Cameron was foolish to disregard the Lib Dems

The PM put his party before the coalition and the Lib Dems will punish him for it.

So, now it’s war.

As the reshuffle unfolded, my timeline was full of fellow Lib Dems asking "Is Cameron actively trying to piss us off?" And frequently it did feel like that. But of course the truth is, Cameron wasn’t really bothered what we thought. That wasn’t what this reshuffle was about. Neither was it really about a strategy to win the next general election - a lurch to the right seems unlikely to hoover up enough votes from UKIP to compensate for the seats the Tories would have won if the boundary changes had gone through.

No, this reshuffle was all about Cameron making sure he was still leading the party at the next election. He can’t afford to think much further than that, so weak is his position currently. He had to appease his backbenchers. And it may have worked for now – although how his stomach must have churned when he heard Nadine saying how much she liked the reshuffle.

But it is a very short term strategy. Yes, promoting the Patersons, Graylings and Hunts of this world may have secured Cameron’s position for a while longer. But just how angry will those same backbenchers be when they still can’t get their favourite policies through. Because it wasn’t Cameron stopping them having their way before. It was the Lib Dems.

There’ll be no third runway at Heathrow. There’ll be no tearing up of the Greenbelt. Even with no Ministers in the MoD (odd move that, Nick) there’ll be no Trident. I doubt if Norman Lamb will allow Jeremy Hunt to introduce his favourite homeopathy treatments into the NHS. There’s going to be a lot of crossed arms, shaking of heads, and great big "no’s". And however good a Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell may turn out to be, that won’t be much cop if the MPs standing in the way are in a different party. Cameron may have decided not to think about the Lib Dems when he reshuffled merrily away yesterday. But it was a foolish decision.

So while Cameron’s cabinet changes may allow him to empathise with his recalcitrant backbenchers for a while, soon the old frustrations will bubble up again. Because he hasn’t solved his real problem. He didn’t win the last general election. And sooner (if the Lib Dems can help it) or later they’ll punish him for it.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Liberal Democrat Conference.

It wasn't Cameron stopping the right from having its way. It was the Lib Dems. Photograph: Getty Images.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.