The Liberal Democrats can only move forward successfully by being able to understand what went wrong and why ...

Note that this blog was written before announcement of the new leader.

 

It will not serve our new leader well if matters are swept under the carpet and allowed to fester.

Kirsty Williams in a thoughtful speech last Wednesday, 15^th July, delivered her views on the Liberal Democrats and the coalition years, along with what she termed the ‘Road Map’ to the 2016 Senedd elections in Wales. The ‘Road Map’ will be the topic of my next blog.

During the coalition years I was an observer of what was taking place, being kept up to date through various media channels. I was far from happy about developments and said at the outset to a group of school inspector colleagues—at the time of the joint announcement—that ‘no good will come’ of this coalition with the Tories for the Liberal Democrats.

I am firmly of the view that the party can only move forward successfully by understanding what went wrong, why it happened and what are the lessons for the future?

It will not serve the new leader, the party and our members any good at all to sweep things under the carpet and allow matters to fester. The Federal Executive is conducting a review of the last general election and consulting widely with the membership—with view to presenting a report at the forthcoming annual conference in   Bournemouth. That will be the appropriate time to discuss openly and in a constructive spirit the causes of the party’s disastrous performance. It is nowhere near acceptable enough for the Liberal Democrats to follow Nick Clegg’s line, stating that we won’t apologise for the coalition years—explaining that we put ‘country before party’ and suggesting that some would do the same again!

A great movement for change and reform has been decimated after thirty years and more of hard work that saw the party climbing from 6 to 57 MPs, around 1,500 Councillors to over 3,500, and from having over 100,000 members for much to have gone. Thankfully and quite remarkably, membership has increased some 14,000 since the general election to 63,000—which speaks volumes about the residue of concern and affection people have for the Liberal Democrats.  So it has to be laid to rest, a line drawn in the sand. However, we do need something akin to a short ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ period to ‘clear the air’ and to allow all the negative feelings and disappointments to lay rest. It will make for a cleaner and clearer break with the coalition years, facilitate a fresh start with a new leader and enable us to return to being that party of fairness, equality, justice, compassion, change and reform. Well, at least, that is my view as I am eager to move on after the ‘air has been cleared’ and will do all in my power to support the new leader. It could well be the case that history will be kinder to Nick Clegg than the electorate—but as one well-known economist once quipped ‘in the long term, we’re all dead’.  

Kirsty Williams the Welsh Liberal Democrats Leader has been near the action throughout the period and has indicated her opinions on the coalition years and they are very well made. They are ones that I totally agree with. In summary she says:

‘We lost a colossal amount of trust over tuition fees.  Not only did we break our pledge … it’s worse than that, it never even looked like we fought to keep it…it was a mistake of the highest order and one for which we were never forgiven…Details no longer mattered, people simply stopped listening’. 

‘The Tories, frankly, were better prepared back in 2010, constructed a more potent narrative, and were brilliant at assimilating Lib Dem policies and boxing us in. Critically, they owned the economic narrative and made the political weather. We got the grief when things went wrong and never the credit for the good stuff’.

‘let us be in no doubt, although we were dealt a difficult hand, we could have handled it better. Obsessed with showing that coalition could work and that we could take ‘tough decisions’ we lost our own focus, our own identity, forgot to take ownership of our achievements until it was too late … From the Rose Garden on, we were swallowed up’. 

‘more than that – and maybe in the end this was the biggest self-inflicted wound – we appeared to the electorate to leap from a firm and hard fought anchorage in one part of UK politics to another without so much as a by-your-leave’

‘Saying that it was disorienting for those who had supported us when we formed the coalition with the Tories for five years is perhaps one of the great understatements of the last parliament. Sometimes, even from within, it felt like we were struggling to locate a compass to navigate our way through with our values unscathed’. 

It is difficult to argue with the points made above. So what on earth happened and why didn’t the corporate body of the Liberal Democrats at Westminster and across the country put a stop to what was going on? Her summary indicates to me that there was something wrong with the way the party was operating. My view is that the party seemed doomed from the outset of the coalition and most definitely by the time of the election campaign. All the evidence points towards one conclusion—the only deal in town for Nick Clegg was one with the Tories.

