs … confidence and supply + 20-30 (or even fewer) LDs ‘in’ the new Coalition – “completing the job” or ” keeping going down the road” or whatever they are trialing today. (Remember a deal with the SNP makes EVEL more and not less likely than would be the case with a Labour PM) Also having LDs inside the tent actually makes a European Referendum easier for Cameron to win a ‘remain inside’ vote with a fudged renegotiation of terms. a la Wilson.
“Be prepared” as they say.
Has anyone considered the implications of an election result in which Labour (or for that matter Conservatives) have the largest number of seats, but could form a majority with either Lib Dems or SNP?
Such a result would have huge dangers, if we were not able to secure a trusting informal coalition with SNP in Westminster. Obviously Labour would do its utmost to play off Lib Dems against SNP. If there are no informal talks, then I think there should be. I think it was an error to wed ourselves so strongly to the NO campaign in the independence referendum; I think that there is a lot more common ground (particularly on devolution) between Lib Dems than there is between other parties. With SNP’s ex leader trying to displace us in Malcom Bruce’s constituency, I realise that pre-election conversations are likely to be difficult, but it would be a terrible mistake not to be working out a strategic plan.
Bill le Breton,
I entirely agree that Clegg and Cameron have special interests in continuing their close association. Indeed I wrote to point out that this will still be the case if, as now seems likely, there are several smaller parties which share in “holding the balance”. Your latest post usefully thinks through some of the implications, and here I will try to carry this further.
A multiply hung parliament will look like a bit of a nightmare. With both the Tories and Labour far below the magic 325 seats, and with no single small party able to act as kingmaker, the prospects for an early resolution will be small. Cameron will probably be allowed to remain in power on a temporary basis while multiple inter-party discussions proceed. Thus for example, the SNP, having pledged not to back a Tory Government, will no doubt be fazed when the Tories (as Tories do) offer them a big bribe in terms of a devo-max settlement that Labour refuse to match. Cue intense debate within the SNP and between the SNP and the Scottish electorate, and cue confusion and delay.
Advantage in this situation will be gained by those who can move quickly. Indeed Cameron personally may have a lot to gain from being able to trot out an impressive pre-cooked personal deal with Clegg. Those within the Tory party who clamour for Boris or Theresa may find the words die on their lips once they hear that it is only Cameron who can deliver Clegg.
Tony Dawson argues that Clegg, in those circumstances, would not be able to deliver his party. Well, Dawson has a point, but if I were Clegg, I would ask myself “how well did we manage it last time”? The Orange Bookers pulled off a quck deal with the Tories, issued a long, detailed and utterly misleading Coalition Agreement, promised Lib Dem members a breakthrough on AV and entry to government, and quickly sold their pup to an adoring Special Conference. All they have to do next time is to find a way to repeat the trick. Common experience amongst the criminal fraternity is that if you can fool someone once, you can assuredly fool them a second time.
So Clegg will quickly pull enough rabbits (e.g. PR for local government?) out of the hat, straight after the election, to stay the hand of his dissenting MPs temporarily. Then, the maths will change. For example, Lab 270 Con 270 could change to Con-Lib 300 Lab 270. Then, with 30 dithering SNP and 40 off-in-a-huff UKIP and/or Green, Cameron could declare an intention to form a minority government. Suddenly the Lib Dems, having just polled 8%, would start to salivate at the private “promise” of some quick Lib Dem “win” followed by a second election in 6 months, at which they would have nowhere to go but up. Suddenly the Farrons who had planned to bring down this house of cards at the Special Conference (which Clegg will somehow have slipped a bit later than late May) will realise that they might have to bite their tongues.
A bit risky – yes. But never underestimate the chances of people who know exactly what they want and are happy to do anything that will get them there. That’s Cameron-Clegg.
Bill le Breton,
I entirely agree that Clegg and Cameron have special interests in continuing their close association. Indeed I wrote to point out that this will still be the case if, as now seems likely, there are several smaller parties which share in “holding the balance”. Your latest post usefully thinks through some of the implications, and here I will try to carry this further.
A multiply hung parliament will look like a bit of a nightmare. With both the Tories and Labour far below the magic 325 seats, and with no single small party able to act as kingmaker, the prospects for an early resolution will be small. Cameron will probably be allowed to remain in power on a temporary basis while multiple inter-party discussions proceed. Thus for example, the SNP, having pledged not to back a Tory Government, will no doubt be fazed when the Tories (as Tories do) offer them a big bribe in terms of a devo-max settlement that Labour refuse to match. Cue intense debate within the SNP and between the SNP and the Scottish electorate, and cue confusion and delay.
Advantage in this situation will be gained by those who can move quickly. Indeed Cameron personally may have a lot to gain from being able to trot out an impressive pre-cooked personal deal with Clegg. Those within the Tory party who clamour for Boris or Theresa may find the words die on their lips once they hear that it is only Cameron who can deliver Clegg.
Tony Dawson argues that Clegg, in those circumstances, would not be able to deliver his party. Well, Dawson has a point, but if I were Clegg, I would ask myself “how well did we manage it last time”? The Orange Bookers pulled off a quck deal with the Tories, issued a long, detailed and utterly misleading Coalition Agreement, promised Lib Dem members a breakthrough on AV and entry to government, and quickly sold their pup to an adoring Special Conference. All they have to do next time is to find a way to repeat the trick. Common experience amongst those who know is that if you can fool someone once, you can assuredly fool them a second time.
So Clegg will quickly pull enough rabbits (e.g. PR for local government?) out of the hat, straight after the election, to stay the hand of his dissenting MPs temporarily. Then, the maths will change. For example, Lab 270 Con 270 could change to Con-Lib 300 Lab 270. Then, with 30 dithering SNP and 40 off-in-a-huff UKIP and/or Green, Cameron could declare an intention to form a minority government. Suddenly the Lib Dems, having just polled 8%, would start to salivate at the private “promise” of some quick Lib Dem “win” followed by a second election in 6 months, at which they would have nowhere to go but up. Suddenly the Farrons who had planned to bring down this house of cards at the Special Conference (which Clegg will somehow have slipped a bit later than late May) will realise that they might have to bite their tongues.
A bit risky – yes. But never underestimate the chances of people who know exactly what they want and are happy to do anything that will get them there. That’s Cameron-Clegg.
Bill le Breton 2nd Jan ’15 – 10:53am
A convincing analysis. Feeds in well to my oft-stated fears regarding the Clegg chosen manifesto and negotiating teams and them having their hands on all the levers of power in the aftermath of the election – even if Clegg did nfeel obliged to step down. Let us only hope the worst fears of those of us who called for a leadership election last year are not realised.
Those members who have publically and privately stated words to the effect “not now, wait until May 2015” are going to have to be ready to stand up and be counted very early in May if the party is to survive as a proper functioning independent political party by the end of 2020 or possibly as soon as the end of this year.
@ Prue Bray,
It’s nice to see a woman posting on here.
I have two problems with your post. Any talk of a lurch to the left ignores how very right wing this government has been. We have the same warnings from Tony Blair about any lurch to the left by Mr Miliband, this despite polls showing that people agree with many of Mr Miliband’s policies.
