The Paul Richards column
Here’s a question: who is the only member of the Liberal Democrat frontbench with any experience of government? The last Liberal Government ended in 1922, and the last Liberal to serve as a minister of the crown was Sir Archibald Sinclair in 1940. Even Ming Campbell hasn’t been around that long. The answer is Vince Cable, who was a special adviser to John Smith MP, when he was secretary of state for industry in the Callaghan government. Fetching John Smith’s mug of tea does not equip you to run the economy.
The rest of the Lib Dem ‘shadow cabinet’, as they are grandiosely self-described, have no more experience of running the country than the legions of barbers, taxi-drivers and pub landlords who seem to always know how it should be done. And barring a coalition government which brings Lib Dems into a Conservative-led administration (never gonna happen), the Lib Dem front-bench will pursue their careers in the sure-fire knowledge that they will never drive their policies through parliament, see the inside of a red box or run anything more significant than a bath.
You have to wonder about the psychology of politicians who know they’ll never be in power. Even a Lib Dem councillor knows they may end up as chair of planning or children’s services. In the darkest times for the Labour or Tory parties, their MPs knew one day the sun would shine on them once again. But the Lib Dem parliamentary party wakes up each morning, makes speeches, drafts manifestos and policy statements, gives interviews to the Guardian, delivers Focus, and goes to bed after a constituency fundraiser without advancing by an inch the likelihood of Liberal Democrat government. Without the prospect of power, of actually doing something for people, surely all you’re left with is egotistical, preening self-regard?
They blame the electoral system, of course. If only Britain had proportional representation, they say, then British Liberals would be in government as they are in other European governments. On Sunday in Germany the liberal ‘Free Democrats’ may well give Merkel the extra numbers she needs to form a coalition without the SPD, even though they are polling at only around 15%. One of the arguments deployed against electoral reform is the ‘Genscher Factor’: the phenomenon named after Free Democrat and former Nazi Party member (joining in 1945, a little late to be fashionable) Hans-Dietrich Genscher who served in successive coalition governments from 1969 to 1992 because his small centrist party held the balance of power. Imagine a Clegg Factor – no matter who you vote for, you always get Nick Clegg in the Cabinet.
I blame the media. This week in Bournemouth, journalists have been reporting the policy announcements, Clegg’s Big Speech, the behind-the-scenes spats between Webb, Cable, Clegg and Huhne as though they mattered. For one week a year, they can pretend to be important and get on the TV. It’s unfair. It gives them a false sense of their own worth. It leads to them saying daft things such as ‘go back to your constituencies and prepare for government’. I seem to remember one delegate to the Lib Dem conference in the build-up to the Gulf War declaring from the rostrum: ‘Saddam Hussein, the Liberal Democrats are watching you...’ which must have sent seismic shock waves through the Republican Palace.
Individually, some of them are talented, intelligent and good company. We share many of the same concerns. They’re not the Tories, after all. But as a party the Liberal Democrats represent the worst aspects of politics. They seek office, but not power. They offer criticism, but take no responsibility. They parade principles, but play the dirtiest political games locally you can imagine. They claim the high-ground, but operate in the gutter (Ashdown’s answer-phone reputedly said ‘please leave your message after the high moral tone’). They will do and say anything to get elected, no matter the contradictions and inconsistency, even within the same council’s boundaries. Their MPs pretend politics is about blaming someone else, and thus contribute to the denigration of democracy as self-government.
The Liberal Democrats are like eunuchs at an orgy: filling up space and eating all the crisps, but unwilling and unable to do anything useful.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I think that the problem with this article is that it assumes there is a reason for the two party system, and when parties seem to be converging ideologically, and unelectable between elections at the same time, it is a very unhealthy situation. In both 2001 and 2005, many people did not vote at all because they were not happy with the choices available. I think this could well end up the case in future years
As for the Lib Dems, the gap in British politics is on the left of centre, yet they have attempted to place themselves as an alternative to the existing centrist parties which are themselves coalitions. I'm not entirely sure that the same critique could not be said about any one of the parties. I'm no longer sure what they really want to do.
It captures the current mood of the Labour Party perfectly. Mean, spiteful and personal,with no logical arguments but a load of pious claptrap the article just confirms Labour are THE Nasty Party.
It's not because they have an empty CV, it's because they have an empty criminal record.
I've just had a quick check back through your past contributions, including the recent and famed 'A Dark Lord is not just for Christmas' exercise.
You've just had a pointless argument with a load of Lib Dems about whether Lloyd George's last administration was Liberal or not, not to mention displaying extraordinary sensitivity to some less than robust language.
