How can the Lib Dems reverse the slide in their support?

Latest poll puts the Lib Dems down 5 points to 18 per cent.

In the end, just two Lib Dems voted against the coalition's VAT rise -- Bob Russell and Mike Hancock. Nick Clegg will be relieved that so few chose to rebel against a tax increse that, after all, his own party campaigned against during the election.

But there's little comfort for the Lib Dems in today's Independent/ComRes poll, the third in quick succession to show a slide in their support since the Budget. The poll puts Clegg's party down 5 points at 18 per cent, with the Tories up 4 to 40 per cent and Labour up 1 to 31 per cent.

Contrary to expectations of some on the left, it is so far the Tories who are gaining at the Lib Dems' expense. So long as the elixir of electoral reform remains within their reach, the Lib Dems will want this coalition to work. But fears that they are the convenient fall guys for George Osborne's cuts are growing by the day. And the old excuse that the Lib Dems receive less airtime than the Tories and Labour no longer applies.

New Statesman Poll of Polls

Poll of Polls

Conservative majority of 12.

The challenge for Clegg is, as Philip Stephens writes in today's Financial Times, to find a story that "goes beyond the claim that his party is a civilising influence on the government".

The introduction of the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections, against the wishes of the Tories, would provide Clegg with just this -- one reason why the timing of the referendum is such a pressure point in the coalition.

In addition, as my colleague James Macintyre argued yesterday, when there is a resuffle, Clegg should push for more influential positions in the cabinet.

But above all, one feels that the Lib Dems need to find an issue, aside from electoral reform, on which they can clearly and publicly distinguish themselves from the Tories. It could be Afghanistan, it could be Trident, it could be inequality. Whatever it is, Clegg needs to find it -- and soon.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era