It wasn’t a given that the Liberal Democrats would lose a shedload of votes in coalition. I saw a poll that showed that originally the majority of people were in favour of parties working together. This was of course when Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg were both claiming that politics would be done differently. ( Something that the Ya Boo politics of PMQ’s etc’, seems to have shown to be forgotten).
In Government, the behaviour of the key players determined whether you lost shed loads of voters or whether your time in government could be used for electoral advantage. Don’t blame the Liberal Democrats on here. Few of electorate will read the posts on here. It is your leadership, and in my opinion, it is right to blame them for it, they are saying, doing and presenting themselves in a way that the voters are rejecting.
Unfortunately, Bill, your narrative about Clegg is built on the absurd hypothesis that he had constructed his entire political ambition around the prospect of becoming leader and getting the the somewhat random result of the 2010 election.
A surer personal bet for Clegg, given his time assisting Leon Brittan with the EU, would have been as a political apparatchik in the Conservative Party. Instead of Lord Hunt, the UK’s commissioner might easily have been Lord Clegg.
Anyway, I do not think there will be an offer of another coalition, but even if there were, I fail to see what would or could induce a majority of the Party to back one. Actually if push came to shove, it would end with a proposition of ‘back me or sack me’; short of monumental political upheaval between now and May, it does not require a magical crystal ball to work out how that would go.
Martin reflects my own view that if and when a special conference was held to discuss another Conservative coalition then it would be staggering if the party was to agree to it. Mr Clegg has surely exhausted the good will of the party. If we’re all going to construct scenarios then I would suggest that a Syriza win in the upcoming Greek election would be a significant factor in determining the outcome of the election as a return of the Eurozone crisis will make the “markets are demanding clear leadership” argument very credible.
Caron Lindsay
Kids from poorer backgrounds are performing better because of the money that Nick Clegg sent to spend on them
No, Nick Clegg did not send it to them. It was voted through by Parliament. Nick Clegg may have been involved in negotiations over this policy, but to put this and everything else as if it was just Nick Clegg himself personally who did it is against all I am involved in politics for. I disagree very strongly with the top-down leader-oriented model of politics, where political parties are presented as if they are just fan clubs of their leaders. That is the sort of model of party pushed by the Leninists and followed up to this day in North Korea, and it is the model of political party that governed in Italy and Germany in the 1930s. It is the OPPOSITE of liberalism.
We maybe need to be a bit more candid about where we got it wrong,
Well, this presentation of politics as all about the national leader, and thus destruction of the idea of mass membership democratic political parties is one one them. Also the model it paints of taxation and finance, as if it is the personal gift of leaders rather than democratically agreed by the representatives of the nation.
You know what? Why don’t we re-invent liberal democracy? Doesn’t that have some sort of connection with us? Why don’t we actually go out and PROMOTE liberal democracy, that is a model of politics which is about shared power and ordinary people having an active involvement in policy making, not about leaders handing things down as if they are God-appointed aristocrats.
Martin, Clegg’s choice of Party: Remember just how ‘nasty’ and ‘sleazy’ most people thought the Tory party of the second half of the Nineties was – and how Lamont had mismanaged the economy. Lots of young fellows who at other times might have joined the Conservatives felt affinity with ‘Paddy Ashdown’s Liberal Democrats’ fresh from their by-election, polling and electoral successes.
Paddy Ashdown is also an interesting phenomenon: his portrayal of Liberalism was and remains capable of more than one interpretation. As a community politician in Yeovil and as a person who cultivated the ALC ethos he was the darling of the community politics approach, the ‘long march’ the MP as local social worker, but as a person who loves ideas by 1988 he wanted to explore areas such as the internal market for the NHS pushing the likes of Laws and Astle, Oaten, Browne and Lundi (all of whom we employed by him and prefered by him) to dare to think the unthinkable.
Ashdown was capable of inspiring the loyalty of a Maggie Clay or a David Laws. How natural for Clegg to join the Liberal Democrats especially when Ashdown immediately pointed him towards a relatively safe route into the European Parliament.
And then how frustrating these young fellows must have felt when in relatively short order the Party of Ashdown morphed into the Party of Kennedy. A very different beast. Simultaneously Marshall and Laws were defining their vision of a post Kennedy Liberal Party rooted in the Gladstonian Liberalism of retrenchment. Marshall not an MP and Laws for his own reasons not willing to push for the Leadership found in Clegg an affine with all the qualities of post-Blairite politics, most convenient when Oaten ‘s star waned.
Clegg cut his teeth in a Britain of Labour authoritarianism and the reduction in civil liberties following 9/11 which when mixed with retrenchment and tax cuts made the Tory an ideal vehicle by which to ‘push on’ to the next stage of the evolution of the Liberal Democrats – the pursuit of a new core vote, the abandonment of the dependency of Labour tactical votes and quiet deals with Labour (eg Joint Constit Committee and chats with Blair that persisted even up to the 2005 general election), a full blown manifesto sparkling with ideas and innovations, experience of Government and the communication of a willingness to take tough decisions.
And that job is not finished, say they. And all their hard won ‘progress’ is threatened by the weak resolve of the old guard. The ambition of the Member for Westmorland, or worse the threat of Carmichael with whom they have jousted before. Blairites and Cleggites have a lot in common.
On the possibility of a 2nd Coalition with The Tories, any such agreement would have to leave out their proposed Referendum, thus leaving them vitually no chance of getting it through Parliament. Would The Tory Right accept that ?
I find it hard to see how either Labour or Tories could survive a whole term of Coalition with Us or The SNP.
Paul in W, you are normally razor sharp in these matters, but the above comment (1.49pm) suggests two exclusive out comes a) there is no chance the Leadership could get another deal with the Conservatives through a special conference and then b) of course the revival of a threat such a Greek/Spanish/Italian exit from the Euro and the attendant economic crisis might be a reason why that special conference could conceivably support ‘staying on the road’ with the Tories.
I think it actually betrays your lack of confidence that another deal with all the patronage and payroll voting would be voted down. Nor have you looked at the threat such a divisive issue would have on Party solidarity.
Finally. On the issue of multi party deals. It is not beyond policy that two minor parties might have different relationships with the larger or largest party. SNP would clearly prefer a confidence and supply relationship with a price paid for each confidence and supply vote. This does not preclude the LD’s preferring Coalition because the leadership has invested highly in becoming and staying a party of government. Returning to the Opposition Benches would abandon that narrative and put at stake the continuing leadership of the Party by someone committed to the existing strategy.
Paul B – why would a deal leave out a referendum? We are committed to a referendum given any treaty change. How would anyone know before EU negotiations ended whether a referendum would be necessary for those reasons?
And really, it is not hard to see the LDs relishing fighting a referendum in 2017 even without a change of treaty. A chance to fight for the Party’s internationalist and European soul? A chance to reassert itself as a major force – after perhaps losing half its Parliamentary membership two years before? A chance to fly the flag for business?
You “find it hard to see how either Labour or Tories could survive a whole term of Coalition with Us or The SNP.” Why? The SNP get more powers/resources. Sure they have to jump the nuclear sub issues, but they could say they got xyz in exchange – that way they keep the jobs and cash from the facilities too! The one thing they are is a very disciplined outfit – no flaky types like you get in UKIP. They are highly professional – in fact more like Australian politicians that English ones. They know what they want short, medium and long term, and know how to get it.
