Could the Lib Dems revenge Tories for 1922 Carlton Club rebellion?

Here’s an intriguing thought. This Friday marks the 90th anniversary of the Carlton Club rebellion of Tory MPs against the coalition with the Liberals. It forced David Lloyd George‘s resignation as prime minister. Could the Liberal Democrats exert revenge nine decades later by bringing down David Cameron in similar dramatic fashion?

The 1922 Tory backbenchers were unhappy with the coalition, especially after it nearly went to war with Turkey in the Chanak crisis. The party’s leaders wanted to continue the coalition, but the backbenchers won the day. Lloyd George was out, never again to hold office. King George V said he was sorry to see him go, but added that ‘Some day he will be prime minister again’. The king was wrong.

The Liberal Democrats have proved spineless in coalition. They broke their election pledge on student fees. They cravenly allowed the Tories to break their own promise not to reorganise the NHS. They have let the Tories wreak havoc with brutal spending cuts that have plunged us into a double dip recession. The list goes on. Will they one day reach breaking point and say ‘no more’?

Sceptics will say it’s unlikely. The Lib Dems face disaster at the next election – so why would they prompt an early election? (Assuming that’s even possible after the coalition legislated for a fixed term.) And the Lib Dem ministers are clearly enjoying the privileges of office.

But who can tell what pressures may build up over the next 30 months. We may yet see the creation of the Liberal Democrats’ 2014 committee, named after the year of the great rebellion that ended David Cameron’s political career…

 

Coalition blues – why the Liberal Democrats need an assertiveness course

The Guardian backed the Liberal Democrats in last year's general election, along with the party's subsequent decision to enter a coalition with the Conservatives. That government has hardly proved a triumph for its parties or the people. So it was hardly surprising to see the paper in a leader today urging the Lib Dems to fight for what they believe rather than staring at their feet whenever the government does something unpopular or unjust. 

Cynics have, unsurprisingly, condemned the Guardian's assertion that the Lib Dems have no choice but to stick with the coalition. 

I too backed the Liberal Democrats at last year's election. I too saw little option but the current coalition, given Labour's rejection of an alternative partnership – and the fact a so called progressive alliance would need every other party in Commons to support it. (Oh, and Labour's crushing electoral defeat.) But Nick Clegg and his party have played their hand disastrously badly since May 2010. They've allowed the Tories to break an election pledge not to reorganise the NHS. (A stupid move not included in the coalition agreement.) They've cheered on the biggest public spending cuts since before Hitler's war. And their most respected leader, Vince Cable, is hugely diminished after falling for a crude trick and losing the chance to decide the outcome of Rupert Murdoch's bid to create an even more dominant force in British broadcasting by taking over the whole of BSkyB. 

Above all, the Lib Dem leaders seem far too comfortable in their ministerial limos and offices, and far too little concerned about the catastrophic rush to slash and burn public services. Small wonder we hate and distrust politicians when all three main UK parties rushed to reassure us during the election that services wouldn't be axed right left and centre. Now, we face the mad axemen and the usual pointless, expensive reorganisations. We see a government in disarray, acting as arms seller to Middle East dictators while trying to talk up democracy in the region; trying to flog off England's forests to the highest bidder while pretending to be green; and generally getting many other things so badly wrong. 

It's not too late for the Lib Dems. The next few years will be tough but if they start asserting themselves, they stand a chance of avoiding oblivion in 2015. And Britain would be a slightly better place to live as a result. 

 

Britain’s new government: let’s praise our politicians and civil servants

Britain's politicians aren't the most popular people on the planet, especially after the MPs' expenses scandal. But they deserve great praise for the responsible, dignified and mature way they behaved after the May 2010 general election resulted in a hung parliament.  

Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg rose to the occasion, with statesmanlike speeches the day after the election. Negotiations were carried out without the usual leaks and briefings. And the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats made great compromises with good grace to create what I hope will be a stable and enduring government. 

Let's not forget the huge contribution made by Britain's highly professional and non-political civil service. It must have been a great professional challenge to respond to the uncertainties of the last six days and enable the new coalition government to take office just hours after the parties finally reached agreement. 

Changing a government is the greatest glory of a democratic country. In many countries, it would be an impossible dream. Last night's dramatic events reflect well on Britain.  

Britain’s progressive coalition was a non-starter – but Labour could still win

Britain has its first Conservative prime minister for 13 years – and its first coalition since the dying days of the second world war.