He had made it clear several times before the election that in the event of a hung parliament he would talk first to whichever party held the largest number of seats—more often than not, at the time, the opinion polls were continually favouring the Tories as the likely largest party. The long standing constitutional practice in our country of the incumbent Prime Minister being allowed to have the first opportunity of forming a government was put to one side.

Therefore, was no-one advising Nick Clegg about UK convention or was he just not the listening type—and that his mind had already been made up about dealing with Labour?  Those of us that follow events closely will recall seeing Vernon Bogdanor on television—a highly respected constitutional expert—explaining how convention worked in UK politics. It was not the case that Gordon Brown had lost ‘legitimacy’ to govern and had no right to form a minority Labour government.

I just do not understand why Steel, Ashdown, Kennedy and Campbell, did not carry sway with Nick Clegg. In the immediate aftermath of the election, David Steel accepted his share of the blame and I find it quite staggering what he had to say—‘I really did not know Clegg and indeed recall having met him only once. Not very substantial excuses, I admit. So I take my share of blame.’

David Steel has argued correctly that Clegg should have gone to see the incumbent PM firstly and explore seriously the possibility of a Lib-Lab coalition. He explained that such a coalition would be ‘one more in tune with what the voters had understood of our consistent Liberal ideology under all six leaders since Jo Grimond. The arithmetic might still have prevented it, but he would have probably got a better deal out of Cameron’.

This was a defining moment in the history of the Liberal Democrats. Obviously I concede that it was not one of Nick Clegg’s choosing, but needed to be considered in the context of achieving the best outcome for the good of the Liberal Democrats in the longer-term. That had to be a key part of the equation. We all understood that the country was in a dire financial situation and that a government had to be formed, but it is my view that a more sensitive, sensible and astute leader would have turned always in the first instance for advice and guidance from his four predecessors. After all, David Steel had experience of a Lib/Lab pact in action during the late 1970s. Seemingly none of that happened and, to me, Nick Clegg appeared to be on a mission. So I will keep on returning to my belief that his favoured position, some time before the election, was to deal with the Tories—and he probably knew that his four predecessors would have argued differently.

It is important to also remember that Nick Clegg was very much a ‘new kid on the block’ at the time with only five years experience in Westminster. He became an MP in 2005 and leader in 2007, hence his first port of call for advice should have been his four predecessors as well as more senior Liberal Democrat MPs—many of whom had been in Parliament since the 1980s. It appears that this did not happen, which I find beyond any sense of understanding—other than wondering whether there was an arrogant conviction present and a pre-determined mind set of the course he was about to embark upon.

Evidently the negotiating team set up to negotiate with the Tories and, then later, with Labour comprised younger and the newer MPs as well as advisers. That, to me, fits the scenario well as he most probably knew that he could dictate comfortably to them the desired outcome. However, be that as it may, I still do not happily accept the Pontius Pilate approach adopted at Westminster and within the rest of the party at the time. It was in everyone’s interests to secure the best outcome for the Liberal Democrats with the next general election in mind. It should have been a corporate responsibility from the very outset and the party leader should have been challenged more forcibly. If the Members of Parliament and their Peer colleagues were oblivious to the likely impact— within their constituencies—of a coalition with the Tories then that is a major worry.

Again, Nick Clegg seemed to be in a hurry to come to an agreement and form a coalition government. This was odd, since it was contrary to how he would have observed European ‘coalition politics’ in action—where they often take weeks to form coalitions but in the interim, the business of government continues. His haste tends to reaffirm my view that he had firmed-up his position immediately after the election in favour of working with the Tories. As a pure outsider, observing matters from a distance, I wonder whether his background, style and persona is better suited to dealing with the Camerons’ of this world? It is true that the media were rushing the agenda and pressing for an end to the uncertainty—which is always the way of the media circus—but he should have taken his time and been more considered. The government would still have carried on with the business of governing in the interim...

Liberal Democrat members invariably turn to the good things that were achieved in Government, including decisions affecting income tax thresholds and pension reforms etc. Unfortunately, those things got swallowed up in the hurly burly of coalition politics. It was clear that the Tories had a much better publicity machine. As Kirsty Williams points out ‘we took ownership of our achievements too late’. It really was too late to make an attempt at highlighting these achievements finally in the heat of a general election campaign. Again I return to the corporate responsibility of the MPs and Peers—where were the open ‘rows’ in Parliament to indicate unhappiness? More importantly to convey to the electorate that we might be in coalition with the Tories, but not only are we different from them but we still actually disagree on many key issues!  It all appeared too cosy—and ultimately we paid a heavy price with significant consequences for the future.

