I'm not being rude or cynical. But diplomatic concern seems pointless. The UK needs some kind of Obama force that offers a significant and positive change of direction and draws on new energy but can deliver inside the system. This is hardly a revolutionary desire! The Lib Dems, with over 50 MPs, millions of votes, a party machine, young leaders, are in the perfect position to be this force.
Much more important, they call it right on issues that are popular. They got the economic crisis right and are believed, immensely important in terms of credibility and popular respect. They led on liberty where the latest poll shows overwhelming, eight-to-one support for the view that the state is taking too much power, a classic liberal view and a constitutional one. Nick Clegg denounced our "rotten" system in the most robust and systematic terms since he became leader. He made a great speech saying that the acuteness of the economic collapse in the UK was caused by the political collapse of Westminster, well before the expenses crisis struck. On the issue of the Iraq war, that gave Obama his original moral authority, the Lib Dems stood out from the crowd. And this is an issue that those who vote still care about.
Why then, when their answers are so often right, principled, consistent and popular are the Lib Dems so useless? Why aren't they at 30 per cent support plus? Why should they have to ask for a place in any television debate, rather than being the main contenders?
The answer seems to be: It ain't what you say, it is the way that you say it.
I recall watching what I think was their spring party conference. For a few flickering seconds, Clegg was in the top half of BBC News. We need an act of faith. It sounded good. It disappeared. I saw no other report. But who was to make the leap? He was calling on voters to bet their faith on him. But what he and his party need to do is to take a bet on the people. It is they who need to make the change, not the voters.
The party's body language is way too Westminster. When push comes to shove, the Lib Dems are reasonable. Their leather radicals in the Lords look forward to an increase in MPs that will make them the arbiters of a hung parliament and their advice stifles the party - they are the UK's last true Establishment.
Now Clegg has written a Demos pamphlet saying it is The Liberal Moment. It's "jolly good". You can hear the plaudits from the noble Lib Dem Lords being dripped into his ears. Their murmurings <!--EndFragment-->are poison! Labour displaced the Liberals a century ago because of organised forces outside Westminster, in the Trade Unions and the Co-operative movement. The reshaping of British society now, that Clegg writes about, does indeed undermine traditional Labour. But its institutional forms are in the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and the London Mayor and movements against the EU. There are potential networks across civil society that could and should support the Lib Dems. But the party has to make the first move, demonstrate a hunger for power on its own terms, appeal to these supposedly dangerous elements. Clegg celebrates citizens as unruly and not wanting to be controlled by the state. I agree. No, I strongly agree. But the way it is said seems patronising. The Lib Dems need to be the unruly party if they are to appeal to the unruly majority.
The Lib Dems have got to start being different and stop playing the game in the same old way.
PS - James Graham from inside the party makes a parallel, thoughtful argument that ends with a call for a Liberal Democrat "movement" as he gasps for oxygen of life.
PSS - The is a response from David Marquand that takes the argument further into a full OK post here.
PPSS - Sunny is in on the act too HERE
Comments
They don't want an independence referendum which confirms their deep attachment to Westminster, Whitehall and the British Establishment, they formed an eight year official coalition with Labour in the Scottish Parliament and with the Calman Coalition and the Megrahi affair they acted in a defacto coalition with the Tories and Labour against the SNP which surprised no-one in Scotland.
Again this is from a Scottish perspective, but the idea of the Lib-Dems being in any way unruly within the British Establishment is laughable. Perhaps in England where the threat of Scottish independence is not so high the Lib-Dems could have more freedom of movement but in Scotland where they view themselves and behave as defenders of the Union they restrict their political freedom considerably so as not to rock the boat.
The Coops were coopted during the general strike - they've always pretended to be an independent force, but they been absolutely subservient to Labour since 1927. This dishonesty has been a fundamentally damaging influence on UK politics.
The Labour party's link with the Trade Unions needs to be broken, just as the Conservative incestuous links with business do. These vested interests must be divested so that the earnest well-meant efforts made on each side are not wasted by confrontation with electoral logic.
So I fully disagree that the LibDems must appeal to the unruly element - the current consensual establishment will topple itself by becoming evermore dependent on these outside forces as financial pressures take their toll and their funding destabilises their policy-making processes.
And through the wreckage of a century of Labour-Conservative hegemony good sense will prevail.
Partisan urgency is necessary, but political urgency misplaced: things will get worse again when Cameron fails and the LibDems will still be there, a bit stronger, a bit better placed with an even more realistic and coherent platform.
I just hope it doesn't take an absolute calamity to befall us to instigate the seismic shift as it did the last time when we lost a whole generation of talent in the Great War.
They could begin by becoming a bit more of a party for England. That would really upset the British-establishment apple cart, and it might win them a few more votes in England, too.
Much more important, they call it right on issues that are popular.
Do they? Does this mean that the issues are popular rather than their ideas?
Sarah2 have you read the post after that sentence? I list what they get right that is popular. I agree with Dough and BritologyDavid that they miss the boats on other issues.
"Sarah2 have you read the post after that sentence?"
Yes but it doesn't suggest to me, that you're limiting the term 'popular policies' just to what you list.
Post new comment