Charles Kennedy's resignation as leader of the Liberal Democrats over his alcoholism has prompted an uneasy leadership contest, which has revealed deep schisms within the party neatly concealed at the election, and exposed a wealth of sleaze to rival that of John Major's government (1990-97). Whoever becomes leader will face immense challenges, the largest among them restoring the party's credibility in time for the 2009 election. But is this an impossible task, whoever becomes leader? Is this the end of the road for the Lib Dems, and if it is, what should happen?
First it is important to know the history of the Lib Dems and how that relates to their current predicament. After leaving power for the last time in October 1922, the Liberals drifted aimlessly as Labour and the Conservatives stole ground on the left and right. All rumours of a Liberal revival at the 1945 election were laid to rest as the Liberals won only 12 seats and by 1970 they commanded only 6. In 1981, the 'Gang of Four' - David Owen, Bill Rogers, Shirley Williams and the late Roy Jenkins - broke away from Labour as Michael Foot lurched left, and signed the Limehouse Declaration forming the Social Democratic Party, SDP. Similarities between the David Steel's Liberals caused the SDP/ Liberal Alliance to form. In the early-1980s it was popular and was predicted to win a substantial share of the vote - such was his popularity that David Steel told his MPs to "prepare for government."
The euphoria did not last. As a result of the first-past-the-post system, the Alliance lost out. In 1983 it polled 25.4% of the vote but only 23 seats; under PR, they would have won 165. Here is a stirring thought. The Alliance could, under these circumstances, formed a new 'Lib-Lab' coalition with Labour (27.6%, 179 seats) to force the Tories out - with 42.4% of the vote Thatcher would have 275 seats and would have had to step down. But this was not the case, and after an equally dismal performance in 1987, the two parties merged to form the Liberal Democrats, under Paddy Ashdown, though David Owen led a rump SDP until 1990.
Statistically, the rise of New Labour impacted upon the Lib Dems' performance. Their share of the vote slipped in 1992 and 1997 largely at the expense of Labour. Certain instances of sleaze - such as the 'Paddy Pantsdown' scandal - also harmed the Lib Dems. But after Ashdown stepped down in 1999, to be replaced by Charles Kennedy, their performance improved. In 2001 and 2005 the Lib Dems capitalised on disillusionment with New Labour and the Iraq war to win 62 seats, their highest tally since 1923. As The Economist stated in April 2005, "by declaring themselves the anti-war party and by taking up party positions to the left of a Labour government that mo longer espouses socialism… the Lib Dems could challenge Labour seriously in up to 20 seats." In reality, only 10 seats changed hands (11 if you include their recent by-election victory.). And whilst Labour seats swung into their hands and they moved into second place in many other constituencies, there was a net loss of seats in rural areas to the Conservatives, including a couple in the south-west, a strongly Lib Dem area.
Now the Lib Dems have serious problems, being "haunted by an overwhelming sense of opportunities missed and fear for the future." The party is, it would seem, irrevocably split between economic liberals, who make up many of the MPs and want increased private sector involvement in public services, and social liberal, who are the darlings of activists and want state-owned railways and free university education. This stems from the Alliance and merger - between 1983 and 1987 the Liberals moved further right whilst the SDP remained on the left - but also from new MPs who won marginal seats on right-wing manifestos. The lack of cohesion cost them seats: their programme was fallaciously branded "a ragbag of shallow opportunism and intellectual incoherence that reflected Mr. Kennedy's lack of seriousness." Their leadership contest has been described as "accident-prone", an understatement. Scandals have hit the party, from dodgy dealings with election bankrollers to Mark Oaten's affair with a rent boy and Simon Hughes lying about his sexuality. Even before the new leader has been decided by balloting the 74,000-odd members, some are already writing off the party - "If the Liberal Democrats still seem to have a hole where their philosophy should be, their leader often seems to embody the problem." Simon Jenkins has the nerve and the stupidity to suggest that the Lib Dems should disband and that their members should be split between Labour and the Tories. Their position is not so desperate as to warrant that, but trepidation is normal when we examine the three remaining candidates to lead Britain's third party.
Firstly, Sir Menzies Campbell, a lawyer, former Olympic sprinter and Foreign Affairs Spokesman, who is currently the caretaker leader. Very much a centrist candidate, he is "probably the party's best-known figure nationally" for his stance against Iraq and his lucid delivery on Question Time. At 64, his age does not seem to be a problem and may even work to his advantage. Many voters will be disillusioned with the youth-obsessed politics ushered in by Tony Blair and David Cameron, who don't have a razorblade between their policies; as an elder statesman figure he could work as the antithesis of Cameron and appeal to the increasing number of pensioners in the electorate, who are more likely to vote than the younger generation, undermining the Tories. Cameron's new programme, incidentally, is nothing but a mishmash of cynical opportunism, Blair-esque mimicry and slick PR, signifying nothing and promising little that we don't suffer already.