The Guardian's Polly Toynbee was urging a Labour-LibDem progressive alliance again in today's paper. But it was always an impossible dream. The time had long passed for Labour to lead a centre-left alliance. Tony Blair had the chance in 1997; he wanted to seize it, as Paddy Ashdown revealed in his diaries. But Gordon Brown and John Prescott torpedoed any possibility of a deal. Brown must regret his foolishness. Prescott, the old warhorse, won't care – he is a Berlin Bunker man.

Many thought Brown's first resignation (as Labour leader) was a masterstroke. It appeared to open the way to a Lab-Lib pact. But this always seemed unlikely. How could the Lib Dems deal with a party with no leader? And Labour has shown great judgement and dignity in deciding not to pursue a coalition to stay in power. John Reid had mixed motives, but he was absolutely right to warn of the dangers in creating a partnership of losers and nationalists. In the long term, Labour may well prove to be the big winner. Despite a disastrous election, Labour is still in sight of the Tories, as the coalition contest showed. Labour will be the only true opposition party, and will surely reap the rewards in tough times to come.

As a natural supporter of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, I find a Conservative-LibDem alliance hard to swallow. But Nick Clegg was right and honourable to say the Tories had the first right to try to form a government (even though constitutionally a rainbow coalition would have been just as legitimate had it garnered a Commons majority). I hope that the Lib Dems will housetrain the Tories, making this government far more palatable (even allowing for our perilous financial position) than the dark day when the deeply divisive Margaret Thatcher entered Downing Street in 1979. And some kind of electoral reform is essential.

The tragedy for all of us who believe in progressive politics is that it could have been so different. Had Labour really believed in fair votes and a progressive alliance, it would have sealed the deal back in 1998. It would have adopted Roy Jenkins' fair voting proposals and completed Tony Blair's 'project' to include the Lib Dems in government. But Labour's tribalists said no. And the party kept faith with Gordon Brown long after it was clear that Labour would do badly with him as leader in the 2010 election. Had Gordon gone, it's likely that Labour would have been far closer to the Tory result, making a Lab-LibDem deal far more realistic.  

So much for might have beens. We have a new government. Our first coalition for 65 years. And a true breakthrough for the Liberal Democrats, with Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister. I hope the party won't suffer. I hope Labour will regenerate quickly. Most people in Britain voted again for progressive parties. Shame on Labour for failing to allow a progressive alliance before it was too late.

Needless to say, many have expressed their utter disgust with a new Tory government. They may be proved right. But I believe in democracy. The Conservatives did better than any other party in the general election across Britain as a whole. They got more votes and more seats. The Lib Dems should temper their excesses. Let's not assume failure on the new government's very first day.

PS: nothing became Gordon Brown and his family as the way they left Downing Street. I'm proud of the way Gordon and Sarah protected their young sons during their time at No 10.

Clegg’s conundrum: Cameron or Brown?

Be careful what you wish for. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg faces an appalling dilemma this weekend. Should his party help David Cameron form a Tory government? Or partner the election’s biggest loser, Gordon Brown, to create a Lib-Lab pact?

Clegg made it clear on Friday that the Conservatives had won the right to try, as they won the greatest number of seats and votes in Thursday’s general election. Cameron quickly offered the Lib Debs a partnership, but one that would have required Clegg’s party to give up most of its cherished policies, especially on fair votes. The parties have been in talks ever since. 

Gordon Brown is desperate for the third party to choose Labour. His death bed conversion to electoral reform means that Labour offers the Lib Dems a far greater prospect of changing Britain’s corrupt voting system. But propping up such a deeply disliked – and defeated – prime minister would be very unpopular. 

Pundits are drawing parallels with the last time a British general election resulted in a hung parliament, in February 1974. (As a precocious 10 year old, I was fascinated by that election, supporting all the three main parties over the campaign.) The defeated Tory prime minister Ted Heath had to resign after the Liberals refused a coalition. But the circumstances are very diferent. Heath’s party was just four seats behind Labour, and actually won more votes. So either main party would have had a good claim to legitimacy had it formed a government. As it was, Harold Wilson became prime minister after winning three elections out of four as Labour leader. 

The tragedy of the New Labour years

Thirteen years ago today, Britons went to the polls on a glorious spring day and gave Tony Blair's Labour Party a stunning, landslide victory. The result was a triumph for Blair, who promised a new, cleaner politics after years of 'Tory sleeze'. The country seemed thrilled at what it had done. 

Labour's huge majority was unprecedented in the modern era. Only one other post-war government had come to office with a landslide – the 1945 Attlee administration. It gave Blair huge moral authority to change Britain and create a new politics. 

