As a long-term believer in the need for a more progressive politics, I take no great joy in the spate of polls showing the Liberal Democrats in free fall.
The latest projections from UK Polling Report show that a Lib Dem collapse to 15% in the polls would deliver a Conservative majority of 18 and the balance of power being held by the Tory right rather than the Lib Dem right. The Lib Dem concessions on inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and Europe – for which they should be praised – would go in a flash.
But the Lib Dems have not delivered on Nick Clegg’s promise of a “fairer Britain“. On many of the issues where progressive voices, including Left Foot Forward, had praised the Liberal Democrats – such as immigration, Trident, and nuclear power – the Lib Dems in government have effectively capitulated.
Meanwhile, the about turn on VAT and the timing and size of public spending cuts has been extraordinary. In January, Vince Cable said:
My party takes the view that the government’s eight-year plan, with a four-year halving of the deficit, is a reasonable starting point … The time to start cutting the budget deficit and its speed must be decided by a series of objective tests which include the rate of recovery, the level of unemployment, the availability of credit to businesses and the government’s ability to borrow in international markets on good terms.
With growth forecasts down, unemployment up, credit availability falling, but borrowing robust, he and his Cabinet colleagues are now giving cover for an additional £32 billion of public spending cuts over this Parliament. Worse, the cutting will start this year. Some compromise is necessary in a coalition but sacrificing a well thought through rationale for the pace of deficit reduction is perverse. Little wonder, that only 40% of Liberal Democrat voters approve the coalition’s performance.
There is a temptation here for progressives, particularly those within the Labour party, to look on from the side lines and allow the Liberal Democrats to dig their own grave. But this would be a mistake. Progressives of both parties, and of none, must work together to support the Lib Dems in Government to create a more progressive Britain.
The shopping list of Lib Dem “achievements”, published recently on this blog, was no more than a rehashing of the better bits of the Coalition Agreement. Very little has actually been achieved so far. But for those of us who supported the Liberal Democrats on their approach to climate change, constitutional reform, and civil liberties, there is an incentive to help them.
First, their approach on these issues is – broadly speaking – the right one. Both Lib Dems and Labour agreed in their manifestos on the need for electoral reform, fixed term parliaments, and greater devolution. And since the election, a number of Labour’s leadership candidates have accepted that ID cards and the Heathrow extension were wrong. There will and must be debates on sticky issues like the planned review of constituency size or the distributional impact of green taxes, but that should not prevent wider collaboration.
Second, Labour must show that it can work with the Liberal Democrats on areas of common interest. Whatever the electoral system we are likely to see more hung parliaments, rather than fewer, in the future. Indeed, there has to be a reasonable chance that the 2015 election will make Labour the largest party in another hung parliament. In these circumstances, Labour may have to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats to get its hands back on power. Indeed, if polls are to be believe a Lib-Lab coalition may take place in Scotland next May. Showing that the two parties can work together is therefore essential.
The AV referendum is an interesting test case for this collaboration. Scupper it and the chance of a fairer voting system will be lost for a generation. Support it, and a Labour manifesto commitment will be realised with some good will thrown in.
Both Labour and Lib Dem should admit that the Conservatives are winning the argument across a range of issues at the moment. Within Government, the Lib Dems must show more spine. In opposition, Labour must continue to expose the worst elements of the coalition’s programme including its unfair approach to deficit reduction. But they must also show a willingness to work together where there is common ground.
Will Straw is the editor of Left Foot Forward.
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back to Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Are we programmed to die?
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
An online conspiracy?
Alex Hosking
graham
Daniel Stylianou
Craig Levene
Paul Barker
42 Comments
Fair article. Good one. I think Lib Dems can sign up to this. Now, can you persuade your Labour colleagues to?
Whilst we can debate policy details (and given Labour’s record after 13 years, deciding the Lib Dems haven’t delivered after ten weeks seems more than a little premature), there are certainly a whole range of issues where the parties can work together – and probably will do, if only behind the scenes and away from the big set-piece events like PMQs.
Doubtless those who want to paint the Lib Dems as weak and capitulating will always be able to find examples to fit their case, and those of us who see the Lib Dems as a stronger force, successfully pulling the Coalition government onto more liberal ground will have no trouble finding our examples – such is life.
The real challenge for many in Labour is to get over their gut feeling that the Lib Dems are somehow “betraying” someone or other, or being “treasonous” or even “collaborators” in working with a party that isn’t them. It’s quite extraordinary how there was never a peep from Labour activists when people with all sorts of political leanings were working with Brown and Blair, but as soon as its happening outside Labour it’s the epitomy of evil.
True, the Lib Dems are down to more normal poll ratings (no, it’s not “free-fall” – that would be if we were down to the 2% the party was at in 1989), but we’re doing what we’ve always said we would do: working with other parties to deliver – as far as possible given 23% of the vote and 57 MPs – Lib Dem policies and values in government.
Hi – I think Labours attitude only a few weeks ago – & then in 1997 to us shows no difference to their attitude since 1923 – they want to screw/destroy us at every opportunity.
Please read the Journal of Liberal History Autumn 2005 article ‘Holding the Balance’ (available on-line?).
