Where’s our voice when the Tories are wrong?
I have always been a worrier. When I was a kid I worried myself to tears over ridiculous things like forgetting my PE kit and eating apples with bruises on them. Now I worry about slightly more weighty matters, like how on earth my party manages to exist as one sixth of a Conservative-dominated coalition government whilst still keeping its own identity and giving its members and supporters a reason to continue to exist.
I think we did the right thing in creating the coalition. If the country needed one thing it was strong government and a clear programme for that government. Over 60% of the voters voted for us or the Tories, and much as it would have pleased my softer sensibilities to have coalished (a great word of my own invention) with Labour because I think most of them are in it for better reasons, they clearly lost the election and I was/am opposed to probably as many of their policies as those of the Tories.
The coalition agreement seemed pretty good too. We got loads in there, way more than our one-sixth representation warranted. Civil Liberties, a commitment to ask the people about electoral reform, lots more local devolution, concessions on inheritance tax and the promise to deliver our income tax threshold reforms. All straight out of the manifesto.
The budget was obviously going to be overwhelmingly Tory and eye-wateringly tough. The Tories got far more votes and seats than anyone at the election, and everyone agreed that toughness was needed before the election, so it’s fine that they had the vast majority of it. Labour’s reaction to it, and especially to us, has been mis-targeted and unconstructive in my view. Whilst they are right to oppose some specific cuts and perhaps their timing and scope, their refusal to accept any blame or offer any alternatives is as silly as the more rabid government members’ desire to pin all the blame on Labour and say that there were no alternatives at all.
But what gets me worried is the lack of a constructive Lib Dem alternative voice. Coming in to the election we had a set of policies which I believe would have worked and which millions supported. I campaigned on them and I still believe them. Yes, things have changed since in Greece and Spain, in the world markets and in the currency exchanges. And yes, we’re in coalition now and will vote for a programme that is rightly 5/6ths Tory and 1/6th Lib Dem. But where have our policies gone? How can our leading lights, who so strongly and rightly campaigned for them and against George Osborne 8 weeks ago, now say nothing, not one thing, as a constructive alternative? Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, Vince Cable etc cannot all have had a complete volte face in two months. I know I haven’t.
If coalition government is the mature way of doing things, then how can that exclude mature and reasoned public debate between the two coalition partners? The coalition agreement is in place and signed, after all. It can’t be right that on the one hand this is an agreement between two different parties, and on the other hand that there is not a hair’s breadth between them now on issues that were bitterly dividing them two months ago. It makes us look silly and gives Labour an open goal which they are consistently hitting.
I’m not saying we should actively call for our policies at the expense of the Conservatives’. There is no democratic mandate for us to do so – we came third in the election and they came first. But there must be a way of voicing an alternative view without rocking us all out of the coalition boat. There must be a way of Lib Dems differentiating themselves from the Tories on things other than the AV referendum.
We should be able to say that we disagree when the Tories propose things which we strongly oppose and have alternatives to. It might be that a particular policy is how 5/6ths of the coalition want to behave. We will vote for it because the country needs strong government which we have made ourselves part of for sensible reasons. But the coalition is made up of one large party and one smaller party, not just one very large party. We as a small party have alternatives which we think are better. They can’t come to pass because not enough people voted for us last time. But next time this is what people will get if they do vote for us.
Surely, if we don’t find a way of saying that, we irsk being seen as the same as the Conservatives, and they the same as us? That’s not the case, and I’m glad that on the AV referendum we will be campaigning on different sides. I think we need to find a way of doing that on other things as well, or else I fear we risk being swallowed up in a horrible Tory mess.
I’m sure such discussions go on in private. I’ve seen them go on at a local level, trying to get just a few Councillors with differing views and big egos to tow a common line. Trying it with hundreds across two parties and with even bigger egos must be incredibly difficult. But I think Nick Clegg is doing too good a job. There has been virtually no dissent at all, which I worry is making us look like poodles. That’s obviously what Labour want people to think.
I know what the worry is about dissent - that it would potentially de-stabalise the coalition and could mark the beginning of its crumbling. But I don’t believe that that has to be true. There is scope for mature debate, there has to be. And there has to be room for dividing lines between parties even in a coalition. Not allowing public dissent risks two things. First, it risks a bottling up of frustrations which will one day burst with damaging consequences. And second, it risks keeping the public under the impression that we are Tories.
We are not Tories, we are Lib Dems, and we need to find a way of saying that.
Rick
Volunteer
Help in election
Report a problem
Join Us
Your views
Register to vote
Postal vote
Email updates
July 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Richard – Lib Dems are not Tories but they are currently and deeply involved in helping the Tories govern in a way that seems at odds with many basic Lib Dem principles – in the interests it seems of ‘strong’ Government. The strategic reason for the alliance from Nick Clegg’s viewpoint, it seems to me, is to demonstatre that a coalition can work. Permanent coalition is basically what the Lib Dems seek, through proportional representation of some sort, as the way we are governed and with the Lib Dems as a permanent part of the Whitehall furniture.
