Reshuffling Thoughts 2 - The Liberal Democrats

It was Sir Humphrey in the great Yes Minister who said ‘a party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts. Effectively no choice at all’.

Indeed when you look amongst the 300-odd Conservative MPs, once you take out those who are constantly rebellious, politically immature, too old or just simply bonkers, there is not a lot left – so David Cameron’s task when putting the government together is not as difficult as it seems. No Lords or EU rebel got promoted so that’s a third of the parliamentary party for a start.

For the Liberal Democrats, however, the opposite is the case. Where you have fewer MPs (the ‘cream rises to the top’), coupled with a limited number of ministerial places, there is simply too much talent to go round. The Lib Dems are blessed to have so much quality on its benches but cursed in that it cannot be put to full use in the government’s service. So while it is pleasing to see David Laws, Norman Lamb and Jo Swinson enter the government, it is sad to see Sarah Teather, Nick Harvey and Paul Burstow depart.

One view of this is to share out the responsibility. When the election comes, half of the parliamentary party will have had ministerial experience which will stand well both for any future plans the party may be involved in (another coalition?), or, to take the worst case, their individual career development outside parliament.

But the crux of the matter is – David Cameron’s question was who to bring in, Nick Clegg’s was who can we afford to live without?

Of course, if the Lib Dems had 300 MPs then doubtless we would have as many donkeys as the other two parties. But, pound for pound, it is clear that the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party is the most talented grouping in parliament.

So what of the reshuffle? Firstly, there was some dismay in Lib Dem quarters at having no-one in either the Foreign Office or Defence. To be honest, this does not concern me too much. As I said last time, I think William Hague is doing an impressive job and Nick Clegg can speak for the party if required. As for defence, again Clegg could cover but the argument for an alternative to Trident can be continued outside the department.

Secondly, no change in the cabinet. The only other role Vince Cable could be considered for is Chancellor of the Exchequer which will not happen. Danny Alexander is doing a fine job, Michael Moore has not done anything wrong and Ed Davey is on the right lines. The addition of David Laws in a roving role will be interesting (although I am not sure what that means – will he be a consigliere like Ken Clarke?). David Laws is the only Liberal Democrat to get regular kind words from Conservative Home – although this could be a double-edged sword.

There were rumours that Lib Dems (possibly Laws) would be given the Health department – and administer the Tory NHS reforms – an idea whose flaws are rather obvious.

It is at the junior levels that we now look and we see that concentration is being made on areas we hold dear. In Education (Laws), Health (Lamb), Business (Swinson) and Agriculture (David Heath), we have a more prominent and strengthened role - both to push our own views and check the Conservative ideas. (To be fair, not all Tory ideas are bad - but there are some which need, shall we say, another view).

My main concern has been Lynne Featherstone’s move to international development, which will reinforce this amongst the government's priorities, but the loss of the equalities brief – a role in which she excelled – could be very harmful, and implies that Cameron may again be placating his backbenchers, especially on same sex marriage.

How do the Liberal Democrats now fit into the government as a whole? Overall, I would be optimistic. There is influence in most of the key areas of the government and I would hope to see greater Liberal Democrats prominence as a whole. In a recent survey by Lord Ashcroft, 51% wanted to see more Lib Dem influence on the government so let us hope this will go partly in that direction. (There are many on the Tory Right who argue that Lib Dems have too much influence – an argument not borne out by the facts).

I want to see our ministers, new and old, come forward with proposals. The main priority is growth and the economy. The only Conservative idea is to cut taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor, which history has shown does not work. Liberal Democrats can think broadly and have greater initiative – balancing the need for a growing economy with a liberal sense of justice and fairness. It is up to us to free the government from the shackles of the Tory Right and push forward our plans.

Now the reshuffle is over, let us hope that the desperate yearning for a coalition collapse, that we see every week in the media and on the Conservative backbenches, will subside and the new administration can be left to get on with it. There is after all no shortage of work to do.