Oh and we have just proved that we stay the course.
The more Labour tries to go it alone, the more it pushes everyone else together. Hundreds of councillors have seen that narrative play out in local government when Labour think they don’t need half the council +1 to form an administration.
To Martin, David Allen and Paul in Wokingham,
I suggest you read again what Bill Le Breton has written.
In particular — “…Clegg and his followers have a clear vision of the Party that they are creating. ”
If you doubt this just read what they themselves have written.
As Bill said in his earlier comment –“…the Marshall, Laws, Clegg, Reeves, Astle strategy is not one of equi-distance. The strategy pursued by Marshall and Laws since the Mid-Noughties and lead by Clegg since 2007, is one that predetermines deals with Conservatives”
You do not have to believe Bill, just read what Laws and Gerard have written.
Read the Astle dismissal of those on the left (voters, supporters and members) and his demand that they leave us and go off to the Labour Party.
Read the Orange Book with its plan to replace the NHS with something else; then read Clegg’s letter of approval of the Lansley bill for a top down reorganisation of the NHS; that is the letter that Clegg wrote within a few weeks of the Special Conference in 2010 voting for a Coalition Agreement that stated that there would be NO TOP-DOWN REORGANISATION OF THE NHS.
We used to have a slogan in Focuses which said DON’T BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY — BELIEVE WHAT THEY DO.
With Marshall Laws you can believe both. They said they wanted to position the party so that it could only do deals with the Conservatives and then they did a deal with the Conservatives. They said it and then they did it.
Now they are quite clearly saying that they will only do a deal with the Conservatives on 8th May.
That is what they will do on 8th May if they’re given the chance.
Unless there are sufficient people to stop them — that is exactly what they plan to do, they have made no secret of it.
Anyone who believes differently is refusing to face the facts. I don’t know if that is a symptom of wishful thinking, hoping for something better or delusional displacement activity. Perhaps it is just sleep-walking to oblivion.
Things could be worse. So far no Liberal Democrat MPs have been accused of coalition activities with the Duke of York.
I fully agree that we’ve been too cautious in our policies. This is nothing to do with coalition, for our policies represent what we’d like to do if we had a free hand. But Mr Wallace’s list is quite random. For example, it would be radical to ban religious schools (so there go Quaker schools, for example), but equally radical to abolish state education. Independence for Scotland would be radical for the UK (not necessarily for Scotland) but so would abolishing directly elected local government. We need to show why radical proposals would be Liberal.
On a purely practical level, there is one massive reason why we should look to a change of leader. About half the activists do not trust or admire Nick Clegg at all. That’s a toxic situation when activists have to be mobilised, not only in a general election but over and over again. The nearest analogies I can think of are Labour in 1959 and the Tories in 1997. Enough said.
The 2017 referendum question makes it easier for Cameron and Clegg to do a deal, not harder. Clegg will happily “demand” that the referendum be downgraded from mandatory to contingent on events, and will trumpet Cameron’s concession on that point as one more major triumph for Cleggism. Meanwhile, playing alongside Clegg in this delightful pas de deux, Cameron will bewail to his party that he has had to make this unpleasant concession as the necessary price of the brilliant deal with the Lib Dems that he has just negotiated in order to remain in power. Privately, of course, Cameron will be delighted that this gets him off his self-imposed hook, and means that he can duck out of a referendum if he thinks its outcome would be a disaster.
John Tilley,
Could you clarify for me why you asked me to read Bill le Breton again? I think I agree with almost all of his wise words, and yours too. I post merely to point out some of the strong cards which Cameron-Clegg now hold, and the ways in which they may very well be able to play them. The “Shock Doctrine” is relevant here. Cameron-Clegg achieved success in May 2010 with bounce tactics based on a fictitious short term financial “crisis”. Remember how Cameron used bounce tactics when declaring EVEL hours after the Scottish referendum result? These guys are masters of shock and awe, and they will have plans afoot for its use on 8th May 2015.
Crucially, Clegg has prepared the ground by clinging to his leadership post. An especially neat touch was his allies’ constant argument to the effect that there was no need to ditch Clegg now, and that rather than see a successor tarnished by electoral failure, Clegg should take the flak as leader in 2015, and then he would of course do the honourable thing and leave the field. What Clegg plans is quite the opposite. He will instead use the priceless advantage of incumbency on May 8th 2015 to ensure that Cleggism wins out in 2015-2020.
The only questions on which I might disagree with Bill le Breton are on two assertions, of which the first was:
“If we were to have a change of leader, even at this late hour, we should be stronger in May and have more options.”
Well, yes we would, but at this late hour, unless he falls under a bus, it ain’t gonna happen. To carry on thinking we can oust Clegg before the election is, now, to cling damagingly to a false hope.
Bill’s second assertion was:
“If we do not have a change of leader we shall divide in the Special Conference of late May of this Year.”
That seems to me quite likely, but not certain. Clegg persuaded the whole party to back him in 2010. I don’t think it is impossible that he can do it again, or at least take the majority of his MPs with him into alliance with the Tories. Take your pick from the various shock-doctrine options available.
….”We Can Rescue the EU from the Threat of the 2017 Referendum – But if We Don’t Sign this Deal then Boris will Overthrow Cameron and has Pledged to Retain the Referendum Commitment”.
…Or “The Greek Financial Crisis Demands Stable UK Government”.
…Or “We Must Back Cameron to Stay in Office, Or The Iranian Nuclear Crisis / The Critical Situation in Gaza Which is Being Razed to the Ground (Again) / The Imminent Disaster of Scottish Independence / Or Whatever …. will destroy UK civilisation as we know it!
David Allen
You make perfectly valid points. I may have picked up on your minor note of disagreement which you have now elaborated on. Apologies if what I said seemed to misinterpret your comments.
Having said that – it is always worth reading what Bill Le Breton has written — at least twice. 🙂
No problem John!
Bill and John – apologies for the delay in replying, pressures of work.
Firstly, my comment about the Greek election (which is only three weeks away) was primarily about how this will play before the GE. It is manna to Tories and Labour alike. A Syriza victory and even the suspicion of a sovereign default – with Robert Peston back on the news just like at the height of the crisis – allows them to claim that only a clear majority will save Britain from a battering at the hands of capital markets that dislike uncertainty, depressing support for ourselves and – more importantly – UKIP.
But the main point I would make is that made above by David Allen. Your argument seems to be that if Nick Clegg leads the party into the general election, and there is a post-GE coalition with the Conservatives, that the party will – as Tony Greaves says above – be destroyed. I am not disagreeing. If the party votes to go into a post-GE election coalition once again with the Conservatives then I for one will walk away because it means that the party has morphed into something I would not wish to support : the British FDP discussed so many times here.
But as David Allen notes, there is not the least prospect that Clegg will stand aside at this juncture. So what are we to do? Spend the spring gardening? Concentrate on the locals? I’m sure Prue Bray would be happy given how close our excellent candidate came to winning here in Emmbrook Ward last year. Hope we are crushed so that Clegg and Co are ground into the dust?
