The "I Can't Forgive the LibDems" soundbite

You sometimes hear "I can't forgive the LibDems for propping up the Tories".

This is odd, because thanks to the LibDems being part of the Government, the austerity cuts were LESS than the cuts Labour had promised. So are these people who "can't forgive" saying they can't forgive Labour either?!

Also, remember that the 1997-2010 Labour Government went along with the neo-liberal consensus that said the banks didn't need much regulation, and the result was the financial crisis. Labour then chose to bail out the banks. The crisis had dire, far-reaching consequences for the country's finances, consequences we're still living with.

Declaring "I can't forgive Labour" on the basis of this history would be utterly pointless. Labour's platform NOW is what counts. Same for the LibDems.

Now the coalition did many things I disagreed with, not least the bedroom tax. But then the coalition was 80% Tory, so what do you expect?!

The LibDem 20% didn't just ensure less austerity than the Tories and Labour. They also ensured the consequences of Labour's neo-liberalism didn't fall on the low paid: the 3 million lowest paid were taken out of income tax. And the next 26 million paid less tax. At the same time, by clamping down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, many tax breaks for the rich were abolished, which Labour had failed to do. Would a 100% Tory Government have done that?!

Or is this "can't forgive" thing simply about saying the Tories wouldn't have been in power without the LibDems? Because that's just not true.

A LibLab coalition wasn't numerically possible. So that would've meant a minority Tory Government. And a minority Tory Government would've quickly turned into a majority Tory Government after a second General Election (which Labour didn't have the money to fight).

So would the people who "can't forgive" have preferred a 100% Tory Government?! Because that's what it would've been. And then it's not only austerity that would've been worse. You only have to look at the many dreadful things a 100% Tory Government has done since 2015 to realise what those 57 LibDem MPs prevented thanks to being in the coalition.

And why does this "can't forgive" thing apply to the LibDems and not to Labour? On almost every important issue, the last Labour Government was on the side of the Tories:

• the illegal war in Iraq
• the pride in "light-touch regulation of the banks"
• the enthusiasm for indefinite detention without trial
• the doubling of income tax on the lowest paid
• the tax cuts for the rich
• the renewal of Trident
• the promotion of nuclear power
• the love of fracking
• sluggish action on climate change
• the introduction and escalation of upfront tuition fees
• the use of PFI...

Again, declaring "I can't forgive Labour" on the basis of that huge list would be utterly pointless. Labour's platform NOW is what counts. Same for the LibDems.

Finally, lots of good things happened as a consequence of the coalition, that you can never imagine a 100% Tory Government doing, such as:

• 2 million apprenticeships
• 200,000 new affordable homes
• the Green Investment Bank
• the Pupil Premium
• the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings
• proper regulation of the banks
• the ending of child detention in immigration cases
• shared parental leave
• same-sex marriage

So when you hear "I can't forgive the LibDems for propping up the Tories", please ask whether they have forgiven Labour.

After all, when the Tories intend to wreck the country with Brexit, isn't it time to put past hurts on one side for now and #UniteToRemain ?

A Pox On All Your Parties

The British are so arrogant that, in our hearts, we refuse to accept that fascist populism could happen here. We fondly imagine our democracy is safe forever.

"Mother of Parliaments!"

"We saw off Hitler!"

"Too bloody-minded to put up with tinpot dictators!"

I want to tell you that we are rushing headlong towards the end of democracy, and we're too blind to see it.

There are Labour Party members who call themselves "socialists", who profess to care about the low-paid, about the NHS, about schools and new homes, about "building a Britain that works for the many, not the few". They must know by now that Brexit will mean a weaker economy whichever party is in power and so less money for those laudable things they say they care about. And yet these people are happy to let Brexit damage Britain for a generation or more, because they think a damaged country will hasten a Labour government. That's more than cynical. That's sick.

Moreover it won't work. The voters will notice that Labour was complicit in letting Brexit happen. Labour might hide behind the "respecting the referendum result" mantra, but even though the flaws of the 2016 referendum are well-known (financial fraud, Russian interference, the exclusion of the 3 million people most affected by Brexit), "Leave" didn't even attain 50% of the electorate, let alone two-day thirds of the vote. Labour had the opportunity to give the voters the final say on the actual Brexit deal, rather than the Brexiteer bullshit that was promised in 2016, and it has made a deliberate decision not to even discuss the possibility.

So make no mistake: Labour will be damaged by this catastrophic error, just as Britain is damaged.