I'm betting it's increased the Lib Dem voter turnout from disenchanted Labour voters, which rather defeats the purpose of the exercise.
Any chance you might want to give some rational explanations about this piece to the rest of us who've wondered why you seem to be engaged in open hostilities, and losing, to the mostly harmless.
The more pertinent point is that at a time when we are threatened with a gruesome Tory government, it might be sensible for progressives to try to find common ground rather than (self) indulging in primitive tribal slanging matches. Or is that too much to ask?
It shouldn't be too much to ask, but as I mentioned below this morning, we can't complain if you guys nick our political clothes after we've thrown them on the tip. Paul is I'm afraid, one of the faction who seems to want to get rid of the socialist baggage in question, so it is a bit rich moaning about finding those ideas appeal to the electorate when somebody else proposes them.
Actually what we desperately need at the moment is a Campbell-Bannerman type figure. You haven't got one going spare have you?
Actually I'm not a dedicated LibDem, more a general Lib-Labber. But Campbell Bannerman is a rather underrated PM. He got Libs & Labour to have an electoral pact, won a landslide victory & presided (with his successor Asquith) over one of the most radical governments of the twentieth century. Won't happen again, I guess. Shame really.
Labour (1945-50) was somewhat 'radical', I would submit ; also, Labour (1964-70) changed a few things.
I think 'shame really' was referring to working together for the common good.
Interestingly, Campbell-Bannerman hadn't wanted to be leader, but was the the model unity candidate.
He persisted in taking a lone moral position against opposition from almost every quarter on South Africa, especially for his criticism of the 'methods of barbarism' employed, and he successfully faced down the Liberal Imperialists, without driving them into the arms of the Tories, or making concessions that broke the radical spine of the party.
That's kind of why I think we need someone like him.
The pact with Labour, (and even support of the Irish nationalists) helped achieve the landslide victory that allowed the foundations of the welfare state to be laid. These are plus points as well.
You're right about the post war Labour governments, but they were building on some pretty solid foundations.
I quite agree. It's difficult to grade these things, but I'd probably go: 1) Labour 1945, 2) Liberal 1906 & 3) Labour 1964.
I certainly don't have a grasp on the history and characters that you two good people certainly have, but I am familiar in a 'broad-brush' way with the achievements of the Liberal government at the beginning of the last century. The expression 'ninepence for fourpence' stays in my mind.
Who and, indeed, what has Labour got these days? Not sure (if indeed anybody or anything), but there are one or two good bills in the current session of Parliament, which don't receive much attention (off the top of my head, I can't remember them exactly).
However, regrettably these days perception is all and the public perception of Labour is not good.
Of course there were also mistakes, but there always are.
Last night I went to see a documentary film last night shot in South Elmsall (which you will know i think, peter) in the early 60s, focusing mainly on the 20something generation. It was incredible to see among them the genuine optimism and expectation of improvements to come, not just in personal wealth but in the world in general. Relatively speaking so little anger and frustration at society comparted with that age group now. Very sad in some ways.
You have Labour with a whopping majority and Labour MP's in all sorts of seats where they usually come in third. The huge majority should have been the passport to saying - OK, here's our chance to really effect some radical change. But it didn't happen. That's not to say that a lot of good wasn't done, I think it was.
The problem was not only that Blair and NL weren't in favour of radical change - but also that so many MP's in seats they should never have won in the first place in ordinary circumstances became paranoid about upsetting their usually-Tory voters in the constituency. hence the trimming. What is worse is that it didn't work. Labour kept their huge majority in 2001 because the Tories couldn't motivate their voters to turn out, and because enough people gritted their teeth and voted Labour because of fear of Dracula in 2005.
Labour should have accepted that the 97 result was a fluke and should have been prepared to lose some of those seats in 2001 whilst retaining a majority, by carrying out policies which would have made a definitive change.
I understand exactly what you say about the optimism of the immediate (well, 20 years or so) post-war period - it seemed that anything could be done and was being done, both in the public and private sectors. People had a sense of security (apart from 'the Bomb' .....) that is entirely lacking these days.
And the strange thing was, even when we had one-third of the income that we have nowadays, we could afford, somehow, to run a first-class Royal Mail service ....
Can't say I know a lot about South Elmsall - south of Doncaster was my area.
I don't know if this makes sense now I see it written down - partly because it's hard to explain, as it's in the way people talk about rather than what they say. As I say, ignore if it makes no sense - I just ask becuase I remember you once mentioning your first rock and roll experience - in Denaby was it?
Thanks for the response.