FOOTNOTE: However, as I prepare this entry, an interview has arisen with Michael Fallon, newly appointed business minister, in which he makes clear his views that we should salute ‘wealth creators’ (Tory-speak for ‘the rich’), and make it easier to sack people (the most famous and ridiculous part of the Beecroft report). One has to question the wisdom of the two leaders in allowing such potential tensions in a department as important as business.

Reshuffling Thoughts 1 - The Conservatives

‘A move to the right’ seems to be the overwhelming view amongst the media of this week’s government reshuffle, alongside its weekly speculation of the collapse of the coalition. Personally I think this is a bit simplistic – but the reshuffle has proved to be more interesting than I thought it might be.

Firstly, we must note what David Cameron could not do. Obviously he could not sack George Osborne. There is little doubt that Osborne has to date been a considerable failure in the post, but to abandon him now would be admitting the failure of Plan A. There is also the crucial role of taking the flak. John Major found that, after sacking his Chancellor Norman Lamont, he had lost a shield and all the subsequent criticism came directly his way. With Osborne in post, George can act as an air raid shelter for the Prime Minister. (My preference for Chancellor would be for the radical solution of giving Vince Cable the post – he is easily the best qualified candidate – but I accept that won’t happen).

No problem with William Hague in the Foreign Office – he seems born for the role – but Teresa May has been a disaster in the Home Office. From ‘cat-gate’ to borders to immigration, the blunders just go on and on. One could argue that Home Secretary is the most difficult government job, but Ms May seems completely incompetent in the role. Cynics observe she is only there because of her gender – I don’t think this is the case. However it is getting harder to believe that David Cameron genuinely thinks she is the best person for the job.

So despite two of them deserving to go, David Cameron could not move the big beasts. What about the medium sized beasts?

Reading through the changes I got the impression that Cameron felt the need (but not the desire) to placate his backbenches. As we have seen again and again, many Conservative MPs lack the maturity and the discipline to play a responsible role in backing their own leadership. They pick and choose which bits of the coalition agreement to support, and expect everyone else to keep to the agreements. (It is interesting to note that reportedly several Conservative MPs turned down a job in the whip’s office in order to be free to attack their own government!) So this is where the ‘move to the right’ comes in.

Arguably the most interesting move is Chris Grayling taking over Justice. The move of my fellow High Wycombe Royal Grammar School Old Boy to replace Ken Clarke is a clear change of direction. While some Lib Dems were unhappy with this move, I await developments with interest. I think Grayling will find it frustrating that he can talk tough but actually, due to the limitations of coalition, his position, and human rights, he can actually do very little. In the meantime, from now on, everyone we can’t deport, he will have to share the fault with Ms May.

Grayling has been in the London news lately for a scheme whereby youth unemployed will do unpaid work in return for their benefits – and this has got quite a negative response. I wonder if Cameron has ‘over-promoted’ him, both to keep him away from trouble, but also to neutralise a possible future leadership rival.

And what about Ken Clarke? Having him as a Minister without Portfolio sounds like he will be some sort of ‘consigliere’. I think Cameron appreciates the advice of his most experienced Minister but again is placating to his backbenches by removing any responsibility – a shocking and disrespectful way to treat someone of his stature.

Another stand out move is that of Jeremy Hunt to Health. Not long ago, he was on the edge of resignation, so to then get promoted is quite an achievement. One wonders if one motive of this is to start moves at making up with Murdoch with the next election in mind. How will Mr Hunt do with Health? After all the upheavals of the NHS restructuring, it may be a quiet department where he can settle down and be off the front pages for a while.

And the third Heathrow runway is back via Justine Greening’s move (and of course Boris bursting onto the scene – because it has been all of twenty minutes since he was last in the headlines). If the government were now to back the third runway it would be the biggest of all U-turns, but my guess is that the way is now open for a review to be carried out which will not report until after 2015 – a review that would not have happened without a favourable Transport Secretary.

