New Liberal Democrat Leader—Tim Farron

Two good candidates but the right man won for the right time

Tim Farron and I have only exchanged messages and tweets, but somehow I have the sense of him being a kindred spirit. He is the sort of political figure I like and, believe me, there are very few of his type around—certainly ones that have gone on to become a leader of a political party. Tim is radical, compassionate, caring, straight talking, never afraid to speak his mind and is a reformer. Those are rare qualities in today’s politicians—there’s nothing safety first about him! 

At the turn of the year my interest in politics was switched on again fully as the general election loomed. The obvious inevitability of the impending disaster, as took place on 7^th May, troubled me greatly having been present from the outset of the great venture between the SDP and the Liberals in 1981. Many, apparently, were moved to tears by Nick Clegg’s resignation speech. I am sorry to say that only served to compound my anger and will be the subject of a future blog.

I have known at close hand every leader and many senior politicians in the Labour Party, Liberals, SDP and Liberal Democrats from the early 1960s to 1992, and I can honestly say that it is rare to have come across someone like Tim Farron. His passion, care for others who are less fortunate and campaigning zeal are inspiring—and his principles, values and beliefs are motivational. Indeed, a true liberal and a proud Liberal Democrat.

To me, Tim combines the three values that define the Liberal Democrats—a classic and social liberal as well as a social democrat. As I have intimated in earlier blogs, that is the tradition I am happy to espouse—having been brought up in a Lab/Lib environment and argued for the principles of social democracy even when a Labour MP.

So the fightback and renewal has started, although it actually begun as 17,000 people joined (or maybe re-joined) the party. It was further nurtured by the very open, generous and fulsome leadership contest. Here I have to mention Norman Lamb, whom I have never come across, but through various channels kept in touch with his campaign. He is clearly a person of conviction, humanity and compassion too.

There is obvious excitement in the party, which is truly remarkable bearing in mind what has happened in the last five years and where we ended up on 7^th May. That excitement, to a good part, can be attributed to the character of Tim Farron because we all know that the ‘shackles’ have now been broken—not just the ones that tied us down in the coalition period, but also the constraints present for some years about shouting loudly and clearly what the Liberal Democrats stand for. Everyone knows that Tim will be the true voice of our principles and values.

There is much hard work facing us all under Tim’s leadership and we must rebuild the party’s base and organisation at community, constituency, regional and UK levels.  Things can change quite quickly in politics, and although it will be a hard long road back—it will happen, because for decades the British people have naturally been on the side of liberal and social democratic values. They have been yearning for things to change and desperate for their voices to be heard. They know that there is an urgent need for a better and fairer democracy with more equality.

Harold Wilson, someone I knew very well, once said as Prime Minister—‘a week is a long time in politics’. That is undoubtedly true because the twists and turns of politics are often sudden and unexpected. On the surface, all looks bleak but the discerning observer can envisage more twists and turns ahead than the conventional wisdom assumes. The Tory honeymoon period will soon come to an end when the reality of the budget begins to kick-in by mid to late autumn 2015.

There is a road back and we are on it right now. The signposts are clear for how best to arrive at our destination...

 

Leadership Rally Islington 16th July 2015

From the vaults: Tomorrow the Liberal Democrats will have a new leader—some advice from the past...

Social & Liberal Democrats Conference 1988 with Paddy Ashdown as new leader.

The challenges confronting the new leader of the Liberal Democrats will be the greatest facing any leader of what used to be the third force in British politics since 1970. Then the Liberals won six seats, had 7.5% share of the vote with 2.1 million people voting for the party.

When David Steel took over the leadership in 1976 there had already been some recovery. The Liberals had 11 MPs after the October 1974 election, taking a 13.8% share of the vote with 4.3 million voting for the party. Our new leader this week will be presented with a monumental task, requiring a massive effort from all concerned to ensure the party’s renewal. Today we only have 8 MPs, having received 7% of the vote in May’s general election, with just 2.1 million voting Liberal Democrat. Somewhat ironically for a democratic movement, the party has over 100 peers and they will now need to play a major role at Westminster.

Revisiting my speech of that time I find it, on the one hand, intriguing but, on the other hand, disappointing that the issues I identified just over 25 years ago are still very much with us today. Among the great concerns of 2015 are included the prospects for our young people, the level of welfare and care support for the poorest and weakest, the future of a free National Health Service and issues around fairness, equality, freedom and human rights.

In the 1980s, Maggie Thatcher seemed to question  what on earth society stood for and was once quoted as saying—although it was later denied—that ‘there is no such thing as society’. Her vision for progress was one of individual freedom, responsibility and advancement—placing oneself first, looking after ‘number one’. During the same period, Norman Tebbit suggested to the unemployed that they should ‘get on your bike’ and look for work. Now whether it is palatable or not to many in our country, Mrs T laid the foundation for a society not based on community spirit, but one of  individual self-interest and greed—the ‘I’m alright Jack’ view of life. Such an attitude still prevails today...

Our politics is dominated and played out in an environment of individual self-interest—what is in it for me or what will it mean to me? The last budget was immediately analysed in such terms where it was quickly found not to be as fair as initially propounded—yes, it talked about a ‘living wage’ but in fact it was a highly regressive budget developed along the lines of ‘to those that have shall be given’ and ‘to those that have not’ it shall be taken.

What is becoming sadder by the year is how the Labour Party is increasingly fearful of being seen on the side of the poor, less well-off and the underprivileged. Although he and I never saw eye to eye on many things at all, I still remember Neil Kinnock’s eve of the poll speech in 1987 (I believe)—warning people not to be old, not to be ill and so on. Not much of that is heard from Labour anymore.

This ‘politics of fear’ demeans the body politic. It is an issue that the new leader of the Liberal Democrats must address head on. Yes, the party will stand up for the less well off in society as well as those who cannot help or care for themselves. And on the side of those desperately trying to get onto the ladder of success and gain a modicum of prosperity whether unemployed through no fault of their own, a student, low wage earner or a public service worker who is being asked to accept a 1% annual pay rise for another four years...