There are some (and I can see the point) who say that Elvis was the catalyst in shaping society and the different attitudes (especially deference) in the 1950s.
At the time, there were a few 'rebels' around - James Dean and Marlon Brando, to name two that come to mind easily - but Elvis was, well : something else. 1956 was the turning year - Heartbreak Hotel, Hound Dog. Hound Dog is still, 53 years later, exemplary rock'n'roll music.
Rock'n'roll as an expression for a kind of popular music (and rock'n'roll music) had been around since very early in the 1950s - a disc jockey called Alan Freed coined the expression (and, of course, rock'n'roll was negro slang for the leg-over stuff).
At the same time as Elvis - although my memory may be fallible on this -Bill Haley was 'rockin' around the clock.'
The change in attitudes in general really started during and after the Second World War - the people, after suffering two world wars in the space of just over 30 years, were just not going to go back. 'Never Again', as Peter Hennessy's excellent account of the Attlee years is called - I urge you to get a copy.
Elvis caught the moment and amplified the mood.
A fascinating period - and we are all the better for the liberation that resulted. I was born in 1944 and, for sure, I'd rather live the experience again of the thirty years 1944-1974 than the experience, for a youngster, of the thirty years 1979 - 2009. Hope was ever-present.
As for Elvis - he'll never be equalled.
You're right - 'off topic', but there is a bit of social comment thrown in.
But you are right, and Vince cable even suggested, rather helpfully, in a radio interview that people in mansions could sell their houses to pay the 'mansion tax'. Silly man.
But their idea of a local income tax has some logic behind it, since by definition a tax on income is a tax that people can pay. So why do they say that they cannot implement their idea for a local income tax but can implement dimwit Vince's idea of a 'mansion tax'?
Really, Paul - this is childish stuff and we should be above this kind of thing.
It sounds pretty similar to working for a pressure group, surely.
Utterly priceless.
I agree with a lot of what Sue Kirby said. What a nasty article awash with hate filled bile, just the thing to woo the voters back.
Mr Richards (sorry I detest your outpourings too much to be friendly and use your first name). How would YOU characterise some of the more replousive ghastly old waxworks of New labour in parliament?
For example:
Tony McNulty: fiddling his expenses by pretending he lived at his parents house.
Barbara Follett Spolit wife of a millionaire fiddling her expenses by making us pay for security guards for her five storey Soho home because she was frightened to live there?
Jacqui Smith fiddling her expenses by claiming for 88p bath plugs and letting her husband hire out blue movies?
Anne and Alan Keen fiddling their expenses for both living in London but claiming for the same second home?
Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper-Balls ditto?
Elliot Morely and David Chaytor for fiddling their expenses with phantom mortgages (and WHY haven't they yet been charged with fraud)?
Stephen Byers fiddling his expenses by paying for his girlfriends flat to be decorated
James Pur-nell fiddling his expenses with non existant "cleaning" bills 9and he is too poor to pay for his own "groceries")?
How would YOU characterise these unprincipled ponses? And that is just a small sample.
Ed Balls and Yvette
It doesn't detract from the fact that there are a load of grasping greedy devious MPs and ministers sloshing about on both sides of the house, admittedly, but what happened to the "Star Chamber"? After weeding out poor old Ian Gibson why didn't they go after McNulty and the gurning Blears?. Deselection would have been highly suitable for both of them.
The next election will be unpredictable in many seats as the public wreack revenge for the expenses scandal, the lib dems have fewer incumbants trying to fight off the expenses smears that will surely thrown at every incumbant, however reasonable their expenses are to people that understand the need for staff etc. The public won't understand and indeed won't want to.
I would imagine that the magnitude of labour's defeat next year will be such that, like the tories in 1997, it wipes out pretty much any chance of a win in the next general election too. At that stage, would you apply the same offensive descriptions to the surviving labour parliamentary party?
Furthermore, I like the Lib Dems £10,000 tax free allowance on earnings, compared to labour's treatment of the low paid (10p, means tested benefits) it sounds a winner.
But what is the point of fthem now?. People no longer want ToryLite - they either want the real thing with Cameron and his Etonians, or, if you are on the Left you want real left of centre policies.
Luckilly some of them have realised the game is up and we have failed ex ministers like Hutton (Hands of trident!)
and Hewitt and Milburn are standing down at the next election, but, provided their constituents are silly enough to return them, we will still have the foetid likes of Stephen Byers and James Pur-nell sitting on the benches working out their expenses.
And what is the point of Frank Field?. Why doesn't he join his mate Nicholas Bunter Soames in his real home, the Tory Party - what is the point of this ageing reactionary in the Labour party?
