The popular but dangerous sport of Lib Dem-baiting
The coalition has exacerbated Labour's worst tribalist tendencies.
By Mehdi Hasan Published 11 March 2011
I have a confession to make: I don't hate the Liberal Democrats. Ever since my appearance on BBC1's Question Time the day after the coalition was formed last May, when I mocked the new Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister as "TweedleCam and TweedleClegg", Lib Dems have assumed that I am an implacable and vitriolic foe of their party. I'm not.
It's true that the Lib Dem leadership betrayed the party's progressive, liberal and social-democratic ideals - not to mention its centre-left voters - when Nick Clegg and his negotiating team helped to put a Conservative government in power and voted through a regressive "austerity Budget". It's also true that there were viable alternatives to a full-blown coalition with the Conservatives: if not a "rainbow" alliance between Labour, the Lib Dems and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, then a minority Tory government with only "supply and confidence" support from the Liberal Democrats.
The Lib Dems' decision to forge an alliance with the Tories has exacerbated Labour's worst tribalist tendencies. Lib Dem-baiting has become a popular but dangerous sport inside the party. What was perhaps the most misjudged statement of Ed Miliband's leadership campaign came while he was on a tour of Scottish constituencies last August. "We have to make the Lib Dems an endangered species and then extinct," he told cheering supporters in Kilmarnock. Wisely, the Labour leader has since performed a U-turn, inviting Lib Dems to contribute to Labour policy discussions and even hinting that he could one day work with Clegg "if he were to be a sort of sinner repenteth".
Partners for peace
But Muammar Gaddafi is more popular in Labour circles these days than the Deputy Prime Minister. Several leading Labour figures justify their opposition to the Alternative Vote (AV) on the grounds that a victory for AV would embolden Clegg and strengthen the Con-Lib coalition. Nothing could be further from the truth: a defeat for AV would force the Lib Dems to do a deal with the Tories ahead of the 2015 general election, simply in order to survive under first-past-the-post.
AV aside, there are two other myths that need to be exploded. The first is that there isn't any common ground or common cause to be found with the Liberal Democrats. Labour moralists would do well to remember that the Lib Dems took positions well to the left of New Labour on a range of issues - from opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the introduction of ID cards to an amnesty for illegal migrants and an end to child detention. Despite misgivings about Clegg, it is worth noting a speech that the Deputy PM made in Luton on 3 March, praising multiculturalism and taking
a deliberate dig at David Cameron's decision to ban Conservative ministers from engaging with "Islamists". "You don't win a fight by leaving the ring. You get in and win," Clegg said. Progressives and pluralists should welcome such interventions.
The second myth is that Liberal Democrats aren't interested in finding common ground with Labour. To borrow a phrase from the Middle East, there are plenty of "partners for peace" inside the third party. In the Commons, there are Charles Kennedy, the former party leader, and John Leech, the Manchester Withington MP, both of whom abstained on the decision to go into the coalition and then voted against the trebling of university tuition fees. Nor should we forget Simon Hughes, the party's anguished deputy leader. He was criticised for accepting the job of "access tsar" on higher education but it was Hughes who led the backbench opposition to Iain Duncan Smith's draconian proposal for a 10 per cent cut in housing benefit for the long-term unemployed, thereby forcing the Work and Pensions Secretary into a little-noticed U-turn on this issue last month - a small but vital victory for progressives.
In the Lords, potential allies include Shirley Williams, who has spoken in recent days of her "moral duty" to challenge the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, on his plans to "dismember" the NHS. There's also Matthew Oakeshott, the party's former Treasury spokesman, who was forced to step down last month after describing the coalition's long-awaited Project Merlin deal with the banks - on bonuses and lending - as "pitiful". He tells me: "Lib Dem co-operation with Labour is growing by the day." And the peer Jenny Tonge was recently overheard saying in the Lords: "Why would I defect? It's my party, too. I'm not just going to leave it to them" - "them" being the neoliberal, small-state Orange Book faction now in control of the party of Beveridge and Keynes.