At first, the Blair era lived up to those sky-high hopes. Gordon Brown passed interest rate decisions to the Bank of England. Wales and Scotland enjoyed varying degrees of home rule. Blair played a pivotal role in securing the historic Good Friday agreement, paving the way to lasting peace in Northern Ireland. And the national minimum wage was a boost for the lowest paid. In time, the party reversed years of under-investment in the NHS and schools (although many doubted how wisely that money had been spent).

But Labour soon dashed hopes that it would be whiter than white in power. It took a huge donation from the Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone just before scrapping plans to ban tobacco sponsorship of the sport. It abolished hereditary membership of the House of Lords but replaced one form or patronage with another – Tony's cronies, or appointed peers. It turned the government communications service into a spin cycle, with a deeply partisan head of communications (Alastair Campbell) instructing civil servants. That led to the disgraceful hounding of an honourable man, the government scientist Dr David Kelly, who killed himself under the pressure. Trust in Labour never quite recovered after the Kelly affair, even though the party won a further general election in 2005. 

The decision to support American president George W Bush's invasion of Iraq – and to make the case for intervention with a deeply dodgy dossier of claims – was surely the defining moment of the post 1997 Labour era. A million people marched to protest against the war, but to no avail. Blair was determined to support his unlikely friend, regardless of the white lies it took to get parliament to vote for war. 

Labour's years in power were also derailed by the poisonous dispute between its two greatest powers: Blair and Brown. The feud reflects very badly on both men, but Brown has been revealed as the most flawed and destructive influence. He believed he had a god-given right to become prime minister. Eventually, Blair gave in and left Downing Street. Labour made a terrible mistake in anointing Brown as leader, and prime minister, without an election. Enough people inside and outside the party warned that Brown would be a disastrous prime minister. But Labour was too cowed by Brown's bullying tactics to hold a contest. And the credit crunch and recession destroyed Brown's greatest claim to the top job: his management of the economy for 10 years. He deserves some credit for steering Britain towards economic recovery, but as the Tories found in 1997, voters don't show gratitude to governments that clear up their own car crash. 

Brown's death bed conversion to electoral reform reveals his true colours. Labour had a golden opportunity to introduce a fairer voting system. Its 1997 landslide made reform possible but unlikely – the party should have known that the electoral cycle would run its course. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are natural allies, whatever the tribalists in both parties might think. Yet the first past the post system gave the Tories decades of power from a minority of votes. Labour's failure to act until its dying days in power may have given David Cameron the same advantage. 

All governments and political careers end in failure. But it's a tragedy that the high hopes of 1 May 1997 have been dashed in such spectacular fashion that Labour could end up in third place in the polls. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should be ashamed. 

The leaders’ debates: a good idea, but get them right in 2015

Britain finally adopted leaders' debates in the 2010 general election – and life may never be the same again.

The three 90 minute debates transformed the fortunes of Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats. They confirmed Gordon Brown's weakness in an era when easy charm pays dividends. And they posed a serious challenge to David Cameron, who surely assumed he was bound to become Britain's next prime minister.

But the series of debates was far from perfect. The third debate felt like one too many, as the leaders bombarded us with soundbites and questions were repeated from the first two encounters. (All three debates included a question about immigration.) The ban on audience applause or heckling didn't have as much an impact as I suspected it would, though it probably added to the boredom of the final debate. And, above all, the debates had an air of unreality as the leaders pretended there would be no great pain to come whoever wins the election. 

So debates are here to stay. And that must mean that no political party will ever again risk a leader so unsuited to debating and engaging with voters as as Gordon Brown. 

Memo to political canvassers: be more like us!

IMG_1082

The Liberal Democrats were out in force today in Chalfont St Giles as Cleggmania swept Britain. They were giving out balloons and leaflets, and encouraging people to come to the village hustings on Friday 30 April. All the candidates for the Chesham and Amersham constituency will be taking part. 

The Lib Dem woman who talked to me was very nice but did show how political people are very different from the rest of us. I explained that we wouldn't be able to come to the hustings as it's too early for me to get home from work and put Owen to bed. She cleary didn't think this was much of an excuse. "My husband got home from London, went out leafleting and then went to a 10pm political meeting!" I suspect she was being friendly, but I did feel like I was scolded for being a wimp! 

Next time she talks to a voter she'd do well to remember that most people aren't at all political. We've got lives to live and children to look after. If people find the time of a public debate isn't convenient, it might be an idea to change the time rather than chide the voter for not being able to make it!

PS: I decided not to take a Liberal Democrat balloon for Owen. I decided that at 21 months he was too young to support a political party!