You must be bloody desperate.
Thanks to Guido for pointing out this interview.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/3556261/a-predictable-guru.thtml
Labour are on a hiding because the public you so despise are not 'stupid'. As long as you post 'Millbank articles' in this style, saying the general public is stupid not to vote Nu Labour, Paul, there will be a lot of folk using expressions far worse than 'bloody desperate' to describe you and the Nu Labour Party.
Time to address the real issues destroying Labour - especially the elephant in the room - Brown, Meddlesome and their cronies.
He has failed to answer any specific question about "the point" of several people I have mentioned. And what is the point of "Progress": It is a right-wing "Labour" body dedicated to keeping alive the hypocrisy of Tony Blair, famous warmonger, money grubber and so called "peace" envoy, who has never done any damned good in that arena. A vacuous windbag. Mr Richards fails to grasp the public as a whole - let alone true Labour supporters are sick to death of Blair and Blairism, and the little creeps who still support him and remain in Parliament. Hopefully by this time next year some of the more greedy ones will be EX MPs - I hope the expenses issue and the claims of some of the more greedy and dishonest ones become a feature of the election campaign which should put an end to the career of a certain lady in Salford and a "gentleman" called Pur-nell.
As an ex Labour voter and party member I thought Liberal policies on tax and public sector cuts of great interest. Clegg looks decisive and full of ideas next to the dreadful Brown. Brown is depressing and gloomy and inspires the same feeling amongst voters. Even die hard voters can't put up with feeling ashamed of their leader.
Not particularly left-wing either.
Maybe it's me, but recently I haven't heard any mothers on more than £35,000, saying they were unsure of whether to have a second kid or not, but the knowledge of that extra £13 a week just swung it.
The advantage with universal benefits is that they are sure to reach those who need them, and can be easily clawed back via the tax system. In addition, they need to be linked to a raising of the lower tax threshold which will help deal with the many disincentives within the benefit system.
Frank Field is someone I disagree with on many issues (Europe, immigration) but I think he is right on this one. Means-testing is not a good way of delivering benefits.
I'm willing to bet that after two election defeats by the "New" Conservatives whatever is left of the Labour Party will begin sucking up to the Liberal Democrats and supporting efforts to change the electoral system from first past the post to some form of proportional representation, this being the only way left open to Labour to regain some form of shared power and influence.
It really is very sad.
Labour as a brand might well be washed up. Both New Labour and Labour brands are associated with financial incompetence.
Labour might need the Liberals and their untarnished brand more than might be obvious today.
Scenario: Labour fragments following years of infighting. The sane Labour leadership leave the militant part behind and rebrand as 'The Liberal and Labour Democrats'.
The merged party forces debate and new and clear thinking. The merged party also attracts enough donor's to take the fight to the Tories on an equal footing.
However, the same cannot be said about the Tories. They still have the Euro-skeptic "bastards", and this is the last chance for a Tory leader to keep them muzzled. If Cameron loses at the next election it will cause a split in the Tories, especially with UKIP being so confident. If the Tories fail to win the next election you'll find thousands of exasperated Tories going over to UKIP (and maybe some Tory MPs changing to UKIP).
Now that would be a great icing on the cake of a Fourth Term.
The current polls suggest that the Tories winning the next election is a certainty. The only thing that is uncertain is the size of that win. It all depends entirely on how many more mistakes Gordon Brown makes (I think the odd are high that there'll be a quite a few between now and election day), how many more ministers will be exposed as either liars, cheats, thieves or incompetent (again, odds aren't in Labour's favour)
You talk of a Labour "Fourth Term". Frankly that's not going to happen. There's a bigger chance that Labour may even come third. It all depends on how much more Gordon and his ministers screw up over the next six months.
As to experience, you've missed the point of the article. It's not that they lack experience. It's that they never will.
And while I have no time for the modern FDP, your Nazi slur about Genscher is quite disgraceful. In case you'd forgotten, he served as a distinguished foreign minister in serveral SPD led governments.
And, yes, it was a cheap smear that you should be ashamed of. Do you really think Brandt or Schmidt would have had a Nazi in their cabinet?
You'd have thought that, in their current dismal state, Labour would be reaching out to other progressives. Instead people like Paul Richards retire into their tribal bubble.