Many political and tactical misjudgements were made. The timing of the AV referendum and the attempt at reforming the House of Lords were two of the most high profile. Electoral reform has been a long standing party aspiration but AV was certainly not party policy. A referendum should have been delayed, not only until a proper policy had been agreed, but until a more opportune time presented—not arranged in the midst of an economic crisis with austerity measures in full flow. It all made no sense and the level of mismanagement is truly mind boggling. This was followed by the House of Lords reform bill which ignored the party’s long standing policy on the matter and, just like the AV referendum, was always destined to fail as it eventually did. 

The real fiasco involved student fees which meant that Nick Clegg and the party lost credibility with one fell swoop very early in the life of the coalition government. From then on, the leader was damaged goods and it soon became obvious to me that there would be no way back at the next general election. The leaking of members, the substantial losses in local and European elections as well as the incessant devastating opinion poll ratings indicated clearly that the writing was on the wall even in 2011. A coalition with the Tories was bad enough, but the leader’s betrayal of the students meant that whatever achievements the party secured in government would not be sufficient to overcome the main perception that Nick Clegg was not a man to be trusted.

Again as David Steel pointed out in his post-election analysis—‘at a stroke, we had lost trust as a party, one of the few tangible assets we had especially after the Kennedy/Campbell decision to oppose the invasion of Iraq. The pledge was not just only in our manifesto – every candidate, including Clegg, had campaigned on the issue’.

How often have politicians heard voters say to them that ‘you are all the same’ and also ‘you all say one thing in opposition and do something different in government’. So along came an inexperienced Westminster political leader—glibly casting that sort of ‘feedback’ aside—promptly breaking a very public and solemn promise. Well we certainly discovered what happens to leaders and parties that espouse such a highly publicised and clear promise during an election campaign and then, very soon after in government, do the opposite. Maybe in European politics that is possible and frankly, it happens in France and Italy regularly, but not here!

Before concluding I have to turn to the Nigel Farage fiasco and the matter of Nick Clegg’s mind-set and judgement over holding a television debate on Europe. This was an ill-thought-out strategy and one that held no clear advantage to the deputy Prime Minister. I repeat the misgivings I always have had over the leader’s judgement and leadership in political matters. I can only assume that he must have concluded that this was going to be his road back to popularity and maybe even ‘forgiveness’ from the electorate for what he had done in 2010. But firstly, it was the wrong topic—Europe and immigration. The opinion polls should have alerted him to the dangers he faced on this issue. From that moment on the deputy Prime Minister, his party cabinet colleagues, ministers in the Government and MPs were viewed as being on the same level as the leader of a party that then had no Members of Parliament. Once again I return to the matter of corporate responsibility. Was there not someone older, wiser and more experienced around to put a stop to this fiasco?

To me, it appears as if the parliamentary party was dysfunctional from very early on in the five year period. Most crucially, no one had figured out an exit-strategy—carrying on in coalition until the end of Parliament was suicidal. We should have walked out of Government some 15-18 months before the election and let the Tories govern as a minority government. We needed time to re-establish our identity and try to recoup some trust and support. It could have been planned and orchestrated over a period of months with ministers resigning and Members of Parliament openly rebelling—with Peers and the Federal Executive and Policy committees playing their part as well. It would have been perfectly feasible to have told the public that after some three and a half years of doing our duty towards the country we had seen it through the worst times and were going to return to our true radical tradition.

It was obvious that something drastic had to happen for the Liberal Democrats to have any hope of avoiding decimation at the general election. There was no need to apply rocket science—opinion polls had been flashing the warning signals for years. Yet I am told on good authority that the only MP who kept on pressing—in parliamentary party meetings—the need for an exit strategy was Charles Kennedy, but he was not listened to. Well unfortunately 49 MPs discovered what the exit strategy was in a most unfortunate way imaginable...

That the party has sufficient resilience and determination to fightback and renew itself is in no doubt...but it will take time. Truly the last five years have come at a terrible and unacceptable price.

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