I agree that a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and Labour ir preferable to one between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, at least in the abstract. I know of plenty of decent people in the Labour Party with whom I and many other Liberal Democrats would be happy to work. The majority in both parties believe in fairness, and virtually all Labourites and most but not quite all Lib Dems are opposed to the privatisation of the NHS. There are, however, some areas of real difficulty. The main ones being US foreign policy and civil liberties. While there are plenty of Labour members and supporters who opposed the Iraq war and are sincere defenders of human rights, it is an uncomfortable fact that the Blair/Mandelson “New” Labour Party was a servile puppet of the US military and economic elites and an enthusiastic agent for the control agenda.
How do we go forward? An end to the cataract of repetitive posts from Labour trolls on this site would help. These are having the effect of strengthening support for the coalition, (presumably) the exact opposite of what their authors intend. From the Labour side, movement on international affairs and human rights would be required. And from the Lib Dem side, the scuppering of Lansley’s NHS “reforms” would undoubtedly be a prerequisite.
The Liberal Democrats are not in free fall. Real elections where real people actually vote indicate that our support is holding up. but that is not guaranteed to last. In my opinion, the point of no return would be persisting with the coalition after the necessary actions to deal with the defecit have been taken. I would be very unhappy to find myself a member of a party proppring up the Tories two years hence.
Sensible article, thank you 🙂
Labour should bide its time before making overtures to the Lib Dems. Iain is right that the Lib Dems usually fall in the polls post-election, but the usual explanation for this is that they get far less attention outside of election time. That certainly isn’t the case now, so a rethink is required.
It’s natural that Cameron should be riding high in the polls. But why no honeymoon for Clegg?
Worse, the polls show that support for AV has also collapsed. And the the no campaign, which will be backed by most of the press, the Tories and many from Labour has yet to begin. And many of us will point out that AV is not PR, that AV is a gerrymander and that we should hold out for better.
When the election comes it may well be because the Lib Dems have done badly in the May elections, lost the AV vote and imploded. That implosion will suck some of the wind out of Tory sails too and Labour will be united behind a new leader.
I think Will should face it – he and his father have little influence over Labour policy and Labour should simply have its own internal dialogue – though Darling has a role in actually setting out Labour’s stall on the cuts that will be required.
Labour lost the election for roughly three reasons – a) Independent voters deserted them due to economic incompetence b) lower-income voters deserted them as they disagree with a system where in David Blunkett’s words `ordinary people are subsidising other ordinary people` not to work or live in Westminster and as a rebellion against the `disability industry` and c) older people with fixed incomes deserted them
Labour has to first apologise for its mistakes before it can start to win these people back. It must then engage with the deficit and the new politics by setting out its own budget response in detail. In fact this could be a masterstroke that could wrongfoot Osborne.
Labour can then post-deficit posit a brutally honest vision of a Social Democratic future stating ALL the `downsides` as well as the upsides. What’s happening now is that Labour are playing the old game of flagging up all the downsides of the coalition without mentioning the downsides of their own programme – all well and good for the long-term `catchy monkey we’ll win an election one day` game – yet it’s not the smartest way to do opposition politics.
The problem many ordinary floating voters see at the moment is that yes they are unhappy about future cuts yet they realise that they may be necessary to stabilise the economy so that hard work is rewarded and that we fully cut out the waste in the public services (by that they mean pen-pushers). They don’t regard the state as the economy (which Labour does) and they think that immigration should be contained and the books should balance. My guess is that they are sanguine about defence cuts and are divided on lfl Trident.
The problem for Labour is that articles such as these sound so arrogant as if Labour have a right to govern and that just makes Lib Dem voters like myself dig their heels in even further.
My feeling is that they won’t trust Labour for a generation to govern in a majority circumstance and that the Labour brand is seriously tarnished.
A bit from one particular Labour perspective.
I think most Lib Dems can probably actually understand how Labour people are feeling at the mo. Labour folks are angry, but most understand that the Lib Dem left feels like it should by toeing a loyal line for now – the instinct is to huddle. We do get this. That’s why Blair was allowed to go on for so long.
Most Lib Dems, especially on the left of the party, understand that Labour people feel pretty bummed that a party they traditionally see as closer to their values than Tory ones has basically joined them in making record breaking (and it has to be said, quite often unnecessary) cuts to jobs and services.
While there is loathing, especially on the Labour side, there is some limited empathy both ways. I have a very close friend who is a Lib Dem councillor, and he is mortified re. the government. I told him the solution is joining us, but in honesty all I can really give is sympathy as that would be electorally difficult in his future career.
On the basic philosophy and policy of this, Labour people don’t get ‘state-scepticism’ full stop, and prefer either a pro-state or, more commonly, state-neutral approach to economics. With some strong justification they believe that the coalition is choosing any path most hostile to any kind of state provision.
It’s also worth understanding the issue of priorities. Many Lib Dems become involved on issues of individual freedom which, while important, affect relatively few people at any given time. Labour is primarily concerned with the economy, even more so after the global financial crisis. It is a resolutely ‘big picture’ party that doesn’t see cutting a quarter of the state part of the social sphere as justified in return for removing ID cards.
I think it is fairer to say that at the moment, Labour is far closer to the traditions of Beveridge and Keynes than social liberals who support the government.
Final point on comment above:
“There are, however, some areas of real difficulty. The main ones being US foreign policy and civil liberties. While there are plenty of Labour members and supporters who opposed the Iraq war and are sincere defenders of human rights, it is an uncomfortable fact that the Blair/Mandelson “New” Labour Party was a servile puppet of the US military and economic elites and an enthusiastic agent for the control agenda.”