There are Conservative Party members who call themselves "One Nation Tories" or "Thatcherites" or "traditionalists", who claim to want a strong Britain: united, prosperous and geo-politically powerful. They must know by now that leaving the single market is disastrous for business; that leaving the customs union means ripping up hard-won free trade agreements that we cannot hope to improve upon; that leaving the EU requires a massive permanent expansion in bureaucracy to manage trade; that the effects on Northern Ireland and Gibraltar are profoundly damaging to the UK's unity and influence; that the costs of Brexit will require higher taxes; that the brain drain will severely reduce Britain's capacity for innovation; and that the divisions created in society by the referendum are deep and long-lasting.

The Conservative Government has a simple face-saving way of avoiding this disaster: give the voters a final say on the Brexit terms, with an option to remain in the EU. But the only reason this isn't happening is because Theresa May has made it the party line not to countenance this get-out.

Once the reality of life outside the EU becomes apparent, the voters won't blame themselves. They will blame the party which started the disaster, which pushed it through in the face of all entreaties from British businesses and institutions, and which refused to pursue an obvious solution. They will say Conservatives put party before country.

And before the smaller parties start to rub their hands with glee at the blame that will accrue to Labour and the Conservatives, the voters see you trying to stoke the emotive divisions in the big parties for political gain, rather than trying to build cross-party consensus for a solution.

All politicians will be brought into disrepute by this disaster created in Westminster. Complete disillusionment with politics will become the norm. Anger at this self-inflicted wound. Anger at the world for laughing at us. Diminished services, damaged institutions, a failing economy, an angry underclass screaming "Betrayal!", struggling businesses, an ignored intelligentsia fleeing for a better life elsewhere, a political class unable to do anything other than bicker...

And who will gain from chaos?

Checks and Balances

Image: David Muir

I've chosen to remain silent for almost 3 years: Lib Dem strategists seemed oblivious to the alternatives to a disastrous 2015 election, and I didn't want to do anything to jeopardise the chances of Labour keeping the Tories out of power. In the event, Labour engineered their own 2015 disaster.

Many other writers have produced excellent analyses of what went wrong, and so I have no burning desire to reiterate the clear lessons to be learned. No doubt I will return to these lessons en passant in future posts. Nor is it especially productive for me to let off steam about my fury with the Lib Dem leadership, with Labour's dreadful Tory-lite offering, or with friends who voted Green or Red only to predictably let in Blue.

Nor is it necessary to outline the horrors that await our country thanks to the Tory's majority government. I think we're all too well aware.

No, I can return to all these topics more rationally once the heat has died down.

What I want to do is flag up a few key policy issues that I believe we're failing to address properly and that have something in common:

1. We haven't yet put much in place to forestall future economic collapse caused by incompetent banks and tax-dodging companies.

2. Overspending and other mismanagement by politicians is all too easy, given that a party can win power on 37% of the vote, and with a mandate from less than a quarter of the electorate.

3. Vital parts of our community infrastructure - such as hospitals, schools, post offices, libraries, youth centres, shelters, etc. - are vulnerable to closure when times get tough, despite intense local demand for alternatives to closure.

4. Defiance of human rights, snooping by the state, lack of access to the justice system, newspapers little better than propaganda press, and harassment of the innocent by the media all seem to be getting worse.

5. Perceptions of immigration being "out-of-control" and of an oppressive European bureaucracy are not being assuaged by trying to co-opt and moderate the swivel-eyed xenophobia of UKIP.

6. We are sleep-walking into climate catastrophe through the actions of polluters and the inactions of governments.


One thing I believe all these areas have in common is the lack of clearly identifiable checks and balances (in a broad sense) to restrain the power of governments, institutions and companies to cause harm, while at the same time minimising infringements on freedom.

Whether Left or Right, Green or Free-marketeer, liberal or conservative these are issues that should be very relevant to us all.

The Simpsons are going to Hell

I think The Simpsons is a brilliant programme, and couldn't resist eagerly downloading "The Simpsons: Tapped Out" game for my mobile. The game is also very funny, but has a slightly disconcerting habit of making loud notification sounds when the game isn't running and the mobile is in your pocket with the screen off. Apparently there's no way of turning these sounds off within the game on my mobile, without muting all notifications.

Now, I was at the funeral of a family member this week.

I put the mobile on silent mode before entering the chapel. Of course I'd have done that anyway - I'm not an idiot - but I really didn't fancy Homer yelling out "WOOHOO! NEW BUILDING!" as I entered.