The only option I see is to work diligently, ignore the leadership and its trite cliches, return the largest possible group of MPs to ensure the future viability of the Lib Dems as a national party, and attempt to re-establish the party as the standard-bearer for progressive Liberalism we promoted in election campaigns from the old days – you know – like in 2010.
I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately we are where we are. I will think about a special conference if and when the scenario unfolds. My suspicion in any case is that the result will be an outright Tory win.
David Allen – ‘Privately, of course, Cameron will be delighted that this gets him off his self-imposed hook, and means that he can duck out of a referendum if he thinks its outcome would be a disaster.’
I’d agree with your analysis, but not your conclusion. As far as the Conservative Party goes Cameron has well and truly nailed his colours to the mast and there is no way on earth he can duck out of this except for circumstances so extraordinary I can’t even think what they may be. A CON win in 2015 (with or without majority) will mean a referendum of some sort in 2017/18. Even a small LAB win might see a referendum. Quite bluntly the LDP’s influence on the matter is minimal, for good or for ill.
I have no idea what the result of that referendum might be, but I think that one being held is far, far more likely than not. It will be a ghastly event though, of that I’m certain.
Caron has penned an absolutely first-rate New Year message, which sits in stark contrast to the miserable offering served up by Mr Clegg’s PR advisors.
Let’s start with what Mr Clegg’s PR advisors have done wrong:
(1) They have done the exact opposite of what PR advisors are supposed to do. They have focused on what people like least about the product. In our case: (1) Mr Clegg himself, and (2) the “coalition”. Then there is the humpteenth plus repetition of the absurd claim that the 2009 financial crisis was Labour’s fault. Yawn, a thousand times, yawn. And we have this peculiar soundbite about being “anchored in the centre”. This is the same line that the SDP used to flog to death (though Dr David Owen was supposed to provide a “radical cutting edge”). All this does is fuel the suspicion that the Liberal Democrats don’t really stand for anything.
So what has Caron done right?
(1) Her tone is belligerently optimistic, and her words are filled with passion. She conveys the impression that the true Liberal Democrats are idealists who want to roll their sleeves up and change things for the better.
(2) She speaks of the “coalition” as a burden born out of necessity, rather than an ideological coming together. She speaks of Liberal Democrats stopping the Tories doing terrible things that they will be sure to do with interest if they get an overall majority. It isn’t just about making the glorious free market a little bit fairer.
(3) She refers to the good work that individual Liberal Democrat politicians have done, and suggests that more is on offer if we have more MPs.
(4) She not only projects a positive image of the party to the electorate, she boosts the all important morale of activists.
Now, if the party could talk to the electorate in the way that Caron does, rather than through the barren PR flannel of Mr Clegg’s advisors, then we might be looking at a decent result come May.
LJP: Cameron certainly cannot credibly junp out of the way of a 2017 referendum, but he can credibly have his hand forced for him, which is what Clegg can offer (on the QT of course) to do for him. The Party won’t be happy, but if Cameron tells them Clegg gave him no alternative (other than, perhaps, calling an amnesty for illegal immigrants followed by an immediate STV election!), they will swallow the concession, provided it keeps the Tories in power.
Cameron’s true feelings about EU membership, if he has such things as true feelings, are not easy to discern. I suspect the outcome he wants is whatever is less likely to leave him in the mire. His less politicised advisers will be telling him that a Brexit, however much some might seek it, is bound to be messy. Cameron will not like that. So he would probably be delighted if he gained a free hand. That doesn’t mean that a referendum won’t happen, it quite likely will do. But if Cameron gains a free hand, then he won’t be forced to hold the referendum unless he thinks he can come out of it well. That will suit that old cynic down to the ground.
Paul in Wokingham said:
“there is not the least prospect that Clegg will stand aside at this juncture. So what are we to do? Spend the spring gardening? Concentrate on the locals? … Hope we are crushed so that Clegg and Co are ground into the dust?”
I’m afraid I now think it has to be alternative 3. PiW suggests we should “work diligently, ignore the leadership and its trite cliches, return the largest possible group of MPs to ensure the future viability of the Lib Dems as a national party”. I fear that if we do that, we are most likely to return a group of MPs who will be persuaded, badgered, rewarded, and/or deceived into – once again, to their own bemused amazement, swallowing the Cleggite line and backing the Tories.
No doubt some will find such an outcome inconceivable at this juncture. I would merely ask, where is it the evidence that power now lies within the Lib Dems? If there was a huge pent-up demand for a renunciation of Clegg and all his works, how come polls on LDV regularly show that 75-80% of respondents think that the Lib Dems are “on the right track”? How come Clegg was never seriously challenged on sheer competence grounds over his many debacles, apart from (to some extent) the latest (Party of In and Clegg v Farage) debacle?
Sure, back in 2010 the Lib Dem membership had a left-of-centre majority, but most of those have now left. They have stolen our party, and they have stolen it for good. We won’t get it back. If we don’t want to look like Dennis Skinner under a Blair leadership, then we shall have to start afresh.
For three years I’ve been asking why and how Lib Dem members polled by LDV can simultaneously admit the likelihood of electoral collapse and think that the Party is “on the right track”; I still haven’t got an intelligible answer, except perhaps that it’s some strange meaning of “right track” that I hadn’t heard before.
Paul in Wokingham
I know you are aware of the real problem with the entryists. Others in the party may not have your awareness and are simply sleep-walking to oblivion.
Most of our existing MPs and many of our members in the HofL are in this group of sleep-walkers.
I wrote to fifty of our MPs only a few weeks ago. Most of our MPs repeat the mantra that it is all about being in coalition and the entire party signed up to the coalition agreement so their hands are tied.
So I have a simple reaction to your questions — “…So what are we to do? Spend the spring gardening? Concentrate on the locals? Hope we are crushed so that Clegg and Co are ground into the dust? ”
My suggestion is — Work in the election only for existing Liberal Democrat MPs who have made clear their opposition to Clegg and the entryists.
There is no point in electing any old MP if on the 8th May they will lamely continue as lobby fodder in support of another extremist Conservative Government.
There is no point in electing Liberal Democrat councillors if our MPs are going to support another five years of Pickles destroying the funding of councils and removing the powers of local democracy.
What you describe as ” the future viability of the Lib Dems as a national party ” can only be ensured by electing Liberal Democrat MPs who themselves actually want a viable independent Liberal Democrat party.
If we really want to “re-establish the party as the standard-bearer for progressive Liberalism” there is no point in re-electing sleep-walkers who have allowed Marshall Laws to prevail.
We have in 2015 another Coupon Election. Liberal Democrat activists need to refuse to support anyone who carries Clegg’s Coalition Coupon and shift their support to those who want a future for the party and for Liberal Democrat beliefs as set out in The Preamble.
@ David-1 “For three years I’ve been asking why and how Lib Dem members polled by LDV can simultaneously admit the likelihood of electoral collapse and think that the Party is “on the right track”; I still haven’t got an intelligible answer, except perhaps that it’s some strange meaning of “right track” that I hadn’t heard before”.
Perhaps the Lib Dem members believe there is a greater point to a political party than just being popular. For example there were 13 years when the only seat the South African Progressive Party won was Helen Suzman’s constituency in Johannesburg. Through their courageous stance on apartheid I believe that at the time the Progressive Party was on the “right track”.
