ANALYSIS:In charge of many major British cities but powerless in the House of Commons, the Liberal Democrats are hungry for office, writes MARK HENNESSY
PRONE TO hark back to century-old days of glory under Lloyd George, the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom now believe that prime minister Gordon Brown’s failures and Tory leader David Cameron’s inexperience offer the party its best opportunity for power in years.
Currently the third largest party in the House of Commons with 65 seats, the Liberal Democrats talk about winning 100 in next year’s general election, which would put it at the cabinet table or, at least, heavily directing events from the outside.
The party, however, has to fight two campaigns: one appealing to the Labour-leaning voters of the north of England, Scotland and Wales; and another very different one attracting Tory-leaning supporters in London, the south and southwest of England. The need to ride two horses leaves the party occasionally schizophrenic, or confused, depending on one’s view, in its policy choices, as they have showed again and again at Bournemouth this week during their annual party conference.
The decision of Gordon Brown’s predecessor, Tony Blair, to impose £3,000 tuition fees on third-level students was one of the most controversial of his time in power, and was consistently and trenchantly opposed by Liberal Democrats. The party membership opposes it still, but party leader Nick Clegg has sought to move the goalposts, saying that the party remains committed to their abolition, but without giving a date by when this would happen.
The shift is deeply unpopular with the rank-and-file. Worse still, it will be deeply unpopular with student voters whose support helps to explain some of the party’s victories in the 2005 general election – for example in Manchester where it enjoyed a 17 per cent swing in support in one constituency.
A refusal to set a date, argues Clegg, is honest, and treats voters as mature adults since there is no way that any party can say for certain what money the next government will have to spend.
Parties have died elsewhere for making such assumptions about voters.
Equally, it has endangered itself in the south by backing the plans of the party’s treasury spokesman Vince Cable to levy a 0.5 per cent tax on homes worth over £1 million. Some of Cable’s fellow MPs are livid.
The public, if it is paying attention at all, sees confusion and division within the Liberal Democrats – even if often what is happening is a more democratic form of policy-making than what happens in either of the major parties.
For now, the Liberal Democrats finds itself in a similar position to the one faced by the Labour Party in Ireland on past occasions, facing endless questions about its coalition intentions, yet unwilling, or unable, to answer.
Left-wing in its social beliefs, supportive of state action and spending, yet economically liberal, the Liberal Democrats’ natural partner, in the eyes of many supporters and members, should be Labour, but Gordon Brown is now seemingly cursed, regardless of his efforts.
Labour’s unpopularity explains the Liberals’ bitterness towards the Conservatives: David Cameron is “a con-man”, says Clegg; the Tories are “callow and pitifully ill-equipped”, says Cable, who is Clegg’s deputy, and more popular than his leader. The Tories are the main target, and the main threat.
The Liberal Democrats, founded by an alliance of the Liberals and the Social Democrats in 1998, have made steady gains since 1997, due to the Tories’ exhaustion after 18 years in power, and that party’s toxicity in the eyes of voters for years afterwards.
The Tories’ unelectability remained up to, and including, 2005. Under David Cameron, however, this has changed: more down to Labour’s unpopularity than Cameron’s own genius, it must be said, but, nevertheless, it has changed.
Because of the UK’s “first past the post” rules, the Liberal Democrats have consistently won respectable shares of the vote that would make it a coalition partner in most countries, but which in the UK give it just a tiny share of Commons seats.
In 2005, nearly one voter in four chose the party. But it won less than one-tenth of the seats. The same could happen again next year, especially if the current 16-17 point gap in the polls between Labour and the Conservatives remains.
In local elections, the party has done well, though it lost some representatives and control of one council in the July elections, and it has not done well in the House of Commons byelections held during the life of this parliament.
However, much can change between now and next May – the most likely date for an election. Cameron is making much of his determination to cut spending, and the UK’s national debt – though it is not clear whether he intends cuts in real terms, or just slower spending increases.
Gordon Brown has now adopted the language of “cuts”, yet he insists that he can protect the weak and vulnerable – and that the Tories will not even try. The Liberal Democrats promise “progressive austerity – cuts with a purpose”.
If voter distrust of Labour continues, then, the Liberal Democrats will have to craft a message that emphasises its relevance for those who want Brown out of No 10, but who do not want Cameron there on his own. So far, they have yet to do so.
In the ICM/ Guardianpoll published yesterday, the Tories were put 17 points ahead, by 43 points to 26 points – the second-highest gap between the two parties since the poll began in 1984, even if Tories' support has yet to go over 50, as Labour's did frequently during Blair's heyday.
The gap between Labour and the Conservatives is the key. If it remains, seats will tumble like ninepins into Cameron’s hands, including ones currently held by the Liberal Democrats in places like Cornwall, Dorset and others.
And it would put the youthful Tory leader into 10 Downing Street with, in the eyes of some election analysts, a 100-seat majority – where he will have no need of the Liberal Democrats, no matter how much they desperately want national office.