How tightly are the Lib Dems bound to the Tories?
Peter Hoskin 11:54am
A thoughtful and thought-provoking column from Danny Finkelstein (£) in the Times this morning, which is well worth a trip beyond the
paywall to read. In it, he makes a persuasive point: that, despite their plunging poll ratings, the Lib Dems aren't doing too shabbily at all. After all, who, looking back at the party's recent
history, would have thought they would be in power in 2010? That they are suggests, in Danny's words, that "this is not not the bottom for the Lib Dems, it is the top."
From there, an important point is made against those who still contend that the Lib Dems would have been better off shacking up up with Labour in May, that it would have been a more natural fit.
Here it is:
The question that follows in my mind is whether there will ever be any circumstances in which partnership with Labour wouldn't mean extinction for the Lib Dems. And, in truth, it's hard to see those circumstances arising any time soon."…the price of joining Labour might well have been greater. In May Labour lost the election, had an incredibly unpopular and uncooperative leader, and couldn't have formed a majority government even with the Lib Dems. And the Tories were making a tremendous offer. If Mr Clegg had gone in with Labour in these circumstances, it is hard to see any circumstances in which he would not have gone in with Labour. And if there were to be no circumstances in which the Liberal Democrats would go in with anyone but Labour, what would be the point of them as an independent party? …. What Labour was offering the Lib Dems wasn't a higher poll rating, it was extinction."
For starters, a yellow-red blend would rest on a huge range of political changes: from the appointment of a Labour leader who can do business with the Lib Dems, to a sweeping retreat from the broadly rightwards direction that Nick Clegg has taken his party in the past few years. It would probably even require Clegg's removal as party leader.
None of these changes are inevitable, or even easy – but even if they could be brought about, then consider the position that the Lib Dems would be in then. Having spent months, maybe years, putting in place a radical programme of spending cuts and a retrenchment of the state, they would be joining forces with a party which more or less opposes them. The inconsistency would be damning, and no doubt deeply unattractive in the eyes of a public who might rightly ask: what do the Lib Dems believe? What is the point of them?
Of course, the Lib Dems could sit as they generally have done, a free-floating party in between the Big Two. But, internally, even Clegg is warning against that move. As Danny puts it towards the end of his article, "they can't go back". Even though
there will undoubtedly be tensions and flashpoints ahead, that bond with the Tories could be stronger than it sometimes appears.
UPDATE: Alex adds his thoughts here.
Previous
Ronnie
August 4th, 2010 12:07pm Report this commentPete.
Why do you keep suggesting that we go through Rupert Murdoch's pay wall? Are you on commission?
As you have free access, I presume, I'm perfectly happy for you to pass on summaries of things you find interesting. Perhaps you could summarise Matthew Parris's column while your at it?
Private Schultz
August 4th, 2010 12:09pm Report this commentAnyone would think you're on commission from The Times, the number of post you produce encouraging us to subscribe!
alexsandr
August 4th, 2010 12:33pm Report this commentdoes anyone think the limp dems will split. The social democrats joining labour and the liberals working with the tories?
People like cable would be happier in a labour party I think.
(Oh the the constant cheerleading of the times pay site annoys me too. nearly as much as their scrolling banner at the top)
Pete Hoskin
August 4th, 2010 12:41pm Report this commentRonnie and Private Schultz: sorry to disappoint, but I'm certainly not on commission from the Times. Will tone down paywall references to avoid doubt - and, to be fair, I did highlight a link to a free version of a Times article yesterday (in the post on Ed Balls). Ignore the Times for all I care - or, better still, rely on our summaries!
Alex
August 4th, 2010 12:49pm Report this commentYes - please summarise Matthew Parris' column. That was the only reason for buying The Times in the first place.
John Steed
August 4th, 2010 1:37pm Report this commentI agree that the LibDems would have made a huge mistake to go into coalition with Labour BUT it does not follow that the course of action they have taken was the only viable one for them.
They could, as Cameron acknowledged, have entered a looser arrangement short of full coalition. In my view they should certainly not have signed up to the Conservatives' cuts programme without significantly more debate about what it will actually mean, economically and socially.
By allying themselves so closely to the Tories, it is inevitable that the electorate will punish them for what appears like inconsistency if not duplicity in their economic programme.
2trueblue
August 4th, 2010 1:39pm Report this commentThe Lib Dems got a great deal with the Tories and only a lunatic would think they could have done better with Liebore.
They are sharing the platform that they could never have gained on their own.
Liebore are now the shipwreck but the media still think that they need to interview them about everything, which I find facinating. They are stuck in a time warp.