Opposing Labour’s invasion of Iraq would still have been on “the right track” even if it had been electorally unpopular.
So a party can be on the “right track” even if pursuing electorally unpopular approaches.
The problem with the current situation is that the leadership of the Liberal Democrat party have combined electorally unpopular behaviour with immoral actions such as breaking their pledges to the electorate.
Sesenco on Caron
I have never known an election won by talking about the other canidate .You can only promote your own platform so lets stop talking about which coalition partner we may or may not want to get into bed with they are not Liberal Democrats . We can ligitimately warn against a hard right CON/UKIP coalition that would be bad for human rights and EU membership or a Labour /SNP coalition that will lead to another constitutional referendum in Scotland but we should not be picking potential coalition partners at the time thats is too argogant and dismisses the will of the voters.
@JohnTilley 3rd Jan ’15 – 10:12am
Great post John. Your final six paragraphs sum up my position and recommendations to other party members who oppose where Nick Clegg and his ‘free’ market economic friends would seek to lead us.
I would strongly recommend that those who have come to this thread seeing it to be currently the most visited to read Bill le Breton’s post of 2nd Jan ’15 – 10:53am. One of the key sentences is surely, “Clegg and his followers have a clear vision of the Party that they are creating.”
NC is not going to walk and it seems is very unlikely to be pushed this side of the election. Like John, I don’t see ‘Garden leave’ as being a viable option for those of us wishing to see the Liberal Democrats continue as a fully independent party of the radical centre-left reflecting and fighting for the vision of local, national and international society as set out in our party’s Preamble. We must ensure we help elect ‘non-Coupon’ Lib Dems.
On a related note, perhaps some mechanism can be found by which the party membership can make it clear to the leadership that we will not be ‘bounced’ into ANY coalition before the party has had a chance to consider its likely effects on the future of the party at May’s Special Conference?
If, at that point, ‘the markets’ once again feel the jitters coming on, I would recommend stocking up on Imodium or similar.
@Sesenco 2nd Jan ’15 – 10:28pm
“Caron has penned an absolutely first-rate New Year message, which sits in stark contrast to the miserable offering served up by Mr Clegg’s PR advisors.”
Maybe something to do with Caron being a natural Liberal Democrat?
@Richard — Parties exist to win votes and get candidates elected. There is certainly a place for organisations whose goal is to rhetorically advance an agenda outside of electoral politics, but they are not political parties. If you’re failing to communicate with voters; if you’re failing to convince them; if every election sees your candidates lose and your message drowned out — then, no, you’re not on the right track and you need to do something different.
Hopefully Stephen we will not be in the position of having to consider being in a coalition. Frankly if we are to have a future we need that like a hole in the head.
@theakes 3rd Jan ’15 – 5:18pm
“Hopefully Stephen we will not be in the position of having to consider being in a coalition. Frankly if we are to have a future we need that like a hole in the head.”
Agreed Theakes – but we need to think of options to prevent a small group of people doing something undemocratic and non-representative of the views of the wider party in the days immediately following the general election ‘in the national interest’ etc.
I don’t think I would be too disingenuous if I were to suggest certain people have a history of ignoring the views and even the votes of the wider party. Yes, they may still do it again but hopefully we will have spoken first!
Once bitten, twice shy.
@Neil Sandison:
“I have never known an election won by talking about the other canidate .”
I think you are therefore (a) very lucky or (b) rather inexperienced. It does help, however, if you have something useful and positive to say about your own candidate and their policies, too.
John Tilley said,
“Liberal Democrat activists need to refuse to support anyone who carries Clegg’s Coalition Coupon”
Well, I can identify a few MPs who go around waving that coupon. I suppose I can also identify a few MPs who I think would certainly choke on it, though that is more difficult. I have heard a number of MPs speak in private with total and credible sincerity of their opposition to many things the Coalition has done, but in public, they have often rebelled only selectively or not at all.
Then there are the majority of Lib Dems somewhere in the middle. The track record is of hand-wringing and then finally making excuses for sticking with Coalition policies. So when these people say that 8th May 2015 is when they will come to their sticking point, I am distrustful. They have cried wolf before.
I fear that the Lib Dems have become part of what Donnachadh McCarthy calls the “Prostitute State”, a party corrupted (like all the others, the Greens perhaps excepted) by financial interests. I fear the hidden levers of power which will make trust misplaced. I don’t want to see good people thrown out, but much more importantly, I’m not prepared to work for five more years of the same.
http://www.theprostitutestate.co.uk/page2.html
My prediction for 2015
In terms of seats a marginal win for Labour with the Tories replaced in the North by UKIP. The Greens up but not taking seats. Lib Dems taking around 12% with Clegg losing Hallam. SNP ultimately holding balance of power, Since the Tories have first stab at forming a government. They’ll try to soldier on, but Lib Dems won’t be strong enough to prop them up and UKIP won’t have more than a couple of seats.
Stephen Hesketh 3rd Jan ’15 – 4:12pm
Thanks Stephen. I too would strongly recommend that people read or even re-read Bill le Breton’s post of 2nd Jan ’15 – 10:53am.
Read and take on board the implications of — “Clegg and his followers have a clear vision of the Party that they are creating.”
And if anyone is under any illusion as to the sort of conservative party that Clegg and his sponsors are creating they just need to read this helpful and reveaIing piece from that ‘dangerous left-wing’ newspaper The Daily Telegraph. —
“…….Which politician made the following observation? —
“Even after the existing fiscal consolidations, state spending will account for some 40 per cent of GDP, a figure that would have shocked not only Adam Smith, William Gladstone, and John Stuart Mill, but also John Maynard Keynes and David Lloyd George.”
Was it a) George Osborne, b) John Redwood or c) David Laws?
It was, indeed, Mr Laws – …… …..Just two years ago, in an interview with the Telegraph, he claimed that the share of the economy accounted for by the state was “out of kilter” with the amount of tax the public were willing to pay. Spending as a proportion of GDP should therefore fall, with only health, education and pensions protected.
We disagree with Mr Laws on his selected areas for fiscal ringfencing – but with his overall assessment of the need to shrink the state, we heartily concur. It might have been thought, therefore, that he would be the first to support Mr Osborne’s ambition to reduce government spending to around 35 per cent of GDP.
After all, before the last election, he was in favour of bringing spending down to precisely that level – and even edited the Orange Book, a selection of Lib Dem policy essays which went so far as to propose replacing the NHS with a national health insurance scheme.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11316756/Desperate-Lib-Dems-wont-fool-the-voters.html
Laws has a problem, for while he might have changed his tune for electoral reasons the blinding common sense of his quoted sentence remains as true day as it was in 2012:
“We are going to have to see a shrinking of the state share of the economy until it is back into kilter with the amount of tax people are prepared to be pay”
Want more spending, persuade voters to part with more taxes.
David Allen 3rd Jan ’15 – 7:37pm.
“………… I have heard a number of MPs speak in private with total and credible sincerity of their opposition to many things the Coalition has done, but in public, they have often rebelled only selectively or not at all.”