Those are some early thoughts on the Conservative side of the reshuffle. Next, some thoughts on the Liberal Democrat reshuffle, how we can fit into all this, and how we can move forwards through the second half of this parliament.

Forget coalitions - we want 100 MPs!

Picture the scene: It is the Liberal Democrat party conference 2025, and the party are in high spirits. The leader stands on the stage and makes the welcoming speech to the faithful.

‘Not so long ago, it was said that the third party of British politics could travel to parliament in a taxi. Well, look how we travel now.’

At this stage a long line of London black cabs drive in and the occupants disembark.

‘Conference, I give you 100 Liberal Democrat MPs’ – as they all line up on the stage in front of an audience cheering and applauding warmly.
--
The word ‘coalition’ was never mentioned in British politics during the 1980s and 1990s – yet since 2010, we have heard nothing else. There is a general obsession with two topics – when will the UK government Tory-Lib Dem coalition end – and what will the next coalition look like after 2015?

There has been much speculation about the result of the 2015 general election – if it is another hung parliament, which way will the Liberal Democrats tread? Will we stay with the Tories or jump off with Labour? Indeed, will the Lib Dems become regular kingmakers?

It was a correct decision to go into coalition after the 2010 general election – but I have to ask – is the status of junior partner the height of our ambitions? Do we just want to tag along in a series of coalitions? It is right to be open to working with those of like minds – but are we not forgetting that we are our own party, with our own policies, principles and beliefs? And, the biggest prize of all, do we not all desire to see a Liberal Democrat Prime Minister walking into Number 10?

With whom would we enter these coalitions? We know the Conservative party cannot be trusted – their backbench MPs delight in the fact that their leader cannot speak for them. But how would we stand with Labour, who at the end of the day will always work with the Conservatives if it meant frustrating Liberal Democrat ambitions? The bottom line is that we will do badly out of either coalition option.

Whatever the result of the 2015 election, and assuming we are not the biggest party, I would like to see us back in opposition – not in blind opposition, but voting with the government if we agree with them and campaigning against on matters we do not.

Meanwhile we build and we build. We’ve taken knocks in the recent local elections, and we have more to come – and, let’s be frank, we will lose some MPs in 2015. But I want us to use the period after that to rebuild and reinvigorate our party, our local government base, and our support – and then from 2020, a full-on offensive in certain target constituencies and see how far we can go.

I expect many reading this piece will argue that, under first-past-the-post, we will never get 100 MPs. But look at this page - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/liberal-democrat-target-seats. As you can see, as well as our 57 MPs, small swings towards us in target seats will result in more victories coming our way. A swing of 3.5% from the Conservatives gives us 18 seats. A swing of 2% from Labour gives us ten more. Ambitious? Yes, of course. But why not? If we can go from 20 seats in 1995 to 62 in 2005 – trebling our parliamentary party in ten years – why can’t we keep going?

So my request to the party is to stop talking coalition and start talking Liberal Democrat. Let’s aim for those 100 MPs. Let’s get more Liberal Democrats into parliament!

The Morning After: My Thoughts

It may seem strange that a victory of 462 votes to 124 on the Bill for an elected Lords is coming across as a defeat – but let’s make no mistake. A defeat it is. Because of Labour’s lack of support for a programme motion, which would have set a timetable, the Tory rebellion would have been big enough to defeat the motion - and hence the Conservatives can now simply talk the Bill out.

Labour wanted it both ways – they supported the Bill to reform the Lords and then colluded with the Tory rebels to ensure that it would never happen. In trying to wear two hats, and hence two faces, the new modern Labour party is defending the privilege and patronage of the House of Lords. The Con-Lab coalition, referred to in my last post, is as strong as ever.

As for the Conservatives, clearly David Cameron has lost all discipline and authority in his party. He can no longer bring anything for certainty to the table. There is no point in a second coalition agreement as Cameron cannot guarantee that he can deliver. If he had shown some leadership ages ago, and removed the whip from one or two troublemakers, then the rest would have fallen into line. Instead he is now a lame duck leader. A teacher unable to control the children. In football terms, he has ‘lost the dressing room’.