Quite. Remember who bankrolled STWC though. Clue. It was those unions you lot are getting ready to bash.
Well, the trots too, but there is a line.
Intersting many are already writing about the death of the Lib Dems – I’m sorry to disappoint our Labour friends – we are not going to go away!
Oops, forgot to add:
Essentially, I hope opposition can sort out Labour’s clear shockers on foreign policy and civil Liberties. Quite clear that New Labour was completely contrary to the traditions of our wider movement on this.
In normal epochs, the commenter above would probably have seen us as a possible home.
I would also like to see us become less centralist…
But that doesn’t mean I share Nick Clegg’s passion for the private firms running public functions. Or not running them at all, as the case may be. Ho hum.
@ Will “On many of the issues where progressive voices, including Left Foot Forward, had praised the Liberal Democrats – such as immigration, Trident, and nuclear power – the Lib Dems in government have effectively capitulated.”
Will, IMO your article falls rather flat, because the Labour party is not a progressive party in respect of (m)any of the issues you highlight (for example, the ones above), and so you’re effectively just complaining that the Tories are in power at all. Sadly, the British public voted for a mainly Tory Government, and that requires some level of compromise over policy positions.
You say: “Very little has actually been achieved so far”.
I’m concerned that you think that taking the very lowest paid out of tax, restoring the pensions-earnings link; targetting child tax credits more effectively; increasing CGT; placing a levy on the banks; closing the children’s wing of the faciltiy at Yarl’s Wood (and stopping the detention of children); kicking into the long grass the serious threat to the HRA; providing cover for a Tory Justice Secretary to admit that short-term prison sentences don’t work; the introduction of a bill on electoral reform etc – would have all happened if we’d had a majority – or even minority – Conservative Govt.
Anyway, enough cheerleading. I’m not going to pretend I’m happy about the Coalition. I’m not. I wanted, campaigned and voted for a majority Lib Dem Govt. However, I am aware that what we’ve got is better than what we had, and what we would have had if Cameron had won outright. That doesn’t mean I don’t want the Lib Dems in Government to fight harder, to shout louder. I do.
I agree that the Lib Dems must work with progressives in Parliament. I agree that Labour should realise that a collapse in the Lib Dem electoral fortunes would see a majority for Cameron. I’m just not sure there are very many in the Labour Parliamentary party, nor that the Labour party are able to put political interest in attempting to re-create the two party system ahead of anything else.
So Will given that the Labour leadership is being held under AV – I take it all Labour people will be supporting the referendum. Because for me that’s the clincher. If you want the deal show willing. If there is any significant dissent for party political reasons that’s me then digging my heels in further.
Also, I doubt if the majority of the public think that the cuts that are on offer are that bad – they might disagree with the direction of the NHS and education (I wonder how many of these things will come to pass?) – what they agree with though is that the Economy needs to be in equilibrium – interest rates higher than inflation, a healthy private sector promoting exports and the domestic economy and funding a public sector that is both effective and coherent.
The problem for Labour is that it still isn’t thinking the unthinkable or challenging its own questions. Until it does that and gets away from this `Labour are always good or should be given the benefit of the doubt` perspective the people that might vote for them won’t. The Secretaries, shopworkers, hairdressers, office clerks and ditch diggers etc are those that they need to attract back. These people are no longer interested in hearing cloud cuckoo land `money tree` economics, they probably don’t care if some civil servants and quangos go to the wall and are happy with benefit reform. They didn’t think Labour were on their side at the end with their low savings rates, recession and benefits system that penalised self-reliance. Until Labour and the Lib Dems fully understand that Labour are going nowhere.
@ Tom Miller “and he is mortified re. the government. I told him the solution is joining us,”
A party that promotes a system of electoral reform that would make coalitions more likely has got to accept that it may sometimes mean coalition with people who are far from our ideal partners. If the Lib Dems could/would only ever be in coalition with Labour we might as well give up and join you.
I strongly agree with the sentiment.
But can you really imagine Labour politicians campaigning with the libdems for a “yes” in the AV referendum? There is so much anti-libdem vitriol in the left wing press and from the Labour front bench, it’s hard to imagine them working together.
It’s a great shame.
Here are the results of two elections (where real people actually voted) that took place yesterday. Someone tell me where the “free fall” is?
Cherwell DC, Kidlington North
Thursday 22 July 2010 12:00
LD Alaric Rose 526 (42.2%;-11.4)
Con 419 (33.6%;-12.8)
Lab 216 (17.3%;+17.3)
UKIP 86 (6.9%;+6.9)
Majority 107
Turnout 29.6%
Lib Dem hold
Percentage change is since May 2010
Basildon DC, Nethermayne
Thursday 22 July 2010 12:00
LD Philip Jenkins 605 (33.5%;-2.9)
Lab 461 (25.5%;+1.9)
Con 372 (20.6%;-10.6)
UKIP 280 (15.5%;+15.5)
BNP 70 (3.9%;-4.9%)
Ind 18 (1.0%;+1.0)
Majority 144
Turnout 20.4%
Lib Dem hold
Percentage change is since May 2010
In respect of Trident, given that the Labour and Tory positions before the election were virtually identical, I fail to see how a ‘progressive coalition’ of Labour and the Lib Dems would make any difference whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument may be.
Also as others have said, give them a chance, it’s only been 10 weeks.