Huhne the untarnished
At a regional level, there's Richard Kemp, leader of the Lib Dems in local government, who told me in November that he was "cynical" about the "big society" and condemned the "front-loaded" cuts to local council spending. Among activists, there's Richard Grayson, the party's former policy director, who accepted an offer from Miliband in December to work as a "point man" for Lib Dems who want to offer their input to the various Labour policy commissions.
Yet the big question is whether or not there is a cabinet-level Lib Dem that Labour could do business with in future. One name being mentioned is Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary and former member of the SDP. If Clegg were run over by the proverbial bus, Huhne would be "the front-runner" to take over as party leader, says a Lib Dem frontbencher. As a cabinet minister, he might be tainted in Labour eyes but he has been lucky - unlike Vince Cable, who as Business Secretary has had to defend the tuition fees policy, and Danny Alexander, who as chief secretary to the Treasury has had to defend spending cuts. Huhne has the less controversial climate change portfolio, and because of the climate talks in Cancún last December, he was out of the country during the Commons vote on tuition fees. "He was very keen not to fly back," says a friend.
Whether or not Huhne emerges as a challenger to Clegg, the wider point still stands: the Lib Dems cannot and should not be defined by Clegg, Alexander or David Laws. To pretend that the party is personified by its free-market Orange Book clique is as foolish as pretending that Labour in the late 1990s was nothing more than Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson. "We're not parti pris for Nick Clegg," says a senior Liberal Democrat in the social-democratic wing of the party. "The natural home for most Lib Dems is on the left."
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


43 comments
The saintly Shirley Williams was chiefly responsible for the election of Margaret Thatcher. for that she should never be forgiven.
The progressive Lib-dems you claim to see don't seem to be able to speak out. they collaborate as gleefully as the French after 1940 and they parade most of the same lies about rallying in a national crisis.
Matthew fox, the brutal truth is, more support the nasty but competent party then the incompetent one, and no one is lying about the 'so called economic mess' New Labour's abysmal economic legacy is there for the world and his dog to see.
"I say again this is not what the vast majority of uk people want, they want a democratic socialist society."
I'm quite sure I agree, but just incase you did some different research to me, what is your proof?
Of course you have to discount that whole 18 years of conservative government, and then 13 years of right of centre, market accepting, boom and busty new labour thing. But other than that.......well you can't walk down the street these days without someone bursting into a tearful rendition of the red flag. Man I wish your ability to perceive our nations sensibilities.
Said Steve - "Their ideology is fundementaly neo-liberal." Sorry, but that is utter bilge. The party grassroots is thoroughly centre-left; however, because there was never any real attempt to fuse the principles and motivations of mainstream Liberalism and social democracy after the merger, we became an easy target for a determined cabal that knows what it wants, ie the Orange Book gang. In short, the party has been chumped, and now social liberals and social democrats are madly scrambling together what clout they can in preparation for May's Bonfire of the Councillors. Clegg and his squad once entertained the notion that they could force the party's left to abandon ship - hah, wrong. It is now inevitable that the Clegg Experiment will fail and someone has to be around to pick up the pieces.
Ed Miliband was against any share of power with The Lib Dems, then he changed his mind. Now Ed Balls seems to have proclaimed that he is not in favour of any future political alliance with The Lib Dems.
The public hysteria of blaming The Lib Dems and Nick Clegg for everything, is what Ed Balls is hoping Labour can benefit from at the next election. Therefore, not needing to go with The Lib Dems.
I do feel that the Lib Dems have a far less partisan approach to politics than Labour and this is healthier in many respects. Labour do not like free thinkers. They couldn't cope with Claire Short or Robin Cook. The Lib Dems do not have to toe the party line in the same way as Labour.
