2009: Make Or
Break For The Lib Dems
In
the 2005 general election Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats won 10 more
seats, taking their total to 62. The result sent a mixed message. On the one
hand, 2005 was a good year - a couple of Labour defections in the run-up caused
the ruling parties' seats to swing into their hands, and marginal seats such as
Cheadle - where they had a majority of 33 - were held with increased
majorities. On the other hand, 2005 was a gloomy result - they had a net loss
of seats to the Tories, including some in their Southwest strongholds; and
their "decapitation strategy" of unseating the Shadow Cabinet fell
miserably short, felling only Shadow Education Secretary Tim Collins. Now,
after Staffordshire South was held by the Tories, taking their total to 198,
the Lib Dems are still sitting pretty fed-up in third place. So, where did it
all go wrong, and how can they do better in 2009?
The first reason for this anticlimax
was that the Lib Dems were to some extent indistinguishable from the other two
parties. If we say Peter Oborne's verdict is correct (Oborne being the editor
of The Spectator), the Lib Dem slogan
"The Real Alternative" was the biggest lie of their whole campaign.
Oborne clearly empathises with the theory that all the parties are the same
(the "post-Thatcherite, neo-liberal consensus") and that they will
all use the same sinister ploys to lure the 800,000 British swing voters. The
rise of PR and spin in modern politics (thanks to Alasdair Campbell - a man who
lies whenever he breathes) means that one phrase, emanating either from the
papers or the politicians, can swing a result. The famous example is The Sun newspaper headline on polling
day 1992: "If Kinnock [Labour Party leader] wins today will the last
person to leave Britain please turn off the lights". It is understandable
that Charles Kennedy would be suffering from a lack of sleep due to the arrival
of son Donald (which was no publicity stunt) - but his error at the local
income tax press conference may have put voters off.
The second reason why the Lib Dems
underachieved in 2005 was that where their policies did differ (and there are
varying opinions on that), the differences were badly received. On an interview
with Jeremy Paxman, the local income tax was heavily scrutinised. I myself was
unsure about it. When Charles Kennedy implied that 25% would be worse off than
under the current council tax, the Lib Dems dipped in the polls. Whilst the
abolition of top-up fees won the student vote (or at least the progressive part
of it) it was a policy centred around one specific socio-economic group. The
Lib Dems never stepped forward and proclaimed sweeping changes, revolutionising
the education system below university level. The Tories advocated more powers
for teachers (very topical) and won support; the Lib Dems promised to cut
classroom sizes (never in the news) and left voters unconvinced.
But the Lib Dems made their worst mistake by never
talking about the economy. Labour proudly boasted of "fifty consecutive
quarters of economic growth" (Gordon Brown, in his pre-election Budget
speech), and the Tories championed cutting bureaucracy for small businesses and
the NHS. But the Lib Dems barely touched on the economy - they didn't exactly
leap at the chance to criticise Labour's vote-grabbing shenanigans when Tony
Blair, Gordon Brown and Patricia Hewitt (then Trade and Industry Secretary)
turned up at Longbridge upon the collapse of MG Rover. As The Economist puts it, "the Lib Dems have yet to come close to
matching their admirable social liberalism with a rigorous economic
liberalism.".
A third reason for the Lib Dems'
stalling on the start line is, as former Labour MP John Harris put it,
"our creaking electoral system". First-Past-The-Post is the scourge
of all third parties in Britain, not just the Lib Dems but also the SNP, Plaid
Cymru (who also had a bad election) and the minority parties like the Greens,
BNP and SWP. But with the Lib Dems the curse has been present since 1922. The
alarming unfairness of FPTP was especially obvious in 1983 - the SDP/Liberal
Alliance won 25.4% of the vote but only 23 seats, whereas the Tories polled
only 42.4% and won a landslide of 397 seats. Even more interestingly, in both
1992 and 2001 they won 18.3% of the vote, yet they held 20 seats in 1992 and 46
in 2001. Under PR, the Lib Dems with their 22.6% of the vote would command 146
seats as opposed to 62. Under such circumstances, they might have been in a
coalition with Labour, as in Scotland and Wales. The Liberal Democrats must not
merely sit on their haunches for the next four years in the hope that they'll
suddenly become more popular - they must campaign to ditch FPTP and lower the
voting age to 16. They should also plague the government in the Commons and
reject their Bills in the Lords. And for goodness sake - turn up to vote.
The fourth and final reason for the
Lib Dems' performance in the election is the leader, old "Chucky Bum"
(The Guardian cartoonist Steve
Bell.). In a recent TV spot with Peter Sissons, he was asked who was to blame
for the result. He rightly replied "the buck stops here.". Many
analysts could argue that he was the main, if not the sole reason, why they
only won 10 more seats. The Economist toes
this line - the party leader has "the lack of rigour that characterises
others" - and I did refer to Kennedy as "a smoker, possible alcoholic
and bumbling fool". It is fair to say that since 1922 the Liberals have
been unlucky with their leaders - up to 1964 the Liberals drifted without a
distinctive leader, and in the 1970s and 1980s the Jeremy Thorpe scandal and
the weak David Steel hardly prompted comparison with the likes of Gladstone. If
he is to remain leader Charles Kennedy, having been quietly re-elected, must be
charismatic like Tony Blair, teetotal like George Galloway ("the most
eloquent left-winger since Bevan") and shrewd, collected and wise like
Tony Benn.
So, we have established that there
is more than enough room for improvement. But what can be done? Firstly, the
Lib Dems must be "the real alternative" by increasing the gap between
them and the other two parties. Here however they face an important dilemma.
Under Blair, Labour and the Conservatives have been very right-wing, so the
logical step would be to move further left, as they have already done, creating
a kind of "new Old Labour". It is a distinct possibility that the
Unions would defect to the Lib Dems should Labour stay ill-favoured to them.
