Why I have joined the Liberal Democrats

A good thing to be said for a currently unpopular party.

(Picture courtesy of Conservative Home)

Last week I did the oddest thing -- I joined the Liberal Democrats.

At least I cannot easily be accused of crude political opportunism.

There cannot have been many who joined the party last week, or any recent week. It is not as if I am attracted by their popularity.

Indeed, the decision is a strange one in a number of ways. I am opposed to the Alternative Vote proposal, as I simply do not believe third or fourth preferences are of equal value to a first preference. I do not accept assigning powers to European Union institutions is necessarily a liberal or a democratic exercise. Liberal Democrat MPs were inexcusably wrong to break a clear pledge not to increase tuition fees. And the Deputy Prime Minister is at best an uninspiring figure. On these issues, and many more, I will not be a partisan party member. In fact, I expect to be thrown out of the party in a week.

However, there is one very good ongoing reason to support the Liberal Democrats, and it is provided by Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home. Montgomerie, a staunch Tory, has been tracking the effect of the presence of Liberal Democrats in the Conservative government: see his posts hereand here. Montgomerie is right in his analysis: the current government is significantly more liberal than an entirely Conservative administration would otherwise be.

Politics is about power. The Labour opposition is impotent. In government they were illiberal and often brutal. There is only one political force that is having an actual liberal effect in our polity as it is presently constituted, and it is the Liberal Democrats. It may not be as strong a power as it should be. The Liberal Democrats may do well to leave the coalition and force a minority Conservative administration to gain concessions on a vote-by-vote basis. But Montgomerie's "concession-o-meter" shows why anyone who wants policy to be more liberal than it otherwise would be should support the effect the Liberal Democrats are having on Coalition government.

What the Liberal Democrats are doing in practice may not be popular, but it certainly should be commended by any liberal person.


David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.