Then, of course, there are the big issues over Britain’s future in Europe, our role in the world, a range of environmental and humanitarian matters and the ever widening spectre of international conflicts. In all these, the new leader will need to be radical and not afraid to tell people that Britain is nowhere near being a world power any longer and that we should stop pretending. This world is dominated by the USA, China and, to some extent, Russia, with Brazil, India and others quickly following behind. Of course, Germany is hugely influential in the European context. At best we are a middle ranking world power—lacking real military might and international influence. In short, we are a European power and that is where our destiny lies—unless of course you fancy just being an isolated island in the Atlantic, as UKIP and the right wing of the Tories dream.

One of the reasons I suppose I never quite ‘got on’ in politics was that I was considered ‘too radical’ at times and often thought of as ‘a maverick’ as one newspaper called me when contesting Hereford in 1992. But the views I held and the speeches I made during the 1970s are still valid today on matters such as democracy, fairness, freedom, equality, community, environment, internationalism, Europe as well as constitutional and electoral reform. They could probably be repeated word for word—even the one I made in 1974 calling for a ‘social democratic’ Labour Party!

For the Liberal Democrats to recover they have to be that radical force just described. To quote from the 1988 speech linked as a video below ‘it is not the name that matters, my friends, but who we are and what we stand for’. It is all to do with the road that our new leader chooses to travel and, more importantly, the set destination.  For me, the aim remains as in 1981 ‘To replace Labour, defeat the Tories and be in Government—no deals, no pacts’. 

That is why the last five years saw the Liberal Democrats falter and fail miserably—the vision, goal and destination got blurred and the voters neither understood nor subsequently forgave the party.

VIDEO: Speech launching the new Social and Liberal Democrats

Two leaderless parties meant Osborne got an easier ride than he should have as he announced a ‘Regressive’ Budget.

As is always the case with Budgets that seem reasonable and popular at the time of announcement—they often look rather different a few days later...

So it was this time. The headline 'grabbers' were of course the so-called ‘living wage’—£9 an hour by 2020—but note only for the over 25-year olds; raising the personal tax allowances; restricting child tax credits in future to the first two children; reducing the total amount of benefit per household; and changes on inheritance tax arrangements. They were all carefully targeted to achieve popular appeal and, indeed, Osborne was the ‘hero’ of the moment. Initial polling indicated that 42% of people thought that the budget was ‘fair’ and only 27% ‘not fair’, with 31% registering that they ‘didn’t know’. Also when asked about their own family circumstances, the opinion was that 20% considered themselves ‘better off’, 17% ‘worse off’ and a massive 53% thought that they would not see any changes.

However, a few days later those last three figures adjusted significantly, particularly in terms of those that were now of the view that they would be 'worse off.' So the respective figures altered to 30% ‘better off’, 37% ‘worse off’ and only 19% ‘not affected’. That began to put a different gloss on this 'popular' budget. 

As the dust settled, two of the budget measures were found to be very unpopular. Limiting public sector pay rises to 1% for the next four years was opposed by 51% of the people and most alarming of all was the abolition of student maintenance grants—with only 24% supporting the measure. In addition, eventually the realisation dawned that the Chancellor had announced a measure that would, in effect, reduce benefits for people who are actually in work but on low wages.  There was a 3 to 1 opposition to this proposal with 45% of the view that too little is spent on those people who are on low wages and making good efforts to better their personal circumstances. So all of a sudden the old adage that ‘we are all in this together’ started to ring rather hollow indeed. Those on middle to higher incomes and the retired were palpably going to be better off, whilst those on benefits and/or working but on low wages along with the young and students would be hit the hardest.  

The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that the poorest 10% of families would be worse off to the tune of £800 a year because of this budget by 2019. The next poorest 10% would be worse off by £1,100 a year.  The four year freeze on working age benefits is estimated to cost some 13 million families £260 a year each. One graph in their report is staggering—it outlines the difference the budget effect has on the lowest 40% of household incomes compared to the top 40% of household incomes ... I leave it to you to look at the link above and draw conclusions.

But leaving aside the unfairness and the imbalances of the budget, what has been most glaring over the past week has been the weakness of the two opposition parties at Parliament in challenging it. Currently the Tories are having an easy ride when that should clearly not be the case. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are in the midst of leadership elections and UKIP, despite its 4 million votes, only has one Member of Parliament.  That just leaves the SNP and, to be fair, they are almost daily putting up a strong fight against the government, presenting themselves as a coherent and well organised force. 

The irony and travesty of the situation is that Cameron and his party do not have a true mandate from the people of the United Kingdom. Only 33% voted for the Conservatives at the General Election and even worse, only some 24% of those entitled to vote supported the current government. Yet they secured 330 MPs—which implies a thoroughly discredited voting system. 76% of the United Kingdom's people did not support the Conservatives yet they are going to inflict a lot of hurt and damage on hundreds of thousands of families.

True to present form, Labour seems to be at sixes and sevens. Harriet Harman stated that the party will not oppose much of the welfare changes—which I must say was a surprise to me coming from her. But that immediately and quite predictably caused a furore in her party with three of the four leadership candidates disowning her statement!

The interview she gave seemed to concede that the agenda set by the Tories regarding the need for more austerity, reducing the deficit and getting into surplus by 2020 is one that is generally popular. So her argument was that Labour had better listen to people’s concerns, especially about the welfare bill. This is a party 'shocked to its core' without a doubt—where has the natural movement of the working class, the underprivileged and the deprived gone?  Has it lost its soul?  Is it afraid to be a radical force any longer? If so, unless it is careful, the people will soon be asking ‘what is the point of the Labour party?’

Sadly, the Liberal Democrats have been decimated and are now a pale shadow of the force they once were. They paid a heavy price for being in coalition with the Tories and matters should not have been allowed to get to that desperate point by 2015. Many in the party console themselves with the grand view that ‘we did it for the good of the country’ which is true—but there was no need to have stuck it out with the Tories for the whole five years.  The party should have walked away some eighteen months previously and let the Tories govern as a minority government. On any assessment of fairness and 'working for the common good', the Liberal Democrats—at great sacrifice to themselves—had done their ‘duty’ by mid-2014.

The road back will be a hard one and I can only hope that either one of Tim Farron or Norman Lamb will turn out to be radical leader. Going by the evidence coming from the leadership hustings debates, I do believe they will. But with only 8 MPs, not much can be achieved in Parliament—so whichever is elected, the main fight will need to be taken to the country, speaking directly with the people. It can be done. It was done when the SDP and Liberal parties merged in 1988. Paddy Ashdown took over after a gruelling divisive year for the two parties regarding the issue of merger. Good people were lost along the way but many of us went round the country speaking ... and gradually the recovery came. However, those difficulties were nothing like the present challenges facing the new leader of the Liberal Democrats from Thursday onwards.