The electorates experience and their view on the outcome of the Con Dem coalition will be critical. Especially in gaining support or otherwise at the referendum on AV. Too early to tell – but I suspect that many natural Labour supporters who might have had some sympathy with the need for PR will be put off by the thought that on present evidence it will be a means by which the centre right maintain power. Whether you like it or not that is the position of the coalition – and not to the left of Labour as some Lib Dem’s liked to think they were positioned. And where they expected to be when they cast their vote for mansion taxes etc etc.
Nick Clegg permanently nodding assent at the side of Cameron and Osborne and his descent from hero of the debates hero to a public school fag, and where is Vince Cable by the way, does not auger well. It seems you recognise this – but where to go ? It will need more I suspect than ‘mature debate’.
July 8th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I don’t think Lib Dems want permanent coalition. We want to be permanently in government, as all political parties do. And we want PR, because it’s fairer. But the two desires aren’t linked, certainly not in my mind, and anyway PR doesn’t guarantee that the Lib Dems would be in government forever. There could easily be a coalition without us or an overall majority for someone else under a more proportional system.
I also hope that the public don’t share your view that AV would automatically mean the centre right maintaining power. Right now there is more support for the right than the left, but I think that’s because we’ve just said goodbye to a left-of-centre government after 13 years, not because of any long term shift. And whilst the centre-right might be where the coalition sits, that’s because 5/6ths of it are much further right than my sixth of it, I suspect.
I do worry about Nick Clegg’s public image. It’s fine to say that people shouldn’t worry about that, and I can understand the democratic argument made for putting up with the coalition. But of course public opinion of politicians matters – the public are the ones who vote. I don’t know what the solution is. It simply can’t be that Nick Clegg, Vince Cable etc suddenly agree with David Cameron and George Osborne on nearly everything. Everyone can see the silliness of it, but the refusal to admit it publicly means that the public might think they’ve been utterly duped. So why can’t they tell the truth and admit that the partnership is working but is based on a great deal of compromise and two parties who agree and disagree on lots? Fear of damaging the coalition, I suspect. But I think it risks damaging the party more.
July 8th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Don’t like being in Coalition with the Tories. Simple solution —- Quit.
You think the LibDems have problems being identified with the Tories ? Those difficulties are nothing compared to the problems you will have if the Party gets permanently tagged with the Labour-lite label.
Your ONLY future is as an ‘honest broker’ with ANY party. Can’t do that without trying to be both Government and Opposition at the SAME time because you just can’t abide a Tory ‘mess’. Then say so and let the public make its own decision as to LibDem capacity to be a ‘serious’ alternative. I don’t think you will like it.
ps —- Anyone who uses the word ‘poodle’ in a political context automatically loses any sympathy from me, and probably many, many, others. Just FYI
July 8th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I don’t believe in PR because I am a Liberal Democrat. I joined the Liberal Democrats (among other things) because the party believed in PR. Continuing to fight for PR, as well as a constructive attitude to the EU and a defence policy not based on an “independent” nuclear deterrent could form a kernel of a distinct party, even when in coalition.
July 9th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
I think you are right to be worried.
We all know that the VAT is a regressive tax and that you were opposed to its rise only a few weeks ago.
And what we’ve seen this week, I think, will cause a pause for thought for many Lib Dems across the country. The botched announcement over cancelling school building projects across the land is something most Lib Dem voters will be appalled at.
Despite what you say about the financial situation, both the coalition parties totally backed labours spending plans until the global crisis hit – indeed only a few years ago it was the lib dems that were campaigning on increasing public spending.
Its now clear that the level of these cuts is of a similar size to the Thatcher cuts in the 80’s and it appears that poorer areas are being hardest hit.
Cuts in Salford twice those in Trafford.
Cuts in Newham 5 times bigger than Richmond.
No cuts for Camerons local council in Oxfordshire
No matter what you say if this continues the Lib Dem brand and image will be destroyed for a generation.
I think the Lib Dem leader in Liverpool was right this week – see todays papers.
….”Warren Bradley, the Lib Dem leader of Liverpool council, described the decision as the “straw that has broken the camel’s back” for many in the party.
Highlighting the party divisions over the Lib Dems’ decision to join the Conservatives in government, Bradley claimed that a number of Lib Dem colleagues on his council are among thousands who are considering quitting the party as a result, and warned that the party faces being wiped out by Labour in the north of England.”….
For those interested in Lib Dem politics, we all know the party is essentially still made up of two separate parties – the old Liberal party and the 1980’s breakaway from Labour – the SDP formed by former Labour MPs who felt the Labour party was too left wing – new Labour but 10 years early..
These factions appear to be at the heart of the tensions – with the old Liberals of Clegg, Laws (not anymore) and Alexander rolling back the role of the state while the SDP type members are appalled at the effects on communities.
With the Lib Dems now down to 15% in national polls, where will it end?
July 9th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
I think that’s quite a selective view of what’s going on, and not entirely right.
I don’t think it’s right to say that “We all know that the VAT rise is regressive” since the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that its regressiveness (or not) depends on how you look at it. Rich people spend more, and it’s a tax on spending. Blanket generalisations about things like that are too simplistic, unfortunately, although of course I can see the argument.