Too right, David. In public most of our MPs are sleep-walking to another five years of extremist Conservative Government. Your reference to the excellent book ‘The Prostitute State’ is timely. A number of our MPs are in receipt of donations and financial support from some “unusual” source nowadays. It would appear that five years of supporting the Conservatives has had an impact on the long term independence of thought of many of our MPs.
I would happily send a free copy of the book to any of our MPs or anyone else who can show otherwise.
My assessment of Nick Clegg is that the prospect of becoming the handmaiden to the UK’s exit from the EU is not anything that he would entertain. Today, on the Marr show, I heard Cameron restate his impossible demand that the EU should drop “ever closer union” from its treaties in order to keep the UK as a member, I think this underlines the incompatibility of the Tory Party’s objectives and not just Nick Clegg but the overwhelming majority of Liberal Democrats.
Arguments that portray him as some kind of Machiavellian genius that has manipulated first the Lib Dems and then the electorate to his purposes hardly add up. Surely if he really did have such capabilities, he and the Party would now be in a much stronger position.
On the other hand, I think that it is likely that Clegg would be at home in other European Liberal Parties, some of which are less socially Liberal than the UK Party.
Postscript: As Bill has said we shall have to see who is right. David Laws speaking on the radio a couple of days ago spoke of how much better it was influencing government from the inside rather than struggling to make ourselves heard from the outside. Whilst no doubt true, I do hope that this does not mean that he would grab at any opportunity to be in a coalition come what may. He also said that setting out non-negotiable issues in advance could compromise coalition talks. My immediate thought was that, for this election, is a reason for doing precisely that.
My judgement remains that following the outcome of the election, it is quite likely we will not be involved in coalition talks anyway, but that even if invited we would not be in an electoral position that could justify participation in a coalition. I can see the danger of walking away though, particularly from a Conservative minority government, which is (as last time) that a minority government could be followed a few months later by a second election in which the Tories would win outright. In which case the anti Clegg, anti coalition comments could be cast in a very dark light.
Martin,
I think the assumption that a minority Conservative government would become a majority one in a second election is what damaged the Lib Dems in the first place. The more likely out come is that people like me will bite the bullet and vote labour to take the Tories out plus a collapse in The Greens and SNP, whilst disgruntled Tories will try to pitch to the Right. The average age of a Conservative Party member is about 68 years old. They’re literally a dying breed which is why UKIP are taking them out. Left of centre politics has been pluralist since the 1980s and the Lib Dems benefited from this which is why the vote collapsed from day one of the coalition just as people like me predicted it would. If the Conservatives could not beat Gordon Brown in 2010 at the height of an economic crisis there is only one way the votes are going and it isn’t up.
Glenn, your hypothesis is very unsound. A minority Conservative government would have been able to go back to the electorate within months, before Labour had any chance to find and elect a new leader, moreover, they were the only party with money in the bank to fight a second election. At that point , whilst Brown would have been facing recriminations, Cameron would be able to galvanise his party. The backdrop of Greece’s problems would have been no help to Brown and Labour either.
Anyway, we cannot change the past; the concern is the future. I would agree that it might be more of a risk for Cameron to bring about a second election, the fixed parliament act would mean that Cameron could not pick his ideal date so easily. Voters could turn against him and blaming Lib Dems for not forming a coalition would be less effective: we have proved that we can do coalition government. However, this time Cameron is very clearly pulled by his right wing (and UKIP), so the dangers are greater, not the least being a very damaging Brexit.
Martin 4th Jan ’15 – 10:44am
Could you clarify what you meant ? when you wrote —
“…..the Tories would win outright. In which case the anti Clegg, anti coalition comments could be cast in a very dark light.”
Who would cast them in a dark light! Why would they? Why would it matter?
martin.
Becket was interim leader of the Labour party within weeks and David Milliband would have been pretty much unchallenged, but you’re right it’s old ground. My point was that I don’t think the Tories are capable of forming a majority government because their popularity peaked 5 years ago and they could not form one then. Their ability to fight elections is much weaker than it seems on paper. One in 5 local Conservative branches has a membership of less than a hundred. 20% as opposed to Labour’s 3% and most of the bigger branches are in very safe seats so declining membership hits the Tories much harder. They don’t have the ground troops/activists.. Something that worried Cameron in 2006. In the North tat situation is starker which is why I think the Conservatives will be hit hard by UKIP. The boundaries also favour Labour.
John, I do not want to see another coalition with the Tories, so I might have to blame myself, but if events, such as a Brexit and other retrograde outcomes occur and yet it might have been that Lib Dems had a chance to forestall and prevent such events, then it could be said that Lib Dems had failed to act as they should have done, but they blew it.
However, I repeat, even if Nick Clegg accepted a second coalition, I do think that he could do little to stop Cameron’s quixotic EU adventure, leading to a high chance of an OUT vote (unpopular government, divided IN campaign, further boost to UKIP). My reading of Clegg is that the very last thing he would wish to be associated with in his political life is a Brexit.
Glenn, I hope you are right about the Conservatives, however they do seem to make up for members with ready cash, so paid personnel may do some of the spade work.
This election is almost bound to break some trends. If Labour wins, it will do so with the lowest mid election advantage in the polls recorded; if Conservatives win they will break a trend that governments do not increase their votes. Of course it could be us that lose votes but the Tories gain, with a drop overall.
I think that the key factor is electoral catalysis. People change voting behaviour when something eases their path. In Scotland, their referendum is an obvious such catalyst; in England the effect of UKIP could be a lessor though significant catalyst. UKIP will lose a lot of support in the run up to an election, and probably do worse than us in votes cast, but it would be a mistake to assume that UKIP’s support will automatically revert to where it had come from. Clearly Cameron hopes to take UKIP’s mantle and may succeed in taking ex Labour (and even Lib Dem*) votes.
[*I am guessing that UKIP has taken support from many of those who have voted Lib Dem as a protest, throwing toys out of the pram gesture]
Martin,
“even if Nick Clegg accepted a second coalition, I do think that he could do little to stop Cameron’s quixotic EU adventure, leading to a high chance of an OUT vote (unpopular government, divided IN campaign, further boost to UKIP). My reading of Clegg is that the very last thing he would wish to be associated with in his political life is a Brexit.”
Sure, Clegg would never countenance supporting a Brexit, and nor would (either wing of) his party. But why do you suppose that this means Clegg would not favour a second coalition deal with Cameron? All that Clegg would have to do would be either (a) to make dropping the 2017 referendum “promise” the price of entering coalition, and/or (b) pulling out of coalition, and presumably therefore collapsing the government, if it went ahead with proposing a Brexit.
Clegg desperately wants to stay in alliance with the Tories. There is no reason why the Europe issue should stop him.
Martin (again, sorry, nothing personal!):
“Arguments that portray (Clegg) as some kind of Machiavellian genius that has manipulated first the Lib Dems and then the electorate to his purposes hardly add up. Surely if he really did have such capabilities, he and the Party would now be in a much stronger position.”
I don’t think anyone is alleging that Clegg is a manipulative genius. Just that he, and more importantly his allies and backers, have a clear strategy and a clear aim, in which they have to a considerable extent been successful.
OK, he’s had to put up with only being Deputy PM. Then again, had he gone into the Tory Party alongside hundreds of other MPs, maybe he’d never even have reached Cabinet!
