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
@Chris
From hearing directly on the reports on the negotiations, the Labour team was not negotiating well, and was unwilling to agree to implement Lib Dem policy. Frankly anything I hear from Labour about the negotiations is a bad piece of fiction.
As for being hypocritical, you pointed out yourself the arithmetic. We got a lot of our policies into the coalition. Plenty of the agreement does include items we campaigned against, but as I’ve had to continually point out to Labour members, this is a coalition, a compromise. Unfortunately few seem to understand what these words mean. As for splitting votes, the Lib Dems lost a few seats to tories when people went and voted Labour. Talking about Labour being progressive after its years of its heinous civil liberties policy is laughable, and a good demonstration of the gulf that exists between us.
@Richard Grayson
I think it still is the case myself, as the membership has managed to keep the policy areas it likes. I’ve talked to plenty of people at conference about the things they do and don’t like about the leadership. I don’t think the members who go to conference are more ‘loyal’ than they have been. We’re still a fractious lot who enjoy the debate, and end up going with the majority after a good argue. Something the medias usually been bad at reporting from my experience at conferences alas. Any debate is reported as a split in the party.
Chris
@Rich
“From hearing directly on the reports on the negotiations”
Ah sorry didn’t realise I was talking to such a well connected Lib Dem apologist, strange how everyone on the internet is so well connected…
The Lib Dems admit it openly that they made demands for cuts immediately, which was obviously untenable for Labour since they actually have principles. Also, Labour knew the talks weren’t serious when at the very beginning of them the Lib Dem team announced a pre-planned meeting between Darling and Cable was cancelled, this is a fact confirmed by Cable himself. Clegg never wanted a deal with Labour because fundamentally he is a centre-right politician, he believes in a small state and welfare as only for those at the absolute bottom of society.
I said pointedly that the arithmetic worked.
Now, there is compromise and then there is capitulation that is what the coalition represents in terms of the Lib Dems as a progressive party. Social Liberals have almost completely surrendered to the Libertarian orange book wing of the party, how else could they agree to VAT rise, cuts to the state that go far beyond what is necessary, cutting the school building fund not because it was unfunded but to instead fund Gove’s ideological baby – free schools.
“Talking about Labour being progressive after its years of its heinous civil liberties policy is laughable”
I believe that Labour did go too far down the authoritarian path, they were too ready to believe police officers demands for more powers and too ready to appease Daily Mail readers. However, it is interesting that the change the LibCons made to policing was to massively increase police power by allowing them to prosecute people for certain crimes without the involvement of the CPS. While spun as reducing paper work it breaks the fundamental principle that grow out the miscarriages of justice of the 1980s that the police are investigators and the CPS are prosecutors. Another interesting change, also spun as paper work reduction, was the scrapping of the forms introduced after the Stephen Lawrence report to monitor police use their stop & search powers.
Richard Grayson
@ Rich ‘I think it still is the case myself…. I don’t think the members who go to conference are more ‘loyal’ than they have been.’
The evidence for my argument that conference is more loyal than it has been is that there has not been a single major defeat for the leadership on the conference floor since 2005 when the part-privatisation was referred back. The only big defeat the leadership has suffered (on tuition fees) was done behind the scenes on the Federal Policy Committee. If anyone can point to a big public defeat since 2005 I will stand corrected, but I am pretty sure there hasn’t been one.
John Green
Richard Grayson has written an interesting and relevant paper. This is not surprising given his position within the Liberal Democratic party.
He has highlighted the major worries for those in the Labour movement who harbour ambitions to get back into power quickly. The coalition has put together a progressive and reforming programme that appeals to centre-right voters and coalition MPs of both parties. This has been done at speed and the government is already putting its programme into action.
Labour should realise that a great deal of horse-trading preceded the formation of this coalition, which has provided a lot of cement to keep the structure in place. Both leaders are acting with recognisable statesmanship and are taking their parties with them. There will inevitably be a shedding of the extremists on the fringes of both parties, as there was with the formation of New Labour. This will only strengthen the alliance.
The coalition can be optimistic that the major part of the economic mess they have inherited will be cleared up by the end of this parliament. It is highly likely that both leaders and their parties will agree to fight the next election as an official coalition. This is a doom-laden scenario for Labour.
What should Labour do? It should immediately stop pathetic attempts to fracture the coalition alliance by attacking the credibility of the Liberal Democrats. This is seen for what it is; sour grapes. The party should make a point of supporting the coalition when appropriate. It should face up to the fact that most of the electorate know that they were lied to by Labour about the true state of the economy. If this fact is doubted by the Labour leadership, then do some research. Attacks by Labour on the coalition plans for cuts in the private sector have no credibility whatsoever.
enterprisecafe
A rather interesting post RT @leftfootfwd: How the Coalition came about and why it shouldn't have come as a surprise http://bit.ly/desCjJ