But that does not mean that Sir Menzies ('Ming') is without fault. His first performance at Prime Minister's Questions as Caretaker Leader was abysmal; after being shown up by Tony Blair he resigned himself, saying 'it was always going to be one of those days', and sat down. He also seems to, like Cameron, have an opportunistic and contradictory streak: on January 13 th he promised to "fight the next general election to the left of Labour and campaign without any discussion of hung parliaments or coalitions with either main party". Now in a complete reversal, he is "sure that there is no politically attractive space much to the left of Labour", pandering to the right of the party as he "praises the role of the private and independent sector in delivering public services, while explicitly ruling out higher overall taxes and increased levels of public spending", an act of sheer treachery to the left-leaning grass roots.
If a traitor Sir Menzies is, activists look to Simon Hughes. The party president, he came second in the last leadership contest in 1999 and was a failed candidate for the London Mayor in 2000. A slick media operator, he is a social liberal who pursues social justice, "the cornerstone of the great reforming Liberal government elected by a landslide exactly a century ago." Without hyperbole, he is said that the party should aim, eventually, to match the 1906 result. Furthermore, he argues for fairness, one of the components of the 2005 manifesto: "if we want a safer, healthier and happier country, it must be a fairer one too." He talks about bringing in "fairer taxes" but there is no indication as to whether the 50% top income tax rate was his brainchild, and if it was, whether it will be an albatross around his neck.
Again, there is a lot wrong with Simon Hughes. His revelation about having homosexual relationships 50 years ago would have led to his imprisonment; now his lying has led to claims of "self-destruction" that may cost him his campaign, greatly boosting Sir Menzies'. If he proves either so slippery or too left-wing for voters, the party may lose not only second place in marginal seats but also some of the seats it has gained in the past two elections. "A victory for Mr Hughes would horrify most MPs": despite having the support at the bottom, the bright, centre-right new MPs will not pledge their support and split the party, perhaps fatally as in 1916. Simon Hughes may be forced out in the same way that Charles Kennedy went. A move to the left, especially after Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister, could be a suicide note: "three or four years from now proclaiming a desire to tax and spend more than Mr Brown may win few votes."
And what of Chris Huhne, former journalist and MEP, sole remaining candidate of the right after Mark Oaten's departure? He has only been an MP for nine months, having stood down in Brussels and winning his seat in 2005; as a result he has been portrayed as inexperienced and not charismatic; cartoonist Martin Rawson portrays him as a smiley-faced stick man with no emotions. A late arrival in the campaign, he "intends to run on a platform including a tougher line of the environment and a sharper focus on local accountability." Certainly Chris Huhne has one favourable factor: any prejudices party members may have with either Sir Menzies Campbell or Simon Hughes could easily translate into votes for him.
But his weaknesses far outweigh his strengths. Mr. Huhne is almost unknown to the public, to the extent that The Times published a cartoon of people looking him up in Who's Huhne?. As a former MEP he will have wide experience of the corridors of Brussels, but that does not make him suited to the adversarial, confrontational politics of Westminster; his position may work against him as people see him as an ultra-europhile. Any emphasis in his campaign on the environment, which is extremely commendable, especially if he is in favour of enforced regulation.
Having looked at the three candidates in turn, the Lib Dems are in desperate need of a decisive leader. Their position may seem a disastrous one at first sight, with their opinion poll rating at 16%, down from 22.5% in May. The party is divided deeply and chronically, just as they were 90 years ago. All three leadership candidates have either skeletons in their cupboard or no distinguishing features. But does this mean that it is the end of the road for the Lib Dems?
In short, no, but the party's short-term performance will depend on the leader. Should it be Sir Menzies, the current favourite, he will try to "win on the centre on the liberal centre ground of British politics"; he thinks that "the gap in the political marketplace… will be for a party that combines a commitment to social justice and civil liberties with a decentralist and market-led approach to public services." Here he risks falling into the same trap as Mikhail Gorbachëv did, of "appeasing all but pleasing no-one". If all parties are fighting for the centre ground, it is likely that swing voters will choose Labour and the Conservatives (who are currently so indistinguishable that The Daily Telegraph wrote of a contest between New Labour and Blue Labour.). Should Simon Hughes take the title, the activists would rejoice, perhaps leading to a revival on the ground; but the parliamentary party would implode and therefore voter support could sink lower. Chris Huhne would be the worst choice: in spite of all his assets, he is too inexperienced, and cynics argue that he is merely entering the race as a parody of David Cameron's assent.
Since the party is not at the end of its rope just yet, it is arrogant and senseless to argue for the party to disband. Such a move would prove to voters that the parties are all the same (incorrectly) and so apathy would increase, leading eventually to zero turnout. As long as there is no alternative to the sleazy, trigger-happy monetarists who have ravaged Britain since 1979, people will simply accept once and for all that politics is nothing but a collection of backstabbers and drug addicts with nothing better to do but exploit their country. As a Christian socialist, in principle I have to side with Simon Hughes; but in practise, I think Sir Menzies is the best choice, even if he is only a caretaker leader. The Economist puts it best: "The leader the party chooses will determine whether the Lib Dems stake out a claim to the increasingly crowded centre ground, towards which David Cameron is steering the Conservatives, or to territory to the left of Labour… For many Lib Dems, the choice is not obvious; but it is urgent." Which direction should it be? |