The current Pope was a member too. If you happened to live in German at the time it does not necessarily mean anything evil. Just that he joined the overwhelming dominate force in the nation.
from the Liberal Democrat History Group website:
The strains of war divided and demoralised the party, and in 1915 Asquith acceded to demands for a coalition embracing the Conservative leadership. After continued massive loss of life on the Western Front, for no discernible gain, in December 1916 Lloyd George replaced Asquith as Prime Minister, largely at the behest of the Conservatives. Much of the party followed Asquith into opposition. Although the Asquithians refrained from directly attacking the government until the end of the war, there was growing enmity between the two factions. In the election that followed in 1918 the two groups found themselves fighting each other for the support of the electorate, with Lloyd George's Coalition Liberals receiving the controversial 'coupon' indicating the support of the government. The Asquithians were crushed - even Asquith himself lost his seat - but the Lloyd George Liberals emerged as the junior partners in the coalition government that followed. Even more ominously for the Liberals, the Labour Party, now fighting independently and benefiting from a further extension of the franchise, won more than twice as many seats as the Asquithians and became the official opposition.
There were few identifiably Liberal aspects of the 1918-22 government. The Irish Home Rule saga was brought to a temporary end with the partition of the island and the creation of the Irish Free State in 1921. The conduct of the British black and tan irregular forces in Ireland during the fight with the IRA between 1919 and 1921 proved highly controversial, however, as was the sale of honours by Lloyd George for the benefit of his personal campaign fund. Eventually the Conservatives brought the coalition to an end in 1922, overthrowing their own leadership and bringing to an end the period in office of the last Liberal Prime Minister, Lloyd George.
"the last Liberal government ended in 1916, not 1922."
Your point is that we had a Liberal PM until 1922, we did not have a Liberal government, it was a coalition.
And it's a bit pathetic (well actually it's an old trick) to claim I'm 'rude' when you're going around smearing members of Social Democrat-led cabinets as Nazis.
Insofar as I understand your logic about coalition governments, I think you must believe that Clem Atlee was the Deputy Prime Minister in a Tory government after 1940....
Conservatives - 43
Labour - 26
Lib Dems - 19
Have you also forgotten the bloody nose Clegg gave Labour over the Gurkha affair? It was amazing to see Gordon manage the political equivalent of running across a crowded room and jumping over a passing cat in order to ensure that he rammed his nose against Clegg's fist. Fantastic stuff...........
"The Progress Group is like eunuchs at an orgy: filling up space and eating all the crisps, but unwilling and unable to do anything useful."
What do we have to have this stupid point scoring. Am I sitting here comparing the size of Progress to the Lib Dems???
Jealousy, because the Lib Dems seem to showing vaguely socialist policies might be acceptable to the electorate and came up with them first (or maybe read LL), and fear because that means even the Labour core vote is under threat in that case.
Good line though. Not sure about the context of orgies and crisps, sounds like the promotion of extreme pornography to me. Will the tame plods be knocking on the Progress door?
Progress?
'it contains enough ministers who are taking decisions'
With the best will in the world, you can't argue that the ministers don't include inveterate liars and crooks, and the policies they decide are well to the right of centre in quite a number of cases.
If the Lib Dems take Labour's clothes and philosophies, and our core support, because we seem intent on taking them to the local tip, then those ministers won't be taking many more decisions in the future other than to decide where the skeletons get buried before the Tories break down the doors.
In two weeks, Mandy and Charles Clarke. Who's the next zombie lord that will be invited to Progress to say it's not New Labour's fault, just everybody else's?
Largly agree , How ever they are not that useless , they stopped us having a referendum ( by sitting on there hands and not voting ) on the eu traety , I guess you have to admire the way as you say they will never be in goverment the way they still get up everyday and know that .
As for the Clegg-Factor , I would not want someone who thinks so highly of women in goverment , He claims to have slept with around 30 , If i am right he is about 40-45 , thats about one ayear since he was 15 , what a great role model for young people but then again he is a libreal .
ricki
I've never understood this line of attack on Clegg. Like you say only 1 a year during his single years, its a pretty awful pulling record for a young man in London, but its not totally disastrous. I doubt all or even a sizable minority of Labour or maybe even Tories could claim better.
That didnt come out as i meant it , A hit rate of 1 a year , yes if he is still doing it , Anyway i think the lib dems where wrong to get rid of Charles Kenndy .
ricki
its not the "getting laid" bit , Its the message it sends , that sleeping with 30 women is the normal thing , I know he is a libreal and i am not saying he is or isnt fit to run the country , I am just saying that the message may appeal to his party , but to others it is not a message we should celebrate .
ricki
I find this line of attack especially strange coming on LL, after all I doubt Gordon Brown has done any better.
Surely its irrelevant in public policy. For example Alan Clarke was a bit of a legend with the women, but I wouldn't necessary think of him more highly for a role in public life as a result.
He obviously loves women and they love him. I'd buy him a beer.