His role will be to forge alliances even outside the traditional party structures—someone has to speak-up for the young, the students, the poorest in our country, the underprivileged and those in need of care and support. Someone has to stand up and say the public sector workers have suffered for long enough—another 1% annual rise for 4 years is blatantly unfair.

Yes, someone has to lead the campaign for a more open, just and democratic country ...

Continuing the series ‘From the vaults’: The Social and Liberal Democrats

The merger debates in early 1988 at Blackpool and Sheffield delivered massive votes in favour of establishing one party. Liberal members at Blackpool voted in favour by 88 per cent to 12 per cent, and SDP members at Sheffield in favour by 65 percent to 35 percent.  But the positive outcome did have a downside with both parties losing some good people. On the Liberal side, there was the loss of the highly respected Michael Meadowcroft. As for the SDP, the debate was far more bruising—David Owen and three other former MPs refused to join the merged party and carried on under the SDP banner for a few more years. A point of fact, the old Liberal Party still exists and there are still a few SDP councillors about—notably in Port Talbot.

I will not go into the endless meetings that took place over several months in order to achieve an agreed new constitution for the UK party, Wales, Scotland and, of course, local constituencies.  But I should state that the new party began with 19 MPs, 3,500 Councillors and 100,000 members. I always recall Margaret Clay, who headed the Association of Liberal Councillors, remarking ‘it is sheer hard work which led to the number of Liberal and SDP Councillors increasing from 1,500 in 1981 to over 3,500 by early 1988’.

Very true! It is little wonder that I remain annoyed over what has happened to the party over the past five years—it is easy to be more relaxed and reflective from the red benches of Westminster, but I only have to think back on the 35 years of hard graft and toil by tens of thousands of good people who have been let down in one way or another.

The process of getting to March 1988 was not an easy path and for some people, at the time, the name of the political party was more important than what it stood for—should ‘Liberal‘ or ‘Social‘  appear first ...  mind bogglingly, this issue has raised its head again after the 2015 election...

Anyway, March 1988 saw the launch rally of the party at Central Hall, Westminster at which I was fortunate to be a speaker. It was a truly memorable day with some 1,500 people present.  At the rally, Shirley Williams succinctly stated what we stood for, that is—‘a party that stands for the rights and freedoms of the individual, for a society which offers real opportunity to every citizen in housing, in health and employment.  We stand for a society in which every citizen can feel secure in their home and safe on the streets.  We stand for progress, peace and co-operation in the world.’ 

David Steel made a rousing, passionate speech for which he got a standing ovation. These words still resonate within me—‘we’re an unstoppable force of conscience and reform’.

David Steel and Robert Maclennan, who had been SDP leader since the summer of 1987, were now joint leaders and were steering the party through the transition period until elections could be held for a new leader and president—as well as membership of the Federal and Policy committees.  In Wales, we had an Interim Executive that I Chaired and, at this point, I must name people such as Gwyn Griffiths, Peter Sain ley Berry, Frank Leavers and Ieuan Evans (who much to my sadness passed away a year ago) for their efforts in moulding the Welsh party under the leadership of Tom Ellis, Geraint Howells and Richard Livsey.  Richard in fact was elected Welsh leader at the end of March 1988.

Over the summer there were the elections for leader and president. Paddy became leader and he turned out to be inspirational. Ian Wrigglesworth was elected as president.

I had actually stood for the presidency and got some 8,000 votes. It was a most enjoyable campaign and I was the outsider with, as you would expect, a radical agenda for change. There were hustings all over the UK. The meeting I most recall was at Farnborough Recreation Centre where the candidates for leader and president were in attendance along with some 3,000 party members! It was not a bad line-up of speakers with Paddy and Alan Beith for leader and Ian Wrigglesworth, Des Wilson and myself for president.  At the subsequent Federal Executive and Policy Committee elections that followed in the autumn, Charles Kennedy topped the poll for selection to the two committees and I was elected onto both also—coming fourth out of about forty candidates.   

Although we were holding our own, the truth is that 1988 had been a difficult year. The Owenite SDP was quite active and a process of healing divisions was necessary. Former party allegiances, at times, got in the way and held back momentum. Nevertheless what kept us going was the continuing success at local government elections where we continued to do well throughout the year and confound the opinion polls.

So for the archive and old times sake ...

 

VIDEO: The last Welsh SDP Conference at Porthcawl

AUDIO: Cassette recording of Gwynoro’s Westminster Hall rally speech in March 1988

VIDEO: Extract from BBC clip of the launch of the Welsh Liberal and Social Democrats 

Next time the first UK and Wales Conferences of the newly merged party, the change of name to Liberal Democrats and onto the 1992 General Election.

Wales: Have we gone to sleep, just become complacent or are things far too cosy?

Scotland is awake—Holyrood and the SNP are on the march—dictating much of the constitutional agenda. Northern Ireland’s Assembly is lively, albeit sometimes for the wrong reasons. The discussions about the way England is governed are getting louder—as witnessed by the demand for English Votes for English Laws—and according to opinion polls, there is even a majority in favour of an English Parliament and regional assemblies.  But what of Wales? 

There is a gentile and respectful ambience to Welsh politics these days and that has been the case since the Assembly came into existence. This encompasses not only our political parties and politicians but also the majority of the media and academia. It is rare for the ‘political waters’ to be disturbed too much. Is it because politics in Wales has become so lethargic that, in consequence, the people have got disinterested and feel nothing will change? If so, it is a very sad state of affairs. I watched a television item last night on the vibrancy of Scottish politics and it made me so envious of its people—reflecting that how Wales once was and should be today ...

I do recall past years when Wales’s political life was vibrant. Passionate debate, even arguments and yes, inspirational visions of change—they were radical times! I am old enough to remember The Parliament for Wales Campaign in the mid 1950s; to witness Aneurin Bevan and Jim Griffiths at their most powerful; to experience the emergence of Gwynfor Evans and Plaid Cymru putting the fear of God into Labour during the second half of the 1960s; and to have been part of the heated and often unpleasant debates inside the Labour Party over devolution and the language. And, of course, let's not forget the even more distasteful 'shenanigans' between Labour and Plaid during those two decades. When referring to campaigns, one has to acknowledge the impact of Cymdeithas yr Iaith in those years, campaigning for equal status for the Welsh Language. On the industrial front, there was also the miners’ strike and the three day working week during 1973/4.