As an unaffiliated left-leaning voter, I haven’t found the post-election sniping between Labour and Lib Dem activists to be particularly edifying. I think that allowing Will Straw to post here, and trying to have some sort of civilised dialogue, can only be a good thing.
I want to comment on Iain Roberts’ discussion of the “betrayal” point. Obviously there’s no serious argument that the Lib Dems “betrayed” Labour, because opposing parties don’t owe each other anything. However, I think it is a grave mistake to discount the extent to which an alarming percentage of people who voted for the Lib Dems do feel betrayed. Specifically, I believe there were many voters who were fed up with Brown, Iraq, ID cards, erosion of civil liberties, etc., but also disagreed strongly with the Tories’ plans to threaten a fragile economic recovery by cutting too much, too fast, and consequently decided to support the Lib Dems, who campaigned vigorously against the Tories’ economic plans.
I am sympathetic to the argument that the electoral mathematics left the Lib Dems with “no choice” but to form a coalition with the Tories. However, by entering a coalition agreement that endorses lock, stock and barrel the Tories’ agenda of cutting too much, too fast, I believe the Lib Dems did “betray” a significant percentage of their voters, and committed an enormous strategic blunder (not to mention the risk of that agenda’s plunging the UK back into severe recession). Given Cameron’s obvious eagerness to secure a coalition deal, there is no doubt that the Lib Dems could have obtained significant concessions on the cuts agenda. The failure to secure such concessions was, in my view, a betrayal of the Lib Dem party as a whole by its “orange tory” contingent (e.g., Clegg and especially David Laws), whose economic views turn out to be much closer to George Osborne’s than they ever were to Vince Cable’s.
I am not among those who want to see the Lib Dem party consigned to the dust bin of history, but I fear for the party’s survival if it does not find a way to regain the trust of those who thought they were voting for a centre-left party and got one substantially to the right of centre instead.
@Elizabeth – (However, I think it is a grave mistake to discount the extent to which an alarming percentage of people who voted for the Lib Dems do feel betrayed. Specifically, I believe there were many voters who were fed up with Brown, Iraq, ID cards, erosion of civil liberties, etc., but also disagreed strongly with the Tories’ plans to threaten a fragile economic recovery by cutting too much, too fast, and consequently decided to support the Lib Dems, who campaigned vigorously against the Tories’ economic plans.)
I disagree with this analysis – the Lib Dems should do what they think is right and not constantly be looking over their shoulder. Again it is up to Labour to state where its 44bn of cuts would have been (not to mention the 20% cut in state funding) before we can set benchmarks and give analysis in five years time. That’s if Labour is serious about mature opposition. Labour must also say how much the extra borrowing costs would be by not doing these things faster.
When it comes down to it we come to the core fact – the majority of the British public want some sort of fiscal conservatism in a socially modern society – the party or parties that persuade them that their way is the most economically able to bring about a prosperous balanced economy that both rewards hard work and looks after those that can’t and the educational/health needs of their families will be the party or parties to reap the electoral harvest.
In short, they want fiscal prudence that works for ordinary people with the surpluses invested in enabling public services, supporting those that genuinely can’t and raising tax thresholds. They sense that both parties of the coalition are working towards that aim – they are clueless what Labour is for except to spend more money or tell them how evil the other lot are.
@Iain Dale “The real challenge for many in Labour is to get over their gut feeling that the Lib Dems are somehow “betraying” someone or other, or being “treasonous” or even “collaborators”
You don’t really get this politics thing. That is not Labours problem or challenge, that is the Lib-Dems problem and challenge.
A welcome olive branch from Will – would Jack have done the same?
I would also be grateful for some slightly more productive debate on the “left” (though I view all our major parties as centrists with sporadic delusions of “left-/right-ness”). It’s about time we dropped the defensiveness and allowed some more criticism from the opposition, but beating off Labour trolls (oo-er) has landed many of us with a bunker-mentality.
I think Grammar Police and Sesenco make some good points: picking Trident, immigration and nuclear power as the worst-offending capitulations is a little strange, given that Labour’s policies were much closer to the Conservatives on all those issues. Also, the Lib Dems *have* negotiated on all those points: the immigration cap looks like being relaxed for very high skilled workers and academics; there are questions being asked about downsizing the nuclear deterrent and new nuclear power stations will have no government subsidy (last I checked anyway).
Also, your economic data is a bit out of date: growth far outstripped predictions in the second quarter this year and unemployment is falling again since the election. Of course they may both be blips, we will see …
It would be nice if we could get a sort of unofficial forum for rapprochement between Labour and the Lib Dems. Maybe a truce in a pub somewhere with promises not to thrust membership forms at each other?
By far the biggest failure of the orange team in my opinion is letting the Health Bill and Free Schools Bill proceed unchallenged. I’m happy with a few of the points but think they both need some severe neutering from government and opposition benches before being enacted.
Oops: apologies for missing closing tag.
“Someone tell me where the “free fall” is?”
Well, in the first of your two examples, the Lib Dem share of the vote is more than 11 points down compared with two months ago!
“Well, in the first of your two examples, the Lib Dem share of the vote is more than 11 points down compared with two months ago!”
You obviously haven’t spotted that two months ago there was no Labour candidate in this formerly Labour ward. The 11.4% drop is substantially less than the 17.3% that Labour scored. The Conservatives lost 12.8%. Is that free fall too? And I would add that 42.2% is rather higher than the opinion poll figures gleefully being quoted by our enemies.