Then during the first hymn I remembered that occasionally my mobile "forgets" it's supposed to be on silent mode, as if it's bored of sitting quietly for so long. A terrifying vision flashed through my mind of the vicar solemnly paying tribute to the deceased's skills as a chef (she was a chef)... a reverent pause... then suddenly everyone hears Homer saying "MMMM... CROPS..."

I surreptitiously switched off my mobile, which is what I should have done in the first place. No respect.

But then while listening to the vicar I suddenly worried that the switch off hadn't worked. On a couple of occasions in the last few months I'd been startled by the mobile ringing after I thought it was off. Holding down the power button isn't enough: you then have to select "Power off" from an options menu.

However the only way to tell if the phone was off was to press the power button. And if the phone was already off, this would bring it to life with a cheery fanfare during prayers.

"Oh well. What's the worst that could happen?" I asked myself.

And then I realized what the worst would be. The curtains smoothly closing, the mourners inwardly bidding their final farewells, the coffin gently gliding towards the furnace... and Homer yells out "BETTER THEM THAN ME!"

I removed the mobile's battery.

Time to think

Image: Gabba Gabba Hey!

In my previous post, I draw attention to the immense (and potentially insuperable) situational challenges the Lib Dems are facing. In this blog I haven't been simply sitting on the sidelines carping about Lib Dem strategy. I've tried to be balanced in my reflections. I've balanced criticisms with acknowledgements of the limited room for manoeuvre and I've tried to do my best to devise some practical suggestions for improving narrative, strategy and the explanations that lie just one step removed from the soundbites.

Perhaps they're not very good suggestions. I don't know. But I think I've largely failed to get through to fellow Lib Dems: Over the last few years I've been getting gratifying numbers of readers, but very few links or responses on other blogs.

It's time for me to reflect on whether there might be better ways to engage social democratic liberals across parties. I have to think about whether I can do better than I'm doing, to bumble on, to try more oblique approaches, or to just stop.

Is the Lib Dem "core vote" circling the plughole?

Stephen Tall's article "Do the Lib Dems have a core vote, and can we grow it?" has stimulated a very interesting discussion on LDV.

Image: Nicoze

Stephen identifies three reasons why the Liberal Democrats have historically lacked a "core vote":

"1) liberalism tends towards rational scepticism which rarely equates to core votes, which tend to be any or all of the following: class-based / ideological / tribal;

2) liberalism, at least in the UK, is generally centrist in terms of the key issue for most voters, the economy. As a result, our party’s ‘Venn diagram’ overlap with the Conservatives/Labour means liberal voters are less oppositional by nature, and more likely to move between us and one of our two opponents;

3) liberalism’s disdain for vested interests means it’s harder to coalesce an interest group. We don’t do favours for trade unions or big business: that’s fundamental to who we are. But it means we don’t have powerful lobbies campaigning on our behalf — still less the news media — persuading the public their future will be rosier under the Lib Dems."

The article and the subsequent comments are perceptive, and well worth reading. Some excellent points are made, on all sides of the arguments. It's also worth reading Simon Titley's 2008 article arguing that "The Lib Dem vote is like a bath with the taps left on and the plug left out."

I would venture that three groups of voters who have traditionally come out strongly for the Lib Dems can no longer be taken for granted:

1. With the advent of the Coalition, many of those in England who used to vote Lib Dem as a protest against the prevailing Lab-Con duopoly might well switch to smaller parties - Greens or UKIP, one supposes - or not vote.

2. Lib Dem strengths in the so-called "Celtic fringe" are likely to be severely disrupted by the presence of Lib Dems in a Tory-led coalition, by the SNP having a majority in Scotland, and by long-term adjustments in Welsh politics as a consequence of the growing importance of the Welsh Assembly.

3. Young, independent-minded, largely middle-class graduates who do not have strong political affiliations (and so assess the arguments of the parties on merit) will be much less likely to vote Lib Dem, as a consequence of (i) perceived broken trust; (ii) NHS changes; (iii) austerity measures; and (iv) a possible return to "We need to keep X out" thinking, because of the Coalition and the rejection of AV.

Image: Vaidotas Mišeikis

Furthermore, at the next general election Labour might well be revitalised by being back in its comfort zone of opposition to public service cuts. The Conservatives might well be revitalised by being back in their comfort zone of enforcing economic discipline. If the economy is seen to be recovering well, the Conservatives will be the likely beneficiaries. If austerity is seen to be causing unemployment, stagnation and plummeting public services, Labour will likely benefit. There are no obvious scenarios in which the Lib Dems can expect credit for their role in fostering economic recovery or protecting public services.