But there are two problems with this. One, they risk alienating people and
emulating Michael Foot's 1983 catastrophe; and two, it is Brown they will fight
against in 2009, not Blair - by then he'll be slumming it with Silvio
Berlusconi in his Tuscan villa. Brown is more left-wing and interventionist, so
if they chose to be as leftist as him, they risk creating a new left-wing
consensus and thereby destroying their chances.
If Brown becomes leader before 2009 - i.e. Blair
doesn't hand over power just before the election - and moves Labour left, there
is the temptation to be more centre-right. But again, there are two problems.
One, the alienation again, this time of their more progressive supporters; and
two, should they go are far-right as the Tories, they will scupper themselves
in the same way. Personally I would rather that the move to the left continues
to some extent, since it will be difficult for the Labour Party to appear
united. Brown cannot purge the party of Blairites quickly and he risks
governing with a divided party if Labour won a fourth term. Once Blair is out
of the picture we may have the pleasure of a socialist government again. On the
other hand, New Labour's jump from left to right in the mid-1990s was big and
yet they won a landslide, so the move right, whilst not preferable, should not
be entirely abandoned.
Secondly, there must be a firm
difference in economic policy. Here again the Lib Dems have two options, which
could easily throw the party into dichotomy. Again the choice is between left
and right. To the left, they have a partly Keynesian economic plan, aiming for
full employment whilst keeping down inflation. Renationalisation of the
railways may be a great asset, provided regulation and efficiency are
priorities. It will help to get the Unions on their side, thus weakening
Labour's power base. The Lib Dems should criticise Brown - his excessive
borrowing has fuelled inflation as the economy has slowed with sluggish
consumer spending, the worst for 2 years. Inflation in 1998 was 2.2%, now it is
2.9%. A small increase, but an increase nonetheless. The danger with the
part-Keynesian model is that the older generation will immediately conjure up
images of the mid-1970s where Keynes gave Britons 25.2% inflation, high
unemployment and a 98% top tax rate. To the right, we have the "rigorous
economic liberalism" - less tariffs, less quotas, less paperwork, less
regulations, in short, good old-fashioned laissez
faire. But then again, too much monetarism and "Anglo-Saxon
economics" will create tensions in Europe, making the europhile Lib Dems
look bad.
Thirdly, the electoral system must
be modified. Blair has not listened to the Jenkins Commission or has observed
the success of PR in Scotland and Wales; he has not considered how even the
smallest modifications to the current system such as younger voters or
compulsory voting would work. The Votes416 campaign is a good start - it shows
the Lib Dems are reaching out to young people, which the Tories are struggling
to do. The policy of introducing STV is more dubious. There was outcry at the
complexity of the June 2004 EU election ballot papers (done by STV) so the Lib
Dems may wish to revise that aspect of their manifesto. Either way the Lib Dems
will not achieve office or a hung parliament as long as FPTP remains.
Finally, I'm afraid "Chucky Bum" must pack
his bags, and unlike Michael Howard he must go sooner rather than later. The
Tory leadership contest is a will-he-won't-he spectacle which may drag on for
centuries as the party struggles to figure out what it stands for and how to
appeal to young people. There are plenty of willing people who could replace
Kennedy, without forcing him into a leadership contest. People such as Mark
Oaten, Sarah Teather, Sir Menzies Campbell, or even Lembit Öpik could mount a
successful election campaign. One advantage the Lib Dems have with leadership
is that it is perfectly acceptable for leaders like Kennedy and Ashdown to
remain leader even after a disappointing result. In 1997 the Lib Dems lost 3
seats but Ashdown stayed leader for another 2 years. All Tory candidates since
October 1974 are sharply forced to leave the party. This ruthlessness does not
exist inside the Lib Dems, which is in some cases a good thing.
In short, the Liberal Democrats are at a crossroads,
one that will shape their future, in terms of political stance, in terms of
electoral performance, and in terms of image. Whoever replaces Kennedy, and
whenever that may be, the decisions detailed in the previous paragraphs must be
carefully debated, among their MPs, among party members, among their voters.
Whether they choose to move left or right, to Keynesianism or liberalism, to
regulation or not, is to a certain extent irrelevant. One thing is certain: if
they stay where they are now, they're going nowhere.
What do you think?
Bibliography
1.
'Not
yet liberal enough', Volume 375 Issue 8420, 2005, The Economist.
2.
'Charles
Kennedy's smart act', Volume 375 Issue 8420, 2005, The Economist.
3.
'All
to play for?', Volume 375 Issue 8420, 2005, The Economist.
4.
'So
Now Who Do We Vote For?', John Harris, 2005, Faber and Faber.
5.
'The
Liberal Democrats: The Real Alternative?', Daniel Mumby, 2005, Freeway.
6.
'A
Dictionary of Economics', Graham Bannock/ R. E. Baxter/ Ray Rees, 1972,
Penguin.
7.
'The
New British Politics', Ian Budge/ Ivor Crewe/ David McKay/ Ken Newton, 2004 (3rd
ed.), Pearson Longman.
8.
'The
Economist Pocket World in Figures', Andrea Burgess/ Marianne Camparet/ Ulrika
Davies/ Mark Doyle/ Andrew Gilbert/ Conrad Heine/ Carol Howard/ Stella Jones/
David McKelvey/ Keith Potter/ Simon Wright, 2004, The Economist.
9.
'The
worries intensify', Volume 375 Issue 8430, 2005, The Economist.
10.
'G-Force',
Robert Crampton, 2005, The Times.
Daniel
Mumby Pages:
4 Lines: 141 Words: 1,954
Bladerunnerismint@hotmail.com