Cable is not sure where he is, but we all know where he came from. He came from the Liebore camp and is a bit lost. He has little ability to adapt and was given a big profile by the BBC prior to the election, which of course he has actually done nothing to earn. He has a chance now to do something and the test is there if he is up to it.
The coalition is doing far better than the media would like because they have to actually process things and engage their brains(?) rather than fawning over Liebore, which they did for 13+yrs. We had 13yrs of spin which they all swallowed and did not do thier job, which is of course to inform and report.
yank
August 4th, 2010 2:06pm Report this commentYes, if the Lib Dems are the equivalent of our "libertarian" strain over here, as I surmise they are, then they would only get burned by alliance with the Left (who we here strangely term as "liberals" but who, in the main, are hardly liberal in any classic sense).
So, in recent years, libertarians who joined with the Left are pejoratively referenced as "liberaltarians", and their ill conceived joinings have given rise to a massive growth of leftist spending and governmental power, the antithesis of libertarian thought.
Thus, libertarians gave away any leverage they might have had. Perhaps a solid tactical move, if only to highlight for all the downside of leftist governance. But proper strategy would now require alliance with conservatives, as we'll likely see in 100 days.
My home State of Michigan held its electoral primary yesterday. Greasy insiders were running for State House, State Senate and Governor, but were defeated by novice candidates influenced by the "Tea Party". It was glorious.
Come the November general election, we'll see if the libertarian strain supports these novice candidates. If we mirror you all, they will, and the first Tuesday in November will be a bloodbath... and another glorious day.
davidk
August 4th, 2010 2:14pm Report this commentThe Lib Dems are finished. Nick Clegg will go the extra half inch and join the Tory Party taking with him his Orange Bookers, and the rest will set up the Social Liberal Democratic Tree Hugging Party.
Little Danny Finkelstein can postulate all he wants; the only outcome that's ever on the cards from Con-Lib pacts is the submersion of the latter into the former.
TrevorsDen
August 4th, 2010 2:16pm Report this commentIs there any SDP element to the LDs now?
BTW - someone in the telegraph I think pointed out that we had coalition government for most of the time between 1915 and 1945. Someone should mention that to hysterical journalists (like Heffer) and dopey back benchers.
The Fink seems to talk sense on this for me.
Verity
August 4th, 2010 2:52pm Report this commentI'm not surprised that Pete is a fan of Daniel Finkelstein.
Re Matthew Parris, can one not just Google him? Yes, his column was the only thing worth turning to The Times for anyway.
JohnAnt
August 4th, 2010 3:42pm Report this comment"is well worth a trip beyond the paywall"-
You know, it really isn't. Nothing written in The Times is worth paying for. You can either get it elsewhere or do without. All the rather empty Finkelstein piece does is to provide you with yet another rather empty blog topic. Unless you're a Tory or LibDem politician, who cares?
Rabyrover
August 4th, 2010 4:09pm Report this commentPower provides patronage. Clegg can now place and entrench many of his supporters in numerous bodies over the next few years; for example, the House of Lords, Commissions, Quangos, etc, etc. For the first time in a century, Liberals can offer its friends preferment.
This will keep many Lib Dems on board.
Craig Strachan
August 4th, 2010 4:49pm Report this commentYes, The Times effecively ceased to exist when it went cowering behind a paywall.
Marcher Baron
August 4th, 2010 6:50pm Report this commentSorry to disabuse you, but nothing "is well worth a trip beyond the paywall".
Paddy
August 4th, 2010 7:44pm Report this commentThe Lib Dems could never have formed a government with Labour because Labour are so selfish - just thinking about themselves.
Could anyone honestly see the odious and lying Ed Balls standing on a platform with Nick Clegg.
No the Lib Dems made the right and only decision to go with the Tories.
And anyone with any sense know the cuts had to be made - so there was no choice.
AndyLeeds
August 5th, 2010 9:03am Report this commentThere is that old saying 'becareful what you wish for'. The LibDems had wished (as had a lot of the chattering classes) a hung Parliament thinking that the LibDems & Labour would then form a 'progressive allience'. Well we the people had other ideas. None of them like what actually happened. The only game in town was a coalition with the Tories - they were the largest party in seats and miles ahead in votes. That's what we decided.
The Fink actually pointed out that the polls now show the LibDems on 12% and everyone is saying this is a disaster and surely the bottom. As he points out in 1950 they got 2 1/2% and 3 seats. So 12% is the top not the bottom.
Probably what will happen is the LibDems will split - people like Cable and Highes will join the Labour Party as this is where they actually belong. Clegg & Co are more liberal Tories. What I would have prefered to have happened was for teh LibDems to have become the second party and help to destroy the fascist Labour Party, but it hasn't worked out like that.
Back to top