Reflections on the general election
This is what I wrote on Facebook yesterday afternoon:
"Gutted about the result but congratulations to the Tories for an extraordinary victory. Did not see that coming at all. An absolute bloodbath in political terms for the opposition. A country divided unlike ever before. A broken electoral system. And an impending escalation to the austerity ( Read more... )
"Gutted about the result but congratulations to the Tories for an extraordinary victory. Did not see that coming at all. An absolute bloodbath in political terms for the opposition. A country divided unlike ever before. A broken electoral system. And an impending escalation to the austerity ( Read more... )
You can certainly make the case that going into coalition moderated the Tories' worst excesses (as we're about to see) but there was too much timidity for too long: not standing up against the Health and Social Care Act will not easily be forgotten or forgiven. This meant that too many voters who thought the coalition did a good job also thought that the Tories alone would do, too. It also meant that left-of-centre voters saw the Lib Dems as Orange Tories and despised them.
As for the future of the Lib Dems as a party... good question. It's got even more soul-searching to do than Labour. One thing seems clear: they cannot even consider going into partnership with the Tories again. Anyone proposing it will be told, "Yeah, and look what it did to us!" The future surely has to be as a progressive party of the centre-left, something more like the party Charles Kennedy headed than the one Nick Clegg did. Finally, the Lib Dems need to realise how shrunken they are: it's not a case of choosing between them and Labour for now; it's a case of choosing between them and the Greens.
It's going to be a long road back. I hope they make it.
Reply
Completely agree with your first paragraph. A lot rests on the shoulders of David Davis (as I think you mentioned in one of your entries/comments in your journal) and Ken Clarke to speak up for civil liberties on the Tory side of the Commons. I had to actually check if Clarke was still an MP because I had just assumed he had (been) moved out of government, not stood again and was due to be made a peer in this Parliament. I'm glad he's still an MP. Forty-five years and going strong. I guess that makes nine of us in the House! ;-)
On the HRA, it is worth noting that following the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU has acceded to the ECHR, thereby binding its laws on all EU member states. If the UK remains a member of the EU, it will remain subject to the Convention. I fail to see how a British Bill of Rights would be materially different to the existing Act. It seems to me that the Tories merely want to modify a couple/few procedural elements. But they're going through this charade of scrapping an entire Act and replacing it with something that sounds more "British", just to pander to a segment of the population. The only ways I can see this process having a pronounced effect is if either Cameron negotiates a new settlement with opt-outs or we vote to leave the EU.
As for the Lib Dems in government. I take your points about tempering the Tories' worst excesses and being timid on other major things like the NHS (and secret courts). Not to mention the volte-face on tuition fees and swingeing cuts. I think the Lib Dems lost a substantial percentage of voters (exactly how many I don't know, but perhaps up to 10% at worst) simply because they a) became a party of government and b) with the Tories (of all people). Many voters could not stomach either or both scenarios. I certainly wasn't one of them but I accept that was unpalatable for some voters. That being the case, it didn't really matter what the Lib Dems did in government, some voters had been lost outright and every election since 2011 has borne this out. In a way, I'm not too upset about losing these left-of-centre voters who saw the Lib Dems as Orange Tories. What worries me more are the soft Lib Dems who have gravitated (back) to the Tories.
To pick up from your third paragraph, I disagree with you slightly. Yes I do think the Lib Dems should be a progressive party, but I don't think its future lies on the centre-left. It needs to be firmly rooted to the centre. I don't think it's healthy for the party to never consider going into partnership with the Tories again. I want a party that responds to the electoral arithmetic regardless of who tops the poll. I know this will be unpalatable to hundreds of left and centre-left activists.
I also think the Lib Dems need to highlight their civil liberty credentials a lot more. It was conspicuously absent in the recent campaign and though I understand why, it is ultimately their main distinction between the Tories and Labour. That is something they share in common with the Green Party.
I don't think the Lib Dems will ever be able to garner 20%+ of the vote again, but under the vagaries of FPTP, even a 2-3% increase in subsequent elections could result in a dozen extra seats.