Our greatest contempt should go to those Tory ‘rebels’. As I put in an earlier post, the Lib Dems have given and sacrificed much to provide a stable government in difficult economic times for the good of the country, and have held their noses as they have voted for Conservative policies. In return, the Tories and media have just thrown abuse and insults at Clegg and the party – like a spoilt child always wanting more.

The Conservative parliamentary party are simply too immature to be seriously trusted with any power and responsibility – and Cameron knows it.

In a way I feel sorry for David Cameron. We will be rid of the Tory backbenchers in 2015. He is lumbered with them for eternity.

So where do we go from here? Firstly, despite my harsh words, it is my view we should not end the coalition. The main reason for the coalition – to provide stability and work towards reducing the deficit – remains. In one aspect, the rebels are correct – the economy is the most important issue and we must continue to work together with the more adult Tories to get that right.

However, we should reject any coalition after 2015. If either of the other two get a majority, then good luck to them. We should back them if we agree and fight where we do not. Otherwise we should be prepared to work with any other party but on a much looser basis. We cannot continue the coalition with the Conservatives, when as demonstrated David Cameron is unable to keep his word, and nor should we enter coalition with Labour, who would clearly prefer to work with the Tories.

In opposition, we should use that time to regroup and rebuild, and continue to scrutinise whoever forms the government. We can then come back revived and refreshed in 2020.

But this is three years away and there is still much to do. For now we should keep going, keep winning the arguments, keep both eyes on the Tories, and keep pushing forward with the main objective to do what we can to make this country a fairer society by 2015.

The War Of Two Coalitions

Over the last two years, it has become clearer and more evident that our political landscape is a struggle between two coalitions. We have one coalition which is open, temporary, business-like and at times unsteady. And there is another which is very firm, strong and long-lasting, and possibly will out-live all of us.

The first is the current Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition (‘Con-LD’). This currently runs the government and was the result of an indecisive general election. Its’ main purpose is to secure a stable administration during difficult economic times and put into place a deficit reduction programme and other measures agreed in a coalition agreement. It is due to run for five years and come to an end in 2015.

However, it becomes clearer each day that its’ main opponent is the formidable Conservative-Labour coalition (‘Con-Lab’). This is a far stronger coalition, in place since 1945, and infinitely more difficult to break down. Its successful objective has been to work together to secure the two party hegemony. This coalition is, of course, secret and unacknowledged by either party.

So where is the evidence for this contention – that in any dispute with a third party, the two big old failed parties will close ranks? This is as follows.

Firstly, since the 1970s, the ‘others’ have secured at least a quarter of the votes. The Liberals in 1974 and the Alliance in 1983-87 got 25% alone, and were rewarded with a tiny fraction of seats. To the horrors of the Con-Lab coalition, 35% (over a third) of voters chose someone else in 2010. We are now clearly a multi-party democracy.

Any sane society would seek to reflect this change of circumstances by putting into place a fairer electoral system. Instead the Con-Lab coalition have robustly defended first-past-the-post – a system which grossly over-inflates their vote, and makes it possible, as we saw in 2005, that one party can dominate parliament with 35% of the votes – barely a fifth of the electorate.

As the Soviet empire fell, and as democracy spread throughout eastern Europe, Africa and Asia, it is noteworthy that no new democratic country has adopted the first-past-the-post system to choose their representatives.

True, we had a referendum on changing the system, into which the Tories and the media pulled their enormous resources. Despite Ed Miliband’s support, did we get a full throttle, active campaign from Labour – or instead a mixed, half-hearted effort more interested in working with the Tories and against Nick Clegg rather than take this historic opportunity?

Secondly, since 1945, the rules of party funding continue to bias the two big parties. The Tories have big business and Labour have the trade unions. The Liberal Democrats and others have quiz nights and car boot sales. So the Con-Lab coalition can dwarf anyone else in terms of putting resources into campaigning. (Party funding is currently being reviewed but does anyone think there will be actual genuine change?)