@John, the concern I was addressing involved the relationship between the Lib Dem party and people who voted for the Lib Dems. What Labour would or would not have done has little, if anything, to do with that. Lib Dem voters who feel betrayed by the Lib Dems won’t necessarily keep voting Lib Dem because Labour could be even worse — they might just stay home. And that just means even fewer seats for the Lib Dems than the disappointing number achieved this time, regardless of what anyone thinks about Labour. If someone is telling you “I voted for the Lib Dems based on their manifesto and I feel betrayed,” for you to answer “but here’s why you shouldn’t vote for Labour!!!!” is simply not responsive.
You seem to be saying that it’s fine for the Lib Dems to to “what they think is right” without regard to whether what they now “think is right” is the exact opposite of what they campaigned on (which is the case as to the timing and depth of cuts). That approach strikes me as likely to breed even more voter cynicism than we have already, especially since the Lib Dems explicitly claimed to offer voters a “new politics” and promised to be different from those stereotypical untrustworthy old Labour and Tory politicians who would say one thing and then do another.
If your proposed campaign pitch is “vote for us based on our manifesto, which we’ll then feel free to ignore and do whatever we please, just like we did this time,” then I fail to see how that can be anything other than electoral suicide for the Lib Dems.
Finally, I don’t see how your opinion that “ordinary people” are pleased with the efforts of “both parties of the coalition” to date can be reconciled with the fact that the Lib Dems are now polling at 13-15 percent. Unless you just think all of the polling is wrong, it seems clear that, no matter what the voting public thinks of Labour, they’re far from being enthused about the Lib Dems just now. And if you believe the polling, but think it won’t last, then it seems to me that you’re taking for granted that the coalition will last long enough, be successful enough, and yield enough electoral benefits to both of its parties to prevent a wipeout of the Lib Dems at the next election. Those things may be possible, but you take them for granted at your peril.
Will,
I agree, it’s essential that Labour and Lib Dems show willingness to work together.
I suspect the relations aren’t as bad as they seem. I think many Labour members, like yourself, understand why the Lib Dems formed the coalition, and appreciate what we have achieved with the limited hand the electorate dealt us.
Unfortunately, unlike you, most of these people are keeping quiet, and all we hear are the angry tribalists, whose sneering attacks, as Sesenco says, have exactly the opposite effect to what they claim to want.
The same is often true of the tactics of the Labour leadership. The inevitable response to much of their rhetoric is: you left us in this mess, and now you’re pretending the deficit can be ignored. While this response is fair, it’s too easy. It’s extremely bad for political debate that the coalition is not being forced to defend the details of its policies.
So I’ve particular respect for those in Labour who believe you need to present a coherent alternative to deficit reduction.
This would present a much more dangerous political challenge to the coalition and the Lib Dems. But it would also force the coalition to justify its policies, and would strengthen the hand of those in the coalition who want more progressive policies.
However, I don’t agree with everything you say. I don’t believe for a minute that, in the face of an imminent election, Alistair Darling’s deficit reduction plan was any more than the minimum he thought he could get away with. Post-election, and faced with the looming crisis in southern Europe, the plan would have become significantly tougher, and, I believe, implemented sooner.
I’m not complaining. Frankly, none of the parties were sufficiently frank about the deficit in their manifestos. But like Vince, I don’t accept the Darling plan as anything more than a reasonable starting point. In fact, last year, Vince indicated cuts of pretty much the magnitude we are facing now.
Regarding VAT. I know it’s a hugely controversial issue. And perhaps Labour members have to attack it, in order to protect their position within their own party. But when there’s so much evidence that Darling had planned, and was planning, VAT rises, I don’t take the criticism on that issue too seriously.
But, leaving aside those qualifications, thank you for an excellent article.
One of the things I have welcomed about the coalition, is that it has forced all of us, myself included, to reassess our prejudices of individual Tory politicians. But a serious downside is that it has fuelled prejudice and tribalism between the Lib Dems and Labour.
I hope articles like yours can start the process of correcting that. And, as you say, that the AV campaign provides an opportunity for rebuilding some mutual respect.
Thanks for the comments and an interesting debate. A few specific replies:
Grammar Police – I’m not a spokesman for the Labour party and picked Trident, immigration & nuclear power because they are three issues that matter to me and LFF readers and where the Lib Dems appeared to be the only mainstream party with a progressive position. That they were dropped so quickly upon entering the coalition suggests that they were in fact “posturing positions”, as some in Labour claimed, rather than deeply held views.
John – I suspect there will be a very real fight in the Labour party over whether or not to support an AV referendum (see for example Tom Harris’ hilarious and slightly scary fisk of my article). But, as per an article on LFF earlier today, Clegg & co have done themselves no favours by conflating the AV referendum with a boundary process – now known as “reduce and equalise” – that is both undemocratic and partisan. For the AV vote to pass, it will need Labour support. To get Labour support, the Lib Dems would do well to lobby Clegg to amend the legislation to decouple the boundary reforms or insist on a slower process that includes full registration.
Ed – Fair point on the economic date (this piece was drafted yesterday). But one initial estimate of GDP growth does not mean that the recovery is secured. Far from it and I think waiting for a second and third quarter of robust growth would be necessary before starting to raise taxes and cut spending. After all, growth is the most effective way to reduce the deficit.