In the 1980s, further industrial disputes—more specifically two miners’ strikes—remain in the memory along with the subsequent devastation of many mining communities thereafter. Politically it was a quiet decade, although the SDP/Liberal Alliance did trouble the Welsh political scene where it had the support of some 20 to 23 percent of the people. Other than that, devolution was on the back burner thanks to Neil Kinnock as Labour leader and Plaid spoke in hushed tones too, though Gwynfor did rattle the establishment with his own personal stand to secure S4C.

Politics and Wales livened up somewhat in the 1990s after another Tory victory in 1992—we were heading towards 17 years of Tory rule over Wales and it began to look never-ending. So the issue of devolution quickly came back onto the agenda with a vengeance. John Smith, an ardent pro-devolutionist became Labour leader and the party’s perspective altered. I knew John well in the 1970s and we both served together on the Council of Europe.

I will indulge in one personal story about John Smith. Over a meal in Strasbourg one evening with him and Andrew Faulds—the MP/actor—we were discussing the next morning’s debate in the Council where I was going to make my maiden speech.  Andrew suggested ‘why don’t you speak in Welsh’ and, not needing much convincing, I agreed to that course of action—even though Welsh was not considered an official language in the Council at the time. So come the debate, as I got up to speak, John sitting next to me whispered ‘do you want the standing ovation now or at the end?’ His comment threw me somewhat but I managed to speak in Welsh for two minutes before the President stopped me—all I could hear in my earpiece was the interpreter repeatedly saying ‘we think Mr Jones is speaking in Welsh’. The negative reaction back in Wales from Labour activists took me by surprise—‘what are you, a nationalist?’ However, on the flight back to Heathrow the pilot emerged from the cockpit and presented me with a bottle of champagne—he had heard about it on the radio as it had made UK news, and he was from Llanelli!

John Smith’s unexpected and untimely death was a very sad time for the Labour party. Fortunately, he had already set in motion, inside Labour, proposals for devolution to Scotland and Wales. He was followed by Tony Blair as leader and then Prime Minister. By the way, I have said many times that Wales owes a lot to Blair. To get any major constitutional reform on the statute book requires the unfailing and wholehearted support of the Prime Minister at the time. There had been years of agitation over the creation of a Welsh Office in the 1950s but it required the support of the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson to ensure its establishment in 1964. Jim Callaghan, on the other hand was extremely anti-devolution, hence Labour’s divisive and lack-lustre campaign during the 1979 Referendum when he was Prime Minister.

Ultimately, there came the dawn of what the majority in Wales had been waiting for a long time indeed. I often recall the then Secretary of Wales’s (Ron Davies) greeting the morning after the referendum victory—appropriately achieved with the final decisive vote from Carmarthenshire. He opened by saying ‘good morning and it is a very good morning in Wales’. Right, I thought, we are now on the road. Game on ... Welsh democracy will soon become vibrant, debate will flourish, decisions will be made in a more open environment—with proper accountability—and our public services will improve noticeably with the Assembly’s governance and investment decisions encompassing the whole of Wales.  

When I reflect over the seventeen years of the Assembly’s and now Senedd’s existence, very little of what I had expected and hoped for has materialised. This is where I will most definitely annoy the political and establishment classes of today’s Wales. It has always been a source of bewilderment, mirth and, at times, sadness to me that the very people who loudly pray in aid when presenting proposals, initiatives and so on, refer to the importance of  ‘democracy’, ‘equal treatment’, ‘transparency’ and of course ‘freedom of speech’ in support of their cause. But such fine words and sentiments are never applied by them when their decisions, actions and policies are under the microscope.

I don’t know whether it is the size of our country—it being so small that the whole body politic operates more akin to a local community, village or family.  Controlling influences prevail and people are expected to be careful of what is said and, most certainly, take care not to step out of line. So when someone is as bold as to openly criticise or challenge, they are quickly gossiped about, attacked, damned, ostracised and, at times, vilified for their opinions. The accepted wisdom, these days, is that one must not deign to challenge ‘The Party’, or point out where a leader is going wrong or that the Senedd is not governing effectively and our AMs are failing in their duty to adequately and rigorously challenge the Welsh government. Quite unlike the Wales in which I grew up and honed my politics—plain speaking and deviation from the bureaucratic party norm are to be actively discouraged. The outcome is less accountability in government and boring politics, leading to a disinterested public—until something new like UKIP turns up on the scene ...

So to understand why there is such disillusionment inherent in our politics and consider whether Labour and Plaid can claim to be the natural parties of Wales—whilst electorally both are at a standstill—let us briefly examine how four particular issues have been dealt with recently. These proposals and announcements have left me with a strong impression that much is left to be desired about the present way of conducting business.

Taking the easy one first. The proposal to increase AMs salaries by 18% was an inappropriate recommendation to put forward during such difficult financial times. It displayed a lack of perspective or sense of reality. So it was that ‘the great and the good’ viewed it just and fair for nurses and other public servants to make do with 1% until 2017/18, but our politicians deserved an 18% next May. I tried to get the matter more openly debated—but it was difficult to get a response despite endless communications to the First Minister and Leader of the Opposition. Interestingly, other posts on this Blog, have had good media coverage—covering topics such as reducing the number of councils, the tragic death of Charles Kennedy, Plaid’s 'no deal' with the Tories and reflections on the recent Welsh opinion poll. But on this issue, there has been total silence—indeed, a case of ‘close the ranks’ time and don’t ‘upset the family!’  I could not even get the Labour and Conservative parties in Wales to respond as to their intentions. Unfortunately, the tactics of government throughout the decades has often been to ‘lie low’, ‘ride any storm’, ‘let the summer come and the public won’t care’ ... and, who knows, ‘we might even get away with it!’  It’s just cynical and arrogant politics.