Thirdly, before the current Con-LD coalition, there was one example of third party co-operation since 1945 – the Lib-Lab Pact of 1977-78 of which I wrote earlier. The Liberals' reward was to be proportional representation for the first European Parliament elections in 1979 – yet when it came to it, Labour betrayed the Liberals and voted with the Tories to ensure first-past-the-post.

And finally, we come to the most recent example – House of Lords reform. This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to finally have a second elected democratically-accountable chamber. Labour should be enthusiastically supporting this principle. Instead they plan to ally with the Tory rebels to ensure the reforms are talked out.

The ghosts of the great socialists of the past must be disgusted that, after all the struggles it took to get socialism established in this country, their beloved Labour party are now backing privilege and patronage over democracy. Keir Hardie and Michael Foot must be rolling in their graves.

It is suggested that the Liberal Democrats may block the boundary changes. Tories need not worry. If there is any doubt, I think Labour will vote to push them through. The changes may harm Labour and benefit the Tories – but they will harm the Liberal Democrats most of all – and, in my view, Labour would be happy to see years of Tory government, and the country suffer as a result, if it meant the extinction of the Liberal Democrats.

Of course, there are certain people on both sides prepared to defy the Con-Lab coalition and work with others. To his credit, David Cameron has proved willing to work with the Lib Dems, has become the first Prime Minister to sacrifice his right to call an election at will, and is to an extent promoting Lords reform. For Labour, Ed Miliband and Peter Mandelson have discussed willingness to work across party lines. Whether each can defeat the establishment within their own parties is doubtful.

This brings us to the question – how can we break this coalition? How can we end the Con-Lab coalition which has been in effect since 1945? Well, the answer is – I don’t know. The Con-LD coalition will end soon but the Con-Lab deal is as strong as concrete. The only hope is with the other parties – Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green, the Nationalists, the English Democrats etc.

If we can see more and more votes taken away from the big two, if we eventually see more progressive leadership from either big party, if we see our multi-party democracy continue to grow and develop, then maybe – just maybe – we will get genuine change in this country. Although how many of us will be around to see it is another question.

Is it time for the Liberal Democrats to play hardball?

It was a correct decision to enter coalition with the Conservative party after the May 2010 general election result, and indeed we have got many of our policies into place. However, in that time, Liberal Democrats have also had to take a lot. For example:

• We have signed up to a deficit programme that we knew was wrong and would not work – as has proved to be the case. Not only is public spending still not reduced, but the country is in a double dip recession.

• We have had to let the Tories cut taxes for the wealthy and block our attempts to close loopholes, while simultaneously seeking ways to cut benefits on the vulnerable.

• We have had to trust the Tories with reforms to the National Health Service – as far as I know, no-one has trusted the Tories with the NHS since the 1950s.

• We have had a major segment of our support, not to mention overall trust, destroyed by being compelled to accept, and then sell, the tripling of tuition fees.

• We have had to stand by and watch our country’s leader in Europe fighting not with the country’s interests in mind, as Merkel and Sarkozy/Hollande had with their respective states, but with only the interests of 100-odd troublesome Tory MPs.

• We had to accept a referendum to switch the voting system to one that we didn’t really want anyway – the rejection of which has put bringing in fair votes further back.

• We may (to be confirmed) have to accept the reintroduction of a two-tier education system which was announced to the Daily Mail before our ministers.

• We may have to accept boundary changes which will benefit the Tories while undoing a lot of the good constituency work we have done over the years.

• We have lost hundreds of councillors around the country – and in some areas of the north and Scotland we face extinction.

Now, of course, much of the above we could foresee in advance. We always said we would pay the price in government and, by god, are we paying! But if you read Conservative Home, the media and listen to certain Conservative MPs, you would think that the nasty Lib Dems are stopping the Tories from doing all the nice things that people want. Absolute nonsense! On the contrary, Peter Bone, Nadine Dorres and others should be thanking Nick Clegg every day – they owe him a lot. He has sacrificed so much to put them on the government benches.