I think your argument also runs along the lines of “how can anybody be so smart and Machiavellian if they preside over a fall from 25% to below 10% in the polls?”
Well, look at this from the Tory point of view. You regularly poll around 30-35%, Labour regularly poll around 30-35%, and then there is this pesky third party which polls (say) 20%. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a Clegg came along and said, help me and I’ll put that third party vote into your pocket. It would be a godsend, wouldn’t it?
And what if the Clegg said “there’s a snag though, we’ll probably lose about half of our voters in the process”? I think the Tory strategist, or the Tory-Cleggite strategist, would say “It’s still a godsend. If we control Britain’s swing party, and get them permanently on our side, then even if half their voters do walk away in disgust, it will still be a huge strategic coup for us. We and the Cleggites, toegther we can monopolise power for a generation.”
It’s worked, so far.
@jedibeeftrix 4th Jan ’15 – 9:30am
“”Laws has a problem, for while he might have changed his tune for electoral reasons the blinding common sense of his quoted sentence remains as true day as it was in 2012:
“We are going to have to see a shrinking of the state share of the economy until it is back into kilter with the amount of tax people are prepared to be pay” .””
Option 1 (Favoured by Jedi and our own David Laws) – we will use every lever at our disposal [[such as the ‘free’ press]] to distort and ridicule your message but “Want more spending, persuade voters to part with more taxes”
Maybe for starters we might look at:
Option 2 – Work to ensure at least European agreement on corporations pay tax in the country the profit is generated
Option 3 – Close tax loop holes used by the wealthy and non-PAYE tax payers
Option 4 – Mansion tax
Option 5 – Land value tax
Option 6 – Ask people if they are prepared to pay more tax for specific spending needs e.g. NHS, education
Option 7 – Allow tax payers a say in those areas they wish their taxes to be spent e.g. would a majority vote for a like for like Trident replacement while leaving conventional forces weakened?
Option 8 – Claw back tax on bankers and other unethical bonuses.
Option 9 – Variable income tax element on those companies with a basically criminal gap between its highest and lowest paid employees
Option 10 – Legalise and tax certain drugs as with alcohol and tobacco
The list is virtually endless – I am sure everyone in the country will have their favourite options – why not ask us/them!
David Allen; your hypothesis certainly does not add up to me. It reminds me that ‘I’m Tory plan B’ is an anagram for ‘Tony Blair MP’, yet I cannot find anything sinister in it. It does also remind me that Clegg and Blair do have an obsession with the centre ground, which also better explains Clegg’s actions. I think he is hunting unicorns and if not mythical the centre ground is certainly nebulous and fickle. Worse, the centre is defined relative to either side, so can be drifting sands.
There is a debate whether the electorate is drifting right or left. I think it is, as it often does in hard times, drifting against progressive forces and is attracted to simplistic, backward looking solutions and censorious of anything that might be portrayed as free-loading. This narrative would account for why Clegg and colleagues have felt obliged to accept some Tory policies that you dislike. Doubtless, you would like the Lib Dems to stop all such policies, but is it realistic to expect a Party with so few MPs to achieve that? Particularly when such an outcome would have made this government more to the left of any of the previous 6 governments.
Stephen Hesketh: I do not understand ‘Option 2’. My experience is that Amazon does demand the VAT applicable to where the purchaser is based. I presume it therefore pays VAT to the country where the goods were bought. As for other taxes, I cannot see how you can stipulate where a company is based. Amazon clearly has a big operation in Luxembourg, I do not see how any legislation could make that not the case. Clearly, however, there is a lot of scope for more harmonised tax rules.
Option 9: How I wish increased taxes could be applied to businesses with a large disparity between the highest and lowest paid. I bet there would be aggressive legal challenges to anything of that sort. I have wondered if favourable tax rules could be applied to those companies that could show that they comply with an agreed ‘good’ standard. Companies that could demonstrate good practices in employment and protection of the environment could be awarded tax concessions.
Option 10: I find very little that is Liberal in the taxation of addictive drugs.
Cameron is committed to a referendum on Europe in 2017. Any attempt to postpone or renege on that commitment would see mass defection of Tory backbenchers and possibly even frontbenchers to UKIP. Any coalition with the Conservatives will have to acknowledge this. It’s a point of principle to the Conservatives, which IMO is fair enough. The sticking point would actually be boundary changes because the Conservative Party want a majority and will demand them. No matter how much some people think the Lib Dems are trying to engineer a semi permanent alliance the price of another coalition with the Conservatives would be make it virtually impossible!
Martin 4th Jan ’15 – 4:12pm
Thanks for your response to my question. You seem to trust Clegg on his apparent loyalty to the the European ideal.
A lot of party members trusted him in 2010 when he presented a Coalition Agreement forapproval atva Special Conference which included principled long-standing Liberal Democratcommitments on –
1… No top down NHS reorganisation
2… Student fees
3… No new nuclear power or subsidies for new nuclear power
Within weeks he was signing off and indeed enthusiastically welcoming top down NHS reorganisation (in private but he secret is now out). Within a few months he went public on student fees. Within a couple of years new nuclear with subsidies lasting thirty years.
Only a few months ago Clegg was telling us that renewed bombing of Iraq would not lead to ‘boots on the ground’ – yet this month UK troops are heading back to Iraq.
As has repeatedly been said – the legislation is already there for a referendum on exit from the EU. Clegg or any Liberal Democrat in Coalition does not have to lift a finger to enable Cameron to go ahead they have already sold the pass.
Martin 4th Jan ’15 – 9:07pm
Rather than debate the individual merits of the ‘off the top of my head’ suggestions, I would say that I was only trying to show that shrinking the size of the state is not the only option available to us. It may be the only one available to those of a particular conservative economic outlook but not the only one available to Liberal Democrats!
I can not resist pointing out regarding point 10 that alcohol and especially tobacco have been shown to have certain addictive properties of their own!
A very happy new year to you, Caron! Thank you for this rather rousing article which very nicely sums up a lot of the great things we’ve achieved as a party of government.
I’m disappointed that such a positive piece still attracts such negativity in the comments section from some quarters of the party’s membership. It’s very frustrating to see the continual barrage of negativity and criticism of the party leadership. It isn’t the fact that some feel the need to express their dissatisfaction with Nick Clegg and the Parliamentary leadership, it’s more the fact that the same people relentlessly repeat the same old moans and gripes over and over again on virtually every article I read here.
It’s especially galling to see John Tilley recently use my constituency, Camborne, Redruth & Hayle, as an example of a place we’ve supposedly died a death as a party. We’re working pretty well flat out to deliver a good result in May. Last year we grew our membership massively, set up a Liberal Youth organisation at the local university, and gained a Cornwall Council seat from 4th place on a huge swing at a by election. A week later we fell one vote short of gaining another ward at the other end of the constituency. Some polls of the constituency (some rather dodgy ones at that) show us at 6% or something similarly ridiculous, but we know from the doorsteps that it simply isn’t true. The ballot box also backs us up on this!