Then the next major issue was Leighton Andrews’s proposal regarding the Council shake up— something that is urgently needed because the existing arrangements for twenty two councils are way over the top for such a small country as Wales. Well, that should be no problem you would have thought—wrong! All the difficulties, potential uncertainties, accusations over the Welsh government’s motives, the need for more consultation etc were put forward, as delaying tactics, by opponents. On such a major issue as how efficiently and best to govern Wales—the Senedd, AMs and local government displayed a lack of leadership that repeats itself far too often. Where is the strategic vision and direction?

The third topic that arose was Huw Lewis’s announcement of a new Schools’ Curriculum. Of course, it is obvious that changes are needed. The current curriculum has been in place for some twenty years and the world has moved on, particularly in this fast moving digital age as I am finding out! Mr Lewis, when commenting on Wales’s poor position in the PISA international league table of performance in core subjects—where we are the lowest of the four UK nations in 43^rd position with Scotland 25^th—said that there had been ‘too much denial, drift and dither’ over our performance. I agree, his predecessor had also said there are ‘systemic weaknesses in the education system.’ It is well known that Estyn is concerned over pupils’ standards and schools’ performance. For instance, last year, four out of every ten primary schools inspected were deemed as being ‘satisfactory’ only.  Teacher assessment has been a controversial issue over the past decade, standards in Welsh second language are broadly inadequate and the levels of achievement in numeracy are not improving satisfactorily. So let’s get something done? Ah well, hang on, our politicians think that it will take up to seven or eight years before changes can come into effect fully—practically two more Assembly administrations. Where’s the urgency? Why is there such a lack of perspective when trying to address the deficiencies in our education system?

Finally, there is today’s announcement, which frankly beggars belief and makes one want to shout ‘just stop playing politics and get on and do something’. A Green Paper to strengthen NHS Wales has been announced with a range of proposals and ideas for consultation. Bearing in mind all the historical and recent headlines relating to hospital waiting times; difficulties in the ambulance service; lack of adequate treatment for certain illnesses; concerns over some residential arrangements; quality of care and unacceptable management practices, we are all sadly too familiar with the standard response to these issues and failure to meet targets—in unison, ‘lessons will be learnt’. Well, I can assure you there is no need to worry anymore because the ‘idea’ is to establish a new legal duty for health providers to be transparent when admitting mistakes. Then there are proposals that will help ensure that the NHS has the right powers and structures to act in the best interests of patients and the wider public.

All the  ‘ideas’ highlighted are good and valid ones, but not only do they need to be implemented as soon as possible, they should have already been in existence from at least a few of years ago. So once again why has the Welsh government been so long in even publishing a Green Paper?  It gives an impression of action being taken but, in reality, it is once more a classic example of a failure to deliver, absent leadership, lack of urgency and complacent governance.

Which takes me back to my initial question ... have we become complacent or are things really far too cosy in the Senedd?

Continuing with the series of posts 'From the vaults'—How Wales led the way 1983-88

Exciting years but at times fraught with internal struggles...

I explained in a previous From the vaults how in my judgement the Falklands War had impacted on the General Election of 1983, even though the SDP/Liberal Alliance got 25.4% of the vote and 23 MPs. In Wales the proportion was 23% with only 2 MPs.  Under PR it would have been 8 or 9! Political commentators subsequently argued that it was Mrs Thatcher that had seen off Labour – that was not actually the case, it was the birth of the SDP and the popularity of the Alliance that had upset the apple cart. It is difficult to believe that in Wales, Labour had declined from 49% of the vote in 1974 to only 38% by 1983.

When Roy Jenkins was Leader of the SDP, there was minimal intrusion from the SDP headquarters in London regarding how the SDP and Liberals were cooperating in Wales. However, when David Owen took over the leadership, the Welsh SDP expected matters to be different, but that did not prevent the increasing momentum for greater cooperation between the two Welsh parties. One of the aims was to have a joint office in Cardiff which was eventually secured. The negotiating skills and efforts of Clive Lindley, a highly respected member of the Welsh Council who was on the National Committee before me, were instrumental in achieving this aim – particularly at a time when the SDP had closed its offices in Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol!

In November 1983, history was made with the first ever joint meeting of the Welsh Liberal Party Executive and the SDP Council for Wales where it was agreed that a Liaison Committee should be established under the joint chair of Sir Winston Roddick and myself. Here, I must pay tribute to Winston’s steadfastness and vision; he was a man who always saw the bigger picture. Yet his efforts were not always appreciated by some of his Liberal colleagues.

By early 1984, there was just one office for the two parties in Wales and the Alliance Committee soon became the vehicle for promoting political activity across the country. Although the two parties continued to hold their own executive meetings and conferences, it was the Alliance Committee that was the driving force on strategy, policy and organisation. Unfortunately, this was not to the liking of a minority in both parties, who did not care much for how quickly the closer working arrangements were developing.   

Nothing like this was happening in the rest of the United Kingdom.  I often used to wonder why the parties in Scotland were not following our example, especially since both had senior and highly influential Members of Parliament. The answer became obvious as time went on as they knew that they would be confronted by David Owen at Westminster if they dared to venture down the ‘same road as the Welsh’. Whereas in Wales, Tom Ellis, Geraint Howells and I held no fear of the ‘Owenites’ in the SDP...

By now I had been on the National Committee for some four months when in March 1984, at the second SDP Wales Consultative Assembly held in Cardiff, debates became quite lively followed by voting. I just leave it to you to imagine the reaction of the London party. Both David Owen and Shirley Williams were in attendance with over 300 people present. This Assembly also debated a policy paper approved by the Alliance Committee titled ‘Wales in Europe’.

June soon came along with the European Parliament Elections at which we received 20% of the vote but no seats!  This was quickly followed by Mike Hancock’s famous victory in the by-election at Portsmouth South. In the second half of 1984, negotiations commenced over the allocation of parliamentary seats for the next General Election. The membership of the two parties in all constituencies was consulted regarding their preferred system of candidate selection and which party should take the lead in each constituency. Eventually, by September, the Alliance Committee arrived at an agreement over the seat allocation in Wales which was approved by their respective Executive Committees.  As Chair of the Council for Wales, it was my responsibility to notify Cowley Street, London of the agreement, as well as the President and Leader’s offices. Once again, as in 1983, there was a degree of unhappiness in London that Wales was seen to have jumped the gun and had laid a draft blueprint for the rest of the UK – which in fact we had!  Moreover, by publicising the details of the agreement to the press beforehand, it was assumed that the National Committee had been pushed into a corner with a fait accompli by Gwynoro and friends.

