Politics
Wanted: an anti-Establishment insurgent for the third party
Published 06 December 2007
www.newstatesman.com/leadersAs they mull over the options on their ballot papers, the 55,000 dedicated members of Britain's third party could do worse than to heed the following advice: "For the country's sake, the Liberal Democrats need to get back a sense of anti-Establishment insurgency." At first glance this might seem an exhortation to join the margins of the national debate. Yet, with politics in flux and Labour in some turmoil (see the powerful critique by Jon Cruddas and Jon Trickett on page 14), is there space for an organisation that makes a virtue out of adopting radical positions not held by the two main parties?
It has become conventional wisdom to argue "no". The reason the Lib Dems did so well in the 2005 election, it is said, was Iraq. Now that Iraq is deemed "over", now that Tony Blair has been replaced by Gordon Brown, some claim that the space made available then no longer exists. Indeed, this seems to have been the conclusion ever since Charles Kennedy was forced to stand down two years ago. The ensuing leadership campaign was based around a principle that the Lib Dems needed to shed their "left of Labour" tag. Even though the contest was won by a sexagenarian, Menzies Campbell, the tone had been set by a younger group of modernisers who ensured that pledges such as raising the top rate of tax for the very rich were dropped.
Campbell is no more, done for by age, just as Kennedy was done for by drink. The next scene in the Lib Dems' drama might seem dull. The candidates, Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne, share many characteristics: as has been widely remarked on, both are public school-educated (Westminster); both are former MEPs; both are linguists married to southern Europeans; both would make any mother-in-law proud.
In policy terms, both are committed to supporting tough targets for tackling climate change; both want more money for education and more local powers; both want more public housing; both advocate constitutional reform; both call for stronger civil liberties, opposing plans to extend pre-trial custody and the introduction of ID cards. On tax, an area where many of our readers might not agree, both again have adopted similar positions on a smaller state.
So, if they apparently agree on so much, why have they been at each other's throats? Much of this has been tactical, on Huhne's part. As the underdog, he has been forced to set the pace, and also to accentuate the differences with his younger rival. Sometimes it has backfired, particularly with a misconceived dossier, "Calamity Clegg", which accused his opponent of hiding a right-wing agenda on public services. He was forced to apologise for its tone. Yet this more pugnacious approach bodes well. Huhne is right to make an issue of Trident, and the folly of Labour and Tory plans to back its renewal. By contrast, Clegg has been far too risk-averse.
The demise of Tony Blair and the passage of time since the Iraq invasion (although, as Zaki Chehab notes on page 34, claims that the country is on the upturn are little more than neocon wishful thinking) have not closed off genuinely radical options. Far from it, the erosion of human rights in the UK continues apace. The Tories, given their record in office, have no credibility in arguing the civil liberties cause.
In foreign affairs, Brown has moved with commendable speed to distance himself from the extremes of the Bush White House, but whether on Iraq or other military ventures, there is a stifling convergence between the two main parties.
In October, as the contest began, we suggested that the Lib Dems were in danger of disappearing as a political force if they retreated into the safety of the soggy centre. Both candidates are intelligent and articulate individuals, with some sound instincts. (Vincent Cable has found a brilliant new vocation as a parliamentary entertainer, but would not have been the man to take his party forward.)
Either Clegg or Huhne would serve the party well. But it is precisely because there is fertile territory for a truly liberal party that fights for causes that the others have abandoned that we endorse the man who uttered the opening words on this page: Chris Huhne.
When politicians play spooks
The National Intelligence Estimate, representing the views of all 16 US spy agencies, could scarcely be clearer: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme." This doesn't, the agencies make clear, mean that Iran will never try to develop such a capability. But right now it isn't trying and an Iran with nuclear weapons is at least seven years away.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that the agencies have become concerned by the increasingly bellicose language coming out of the White House. In October, George W Bush was talking of a nuclear-armed Iran starting a third world war, and he has since been pressing Europe to push for tighter sanctions against the country.
But why undermine White House strategy now? The stated reason from the US deputy director of national intelligence, Donald Kerr - that "our understanding of Iran's capabilities has changed" - explains the why but not the timing. We can hope that it is intended to inform Bush's future Middle East policy.
We also hope it signals an attempt by the agencies to put an end to the dangerous politicisation of intelligence. Over the six years since 9/11 we have seen a growing tendency for US and British governments to force the intelligence to fit the preordained narrative of politicians. The lesson, hard-learned on both sides of the Atlantic, is that when politicians play spooks, they make catastrophic mistakes.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