Tom – Great to have your perspective on here too. The animosity between both parties surprises me particularly when so many activists (and I suspect voters) on both sides share common ground.
@Greenfield: http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=24&item=journal
I have to admit I feel crushed by electoral system. I went to the Birmingham special conference to vote against the coalition, but at the same time hoping (and expecting) I would lose.
The reason being how we should handle the economy. By the time of the next general election we will know who is right; the deficit hawks or the Keynesians, I suspect the latter.
Economic strife does not guarantee that Labour will win the next general election. The European elections last year were bad for the left despite the failures of neo-liberal ideology.
However a left liberal coalition with the Social Liberal Forum and Compass ideally in the driving seat would be worth aiming for. Civil liberties, constitution reform, the Green agenda, an ethical foreign policy, a positive agenda on multiculturalism, the arts equality of outcomes as well as opportunities are all worth going for.
As things stands it looks a long way off I fear.
Senseco- here are results from last week that you- oops- forgot to add to your list as current:
15th July
Preston CC Riversway ward
Majority 502. Turnout 29.3%. Lab gain from Lib Dem
Bradfield PC, Oughtibridge
Majority 146. Turnout 16.3%. Con gain from Lib Dem.
Bradfield PC, Worrall
Majority 100. Turnout 15.8%. Ind gain from Lib Dem
Knaresborough TC, King James
Majority 488. Turnout 30.32%. Con gain from Lib Dem.
In the past I would be happy to work with Lib Dems to further the development of progressive centre left policies. The problem now is that Cameron is not progressive. Polices from free schools to health via a dismanling of the welfare state are the opposite of what the centre left believe in. Delaying inheritance tax changes and a slight increase in capital gains are no way balancing out the other conservative polices. The Lib dems have to decide what thay are in politics for. Do they exisit to just be in power or a real positive force for change. Clegg’s non stop attacks on Labour and close support for cameron has made him an Labour enemy. Centre left governance will not be resumed until he and Cameron are removed. So its up to the Lib Dems to ether nuckledown and support the Tories or make Clegg change direction and to be honest like Gordon Brown he may need to go. This is not only to make any deals with Labour possible but to save your party from destruction at the next election. Cameron is playing a two faced game he is happy for the Clegg to provde cover for his polices while Andy Coulson works with the Tory media to attack Clegg and the Lib Dems at every oppurtunity. The Conservative strategy is to use the Lib Dems as cover while undermining them ( it is already working look at the polls Tories 44 Lib Dems 13 Labour stuck at 35). So the ball is in your court you need to deal with the Tories before any deals can be made with Labour.
Your article was very thought provoking and makes a change from the polemics on some other sites. We can all be partisan about our politics, indeed we should be, but being partisan doesn’t mean you have to fail to recognise realties. As a Labour supporter who has long supported electoral reform I would like to see my party offer a truly radical proposal. A majority within my party would not welcome proportional representation but AV is a ‘miserable compromise’, in fact I do agree with Nick. The wings of both main parties will kill the referendum, AV will be portrayed as a ‘second choice’ compromise and we will have lost an opportunity for a political generation.
I have found it hard to stomach the constant ‘tacking to the right’ of the policy agenda and have not seen such ‘ambidextorous’ political posturing in my life time but that is no reason not to look at the longer picture.
What do I want to see – If i’m honest, I would like to see the Tory right get their way and go it alone without the fig leaf of the Lib Dems. I would like to see a General Election within the next 18 months because the mandate being referred to at the moment is on extermely shaky ground. Will that Happen? Probably not – by-election results referred to in more recent posts show an alarming trends if you are a lIb Dem at local level. Holds are all well and good but 10%+ swings (average) do not bode well for May 2011 when the coalition cuts have been implemented. Public opinion is built on rhetoric at the moment but in May 2011 and more worryingly for the Liberals Dems in 2012. Since the cuts agenda will propel an agenda to weaken local democracy which is the base of the party, I fear that it will be the junior partners that pay the electoral price. Indeed the polls show that its the Tories that are taking the gravy and its the Lib Dems that are feeling the pain.
My humble opinion, if worth anything, is we should stop talking about centre left/right and start to think about ideas – I want to see a Britain that values personal freedom, equality of opportunity, a state that helps people move through their lives by equipping them and supporting them through the challenges of the new economy and yes, I do believe the state is required to do that. The market unregulated is not good for society, it does not produce equality of opportunity and it does not contribute enough to the ‘common good’. I’m not a shareholder in the banks, i’m a shareholder in my country and by logical extension, the world so I want those banks to mirror my long term aspirations of less short term gain and more long term investments. I want to see a business, in its most difficult years, supported and I don’t want to see one business flourish at the expense of a myriad of others. Ramblings over and I beg your indulgence. One final point. Nick Clegg can redeem himself on the Forgemasters issue which is the coalitions Bernie Ecclestone moment. He can urge the Conservative party to pay the donations back to the odious little man, Mr Cook, a real modern day ‘mill-owner’ with the same mentality. Now that would be unique instead of hiding behind the affordability line which will do local Lib Dems in Sheffield much harm. A £80m loan to be repaid to the tune of £110m is good business by the government and allows Forgemasters to stay out of the clutches of Mr Cook. The failure to be able to raise the monies in the market place is a damning indictment on the financial sector. Bad politics and bad for society in general and is a real stain on integrity.