We’re getting out there and putting a lot of hard work in. I’d respectfully request that those regular negative commenters here who claim to be supporters of the party do the same in their patch, or in a nearby key seat. If that isn’t possible, then why not read a good book, have a nice cup of tea, or generally do anything other than constantly post negative comments that are demoralising for humble Lib Dem footsoldiers like myself?
We can all make 2015 a year in which we can be proud of ourselves as a party. Let’s face it, we do have some fantastic, deeply liberal achievements in government to campaign on. Let’s get out there and confound all expectations!
Stephen Hesketh: “shrinking the state” in itself is an odd idea for Liberal Democrats, though to be fair to Laws, he wanted the state to match income receipts. I had always thought that the Liberal agenda was to reduce (shrink if you like) the central state and restore the balance to devolved governance. More recently the key concepts have been subsidiarity and a balancing of the centres of power.
In this respect I find that adding new bands to the Council Tax/ community charge preferable to a centrally administered mansion tax, however I am not sure what should be the Liberal mechanism for providing more money for poorer communities: central administration will always invite central interference.
Incidentally concerning your last comment, nicotine is recognised as one of the most addictive drugs and as such responsible for reducing the self determination and life choices of many millions. The only limit to using taxation of cigarettes as a source of revenue is the attractiveness of smuggling. The justification is to raise the entry costs of addiction, but since nicotine is so addictive, higher taxes alone do not reduce rates of addiction. Alcohol, however, in terms of addiction, is nowhere near to being in the same league.
Martin – not sure you mean Council Tax / community charge – the latter was, of course, the official name for Poll Tax, which was famously replaced by the Council Tax.
Again, we have only to read their lips: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11324152/Vote-LibDem-for-another-Coalition-Nick-Clegg-says.html
Interesting blog from Andrew Page which includes —
“…..I fail to see why he is appealing to vote Lib Dem in order to effectively ensure a coalition government.
Such a strategy is flawed on a number of levels:
1. People do not vote for coalitions. ….. …”
http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/why-no-one-should-vote-lib-dem-to-get.html
@martin
Earlier you doubted that Clegg et al could of predicted the 2010 result or known he would become leader, when responding to Bill. He certainly wasn’t unaware of those possible outcomes at all (I talked to him about both prior to the leadership contest).
I’m following Clegg’s advice, I’m not going to be voting for the party this year because I don’t want another coalition (and I don’t want to vote for a party that can’t improve itself and address problems). I always thought we were quite effective in opposition, very much agree with Andrew Page’s blog on this. I’d rather not vote than give Clegg any more power, or to empower a party that wants him as their leader. When the party shows it can change I’ll reciprocate with my support, but it’s broken and nobody seems to want to do any fixing…yet… 🙂
@Mathew McCarthy
I’m local to you and know many Lib Dems in your constituency, I understand why you’d distrust other polls, but have you seen internal polling for your area? I’m impressed by your rise in membership (and fantastic 100 Club!) but GE2015 isn’t going to happen for you, funds/troops are more likely to be put into Andrews campaign in Pz because polling says Bornedruth is a write-off. Your optimism is great, but meaningless.
You can work as hard as you like (I was part of the campaign when Julia took the seat), but I think JohnTilley is right, and you’re simply happy to proceed with a busted flush. We’ll see how it works out; I’m sticking my feet up, got the popcorn out and will enjoy the spectacle! Good luck.
To be honest all this talk of another coalition with the Tories is edging me towards labour because I want them out and things like spare room tax/penalty/fine remove. Clegg’s problem is that he alienates most of the voters it will require to rebuild the Lib Dems and thinks that statistical anomalies like a coalition can be replicated through choice. A hung parliament in a FPTP system does not automatically lead to a coalition and certainly not one that guarantees a place at the table for the Lib Dems based on fewer seats. The honest thing to do if that’s what he wants is to form or at least try to form an electoral pact with the Tories rather than endlessly playing one end off against the other.. I want an actual liberal offering actual liberal policies not a balancing act. And the thing is Labour show zero sign of veering to the hard Left and in fact are offering policies very close to the Lib Dems 2010 manifesto which I voted for, whilst the Tories seem to be promising to poke the poor with a bigger stick as they generally try to out UKIP UKIP with policies I frankly loathe.
Martin 4th Jan ’15 – 11:16pm
Martin, my key point is that many alternatives to shrinking the state exist – I am not attempting to suggest that my ideas are the only ones or the best. My point is I simply don’t accept David Laws’ neo-Con economic premise – and also that the sources and levels of tax people may be willing to pay are not fixed by some notional plucked out of the air percentage. Alternatives always exist!
I am a big supporter of true devolved regional government with the powers of the state being taken back and administered locally – but once again another long term Liberal/Liberal Democrat policy has been side stepped by our ‘anchored firmly to the centre’ leadership in not actively calling for this but instead supporting Sheffield and other city based regions. This will lead to ongoing Labour rule in the majority of cities and ongoing Tory rule in the majority of towns, villages and countryside of England. Equidistance in action!!!
Re my option 10 though, where are you going with your arguement? “I find very little that is Liberal in the taxation of addictive drugs” followed by “nicotine is recognised as one of the most addictive drugs and as such responsible for reducing the self determination and life choices of many millions”.
Exactly – yet its taxation is supported by us. This is far from being my favourite option but just what is illiberal about taxing addictive drugs?
I am sorry Mathew McCarthy, that you find my comment particularly galling. Fortunately nobody in your constituency will be the least bit influenced by anything that I say. So if you have it right and I am wrong, you have nothing to worry about. But imagine how you will feel on 8th May if all your hard work and enthusiasm is repaid by less than you hope for in your seat and another seat in Cornwall is lost because you have been fighting a lost cause.
As I say, it does not matter what I write here in LDV but it might just matter what the mass media say. I have just been watching Sky News for half an hour. It is all General Election coverage, virtually nothing else.
I have already lost count of the number of times the phrase “the collapse of the Lib Dems” has been used in 30 minutes.
When coverage like this has been repeated over and over again for each of 122 days, what impact do we think this will have on the average voter?
My calculation is that it will be crucial even in a place where people have been working their socks off as you no doubt have.
I have no wish to demoralise anybody. If you want there to be any Liberal Democrat MPs in Cornwall on 8th May then I would strongly advise you to squeeze all your effort and resources into those seats where we have a realistic chance of winning.
@JohnTilley
…and that is exactly what is going on! Nobody really expects gains, but if the party can retain its 3 Cornish seats that would be a fantastic result. Andrew is 17 years in and a top rebel MP, but there was a big swing against him last time. It’s down to the fringe factors, a Green surge could change outcomes. Gilbert did well in his first term and I can’t see a reason why he should lose the seat (UKIP aside), he’s a candidate people seem to want to vote for more after meeting. I don’t know much about North Cornwall (it’s like another world up there), but it seems likely Rogerson can retain that. All seats will take a lot of work to keep, none can be considered safe and it’s hard to predict UKIP vote share come the day.
The biggest problem is our support for a Cornish Assembly, which was an MK policy. It didn’t work for them and it’s not working for us, we could easily face a complete wipeout down here unless people get pragmatic. As time moves on more rich outsiders move here, they’re generally conservative and don’t care about an assembly, we’ve got little to communicate to them and that creates natural momentum for the Tories/UKIP.