The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

The Lib Dems need to decide what they really stand for

After Cable's intervention, the party needs to resolve its policy differences.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Photograph: Getty Images.
Nick Clegg's leadership is under growing criticism from Liberal Democrat members. Photograph: Getty Images.

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 ...

16 comments

praha7's picture

We all know what the Lib/Dems stand for. They'll stand for anything as long as it keeps them in power.

praha7's picture

We all know what the Lib/Dems stand for. They'll stand for anything as long as it keeps them in power.

Fordy1968's picture

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.

Fordy1968's picture

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.

Red Rain's picture

"The Lib Dems need to decide what they really stand for" and so does Labour?

Agent's picture

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.

Davidaslindsay's picture

Ed Miliband won't need a coalition partner. He is on course for an overall majority of 90.

Red Rain's picture

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.

Davidaslindsay's picture

What if the moon were made of green cheese? Scotland is not going to vote for independence.

Red Rain's picture

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.

Davidaslindsay's picture

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.

Red Rain's picture

Labour will lose the next general election without the active support of the skilled English working class.

Herbert's picture

'... 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.

RichardMorrisUK's picture

that does indeed remain official party policy to this day...

RichardMorrisUK's picture

that does indeed remain official party policy to this day...

Latest tweets