For as long as I can remember the party which formed the national government tended to do badly in local government elections.
The price of national power is local losses.
Is scrapping Labour’s Yarls Wood child detention centre and ID cards worth the loss of councillors. Very cruel for the councillors concerned but the answer must be yes.
@ Will Straw – obviously you’re not a spokesperson for Labour, but you are relatively critical of the Lib Dem position and arguing that we should work with Labour on progressive issues. My point was there is no working with Labour on a number of progressive issues (like Trident, immigration & nuclear power) as they are not a progressive party (sorry). I think there’s certainly further for Labour to move before it is possible for us to work with them on anything. Are you having similar arguments within the Labour party, and do any such articles take a similar tone?
As for whether Trident, immigration and nuclear power were “posturing positions” – well, you could say that about any compromise that any party makes in any coalition: but coalition makes compromise on policy necessary. The coalition agreement provides there will be no public subsidy for nuclear power, which effectively stops it in its tracks. The immigration cap is hugely disappointing, but at least there is some flexibility being worked into the system, which the Tories wouldn’t have bothered with. On LFF Marcus Roberts said: “The commitment to scrutinise Trident renewal to “ensure value for money” and the absence of language on continuous at-sea patrols could well be an early indication of a willingness to reduce the number of new Trident-bearing submarines from four to three. The wording also omits the word “independent” which, given defence secretary Liam Fox’s warm words of praise for Anglo-French defence efforts in opposition could also see moves towards a join at-sea Anglo-French nuclear deterrent in the long term. On the Liberal Democrats’ intention to “continue to make the case for alternatives”, it will be interesting to see the extent to which government collective responsibility on the Trident renewal issue is maintained . . . ” IMO you play down other Lib Dem achievements because you don’t want to see the Tories in Government – you would expect the Lib Dem leadership to play up our achievements, and the reality is somewhere in the middle.
Also, “posturing positions” imply some level of popularity amongst the general public. Our Immigration and Trident policies were certainly not popular, and most people don’t think too much about nuclear power.
@ Rob Sheffield – Preston Riversway, is not really a surprising Labour gain. There were two seats up for election in May, the first was won by Labour with a large-ish majority. The Lib Dems won the second by a handful of votes, because the second Labour candidate was prevented (due to administrative cock-up) from having the Labour ballot paper description and logo. The Lib Dem councillor resigned after a couple of weeks.
Quoting two parish council and a town council election is not exactly indicative either. Since the GE the Lib Dems have performed well in principal authority by-elections, and have seen a net gain of seats.
@ Charles Alex
I think you are wrong on the overall swings in by-elections, I don’t think they are showing massive Lib Dem losses, and not to the Labour party either. Since the GE we’ve seen 3 losses to Labour and 2 gains from them. We’ve seen a number of gains from the Conservatives too. Not bad for a party apparently on around 15% in the polls (well, after you make adjustments, like YouGov are doing, because they got the Lib Dem result at the GE so wrong).
I agree with you Charles, with one qualification – “I want to see a Britain that values personal freedom, equality of opportunity, a state that helps people move through their lives by equipping them and supporting them through the challenges of the new economy . . . . ”
But I don’t think this is what the current Labour party is offering (or did offer). And so I hope you are calling for equally big changes in strategy and position from the Labour party? Perhaps posting on LabourHome or Left Foot Forward (same with you, Will).
I *suspect* most Labour supporters calling for this kind of thing aren’t willing to see that Labour also needs to change dramatically too (afterall, why did you lose the election?). Until they do, I’m afraid, I don’t have much truck with their criticism of the Lib Dems going into coalition with the Tories and apparently how terrible this is for progressive politics.
“Since the GE the Lib Dems have performed well in principal authority by-elections, and have seen a net gain of seats.”
h ttp://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/byelections/
Ahem: Principal Authority results summary for 2010 up to 22 Jul are:
Tories net minus 6;
Labour net plus 15;
Lib DEms net plus TWO !!
That is all of 2010- you have performed worse since the coalition and the loss of a third of your vote.
I enjoyed your attempt at “not really a surprising Labour gain” along with asserting that Town Council /Parish Council contests ‘don’t matter’/ ‘aren’t relevant’…..
That from the supposed party of “localism” 🙂 🙂
@Charles Alex
It’s really good to read another contribution from a thoughtful and honest Labour supporter. I hope more like you come to pay LibDemVoice a visit.
“I’m a shareholder in my country and by logical extension, the world.”
“I would like to see the Tory right get their way and go it alone without the fig leaf of the Lib Dems. I would like to see a General Election within the next 18 months”
Like you, I’m both an internationalist and a patriot. But I fear that if the coalition broke down, the vultures of the international bond markets would start to circle. And what’s bad for the UK does harm to our trading partners. The reason, above all, why I’m pro-coalition, is that I think it is essential that the UK has some political stability to take the very tough decisions that Labour would have taken if they’d won a majority.
I don’t like all the decisions being made, but the alterative is far worse. A government implementing policies to win an election in a few months with little thought for beyond, like we had after the first 1974 election.
“My humble opinion, if worth anything, is we should stop talking about centre left/right and start to think about ideas”
I very much agree with you here. Left and right are often political slogans. Is a tax cut right wing, if it helps incentivize someone who is languishing on benefits? What about a regulation that only brings marginal benefit, but raises the cost of local government and so the rate of the regressive council tax?
