Democracy is such a nuisance
Dear Nick Clegg,
What a hilarious show. Gaffe after gaffe after gaffe. First came the accusation that David Cameron was a “conman”, which everyone ignored. Then came talk of “savage cuts”, which you backtracked on yesterday. Then came the possibility of dropping your pledge to scrap tuition fees, which was quickly left to one side. Then came the new £1 million+ home tax, which your aides admitted they had no idea how it would work (particularly as it would be administered through the council tax system which you have pledged to abolish). That said, within this humourous meltdown I found a little nugget of information that clarifies why they Lib Dems are so screwed: you like democracy.
While the tuition fee debacle has caused less of a stir than your other mishaps, it brought something rather interesting to light. You said that while you thought tuition fees were “pernicious”, scrapping them may not be affordable in the current climate – though you stressed that the overall education budget would not be cut under the Lib Dems. Former leader Charles Kennedy told the Andrew Marr programme that dropping your commitment to scrap tuition fees could lose the party votes from young people and blunt its attack against Labour. However, what was more interesting was that Evan Harris, a member of the party’s Federal Policy Committee (FPC), said the party would not accept any move to drop the tuition fee pledge. “Leaders of the Liberal Democrats don’t always get their way,” he told the BBC News channel. Eh? What did he mean? How could a leader of a party not get their own way? Well, lo and behold, it turns out that the FPC is a very powerful body within the Lib Dems to the point where it has the final say on what goes in the manifesto – not you. Surely, this last remaining beacon of democracy within party politics is a good thing? Errrr, no.
If you look back at what Tony Blair and David Cameron achieved in the first three or four years as party leaders, the word ‘transformation’ doesn’t quite seem dramatic enough. Not only did they manage to bring their respective parties back from the wilderness, they put themselves into a position to win a general election. Of course, in both instances their feeble opposition certainly helped their cause but their achievement is impressive nonetheless. How did they manage this astonishing feat? By dropping their parties’ previously dogmatic commitments. For example, Blair had his Clause 4 moment while Cameron stopped talking about immigration and Europe. These were monumental events in political terms and, more importantly, they were events that would never have been possible if the grassroots were still in control. Do you think the Labour voters would have voted to drop Clause 4? Do you reckon Conservative voters are really progressive environment-loving centrists? I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that the core Labour vote is still socialist, the core Conservative vote is certainly right of centre and your own core Lib Dem vote is very social democrat / centre-left. With this in mind, none of the party leaders could ever make their party electable in the modern era if they let the party members dictate the direction of travel.
There is a part of me that finds your fleeting love of democracy rather touching and sweet. There is, however, the more realistic side of me that knows winning elections is what matters and you simply cannot make a party genuinely electable if you are stuck in the 1980s with outdated politics and outdated party attitudes. Blair quickly decided to ignore the wishes of his party members when dragging them into the centre ground, especially during conference season, and unless you realise that your only hope is to follow suit, you are doomed to enter the history books as yet another failed Lib Dem leader.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Hi, I think this raises an interesting question about the nature of democracy. The idea of a central committee setting policy sounds very undemocratic, but then so does the idea of an all powerful leader. But in either case, under the British system, it is necessary to get a mandate from the (marginal!) voters every 5 years, and if you want to regain that mandate, recent events demonstrate that you have to at least pay lip service to what that mandate promised.
Surely, one of the causes of the long term decline in participation is that politicians of whatever colour seem to ignore the people they purport to represent. It was Blair’s charm and oratory that got him the elections, rather than any particular democratic tendancy.
Personally, I don’t think it is undemocratic for a party leader to set the agenda and let the public vote on their party. Having some input from the party faithful is hardly the worst idea in the world, but the Lib Dems have effectively paralysed themselves.
Its a good point. BUT the party leader is constrained by the underlying things the party stands for. The Lib Dems have a problem with this – what do they stand for?
Actually, in many ways it’s a lot worse than you make it sound. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to write something later.
Alistair, interesting you should say that party leaders are constrained because I think Cameron did an incredible job of leading from the front and party faithful have followed (although reluctantly in some cases!).
Stu, I thought I was being pretty forthright but feel free to continue the debate!
Do you reckon Conservative voters are really progressive environment-loving centrists?
Are you equating a refusal to go along with the prevailing adherence in media and political circles to the hypothesis that Climate Change is (a) unusual, (b) man-made, and (c) controllable by man with hating the environment?
Is it not possible to love the environment, but disagree with the means by which it should be protected?
Well, briefly, this is what I mean: there seem to be a lot more ‘classic’ liberals in the Lib Dems than at first seems apparent, but – and this is the real kicker – the die-hard activists are the only ones who end up actually going into the conference hall and voting on the policy motions, and they’re overwhelmingly social democrat. Which means that a fair proportion of the party looks on bemused (or sits in the pub) whilst the policies move constantly further left and alienate yet more voters. So I met loads of Lib Dems who were very vocally opposed to the Jo Swinson ‘airbrushing ban’ outside the Conference Hall, and yet the motion was carried with only a handful dissenting votes (there may have been as many as five).
So, yes, you’re absolutely right – and indeed forthright – but anecdotally I think the problem runs even deeper than you suggest. It’s not just that democracy isn’t really a great way to decide policies that make the party electable, but also that the democratic approach to policy formation is hurting the Lib Dems as more of their number become disillusioned and ostracised from the process, and consequently don’t bother voting at all, leading to the party moving further left in a vicious circle. Clegg can gain support amongst Lib Dem voters (I wouldn’t know for certain whether he is or not), whilst simultaneously losing the battle with the activists at conference over what policies go in the manifesto. Which seems to be exactly what is happening.
It’s a bit like the entire British political system, in microcosm.
Patently, I didn’t mean it in a climate change sense – I was getting at Cameron’s decision to make environmental policy his centrepiece when the grassroots were far more interested in tax, immigration, the EU etc. It was an extremely bold move by Cameron and one which baffled / annoyed many party activists, even though the environment is obviously a worthy cause.
Stu, I appreciate what you’re saying, which is why I think the word ‘liberal’ is very disingenuous in the party name. There is very little truly liberal about the Lib Dems in their current guise. Their economic policies are about as liberal as Neil Kinnock.
Some conference silliness, Nick Clegg’s savage cuts before and after.
“Which means that a fair proportion of the party looks on bemused (or sits in the pub) whilst the policies move constantly further left and alienate yet more voters.”
Well if you were a classical liberal or of a libertarian bent and you knew that, at absolute, almost unbelievable, best your party could maybe become the largest opposition party but stood no chance of forming a government, would you not consider it sensible to have a few beers and just let the chips fall where they may? TBH, having read that is *almost* enough to get me joining the libs!
Where does the right wing of the Conservative party go as Dave moves leftwards to the center? Do they grab their Daily Mail’s and head to the local High Anglican Church for a spot of prayer? Seriously, the pub sounds a lot better to me!
Shaun, lol. I think you’d get on well with the Liberal Vision crowd.
[...] Letters From A Tory agrees with me about the Lib Dems [...]