Under-factionalisation and higher than normal levels of leader loyalty are in fact two of the reasons Grayson identifies as resulting in the coalition.
It may come as a surprise to many within the Labour Party that a political organisation could suffer from having too few factions. But apparently it’s true and as Richard Grayson, author of the Compass publication the ‘Liberal Democrat Journey’, puts it, the Lib-Dems are “under factionalised”.
The consequence of this “under factionalisation”? Well it is part of the story that resulted in the Con-Lib coalition we are witnessing now.
Under-factionalisation and higher than normal levels of leader loyalty are in fact two of the reasons Grayson identifies as resulting in the coalition which so upsets the so-called “political compass” particularly for those of us who saw a Lab-Lib coalition as the far more natural partnership.
Grayson goes on to discuss why this came about. Drawing on the political traditions starting with William Gladstone and Neville Chamberlain, that got us to this place; where the natural ties between small state Liberals and smaller state Conservatives found common ground and why this small cadre within the Lib Dems took the rest of their party with them.
Grayson argues that the coalition agreement has allowed the leadership of both parties to pursue its zeal for cutting public spending. It does this having explicitly ruled out major cuts in 2010/11 in the election campaign, and having opposed the scale and timing of the cuts now introduced by the government.He argues that the decisions made by this government on Treasury matters “illustrate its overwhelmingly small state centre-right ideology”.
Importantly, Grayson goes on to discuss what this means for us now and how the left, and particularly social liberals should respond to the coalition. Grayson suggests that there are clear signs of concern within the Liberal Democrats.
He states that some activists say that they are now ashamed to face many of those they met in the election campaign who backed the party. In particular he makes reference to the voters who deserted Labour for the Liberal Democrats in 2005 and 2010 and say they will never support the party again and feel badly let down by the fact the coalition was formed.
However, Grayson argues that while some people may drift away from the Lib Dems this is unlikely to result in a significant realignment of the centre left – particularly while the ideological barriers to Lib Dems joining Labour, on issues such as civil liberties – continue to persist.
Grayson instead argues that now is the time for the Social Liberal Forum and other social liberal elements within the Lib Dems to be more radical and look to challenge the free market orthodoxies which led to the current crisis.
He suggests that if they fail to do this
“The party can be happy with morsels from the Conservative table, enthusiastic, surprised and occasionally ecstatic to see little bits of Liberal Democrat policy implemented. If they take that approach, then the party will become as hollowed out as Labour under New Labour.”
This analysis is a long overdue discussion on the state of play in the Lib-dems and well worth a read; download it here.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
20 Responses to “How the Coalition came about and why it shouldn’t have come as a surprise”
LockPickerNet
How the Coalition came about and why it shouldn't have come as a surprise: http://bit.ly/desCjJ via @leftfootfwd
Rachel Hardy
RT @leftfootfwd: How the Coalition came about and why it shouldn't have come as a surprise http://bit.ly/desCjJ
Robert
I think myself Clegg would have gone with the Tores anyway, and I do not blame him. The thought of working with brown would have been to much for me and anyone else.
The sad fact for all his belching and then insults at the liberal i would have been insulted to see brown sitting next to Clegg smiling that famous smile. I think Clegg did as well as he could.
Richard Dawson
@andwhatthen re http://bit.ly/desCjJ interesting piece albeit total bollocks in places but explains that LD are not an annex of Labour !
Chris
I don’t think many expected Clegg to go to the Tories because before the election nobody had heard of him until after the first debate. Also, the media did a crap job of actually explaining the policies the LibDems were actually campaigning on. So, I know many people were mislead by the LibDems use of the language of a progressive party, while advocating regressive policies such as the slashing of tax credits.