The Lib Dems need to decide what they really stand for
After Cable's intervention, the party needs to resolve its policy differences.
By Richard Morris Published 23 July 2012 15:07
Oh dear, there’s a bit of a barney going on over here in the Lib Dems. Over the weekend, Vince Cable made some mildly ambitious comments alluding to the fact that should a vacancy ever arise (and should he be given the opportunity), he probably could make a half decent fist of running the Lib Dems. He’s probably right, too.
Now I think Vince is at that stage of his career when he more often than not takes the view, "stuff it, I’ll say what I think", which is a pleasant change from the norm. I seem to remember Ken Clarke making similar noises a few years back, pointing out the lunacy of trying to pretend you had no ambitions to lead your party. But predictably, many in the media - and the Conservative Party - have jumped on this as the start of a Lib Dem civil war as Vince mounts an "attack" on Nick. "Of course he knew what he was doing", goes the cry, "he’s an experienced politician and he understands ‘the code".
This has the potential to be especially problematic for the Lib Dems, as the party wrestles to find its soul. This is often poorly defined as left vs. right, social liberals vs. Orange Bookers (Vince is usually placed in the former camp, with folk conveniently forgetting he contributed a chapter to The Orange Book), or even grassroots vs. parliamentary party. Of course, none of these descriptions truly fit.
But it does expose the need in the party to start resolving some of its positions, defining firm policy, and preparing for 2015. The differentiation strategy may have kicked off in June 2011, but I’m not convinced many people have noticed. Without this, the party will lack direction, and the discontent will manifest itself in questions over the leadership. The party is undoubtedly split over this. A poll on my own blog had a tiny majority for a change in leader before 2015, a larger Lib Dem Voice poll went the other way (no doubt aided by the question essentially being framed as, "do you agree with Lembit that we need a new leader?") And as things stand, whenever this issue comes up and someone expresses any ambition in the future, vitriol will be poured on their head from a large, internally held, bucket.
So starting with the party conference in September, we must formulate and agree some firm policy agendas. This, more than anything else, will tell us who we think the right person to present those policies to the electorate is – Nick or someone else. An open debate about the policies and philosophy we wish to present to the world is the first step down that road. And then we can concentrate on doing the important stuff. Arguing over whether our senior politicians have the right express ambition or not seems like a bit of a side issue. However much fun it may be ...
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















16 comments
We all know what the Lib/Dems stand for. They'll stand for anything as long as it keeps them in power.
We all know what the Lib/Dems stand for. They'll stand for anything as long as it keeps them in power.
From the outside, liberalism seems to split between classical liberals and modern liberals. As such, liberalism does appear to have a left and a right. If a Liberal Democrat government was ever formed by winning a majority at a general election, that divide would become apparent, I think. I don't think it's possible to partake in the processes of parliamentary democracy without taking sides. In the centre is a black hole, nothing more.
Actually, the centre is the opposite of a black hole, but, in the practicalities of everyday politics, I'd be surprised if there was a complete absence of either submission or domination.
"The Lib Dems need to decide what they really stand for" and so does Labour?
At the risk of being predicable I would like to point out that the Lib Dems can decide all they like, we already know what they stand for. Actually, that's a lie, beyond being something shifty and discreditable we don't have much to go on. Perhaps all they 'stand for' is, quite literally, elections with the hope that they get a cushy job.
Ed Miliband won't need a coalition partner. He is on course for an overall majority of 90.
Not if Scotland votes for Independence and with the first past the post still in place the political lefts vote [what ever that is these days] will be split and the Tories would be on course to win again this time with a working majority.
What if the moon were made of green cheese? Scotland is not going to vote for independence.
Not if Scotland votes for Independence and with the first past the post still in place the political lefts vote [what ever that is these days] will be split and the Tories would be on course to win again this time with a working majority.
In any case, Labour is on course for a majority of the seats in England, as in 1945, 1950, 1964, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005.
Labour will lose the next general election without the active support of the skilled English working class.
'... the need in the party to start resolving some of its positions, defining firm policy, and preparing for 2015.'
Top of the ist I assume will be a pledge to abolish tuition fees.
that does indeed remain official party policy to this day...
that does indeed remain official party policy to this day...
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com