It is inevitable that we will continue to lose hundreds of councillors over the next two years – and it is also quite possible we will lose over half of our MPs. We have accepted that as the price of doing the right thing. But I think it is now about time that the Tories took some share of the pain. When we get to 2015, we should ask ourselves – what are our lasting achievements to make the country a fairer place?

This week is an essential piece of political reform for which we have waited 100 years. The House of Lords vote – to put into place a manifesto promise by all three parties to move towards a partially elected House of Lords (and this is 80% instead of 100% - yet another concession to the Tories). True to form, it is understood that dozens of Tory MPs will attempt to block the measure. Labour may well be opportunistic and join them and hence the plans are likely to fail.

We have two possible cards to play. Firstly, if the polls are correct, an election now would see the Tories back down to their 2005 level. Of course, we might suffer too but then if you are going down, who better to take with you than a Tory? Secondly, and less drastically, we could say goodbye to the boundary changes bill (although many Tories would welcome that) – if one party can break their word, then why can’t the other?

Of course I hope everyone will be adults – Tories included. I hope we see Lords reform, the boundary changes and, most important of all, the two parties to recognise the efforts of each other to provide a stable government which will, eventually, find the right way to growth and recovery.

But in a coalition both sides must give and take, and if many of the Tories continue to behave like spoilt children and take and take without any giving, then it may be the time for us to take as well.

The Conservative irony over same sex marriage

‘We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.’

Where do you think those words come from? New Labour? Liberal Democrats? No, they come from the Conservative party’s Equality Manifesto from the last election. Here’s an easier one. Who said this?

'And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative’.

Yes, of course, that was David Cameron in his leader’s speech at the Conservative party conference last year.

The point I am making is that the subject of same sex marriage is currently a Conservative policy – no other major party has even mentioned the topic – so it is quite ironic that the greatest opposition to the idea, is coming from many within the Conservative party. Some are even blaming the Liberal Democrats for ‘forcing’ the Tories into it – which would not be the first example of Liberal Democrats getting criticised by the Tories for pursuing a Tory policy!

Liberal Democrats were (rightly, in my view) criticised for breaking a certain policy commitment in 2010. However here, as with Lords reform, many Tories are breaking their own commitments, yet are getting away with it. Some things are not fair.

On the issue of same sex marriage, opinion polls report that people are generally in favour of same sex marriage (with the exception of the over 65s). All the major parties are in favour so it is likely to get through OK.

With the parliamentary vote in mind, our MP, Gordon Henderson, commented that he had not yet made up his mind, that he would decide after listening to the arguments, and that he had two conditions for same sex marriage – that it is banned from religious buildings, and that no-one should be compelled to officiate at such ceremonies. It will be interesting to see what Gordon decides.

In response, here is my letter to the Sittingbourne News Extra

‘Marriage is a wonderful institution whereby two people commit themselves to love and support each other for the rest of their days. Generally speaking, married people are happier than single people. I myself have been happily married for nearly ten years. So it is curious that the topic of gay marriage is causing such an issue.

I was interested to read the views of Gordon Henderson, our MP, with regards to the upcoming vote in parliament. Like Gordon, I am a regular church-goer. I am actively involved with my local church in Milton Regis. And I can agree with one of Gordon's conditions - that people should not be compelled to officiate at same-sex ceremonies if they have objections to do so - this seems reasonable enough.

But I can't agree with his other view - that religious buildings should not be used for these ceremonies. God loves everyone, any Christian church would welcome in gay people and encourage them to get involved. So can we then ban them from using a church for the happiest day of their lives?

I can understand how some may feel uncomfortable with the concept of gay marriage, but the church must move with society. It was not long ago that the church were reluctant to marry divorcees, a viewpoint we find remarkable today.

We have some wonderful churches in the Sittingbourne area, so if a same-sex couple were to choose one of these houses of God to publicly make their vows to each other, under the eyes of God, then is this not something we should encourage?’