Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Lib Dems matter, even if at the moment they matter in the way that they fail to matter. This needs to change if they are up to it. The issue is not just tactical, in the way that Peter Preston discusses, it is about setting the terms. Whether or not there is a hung parliament, a possible coalition, etc, the current strategic impasse Labour is facing, trying to demonstrate its "competence", and the likelihood that any Tory majority will be fragile, means that the next election could be one whose outcome the the Lib-Dems can frame. By this I mean whether or not there is a deal they could define what he country needs. I was trying to get at this (even if I went a little far) when I suggested that Vince Cable shows the Lib Dems could be "hegemonic".
Now its getting personal, always a good sign. Thanks to James Graham I have learnt of a self-justification piece by 'Lord' Chris Rennard the party's most influential back-room boy. Don't dump me and all my works, he seems to be saying, as he feels the pleasures of influence slipping away. Jame is characteristically generous,
Chris’ genius for campaigning is unsurpassed. More than any other single individual he can rightly claim the credit for our renaissance in the 90s and beyond. He has been the true brains and in many ways the real leader of the party. But he is a tactician, not a strategist. And when someone has been in the position he has been for as long as he has been, there is always a danger of going stale.
The article is in Lib Dem News, though no link comes up. James gives a clear summary and reports Rennards as arguing,
The reason for our success? Strict targeting and pushing issues that matter to people. In 1997, lest we forget, we fought the election on CHEESE (Crime, Health, Education, Economy, Sleaze and the Environment).
Well, I didn't know about CHEESE until now, but whether or not it was Rennard's doing it stinks. The Lib Dems may think they did well in 1997 because they increased their number of MPs. In fact it was a tragic lost opportunity for UK politics. If they had not had an alcoholic leader whose removal well beforehand any "real leader" would have organised, if they had Ming, for example, when the Iraq war was a defining issue, they could have got close to replacing the Tories as the second party. Look at the poverty of aspirations in CHEESE: any mention of Iraq; or of Labour lying and trust, very different from 'sleaze'; or of the need for better and more efficient government; or how to manage globalisation? A CHEESY approach will always condemn the Lib Dems to being marginal. A party has to have a defining project: of what it wants to be and do as a party and what it wants the country as a whole to become. The good news is that the age of CHEESE may be over and a new leader will start to cook some main courses.
