The Lib Dems' family feud on welfare

Party activists are seething about the welfare reform bill.

An awful lot of the Lib Dem grassroots spent last week feeling the pain of the betrayed spouse. And it's nothing to do with Chris Huhne

Two weeks ago it was all chocolates and flowers from those on high with the promise of the raising of tax thresholds, and all the arguments and flirtations with other party's policies seemed like another life. We wandered around starry eyed...

...until last Wednesday, when we walked into the smack of firm government, as our MPs - with some very notable exceptions - undid all the good work of so many members of the House of Lords on the Welfare Reform Bill. And it's left a lot of members of the party feeling bruised, bloodied and ignored.

They're not taking it lying down. And it's not just the usual suspects - right across the party, folk are asking our Parliamentarians just what were you thinking?

And what's really riled the troops this time - over and above the fact that they fundamentally disagree with lots of the Bill - is that, particularly where Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) is concerned, it flies in the face of party policy. A policy agreed not in some far distant conference in the long years of opposition, but last September, in Birmingham. And when they get answers - and it's to their credit that our MP's do front up - they don't like them much.

In other parties, policy is generally decided by a small elite. For example, in the Tories, it's pretty much one man, one vote, that man currently being called David. There are plenty in Labour who wish they could say exactly the same.

In the Lib Dems, it's meant to be different. In all those long years of opposition, the final decision on policy has rested with the members through conference. Which apparently worked fine then, but less well now we're in government - because our MPs appear to find themselves conflicted.

Should they represent the views of the party, their own opinion , or the will of the people -like it or not, the welfare reforms are hugely popular with the electorate at large. And to be fair, it's a conundrum Lib Dem backbenchers struggle with over and over again. Every single backbencher in the parliamentary party has rebelled against the government at least once since May 2010, bar one (step forward David Laws).

Nevertheless, there are a lot of disgruntled Lib Dem activists sitting at home right now seething about the WRB. And questioning the way we agree - and execute - policy as a party. There's going to be a right old barney about it, and we'll do well to keep much of it behind closed doors. But I hope we do.

Letting family feuds spiral into the public domain seldom ends well for anyone involved, does it....

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

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

Daniel Hannan harks back to the days of empire - the Angevin Empire

Did the benign rule of some 12th century English kings make western France vote Macron over Le Pen?

I know a fair amount about British politics; I know a passable amount about American politics, too. But, as with so many of my fellow Britons, in the world beyond that, I’m lost.

So how are we, the monolingual Anglophone opinionators of the world, meant to interpret a presidential election in a country where everyone is rude enough to conduct all their politics in French?

Luckily, here’s Daniel Hannan to help us:

I suppose we always knew Dan still got a bit misty eyed at the notion of the empire. I just always thought it was the British Empire, not the Angevin one, that tugged his heartstrings so.

So what exactly are we to make of this po-faced, historically illiterate, geographically illiterate, quite fantastically stupid, most Hannan-y Hannan tweet of all time?

One possibility is that this was meant as a serious observation. Dan is genuinely saying that the parts of western France ruled by Henry II and sons in the 12th century – Brittany, Normandy, Anjou, Poitou, Aquitaine – remain more moderate than those to the east, which were never graced with the touch of English greatness. This, he is suggesting, is why they generally voted for Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen.

There are a number of problems with this theory. The first is that it’s bollocks. Western France was never part of England – it remained, indeed, a part of a weakened kingdom of France. In some ways it would be more accurate to say that what really happened in 1154 was that some mid-ranking French nobles happened to inherit the English Crown.

Even if you buy the idea that England is the source of all ancient liberties (no), western France is unlikely to share its political culture, because it was never a part of the same polity: the two lands just happened to share a landlord for a while.

As it happens, they didn’t even share it for very long. By 1215, Henry’s youngest son John had done a pretty good job of losing all his territories in France, so that was the end of the Angevins. The English crown reconquered  various bits of France over the next couple of centuries, but, as you may have noticed, it hasn’t been much of a force there for some time now.

At any rate: while I know very little of French politics, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess the similarities between yesterday's electoral map and the Angevin Empire were a coincidence. I'm fairly confident that there have been other factors which have probably done more to shape the French political map than a personal empire that survived for the length of one not particularly long human life time 800 years ago. Some wars. Industrialisation. The odd revolution. You know the sort of thing.

If Daniel Hannan sucks at history, though, he also sucks at geography, since chunks of territory which owed fealty to the English crown actually voted Le Pen. These include western Normandy; they also include Calais, which remained English territory for much longer than any other part of France. This seems rather to knacker Hannan’s thesis.

So: that’s one possibility, that all this was an attempt to make serious point; but, Hannan being Hannan, it just happened to be a quite fantastically stupid one.

The other possibility is that he’s taking the piss. It’s genuinely difficult to know.

Either way, he instantly deleted the tweet. Because he realised we didn’t get the joke? Because he got two words the wrong way round? Because he realised he didn’t know where Calais was?

We’ll never know for sure. I’d ask him but, y’know, blocked.

UPDATE: Breaking news from the frontline of the internet: 

It. Was. A. Joke.

My god. He jokes. He makes light. He has a sense of fun.

This changes everything. I need to rethink my entire world view. What if... what if I've been wrong, all this time? What if Daniel Hannan is in fact one of the great, unappreciated comic voices of our time? What if I'm simply not in on the joke?

What if... what if Brexit is actually... good?

Daniel, if you're reading this – and let's be honest, you are definitely reading this – I am so sorry. I've been misunderstanding you all this time.

I owe you a pint (568.26 millilitres).

Serious offer, by the way.

 

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496