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.
20 Responses to “How the Coalition came about and why it shouldn’t have come as a surprise”
Rich
Saying the Lib Dems have higher levels than normal of leader loyalty is pretty damn funny to anyone who’s been to a Lib Dem conference. We’ve frequently voted down policies it’s been known the leadership wanted, or significantly altered them with amendments. Lib Dems as a party are much more about the open debate rather than falling into easily seen factions.
The big reasons Lib Dems have supported this coalition is the way the Labour acted during negotiations, and the reactions of the Labour party rank and file after. It was very well demonstrated that Labour has a long way to go when it comes to working with others.
While many in the party, including me, are unhappy with some of the policies of the coalition, we also realise that coalitions and compromise are the end result of a reformed voting system. We’ll never get everything we want or like. Labour needs to realise this like we have.
Linda
Why the coalition shouldn't have come as a surprise http://bit.ly/dwxvUx
Chris
@Rich
LOL, that is an interesting spin on the Lib-Lab negotiations! Clegg was never serious about going into a coalition with Labour, which was arithmetically possible. The first demand the LibDems made was immediate cuts to public spending, going completely against what Labour and they had campaigned for during the election.
The reaction of the Labour rank and file is perfectly understandable as the LibDems had just spent the past four weeks campaigning in Labour areas as the anti-tory party. To then join in a formal coalition with them is hypocritical in the extreme, in my constituency for example all the leaflets they delivered carried an inaccurate graph stating Labour couldn’t win and the tag line “Only the Lib Dems can beat the Tories and stop their savage cuts here.” The result was the progressive vote was split and the tories won the seat.
Richard Grayson
@Rich: ‘Saying the Lib Dems have higher levels than normal of leader loyalty is pretty damn funny to anyone who’s been to a Lib Dem conference. We’ve frequently voted down policies it’s been known the leadership wanted, or significantly altered them with amendments.’
I have been to many many LD conferences and I agree – but that has not been the case recently. The point I was making in my piece was about how the party has become over the past couple of years. My comments on leadership loyalty were specifically framed in the context of a situation where two leaders had been lost in quick succession and the party has rallied round a third.
noelito
really insightful stuff on the libdem journey from richard grayson, greed for power corrupts all our parties! http://bit.ly/dxJrAp #fb