It has been nearly 83 years since the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) left office in October 1922.
If we look at their record, we see many positive achievements, including the Irish Home Rule Act in 1914;
the Beveridge Report (written by a Liberal) calling for a national health service,
which inspired Aneurin Bevan's vision realised in 1948;
and numerous reforms on fair trade through the nineteenth century as both the Liberals and the Whigs.
But since 1922 they have been very much the wilderness party –
they are probably the only party who has credibly survived so long out of power.
Labour, after 13 years in the wilderness, didn't look half of what they used to at the 1992 election.
The Conservatives are facing the same problem now thanks to the legacies of Thatcher and Major.
So, with their highest number of seats since 1929, does Charles Kennedy's party really pose
any threat to Blair's "neo-liberal consensus"? Does he stand any chance of becoming the first
Liberal Prime Minister since David Lloyd George on May 5th?
Let us be clear about one thing.
I am not wishing for the Lib Dems to seize power simply because they’ve been so unlucky for so long.
If I think like that I have not learnt anything from politics.
The reason why they deserve a chance is that a lot of their policies really do appeal to
large sectors of the electorate (including me, although as yet I can't vote).
For instance, their policy on free university education, dismissed as populist and hollow, make sense.
I have seen Dr. Vincent Cable's (Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer) calculations in their
Alternative Budget from March 2004, and the figures are very plausible and add up (though I'm no economist.).
The scrapping of council tax (although again dismissed as populist) does make sense,
considering how much it has been in the news - though for me the jury is still out over its replacement,
the local income tax (which former Conservative MP and journalist Matthew Parris condemned as
"the new poll tax" in The Times.). I, despising the Tories, will not go as fair, but I'm still not fully convinced.
There are also a number of other concerns which could prevent me from voting Lib Dem.
I do take (I confess) a very conservative attitude on joining the Euro and the Constitution,
for which I am deeply sorry. Provided the Constitution doesn't become a new Maastricht Treaty,
I will be quite happy. But it is not Europe that worries me. The Economist's article from April 2005,
'Not yet liberal enough', claims that the Lib Dems are still too cynical at heart -
as you would expect from all their criticism of Labour over Iraq and top-up fees.
It also argues that there is in the party "the lack of rigour that characterises others" -
the image of Charles Kennedy as a smoker, possible alcoholic and bumbling fool is one which has
dogged him and probably will for the rest of his career. The Lib Dems have a mixed record over
opposition to the government - I widely welcomed their opposition to Iraq, but was horrified
to hear that 17 of their MPs - including Charles Kennedy - didn't bother turning up to vote against the
Prevention of Terrorism Bill, since someone had told them it wouldn't be close.
The Bill was passed by a majority of 14, and that "if only" may haunt the Lib Dems.
But the harshest criticism - and one which I sadly agree with - is put best by
The Economist - "the Lib Dems have yet to come close to matching their admirable social liberalism with a
rigorous economic liberalism.". That is something I do not believe Dr. Vincent Cable can or is willing to produce.
Despite claiming to be the most left-wing of the parties, the Lib Dems are still economically right-wing,
just less so than Labour or the Conservatives. Nowhere in his
Alternative Budget is there mention of renationalisation of the railways (recently demanded by the unions) or any
other dramatic proposals for salvaging a disgraceful public transport system.
The only slight mention to do with transport in the Budget is a brief detail on airport tax being replaced by a
"duty paid by airlines". Not exactly rigorous stuff.
Okay, we no longer live in a Britain dominated by Keynesian theory -
state industries like British Leyland are long gone, though their legacies with the recent plight of
MG Rover clearly are not. Besides, in this new age of political consensus and orthodox economics,
nationalisation will only be frowned upon - especially by Labour, who will warn of the disastrous 1970s,
where high inflation, high tax and high unemployment almost strangled Britain into bankruptcy.
However, should unemployment and inflation continue to rise, as they have recently,
New Labour may have to grudgingly dig up the socialism which Blair shot dead in 1994.
What the Lib Dems must do therefore is be radical, both economically and socially.
I am not implying that they need to turn into the Socialist Workers' Party,
which certainly would only worsen their fortunes, or to revert to the same stop-go tactics which brought us
Devaluation of the Pound (1967), the Three Day Week (1973-74) and the Winter of Discontent (1978-79).
Such things destroyed Harold Wilson, Edward Heath and James Callaghan, and they will not help Kennedy.
The Liberal Democrats now have policies which their rivals may condemn as short-sighted and hollow,
but which really appeal to whatever extent to a large number of people in Britain.
Free university education and free long-term care for the elderly are vital to the development of Britain,
especially since 50% of people can now go to university and the average life expectancy is 77 for a man and 84
for a woman.
But, for all these attractions, there is still room for improvement.
Charles Kennedy may be the best man to lead the Lib Dems to more seats, but he's no Gladstone or Asquith -
although considering his alleged alcoholism he does share some resemblance to the latter.
Perhaps a change of leadership would do more harm that good - the first choice would either be
Sir Menzies Campbell or the 23-year-old Sarah Teather - I mean, what are the chances of two female
Prime Ministers being Margaret Thatcher? The Lib Dems have made a number of schoolboy errors which can
be so easily addressed - turning up to vote might be a good start. There is also a concern that perhaps the
'Green thread' running through their policies may undermine them - should the Greens win a seat,
would a merger be in order? Remember the merger with the SDP in 1988.
One thing we can be sure of it that the Lib Dems cannot be ignored.
Until 1983 the best they ever managed was 14 seats in February 1974,
and in the three elections in the 1950s they commanded only 6.
Now with 52 and counting they have a significant presence.
On a local level (in which the Lib Dems take pride), they have a large presence on local councils,
and in a good many constituencies (including 70 Labour seats) they are in a close second place.
In Scotland they are in a coalition with Labour which prevented top-up fees and created long-term elderly care.
And now, with 100 Labour seats at risk, the time could well be right for the Liberal Democrats to win
their first election since 1918 (coincidentally, turnout was also low then, which may help them).
When we consider the good things they have done in Scotland and elsewhere,
I ask therefore why shouldn't they be allowed to try it out on the large scale?
After all, anything would be better than a third Labour landslide… wouldn't it?
|