I attended an Organisation Committee and then a National Committee to argue in favour of the agreement. The leadership was extremely unhappy because the agreement contained 13 ‘joint selection’ seats. The National Committee was evenly divided in principle, but on my reckoning there was always a majority in support of the deal if pushed to a vote. However a compromise emerged to send three National Committee representatives to attend a meeting of the SDP Welsh Council to test the mood of the Council members. The Welsh Liberal Party became quite unhappy over this and it resented what they considered to be outside interference. The strength of feeling was made clear when at their October Annual General Meeting they passed a resolution which stated that the Welsh Liberal Party ‘confirms its refusal to negotiate any matters relating to the Alliance in Wales with anybody or person from outside Wales’ and that they supported the SDP in Wales in its aim of ‘developing the Alliance in Wales free from outside interference’.

Undaunted, the SDP representatives, Bill Rodgers, Mike Thomas and Alex McGivan attended a Council for Wales meeting in Cardiff.   David Owen and his supporters were always under the misguided opinion, as they put it to me several times over the preceding weeks, that this was ‘Gwynoro and Tom’s agreement’ and not the Council’s as a whole.  They certainly found differently at the meeting when after listening to the 30 strong Council for over three hours a motion was passed by 26 votes to 1 declaring support for the agreement. So after five months from which the agreement had originally been approved by the Alliance Committee and the two parties in Wales, the agreement was finally ratified by the National Committee in December. It had been a titanic struggle between Wales and London, and from then on the relationship between David Owen and I became extremely strained.  This was unfortunate as I had held him in high regard from 1981, even though my main affiliation was to Roy Jenkins.  

All these events appeared in the Welsh media regularly at the time and hence the Alliance in Wales had a very high profile indeed - so much so that I remember one newspaper’s headline in particular ‘The Alliance: the most exciting force in Welsh politics’.

In the County Council elections of May 1985, the SDP and Liberals together won 645 council seats, with Alliance administrations firmly established in 7 counties and holding the balance of power in 25 others. In Wales we doubled our representation compared to four years earlier!

The exciting and exhilarating Brecon and Radnor by-election followed quickly thereafter. That campaign was the best I had been involved with at the time  - and I had done the rounds including Crosby, Hillhead, Bermondsey, Portsmouth-South and so on (not to mention a previous incarnation in Carmarthen during the early seventies!). It was as if mid-Wales was in the grip of an ‘evangelical’ revival and even better, it was a truly Welsh campaign. I heard some great oratory in packed village and town halls with David Penhaligon, Cyril Smith and Paddy in full voice. Looking back on events from a distance, Richard Livesey also cast an ‘angelic persona' on proceedings!

The First Alliance Conference in Wales, or anywhere else for that matter, was held in the Autumn 1985 where a joint policy paper was agreed on decentralisation. At the same time, Winston Roddick came up with a master stroke. He proposed that the long standing Liberal Weekend School which was an ‘ideas’ event should be changed into the Lloyd George Society. The Society was not in any way accountable to either party of the Alliance, but it became a prestigious, radical and popular grouping with its launch at Criccieth in October 1985. A ceremony was held at Lloyd George’s graveside in Llanymstumdwy and it was a very moving experience. There we were, media coverage and all, at this peaceful setting during a tranquil afternoon at the graveside of an international statesman from Wales. It reminded all present of the reasons why the Alliance was so crucial, particularly in Wales. I will never forget Lady Olwen’s answer to a question from a reporter about what advice her father would have given the two Davids – she answered that he probably would have told them ‘just to get on with it.’

Well ‘get on with it’ we did in Wales. On November 16^th and 17^th, the First Alliance Conference took place with the two leaders of the Alliance in attendance. There were 300 members present in the day followed by 150 at the evening’s inaugural lecture of the Lloyd George Society which was given by Roy Jenkins, including a masterclass history lesson by the maestro.  

Motions and debates on youth policy, decentralisation, defence and the economy were followed by votes. Naturally two debates attracted strong media interest, the first being decentralisation with a policy paper outlining the establishment of a Parliament for Wales, which was carried by 139 to 55 votes. In the 1980s, decentralisation was not a particularly prominent topic, but I was determined to bring it back on to the political agenda. In this period Labour, under the leadership of Neil Kinnock, was quite hostile to the subject and, for whatever reason, Plaid Cymru had retreated into its shell. I reckon that the Welshness of the Alliance in Wales took them all by surprise. Remember, I came from a firm Welsh speaking mining community ...

The second debate of interest was the one on defence which had become a point of disagreement between members of the two parties, with David Owen arguing privately that the Liberals had always been too soft on this subject. But here again, at this conference of both Liberals and Social Democrats there was no split in views, with the vote on policy being 180 in favour and 5 against. That conference sealed the bond between the two parties in Wales.    

1986 was a consolidation year and over the course of the next 12 months the Alliance won the Ryedale, Greenwich and Truro by-elections. Then came the General Election in June 1987 and, again, the Alliance vote held up at 22.6%. However, I do wonder what would have been the outcome had there been a more natural affinity between the two leaders. It was clear that they did not get on, and David Owen’s talk of coalition politics at the time - particularly the possibility of establishing one with Mrs Thatcher - muddied the waters.

By August 1987, the issue of a possible merger came to a head with the National Committee of the SDP conducting a postal ballot on its future relations with the Liberal Party. Two questions were on the ballot paper: one for a closer working arrangement, short of merger, which received 43% of the vote and one on whether to merge the two parties which received 57% support. Following that decision, David Owen resigned as Leader of the SDP.

In my judgement, for all the differences between us, I wished David had remained as Leader because he was a man of stature and gravitas. The rest, as they say, is history and on 31^st January 1988 following the Liberal Party Special Assembly a week earlier in Blackpool, where there was an 85% vote in favour of merger, the SDP met in Sheffield to vote 273 to 28 in favour of a merger. Therefore, on 3^rd March, the Social and Liberal Democrats were launched at the Conference Centre Westminster.

So here is a flavour of that debate in Sheffield...   

VIDEO: Week in Week Out Programme on the SDP merger debate with Liberals at Sheffield 1988

Wales remains ‘steady as she goes’ after election

‘Wales is not becoming more Welsh or more left wing … it's becoming more centrist.'