However, back to Labour. Andy Burnham seems to have a better approach. He has not ruled out any power sharing and seems generally more responsive to voters. He is more open minded and supports AV and realises that actually, no party may have a clear majority again. Therefore it is not up to Labour to rule anything out. The Greens are very popular in my area. I can see much of The South East seaside area going that way- if the other 3 parties keep fighting like kids.
The problem with the Lib Dems was that they did so well on the TV and at one point I thought they were going to promise free spas, chocolate and fresh flowers for all. No wonder people felt let down, when the flowers didn't arrive! Cameron's suit looked better though.
Maybe the tv debates will decide the next election as it seems many view politics like the x factor. If Labour can find a pop star celeb candidate to stand they may get in - that's how shallow it has all got. I will vote for the person locally that I think will do the best for people in general. Maybe party politics as we know it, is over and Labour need to adapt to this. However, they may get in on votes from union and public sector workers. It's an unusual time in British politics, if you add the welsh and Scottish votes in to the mix. But no doubt The Lib Dems will be blamed for Labour's past ills and the Conservatives current ones. Hardly fair, but that's trial by media for you. The next election will probably take place on Twitter or Facebook with a choice of over 100 parties. Nothing would surprise me. Labour would have to power share then.
the liberals are liberals - nothing more nothing less - they are not even social democrats (the social democrats and any left leaning politicos do not belong with them) let alone socialists - and since when has liberalism been left of centre? - also how long is it since labour has been left of centre? - the UK populous is essentially conservative in politics as in most else and may or may not vote Conservative - otherwise they vote conservative labour not socialist labour - or maybe conservative something else UKIP for instance - a genuine left wing party will never win a GE in the UK - 1946 (even if it was a choice for socialist labour rather than simply a pragmatic out of desperation choice for the desperately needed changes in society and personal life) was the once in a century siesmic shift that may or may not ever take place again
If we get AV then such pacts will be inevitable. As Ed Miliband supports AV he could hardly then turn around and say he wouldn't want to work with future Liberal Democrat MPs. Labour has moved towards the right increasingly in the last decades whilst the Libdems sailed slowly leftwards. When the likes of Shirley Williams and David Owen start making overtures to the Labour Party, you know it has in all but name become the SDP. Personally, I hope we do get AV and then maybe some of us will get the chance to support parties like Greens. the only party with any new ideas that is willing to challance the status quo!
The Lib-Dems are toast. As for reverting to type, Blair promised us that we could have our cake and eat it. The facts are if the market controles the economy everthing is based on short term gain. Thats why the state had to bailout the Banks. State intervention stoped the economic system colapsing. You can't have it both ways. Unless we accept that the state must be strong and there must be a large part of the economy in the hands of the state, them we will repeat the mistakes made over and over again in history. I'ts been glossed over how close we came to the edge. Has any one realy thought about this. The answer is no. Caplitalism and neo-liberalism failed. More of what nearly killed the patient is what's on offer.
Why can't we come to terms with this fact, I'ts the system that needs adressing is anybody listening!!!!
Q&A: What does confidence and supply mean? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/what-does-confidence-and-...
"Under "C&S", as it is sometimes called, a smaller party, or parties, agree to support a larger party on its budget and any votes other parties propose to bring it down. If the Liberal Democrats agreed to such a deal with the Tories they would support (or possibly abstain on) a Queen's speech put forward by a minority Conservative government in the next few weeks. They would do the same with a Tory budget and a vote of no confidence (if one is tabled). But the Lib Dems would judge other proposals on merit and would reserve the right to vote against the Tories on them."
It's the "Lib Dems would judge other proposals on merit and would reserve the right to vote against the Tories on them" that they're missing.
Under the Coalition, Cameron serves them great bowls of shit and the Lib Dems have to smile and pretend they like the flavour.
It's all very well rubbishing the Lib Dems, but it was Brown's obsession with power that has got us into this mess. For, leaving aside the banking crisis, public spending rocketed during his later years as chancellor - probably because he wanted to make sure he could become PM. If Labour were in power now it would have to implement cuts and they should be honest enough to admit this.
Post new comment