We need to think about ideas on their merits, irrespective of who first proposed them. Then we should think hard about whether they help the poor.
The poor are the people who can’t stand up for themselves, and it’s our job to do that. In that, I share the sentiments of many in Labour. But we don’t do that best with polarised political thinking.
“An £80m loan to be repaid to the tune of £110m is good business by the government and allows Forgemasters to stay out of the clutches of Mr Cook”
I can see what you mean, but I back the government here. If we are to have any chance of sorting out our finances, the government needs to limit its borrowing only to what is absolutely essential. If it allows political pressure to make it give way, then the stream of special cases will never end.
From what I have read, Forgemasters feel they are too small to keep their independence if they take out £80m in commercial finance, whether by loan or with an equity deal. Considering their history, I’d feel the same. But I’m afraid that means they need to step back from the project, and continue with their other very successful work.
“I don’t want to see one business flourish at the expense of a myriad of others.”
I completely agree. It is another reason why, I’m afraid, the decision on Forgemasters was probably the right one.
@Steve Brundish “Clegg’s non-stop attacks on Labour and close support for Cameron has made him an Labour enemy.”
But, be fair, Labour has launched non-stop attacks on the Liberal Democrats – at times almost ignoring the Tories.
@ Rob Sheffield
I didn’t say the Parish Council/Town Council elections were “irrelevant” I said that 2 losses on a parish council and one on a town council were hardly indicitive of a collapse in vote.
As for “http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/byelections/
Ahem: Principal Authority results summary for 2010 up to 22 Jul are”
Clue is in the “2010 up to 22 Jul”. Please look which of those results are after the GE – and which before.
Also, that site doesn’t include the 2 gains from Labour in Haverstock ward in Camden, which were delayed from the day of the GE because a candidate died – they’re technically not by-elections. However, “on the night” of the election, Labour did really well, and won many of the Camden seats. 3 weeks later they did not.
In Riversway in the election for two seats: one Labour candidate got a large majority. The other Labour candidate had no ballot paper description or Labour logo (indeed they weren’t allowed a description at all). The second Labour candidate lost by a handful of votes, to a Lib Dem candidate who gained nowhere near as many votes as the winning Labour candidate. So, no, I don’t find the result of the by-election at all surprising. If the second Labour candidate had been able to run as “Labour” in the first place they would have won! Hardly an amazing gain . . . still, if you’re grasping at straws, you’re welcome to it.
I know some people only see what they want to, but the facts just don’t back up the claims you’re making.
“Clue is in the “2010 up to 22 Jul”. Please look which of those results are after the GE – and which before.”
In your desperation to downgrade the Preston CC result (LD’s down 4.4) you declined to comment on the Walsall MBC gain (LDs down 6.5) and the Leicester CC gain (LD’s down 10.8). ‘Straws’ and ‘clutching’ is vastly more appropriate to your post.
Oh and the summary table for “up to and including 22nd July” is….
Tories net minus 6;
Labour net plus 15;
Lib Dems net plus TWO !!
No one will doubt the LD performance is down either in opinion polls or by totting up the +/- of each individual LA seat (where they stood). But I guess you are one of those people who have gone out especially to buy the People today because they have the LD’s on 23% in their ‘OnePoll’ survey. As UKPR put it:
“There is also a OnePoll survey in the People with topline figures CON 40%, LAB 30%, LDEM 23%. Regular readers may recall I gave these no credence to their polling during the election campaign, given did not publish the necessary information to judge whether their sampling and methodology were likely to produce representative findings. In the event their final poll bore virtually no resemblence to the election result, with shares of CON 30% (out by 7), LAB 21% (out by 9) and LDEM 32% (out by 9) – in the same way as I do not know how they conducted polling prior to the election, I have no idea if they have changed their methods since then.”
“YouGov have topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 36%, LDEM 14% – which is still very much within the margin of error of the CON 42%, LAB 35%, LDEM 15% figures that YouGov have been floating around for the last few weeks.”
Very amusing – presumably if the Lib Dems had gone into coalition with Labour the price would have included
immigration, Trident, and nuclear power, where Blue Labour and the Heir to Blair Conseravtives are pretty much identical.
In fact, lets just put them to a free vote in the House of Commons. I don’t know if Will has noticed but to get things on the statute book, you need a majority in both house of parliament.
How many Labour MPs voted in favour of STV when given the chance in the last Parliament ? Zero ? One ?
Given 13 years Labour failed to deliver on theiir promise of a fairer Britain, (and all the rest from voting reform to an ethical foreign policy) but obviously the Lib Dems given 13 weeks and fewer MPs than they had in the last parliament should ahve had it sorted. How remiss of them.
The Labour Party view on AV shows just how “progressive” they are – like Will Straw, they happily ignore the distortions of FPTP but complain that having equal sized constituencies is “gerrymandering”
@ Rob Sheffield
If you *genuinely* don’t understand why the ‘gain’ of Preston Riversway is not some amazing Labour success, then you’ve got fairly serious problems as a psephologist. Indeed, I’ll suggest that from now on all Labour candidates run without a Labour logo or ballot paper description.
I’m not sure why you can’t understand pre/post General Election by-election results, but it’s clear that your assertion in relation to local authority by-elections that “you have performed worse since the Coalition” is simply not the case. Indeed, the performance has actually been better.
I’d take it even further. All politicians should show willing to work together on occasion.