The quote above is from David Taylor, a former Labour Special Adviser, who in the aftermath of the General Election gave a perceptive viewpoint on the result—a view with which I agree. It is an undeniable trend that the Welsh voter is on the move and the changes will pose problems for Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Liberal Democrats for quite a few years.  At the last election, the real winners in Wales were the Conservatives and UKIP.

All eyes are now turning towards the build up to the Senedd elections in May 2016, more recently the findings of a poll conducted by the Wales Governance Centre, presented and analysed by Roger Scully. It makes interesting reading. In summary, Welsh Labour and Plaid are at a standstill, the Welsh Conservatives and UKIP have increased by a percentage point and support for the Welsh Liberal Democrats has decreased further by over two per cent—and speaking as a current party member, that is of major concern.

If that scenario repeats itself next May, the Senedd will have a political complexion as follows: Labour—29 AMs; Con—13; Plaid—10; UKIP, represented for the first time—7; and Lib Dems—1. Now, in David Taylor speak, that is a Wales of the ‘political centre’ because the only out and out left-wing party on the table is Plaid.

There are indeed challenges facing three of the parties and there are questions to be asked concerning the Welsh voting public. Is it increasingly the case that in time—with the significant inward migration from other parts of the UK—that the newly coined phrase ‘for Wales see England’ is getting nearer to the mark? It will require more than this blogpost to answer that question, but I may address it in a later article.

However, the following statistics may give us some insight into understanding one of the reasons. Forty eight percent of the Welsh population live within 25 miles of the border with England and that border is crossed about 130,000 times a day. Those trying to connect our politics with the Scottish experience possibly need to bear in mind that the equivalent figures for Scotland are very different with only 3.7% of the Scottish population living within 25 miles of the English border, which is only crossed less than 30,000 times a day. It is interesting and probably somewhat provocative to record that there is only one Conservative MP in Scotland—and UKIP is a rare bird up there!

To return to the challenges facing the political parties in Wales—Labour continues to be dominant, but in reality has remained static for quite some time now. The First Minister always claims, as he did after the General Election, that Labour ‘remains the largest party in Wales’. I must say that does suggest an element of complacency. Even with a Tory-led coalition government in Westminster, Labour’s share of the vote in Wales increased by only 1% and that was from not too high a baseline set in 2010. It is true that Labour is the largest party, but does it motivate and enthuse the Welsh people? Does it hold the great affection and loyalty it once did?  Even with a Tory-led government, Welsh Labour did not manage to win any seats from the Conservatives in Wales and even worse, managed to  lose two to the Conservatives—one of them being Gower, a seat that had been Labour for a century!

Again, I agree with David Taylor, Welsh Labour cannot continue providing the same stock answer in response to any difficulties confronting the Senedd. It is not always the fault of the Westminster government! Welsh Labour needs to accept that it has been in government in Wales for almost seventeen years. Also, it is the controlling party in the majority of our local authorities. All the problems relating to the delivery of a range of public services, standards in education, the quality and delivery of hospital provision and care—even the public’s relative dissatisfaction with the performance of the Senedd— cannot be forever explained away by Tory funding cuts etc. That is just not good enough anymore I am afraid.

Plaid has some hard thinking to do. It is of little use relying on the exposure received by their leader during the UK leaders’ debates before the last election. Yes, she is as recognisable, if not more so than the First Minister—and that should be of particular concern to Welsh Labour. But as I have maintained for years, the Senedd’s profile and image is rather poor with its sessions uninspiring.

Given all outlined above, regarding the changing complexion of Wales, is it really a good strategy to be proudly known as the ‘party of the left?’ Even Nicola Sturgeon refers to the SNP as a social democratic movement. Ah the SDP...!  Also, hanging on to Labour’s coattails will not do for Plaid either—it is a strategy that is failing. It too, like Labour, seems complacent and is, in electoral terms, static. Rarely do we hear of its vision for Wales, and I remain convinced that it missed a great opportunity in 2007...


If Labour and Plaid have issues to confront and challenges to meet, the Welsh Liberal Democrats have ones that are of a different dimension altogether.  The new UK leader and the party in Wales need to review its organisation, image, policy focus, and perceived lack of coherence as a single entity. There is a general feeling that the party in Wales comprises a small group of AMs who are over concentrated around one person. Like Leanne Wood, Kirsty Williams was good in the Welsh leaders’ debates, but that is never enough to carry a political movement to success at the ballot box. The SNP broke through not merely because Nicola Sturgeon was the outstanding personality of the election, but also the party had done everything right for ten years—including campaigns, policy platforms, research papers and selection of candidates with wider professional experiences beyond just the politics ‘bubble’.

The Liberal Democrats also have issues over its strategy around election campaigns. Concentrating on three or four seats is just bad politics. In my judgement, it is a minimalist approach to campaigning. This issue was flagged up to the old Liberal party when the SDP was in Alliance with them in Wales during the 1980s. For those who have forgotten, in those days the joint electoral support for the partnership was nearer 20% rather than 4%. The Welsh Liberal Democrats desperately need a more ‘all Wales’ image, and the very idea that stressing the word ‘Liberal’ will  make everything okay is unbelievably misplaced and naïve. There are some who would argue that Liberalism as a successful political brand came to an end in 1922 and that Lloyd George, Churchill, Keynes and Beveridge had brought in social liberalism, which is pretty akin to social democracy.

In defence of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, there was nothing it could have done during the General Election in the face of the tsunami that was bound to arrive after forming a coalition with the Tories in 2010. Going into coalition was the right thing to do, but not for the full five-year term. Yes, good things were achieved in government, but the student fees fiasco damaged Nick Clegg irretrievably and the political tactics utilised during the two years before the General Election were woeful.  There was no disengagement strategy and definitely not enough visible differentiation between the Liberal Democrats and the Tory government in the eyes of the public.

No disrespect to the Welsh Conservatives but I do not propose to refer to them in detail in this blog, except to say that over the last decade, and maybe more, they have captured the mood of the Welsh electorate better than the other three other parties. They have understood the implications of a less working class Wales, the breakdown of the old industrial communities and the diversified nature of the Welsh economy and its population. Labour and Plaid have not only underestimated the Tories—they have not come to terms with the changing nature of Wales itself.