But yes, we did oppose it until a few weeks ago. My problem is not that the Tories want it, but that we don’t say that the reason we’re supporting it is because they outnumber us 5:1. It looks to the world as if we’ve believe it all along.
I also disagree about the school announcement botch up. That’s what it was – a botch up. An administrative error which was awful and for which someone in the Department needs to be sacked probably. But not a problem of policy, and probably as likely under any government as this one. Everyone’s appalled at it, but I don’t think it affects the way the coalition is working. Cast your mind back to lost memory sticks etc under the last government.
You are also wrong to say that both other parties totally backed Labour spending plans. There were huge differences between the three parties. Yes, there was a time some years ago when the LDs wanted higher public spending. But parties change and I think our’s did legitimately over time. Now though we seem to have lost our voice.
The cuts are like the 80s, but that isn’t the point either. Before the election all three parties said that they were going to be that way. Remember, Alistair Darling promised £44bn of (unspecified) cuts. The coalition is cutting by 6% pa as opposed to Labour’s 5%pa plan, and more people voted Tory than Labour.
The polls are interesting but are always very wrong when it comes to the Lib Dems. Until this year they’d always underestimated our support. This time round they overestimated it, and have now perhaps over-rectified that mistake. Plus, as we know, voter percentages come nowhere near reflecting seat percentages. If we got 15% of the seats in parliament we’d end up with almost twice as many as we currently have!
Every party has factions. During the heart of Blair’s Labour reforms there was lots of bluster, but the party survived. Ours will too because there isn’t a socially liberal alternative which is economically either liberal or social democrat. So neither of our “sides” have an alternative place to go. And I don’t think they’d want to, on the whole. I disagree strongly with Warren Bradley there, and I’ve honestly not seen much wavering at all of support amongst members I know. We realise that the party still has its principles and policies, and that in order to get some of them it needs to work with the Tories. Sadly the public haven’t yet seen this and think we are the Tories!
The cuts are hurting, and of course those communities which rely on the government’s help most will feel it most when those services are cut. But opponents of them still haven’t presented an economically viable alternative.
July 9th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Richard
I think you are struggling to argue that VAT is not a regressive tax. Adam Smith said that a tax should be linked to ‘ability to pay’. Contrary to this the amount of VAT on any item bought will be the same for everyone, however much they earn. In my book this means that VAT is regressive. The more people earn the less the proportion of their income they pay in tax. Regressive taxes hit less-well-off people harder than the better-off. David Beckham buys a TV and he will pay 20% tax (soon). Exactly the same as you or I. The fact he might buy three and we make do with one does not make that fair or progressive.
That is why the unspoken liklihood of a VAT rise if the Tories got into power was described as a ‘tax bombshell’ during the election by Nick Clegg.
By the way has the coalition made any progress on tackling tax avoidance yet – another big ticket item in the LibDem ‘pound for pound’ budget put about at election time.
July 9th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Whether VAT is regressive is debateable. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said “looking at the impact of the Budget on households with different income levels overstates how regressive it is in comparison to an analysis based on households with different spending levels, which should give a better guide to their lifetime living standards. The main reason is that the VAT increase looks regressive when viewed against snapshots of income, but progressive when viewed against households’ spending.”
I really, genuinely, don’t think the “tax bombshell” campaign was about the regressiveness or otherwise of VAT. I think it was about people not liking tax rises full stop. I think the regression argument goes above most people’s heads because not a lot of people understand it. I certainly don’t, because it’s nowhere near clear-cut. Even the IFS aren’t sure.
I honestly don’t know about the tax avoidance point. I certainly hope so! If the government hasn’t then I’m sure it’s mainly because it’s only been in power for nine weeks, not because it likes tax avoiders. The situation is almost certainly no worse than under Labour, who had 13 years as opposed to two months.
There were lots of big ticket items in the Lib Dem manifesto. Sadly we came third, so lots of them have to be dropped as we form one sixth of a coalition government with the party which came first. Anything more than a sixth is a bonus, and I think we’re doing OK.
July 16th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Oh, here we go again, when TJ Regs writes
For those interested in Lib Dem politics, we all know the party is essentially still made up of two separate parties – the old Liberal party and the 1980’s breakaway from Labour – the SDP formed by former Labour MPs who felt the Labour party was too left wing – new Labour but 10 years early..
These factions appear to be at the heart of the tensions – with the old Liberals of Clegg, Laws (not anymore) and Alexander rolling back the role of the state while the SDP type members are appalled at the effects on communities.
it is complete rubbish. In fact you will find many of the “Orange Bookers” cam into the Liberal Democrats from the SDP.
I was a member of the Liberal Party at the time of the merger with the SDP, and I ended up voting against the merger. I was involved in some of the merger work, being at that time a member of the National Executive of the Young Liberals, advising our Chair who was one of the negotiators on the Liberal side. I know from that TJ Regs’ claim is COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY WRONG.
The Liberal Party was just NOT an extreme free-market party then, there wasn’t even a significant faction within it which held those views. One of the main reasons some Liberal Party members had for voting against merger actually was that a faction within the SDP under David Owen was starting to move that way. So, if anything, the division was the other way round to what TJ Regs suggests.