But like you said, it is going to be a very long road back. They certainly have a lot more soul-searching to do than Labour.
Reply
If the UK remains a member of the EU, it will remain subject to the Convention.
Indeed -- but that in itself will be fuel for the fire of the Outers. I can't think of much more damaging to Britain's interest than leaving the EU, but I don't think it's out of the question unless there's a good In campaign. Otherwise there's a risk of what happened with the AV vote.
In a way, I'm not too upset about losing these left-of-centre voters who saw the Lib Dems as Orange Tories. What worries me more are the soft Lib Dems who have gravitated (back) to the Tories. [...] I do think the Lib Dems should be a progressive party, but I don't think its future lies on the centre-left. It needs to be firmly rooted to the centre.
To me as a centre-left voter, the first part of that feels (word used deliberately; I mean a gut feeling) like a centre-right party, not a centrist one. However, to a centre-right voter, a party that thought the reverse would probably sound more centre-left than centrist!
A practical problem with a firm centrist strategy is that if a) Cameron does end up governing as a One Nation Tory and b) a new Labour leader goes for a modern equivalent of Blairism, there may not be much space in the centre by then. Mind you, it may be time to abandon the old left-centre-right language anyway, instead reclaiming the word "radical" from its current use as a synonym for "extremist". Liberalism should be radical, surely.
I also think the Lib Dems need to highlight their civil liberty credentials a lot more.
Definitely -- and as you said, this is an area where dialogue and understanding with the Greens might pay dividends. As, of course, is the environment, which has been rather sidelined by both the large parties recently. The Lib Dems have a strong record on green matters, and my gut feeling is that the environment (very much including climate change) will return to being a major political issue in the next few years.
Finally, there's local government. There's a London mayoral election coming next year, and picking a good candidate for that could help the Lib Dems' image considerably. Beyond that, there's the prospect of (albeit limited) increases in powers to some councils. Admittedly mostly Labour-dominated big cities, but I don't see why the Lib Dems shouldn't see that as an opportunity. If I had to guess where the recovery would start, I'd say there.
Reply
I make no pretence to be neutral in my political views!
Of course! Although you've voted a Tory, a very good local councillor notwithstanding, more times than I have...(so far). ;-)
Otherwise there's a risk of what happened with the AV vote.
What a disaster that was! From that perspective it's probably a good thing the Lib Dems are not part of the government. I suspect they would've acquiesced to an EU referendum in this Parliament and if Clegg was still at the heart of government, he may have remained a lightning rod for Lib Dem dissatisfaction. Now, more than Cameron's re-negotiation (which could bring dividends in a way that the Luxembourg Compromise did for France), what I worry about is whether Call Me Dave can maintain party discipline in the run-up to the referendum (a la Major). I think he wants us to remain in, but does he forsake our existing relationship for his party's unity? That's the key. I remain optimistic that if the Tory leadership campaigns to stay in, it'll carry. The in campaign will scare the public into expecting the worst for jobs, business and the fragile economic recovery in general. It might actually work to our favour that the economy isn't quite booming. Eurosceptics might have been able to use it to their advantage. And with today's BoE governor forecast, growth prospects remain moderate.
However, to a centre-right voter
True!
there may not be much space in the centre by then
Indeed. And the last thing we need is a split in the vote between two parties to the left (however minimal it may seem to Old Labour/Social Democrats etc) of the Tories. As an independent voter, I don't really mind who attempts to grab that Blairist ground. I will always prefer a Labour/Labour-led government to a Tory-equivalent. And it's unlikely the Lib Dems will ever form a government on their own. Unfortunately, both Labour and the Tories are flaky when it comes to civil liberties, so it's a question of lesser-of-two evils for me. But as you rightly point out, it's definitely time to abandon the old language. For a while now I've viewed myself as a radical centrist but like you said, the term's connotations with "extremist" have limited my usage of it. Perhaps it's time to reclaim its (glorious) past. And I couldn't agree more, liberalism should be radical.