Finally, UKIP has arrived on the scene with a vengeance, coming second in a good number of seats across Wales—in places such as Caerphilly, Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. The specific reasons for this require analysis along with the changing voting patterns of the Welsh electorate. Not only are there unidentifiable ‘shy and secret Conservatives’ in Wales but there are also anti-European and anti-immigration elements too.

Of course, we will get a chance to see what UKIP Wales is really like when it arrives in the Senedd next year—unless the three centre/left parties have the gumption to wake up and start probing UKIP on its Welsh vision, policies and intentions ...  

Map of election results 2015 from Vaughan Roderick

 

From the vaults: SDP merger debate with Liberals, Feb 1988—speeches by Roy Jenkins and Gwynoro

Continuing with the series of posts From the vaults—this time I will provide some background on the merger debate from the Social Democratic Party’s (SDP) perspective.

The SDP called a two day conference at Sheffield to discuss the possible merger. This had been preceded a week earlier by the historic decision of the Liberals to approve the merger with the SDP at their conference. The party of Gladstone, Lloyd George and Jo Grimond, under the inspired leadership of David Steel, was therefore willing to cast aside its historical identity in British politics and merge with the Social Democrats.

For over more than half a century the philosophy of classical Liberalism was changing to being one more akin to social liberalism. This began with Lloyd George, Churchill and the 1911 legislation. Then Keynes, who was brought up as a classical Liberal, became the leading proponent of a welfare and social liberal approach after the Great Depression of 1929. Finally the transformation was completed by Beveridge and his benchmark report—the precursor to the National Health Service and the Welfare state.

Anyway, the heated arguments and divisions inside the SDP over the issue of merging with the Liberals was one that had been simmering away under the surface within a year or so of the party’s formation in 1981. Indeed, in my case, close ties with the Liberals had been a conviction even before the birth of the party on March 26^th, 1981.

I came from a Labour/Liberal background and had never been a traditional Labour MP. Even in 1974 I had stated my support for social democracy in a letter to party members in Carmarthen and had made a speech, along those lines, at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour party called to discuss the outcome  of  the February 1974 General Election. There was a lot of unease within Labour about the result, particularly due to the three day week and ongoing miners’ strike. I thought, having survived by just a majority of 3, I had something to contribute about the future direction of the party. How wrong could I have been! It was a brave stance to take at a time when the party was lurching leftwards and with militant tendency on the horizon.

When Roy Jenkins was President of the European Commission, in the late 1970s, we exchanged correspondence regularly and we would often discuss what should be done in view of Labour moving away from the centre ground of politics.  In correspondence, I used to argue that we should leave Labour and join the Liberals. This was mainly because they already had MPs with 5 to 6 million votes across the UK. Roy was not convinced by that approach and was obviously aware of other forces at work. By the end of 1979, he was more and more certain that a new force was required in British politics.

I was also made aware that other members of the Gang of Four were just as unhappy along with some 20 other Labour MPs. The first key moment came with Roy’s BBC Dimbleby Lecture in November 1979 on the theme of ‘Home Thoughts from Abroad’. It was immediately interpreted that he was going to come back to UK politics after his four years at the Commission to start a new party. He had always had a strong following inside and out of Parliament.

As they say the rest is history. Michael Foot became leader of the Labour party and senior former Labour Cabinet Ministers including  Shirley Williams, David Owen and Bill Rodgers joined with Roy in publishing the Limehouse Declaration in January 1981. After that, matters moved very quickly following the birth of the SDP on March 26 1981. On May 20^th the first formal meeting of the SDP and the Liberals took place to discuss the formation of an electoral alliance. Then on June 16^th, an SDP/Liberal joint working party published a statement of principles entitled ‘A Fresh Start for Britain’. In September the Liberal assembly held in Llandudno endorsed the creation of the Alliance with the SDP, followed by the spectacular by-election victories of Bill Pitt and Shirley Williams. Now the show was well and truly on the road!

In March 1982, Roy Jenkins won the Hillhead by election and in July was elected SDP leader in a postal ballot of all party members.  Ever closer ties were being established, especially in terms of which party would take the lead in the allocation of Parliamentary seats. There were people on both sides who viewed closer ties with suspicion. On the SDP side, they were led by David Owen and supporters such as Mike Thomas. Without going into detail the major issue revolved around seats, particularly where members of both parties could participate in selecting candidates. As Chair of the SDP in Wales and Joint Chair of the Alliance Committee for Wales, I strongly championed that method and was confronted with fierce opposition to the final seat agreement in Wales at a meeting of the SDP National Committee. Indeed a deputation was dispatched to meet with the SDP Council for Wales to see whether I had orchestrated the agreement without reference to the members of the Council. The group, led by Mike Thomas, soon found out otherwise. From the outset, the Alliance between the two parties in Wales was close and was also a strong force in the deliberations of both the SDP and Liberals at UK level.

In January 1983, with a General Election looming, the Alliance parties launched the joint programme ‘Working Together for Britain‘. In February, Simon Hughes won the Bermondsey by-election. Then came the General Election in June where the Alliance received 25.4% of the vote but only 23 MPs. We almost pipped Labour—which received 27.6% of the vote—into third place but of course winning considerably more seats in the process! Rest assured debates about the unfair and undemocratic voting system were alive and well even in those days. Another factor affecting the outcome had been the Falklands War—a needless conflict. To this day I remain convinced that it was a war contrived to save Mrs Thatcher who in the weeks prior to the conflict was languishing a poor third in the opinion polls with the Alliance at 51%.

In June, Roy Jenkins resigned as SDP leader. There had been a lot of talk, trouble making and gossip sharing regarding the need to replace Roy with David Owen, even before the General Election. David had benefited from being imperious in the Commons during the Falklands’ debates. As a former Foreign Secretary he was at his best in those discussions—so on June 21^st he was elected leader. However, this opened up a new chapter in the relationship with the Liberals which will be the subject of the next From the vaults, featuring Vincent Kane’s reporting of the full merger debate by the SDP in Sheffield.

As a taster, here is a video recording of the speeches made by Roy Jenkins and myself at that conference...      

VIDEO: Speeches by Roy Jenkins and Gwynoro at the SDP merger debate with Liberals in Sheffield, Feb 1988