So commentators who predict a "perfect storm" for the Liberal Democrats at the next general election are, in my view, on the money.

Moreover, the signs are not looking good that Lib Dem strategists know what to do about this. I'm not convinced that suddenly acquiring a "core vote" is plausible; I doubt that focusing all energies on retaining current seats would work either; there are no indications that lessons have been learned from 2005, 2010, or the AV campaign; some seem to think it's just a matter of crafting a compelling enough message in a couple of years time to motivate voters who tend to liberalism or to attract or persuade other voters; current policy development lacks drive; narratives are confused; and not much seems to be happening to improve rebuttal, persuasion and projection.

And if strategists are playing a subtle, behind-the-scenes game that I wouldn't be able to see, the outcome measures look poor: the public continues to see Clegg as compromised; the Lib Dems are repeatedly out-manoeuvred by Labour and the Conservatives in the Commons; leading commentators rarely have good things to say about the Lib Dems these days; and British political culture remains inimical to liberal, pluralist politics [1, 2]

I'm a natural optimist (How could I be otherwise, being a long-time member of the Lib Dems?!) and I think the Lib Dems have the best agenda for the country and a talented leader. But the situation is not looking good.

What's wrong with Nick Clegg?

Image: Marie Jenkins

Nick Clegg came to Exeter on Friday. In a room normally used for training Flybe cabin crew, he faced questions from a public audience for an hour. And then he mingled in a room full of LibDem activists.

This summer he's doing similar events all over the country: The "Feel the Hatred" Tour, some wags have dubbed it.

All credit to him. No stage management. No specially-selected audience (there were a couple of Labour councillors at the Exeter event). No speeches. No vetting of questions. Just him on the receiving end of a sceptical public.

Paraphrasing...

• Why we are giving so much in foreign aid when care costs for the elderly are under pressure?
• Why is the dole so cushy when we're desperate to recruit a sous-chef?
• Why do you want to deport me when my local area is desperate for my dentistry skills?
• The Lib Dems were running Exeter City Council a few years ago. Now they're down to just 5 councillors. Doesn't that tell you something?
• What next for Lords Reform?
• Why not channel money from "quantitative easing" to over-stretched workers rather than to greedy bankers?
• Why is the council supporting my tenants when they refuse to leave my house at the end of their tenancy?
• Isn't it a problem that you and Cameron are so similar in looks and background?
• Are you going to waste the next three years, like Labour wasted its first three years?
• Why is it fair that, because I work, I don't get a carers allowance for my child who's got Downs Syndrome?
• If you give tourism a boost by lowering VAT where there's matched funding, the Government will end up with a net profit. Why don't you do that?
• I'm working hard towards my GCSEs. Are they now going to be seen as worthless thanks to Michael Gove?

Clegg engaged thoughtfully, put issues in the wider context of the problems faced by many people, addressed questions directly, gave a good account of what was being done and why, and offered to follow up personal circumstances when relevant.

Then he mingled with local Lib Dems: the ex-councillors who lost their elections thanks to the Government's austerity; the activists whose local organising is being undermined by loss of trust over tuition fees and the NHS; and the many quiet but committed members who are uncomfortable about political communications failures, climate change, free schools, internet snooping, welfare changes, economic stagnation, threats to Lords reform, and so on.

And again, Clegg did a great job of acknowledging concerns, providing a fuller context, and indicating sensible strategies.

I'm biased, but I think public and members alike were generally impressed with his answers, his engaging manner, his grasp of detail and arguments, and his passion to tackle unfairness, disadvantage and unaccountable power.

I sense that people don't quite warm to him like they did Charles Kennedy; he's not got Ming Campbell's gravitas; and he's not at the same level of Paddy Ashdown in terms of rhetoric and steeliness.

But, almost more than any contemporary politician, he has Tony Blair's exceptional linguistic ability to set out the arguments clearly and persuasively. He is operating, though, in a political culture that appears to pathologically despise error, inconsistency, compromise, inaction or long-term solutions.

My view, then, is that Nick Clegg's problem is not personal, and not even that much about policy. The challenge for him is twofold: (i) to avoid the continuing tactical errors that reduce his standing in the eyes of the commentators; and (ii) to develop the 2015 narrative (see also here). Unless Clegg gets better advisors quickly, journalists' predictions of Lib Dem wipe-out are likely to come true.