I also think that Labour can only form a majority government if it appeals to soft Tories. It will also have to engage with disaffected UKIP voters whether they like it or not. Personally I would be comfortable with the free movement of labour beyond the EU, a completely open borders policy, but from a practical view, that's completely out of the question. I suspect some fair-minded people who have voted UKIP are not racist, perhaps (mildly-)xenophobic and/or afraid of change. They need to be engaged and a compromise found. Once again, Cameron's re-negotiation will come into play with any new terms affecting the free movement of labour.
As, of course, is the environment...The Lib Dems have a strong record on green matters
Indeed! I thought I mentioned exactly your points in my previous reply but thanks for doing so. You're absolutely right, we cannot drag our head in the sand for too much longer. For all his sins, Chris Huhne did try to get the ball rolling in government. I have high hopes for Amber Rudd. Her work is cut out. Highly ambitious Liz Truss is at the Environment ministry and from her student days as a Lib Dem, she seems to have become more Thatcherite over time.
Finally, there's local government.
Very good point! I had completely ignored that. For starters, I hope Brian Paddick is not the candidate. He's a lovely chap and I like him a lot but the Lib Dems need to find someone better. If Lembit Opik was more electable, he's the sort of chap I wouldn't mind.
Reply
I think In will win, too, although as in Scotland it may be a bit too close for comfort. The one big unknown is whether the Out campaign can get themselves a more inclusive leader than Farage.
I also think that Labour can only form a majority government if it appeals to soft Tories. It will also have to engage with disaffected UKIP voters whether they like it or not.
Depends whether UKIP implodes, as it seems to be doing already! But yes, I agree that the centre ground is where majorities are won. That said, the SNP's landslide and the million Green voters cause yet another headache for Labour, in that there is now a more obvious place to go for left-wing Labour voters.
If Lembit Opik was more electable, he's the sort of chap I wouldn't mind.
I can't pretend to have a feel for London, but quite frankly the only Lib Dem I can see getting into double figures on first preferences is Simon Hughes. After all, who else is there in the London party who has the name recognition and a reasonable amount of popularity? It looks like the Labour nomination will be between Tessa Jowell and Sadiq Khan; my money would be on Khan to get it. As for the Tories... no idea. Sebastian Coe, maybe, if he doesn't get the IAAF job. Zac Goldsmith would be interesting, but I'm not sure he really wants it. Beyond that I'm stuck.
Reply
Indeed! And so far it looks like he wants to be at the centre of it, although he may change his name nearer the time.
there is now a more obvious place to go for left-wing Labour voters
True, but some of those voters would also need to consider the implications of voting against Labour under FPTP as a backdoor way of allowing the Tories in - pretty much as has happened this time.
Simon Hughes
Good call! I suppose Vince Cable is too old but he might've been another decent option. I wonder if Ed Davey will consider running.
my money would be on Khan to get it
Interesting. Any particular reason(s) why?
Sebastian Coe, maybe, if he doesn't get the IAAF job. Zac Goldsmith would be interesting
Ah yes, forgot about Coe. Bubka looks like the favourite for the IAAF job from what I last read. Hadn't considered Zac. He would be popular in the Outer Boroughs, but would he make headway in places like Tower Hamlets and Hackney, the way Boris was at least able to appeal to people across the spectrum.
Reply
Yes... but as with Blair, some left-wing Labour voters really do seem to see a centrist Labour party as "Tory lite" and can't bring themselves to vote for it. I know a couple myself who would vote Green rather than Blairite. Personally I think that just risks ending up with 1983 all over again, but they don't agree.
Any particular reason(s) why?
Well, I was going to say that he seems the more skilful politician -- but I read reports tonight that he made a speech at a party event calling the voters "bastards" for going Tory! Not sure that's the best thing if you want a post (like London Mayor) where second preferences are important...
would [Zac] popular in the Outer Boroughs, but would he make headway in places like Tower Hamlets and Hackney
Ken Livingstone got elected, and a few years earlier nobody much would have called him a broad-appeal politician!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment