Reforming Britain’s archaic system of Governance

The Time is Now—Parties need to get together this Autumn and organise.

No Longer a Long-term project...
 

I have lived through a political era where the period up to 1979 was more or less dominated by two parties. In 1951 both the Labour and Conservative parties, on a turnout of 82.6%, received 48% of the popular vote and the Liberals 2.5%. The seats won were 295, 321 and 6 respectively.

There was not much change in 1964 when Harold Wilson became Prime Minister with both main parties, on a turnout of 77%, receiving around 44% of the vote each and the Liberals at 11%—resulting in 317, 304 and 9 seats respectively. Again when Ted Heath won, the figures were not much different on a turnout of 72%, leading to a seat distribution of 330, 288 and 6.

The first significant change came when the Labour party split and the ‘gang of four’ established the SDP. This gave a massive boost to three/four party politics and the Liberals became rejuvenated. Together, the Alliance parties on a turnout of 72% received 26% of the vote—only 1% less than Labour. Yet Labour had 148 MPs and the Alliance only 13. That was the first time disproportionality manifested itself in such a stark and undemocratic way.  Of course, this made the Tory position impregnable with 46% of the vote and 362 MPs.

Without going into further details, that general pattern remained until 1997 when the randomness of the voting system favoured Tony Blair, New Labour—43% of the vote and 418 seats set against 30.7% of the vote and 165 seats for the Tories. The Liberal Democrats continued to be hurt by the First Past the Post system as always since 1983. Again, avoiding detail, it was a pattern that repeated itself in succeeding elections—Labour benefiting and the Liberal Democrats considerably underrepresented.

One matter that does not get too much attention when discussing the undemocratic nature of our voting system is the low voter turnout. The randomness and disproportionality inherent in the system is one of the reasons why people just do not bother voting. In the 1950s, turnout was 80% plus, in the 1970s it was over 70%, but by 2001 turnout had dropped to less than 60%. However, turnout did improve slightly in the next two elections reaching 66% in 2015.

The 2015 result is more or less a reverse of what happened under Blair in 2005—the only difference being it was not the Tories but Labour that benefited from ‘the lottery’ that is our voting system. In 2005, Labour got a 66 seat majority after receiving 35% of the votes cast, but crucially winning 55% of the seats in the Commons. Similarly, at present, we have a Tory government claiming a ‘mandate to govern’ on 37% of the vote and again winning almost 50% of the seats. In both situations, in terms of the ‘people’s will’ only about 23% of all registered voters supported Blair or Cameron.

Another problem increasingly emerging is regional and/or national under-representation which is artificially dividing the UK. It exaggerates political divides and leaves millions of voters without proper representation. For instance, in 2005 the Tories received more votes than Labour in England but won 92 fewer seats. Then, in Scotland 2015, the SNP polled some 50% of the vote yet they secured 95% of the seats.

So what is clear:

·         Two-party politics has long been dead since 1983 and yet we continue to use an electoral system designed for a time when just two parties shared nearly all the votes.

·         We are well into the era of multi-party politics and around 8 million people in 2015 voted for smaller parties only to see their efforts result in 10 MPs. Peter Tatchell wrote a good piece on this in the Telegraph soon after the General Election—see weblink below.

·         Disproportionality is widening at an increasing and worrying rate.

·         The randomness of election results is becoming almost perverse—for example, compare 2005 and 2015.

·         Turnout is in decline—voter apathy is evident with a general view that ‘you are all the same’ and what is the point of voting in ‘our area as we know who will win’. Today’s electorate feels devalued.

·         The very concept of a ‘mandate to govern’ is increasingly being brought into disrepute, because the will of the majority is no longer clear or certain.   

For some twenty years now I have been commenting how in parts of Wales, with Labour, and the south of England, with the Tories, there is never much of a contest at election time—UK or local. Indeed it is rare for a parliamentary constituency to change political parties in some 400 seats covering over 26 million people—and we continue to call it a democracy!

In other words, all a ‘politico’ has to do is win the party nomination to be the candidate in a safe seat—and then there it is ‘a job for life’. Actually being elected the MP in those seats has little to do with the dynamic views of the electorate. Also, we have ended up with different systems of voting for various tiers of elections across the UK. There is no attempt at proportionality in Westminster and local elections—artificial majorities can lead to mini one-party states.

ERS Wales has argued:

‘STV can ensure that there is real electoral competition in all wards in Wales, and that there is an end to uncontested seats. In the 2012 council elections in Wales, 99 seats were uncontested and over 140,000 voters were denied a choice of who would represent them. Scotland used to have the same problem. However, since the introduction of STV in 2008 for Scottish local elections there have been no uncontested seats at all.’

Four years ago a referendum on electoral reform was indeed held. In my judgement the timing was disastrous—voters were being asked to think about electoral reform in the middle of the most austere times in living memory for tens of millions of people. The outcome was disappointing. However, what was on offer was not STV and the campaign was ill-conceived. So there is little wonder only six million people (32%) voted to change the system. 13 million (68 %) voted to keep things as they are. To have received 32% in support is not only positive but heartening given the circumstances I have just described. It also augurs well for the immediate future and the task urgently facing us.

The recent ERS petition with some 500,000 signatories along with the public dissatisfaction existing—gauging by the widespread reaction I receive through my social media activities as well as the efforts of groupings such as Democracy Now, Make Seats Match Votes, PR4Labour and other ‘anti-austerity’ parties—prove conclusively that ERS’s time has come. 

There is no time to waste. This autumn is key in terms of planning, making decisions and rolling out actions. Not only do we need to work towards a cross-party campaign and establish a broad based convention, ERS must be organised closer to the people by strengthening regional groupings, better integrating with groups of local constituencies.  In effect, ERS in certain respects should organise itself broadly as political parties do. 

Not only is the governance of the UK Union fragmented, so too are its electoral arrangements within the four nations—exaggerating national and regional divisions. The First Past the Post system continues to fail the British electorate, not only by failing to accurately reflect voters’ wishes but by creating divisions which do not really exist. The Union just about survived Scotland’s independence referendum, but increasingly the electoral system is splitting it...

Article in Telegraph

Electoral Reform Society 2015—A voting system in crises

 

From the vaults—voices from Labour's past!

Traditionally, August time in Westminster village is known as the ‘silly season’ and it is by no coincidence that unexpected things happen during the summer period—when Parliament is not in session. Often it is due to bored politicians with nothing much to do in their time away from the day job, succumbing to the temptations of gossip and idleness, feeling ignored and sadly unimportant... In fact, we have recently experienced a bit of that with Lord Sewell and his frolics! I used to think that the press held back some of these stories especially for the summer break.

I am afraid that I have nothing as juicy as that in store for this post, but I am sure you will find what I have come across in my Vault rather humorous. Not having been involved seriously with politics for over two decades I don’t quite know what the current conventions and practices are regarding the evening entertainment at party conferences. It was always hilarious and irreverent during the 1980s—the Liberals had the Glee Club and the SDP something similar, but admittedly not quite as good. So when the parties merged it really was fun for everyone!

I recall a Liberal 'Liberator' songbook as well as an Alliance songbook in Wales—copies of which I still have. It includes hymns, gospel tunes and well known Liberal songs such as ‘The Land’, the ‘Pink Flag’ and ‘The Candidate’s Lament’. There were also other funny verses and poems sung to popular tunes such as 'Waltzing Matilda', 'Tip-toe Through the Tulips', 'Clementine', 'Wild Rover' and 'There’s a Hole in my Bucket'. Yes, they were great days. I often acted as a compère on these occasions—once selling for £50 a railway time-table offered by Andy Ellis at a fund raising auction (it covered the whole of the UK, mind!). Another event popular in the late 80s was the Lloyd George Society evening, which was chaired by its founder Winston Roddick, where both the late Tom Ellis and myself would deliver quite radical speeches.

Anyway, I digress. Quite early on in the life of the SDP in Wales I came across a young student called Mark Whitcutt. He was very thoughtful, silently spoken and always in control of himself. As I recall, his father would not be too far away when Mark was around—I think he was hoping that his son would make it in politics, but I cannot vouch for that. Anyway, in the evening when members were socialising, Mark would often make his conversational contributions in voices of various well-known political leaders of the time. It was very humorous indeed!

So at the Wales SDP Conference in Tenby 1985, I asked Mark how many political figures he could impersonate—just like Mike Yarwood used to do in the 70s and 80s  or Rory Bremner, another master of satire and impression, still does today.  Mark reeled off a list of names and I was so taken aback that I immediately realised he had a remarkable talent.

Be that as it may, towards the end of the conference night I arranged for him to showcase his talent to some 20 or so people who were still floating around in the bar area at 11pm. What more, I had highlighted earlier in the evening to the then BBC Wales news editor, Gareth Bowen (father of Jeremy Bowen, the TV journalist and BBC Middle East editor)—who was covering the SDP conference—that this event was well worth recording. So BBC Wales rigged-up and recorded the session...

On Sundays, back in those days, there was a BBC Radio Wales programme called ‘Meet for Lunch’ which covered the weekly happenings. I arrived home from the conference late Sunday morning just in time to listen to the programme and to my astonishment the main item was the recording made the night before. I immediately knew that some Welsh politicians and one in particular—a Newport MP—were not going to be best pleased. The phone calls I received were numerous that afternoon and a few Labour people in Wales were not happy.

There was no rehearsal and indeed I would have been a better interviewer had we done so.  The only aspect agreed in advance was the list of politicians to be imitated. The questioning was entirely spontaneous—so what you will hear is totally impromptu with no re-takes—a one-off. It was a truly remarkable and memorable performance and I can still visualise it! I did not see much of Mark after those days and the last I heard was that he had joined the Labour Party—as quite a few members did—after the merger of the SDP with the Liberals.

So the recording will cover Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Michael Foot, Tony Benn, Peter Shore and Roy Hughes.

Hope you enjoy.

Cassette tape of Gwynoro with Mark Whitcutt

By way of interest I also include two short link features of Mike Yarwood impersonating Harold Wilson and an item on Ed Miliband by Rory Bremner.

Mike Yarwood/Harold Wilson

Rory Bremner/Ed Miliband

The Labour leadership contest so far...

Are we in the era of another re-alignment in the centre ground of UK politics? Will it be a case of 1981 revisited?

A month ago I wrote an article about a ghost that had re-emerged in Wales in the form of Leanne Wood and Plaid Cymru’s misjudgement over the rainbow Alliance in 2007. Well, lo and behold, quite unexpectedly another spirit has come back to haunt politics, but this time it’s a ghost of Labour’s past...

Forty years ago there were powerful elements within Labour determined to tilt the party in a clear hard-left direction. Anyone under 45 years of age probably does not have much of a memory of what took place. Even as Harold Wilson was Prime Minister—but with only a majority of three—the Labour party was increasingly being taken over by left-wing militants with a strong agenda that included opposition to continued membership of the Common Market (as it was called in those days), against nuclear weapons and for unilateral disarmament etc. Tony Benn was the de facto leader of the left, at the time, and his influence was growing. Michael Foot, a great radical politician, was more of an old fashion Liberal and did not have Benn’s cutting edge.

In March 1976 Wilson resigned unexpectedly and, of course, the right-wing press immediately ran stories that some potential scandals around him were about to be revealed—such as an affair with his long standing political secretary—and that MI5 had a dossier on him regarding connections with the Soviet Union in the 1950s. Everyone was taken aback since Harold was someone who was a master of his craft and loved being Prime Minister—and he was indeed very good at it! However, it later emerged that the actual reason for his standing down was because he was suffering the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease and that he had decided to finish before the symptoms started to reveal themselves more publicly. It must have been a very difficult time for Harold because he was noted for his memory and great attention to detail, fact and figures.

So Jim Callaghan took over, but he had a difficult period as Prime Minister—as did his Chancellor Denis Healey—from the left-wing Labour MPs and grass roots at party conferences. In fact, debates became quite acrimonious at times with the two struggling to hold back the leftward march. By March 1977, in order to remain in government, Callaghan had to rely initially on David Steel and the Liberals through the Lib/Lab pact which ended in September 1978. His remaining months in office, up to the general election of March 1979, relied on the support of the three Plaid MPs. During this period, Mrs Thatcher had displaced Heath as leader of the Tory party and the Labour Government was imposing pay restraint which subsequently led to the so called ‘winter of discontent’.

There were widespread strikes by public sector workers in the winter of 1978/9—the largest stoppage of labour since the 1926 General Strike—which was over the Government’s imposition of a 5% ceiling to public sector wage increases. (Note the seemingly endless pay freeze of the current decade...) With such unrest, an inevitable election defeat in March 1979 ensued. It is worth recording that all the opinion poll evidence at the time showed that if Callaghan had gone to the country in the autumn of 1978 he might very well have won, but he was at heart a cautious man. Indeed, there might never have been a Prime Minister called Margaret Thatcher! So as is taking place now, the old grass roots of the party were on the march with the hard-left becoming ever stronger and Tony Benn in the ascendancy.

I have chronicled before how the Social Democratic Party (SDP) came about and how over two dozen Labour MPs left the Labour party and followed Roy Jenkins to create the SDP in 1981. Just before then, in November 1980, Foot defeated Healey to become Labour’s leader winning by a very small margin—51.9% to 48.1%. By the way, it was hinted many times that some MPs who went on to form the SDP voted for Foot instead of Healey! There is no need to explain why they took that tactical decision when their natural home would have been with Denis Healey...

In November 1981, Tony Benn challenged Denis Healey for the deputy leadership of the party despite every attempt being made to urge him not to stand—as the SDP had only been formed a few months previously. Benn came within a whisker of winning with the margin being 50.4% to 49.6%. It has also been chronicled that Neil Kinnock had been instrumental in persuading some 30 or so soft-left MPs not to back Benn. Given the closeness of the race, these MPs tipped the balance in stopping Benn. One can only contemplate what would have happened to Labour with a Foot/Benn leadership and many gave Kinnock credit, at the time, for saving the party from possible oblivion. But I have no doubt that Neil had a wider agenda in sight—he saw an opportunity on the horizon because Foot was always going to be a one election candidate. Therefore, stopping Benn was crucial for him.

One pertinent point in relation to the 1981 Labour/SDP split which partly explains why there is increasing talk about whether Labour might split again. There were many Labour MPs—more than the two dozen or so who eventually left the party to form the SDP—extremely unhappy with the leftward march of the party and the policies it was espousing. When I was an MP the hard core ‘Jenkinsites’ as they were called numbered at least 60 MPs and there was another but smaller group of MPs who were followers of Tony Crosland. So there were some 100 MPs who were moderates in the Labour Party at the time, but only some two dozen of them moved to the SDP. I could name at least four Welsh MPs who pondered long and hard on whether they were going to join the SDP in addition to the three that did. Therefore, in reality, what happened in 1981 has remained until this day unfinished business.     

Labour lost the 1983 and 1987 elections badly with the SDP/Liberal Alliance almost pipping them for second place in the popular vote. Kinnock inevitably became leader and, like a political chameleon, turned himself from being what I termed back then ‘the  original militant’ of the 70s into a middle of the road Labour leader—gone was his opposition to the Common Market, the House of Lords, nuclear weapons, multi-lateral disarmament etc. But whatever one’s view is of his magical transformation and whether it was a genuine conversion or just expeditious to fend off the advance of the SDP and Mrs Thatcher, he did prove to be a good leader despite losing two elections! Neil’s problem was the same as Ed Miliband’s—both were never perceived to be Prime Ministerial material by the majority of the electorate. However, in fairness, he did pave the way for the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown era, although John Smith who died prematurely would have been as good a leader as Blair.   

Grassroots Labour members were so desperate to be in power once again that the left and their allies retreated into their shell. Blair eventually became dominant and together with Brown they governed like an SDP Mark 2—although, of course, titled ‘New Labour’. I have no doubt whatsoever that throughout the period 1997–2010 the real beating heart of Labour remained unhappy but felt helpless to argue against the man who was now delivering them power and electoral success. Consequently, the left-wing accepted that they had to go along with this ‘winning formula’ and were willing to bide their time, waiting for their opportunity—as it always presents eventually in politics. Indeed, this came in the guise of the Iraq war and the machinations of Brown to remove Blair from office. Also, quite unexpectedly, two years before the general election of 2010 the financial crash occurred. Like Callaghan before him in 1978, Gordon Brown delayed calling the general election for some months when an earlier election—with the opinion polls in a somewhat more favourable position—might have been won. Brown, like Callaghan, was a cautious individual by nature and both ultimately paid the price.

Ed Miliband’s election as leader was mired in controversy as a result of his unexpected victory over his brother David. All the attention was on the differences between the two brothers when it should really have been on the struggle for the Labour Party—David the ‘New Labour’ Blairite and Ed, at heart, still the traditional ‘old Labour’ politician and in position only by the grace of the Union barons.

What everyone missed all along was that the Labour left had not gone away, they were merely biding their time. In fact they are in a better position now within the party than the period before the 1980s. It is indeed ironic that the man at the centre of the current leadership campaign is none other than Jeremy Corbyn. Who is he? Oh, back in the late 1970s/early 80s he was with the Militants, becoming the MP for Islington North in 1983. It isn’t only the ‘Lord that moves in mysterious ways’ but seemingly politics does too!

Observing the leadership election from a distance, it has to be said that none of the contenders begin to match up to the charisma and personalities of Wilson, Callaghan, Blair and Brown let alone the defeated Foot, Benn, Kinnock and the Miliband brothers. This is the first problem for the Labour Party—none of the four candidates look Prime Ministerial material.  Labour’s current weaknesses should worry party strategists. It has had the effect in Parliament of Cameron and Osborne behaving as if they have won a 100-seat majority.   

The two most experienced candidates are not making much of an impact nor are they discussing real policy issues. Andy Burnham looks far too much like a career politician, ducking and weaving—seemingly expressing opinions that suit the circumstances of the time. Yvette Cooper has a personal dilemma in talking about the Brown and Miliband era and conveying her true opinions. The fact that her husband Ed Balls was a prominent figure under the two leaders seemingly makes it awkward for her. In my opinion, it’s best that she ignores all that and starts behaving openly as her own person, telling Ed outright ‘look this is my election and this is how I view matters’.  So as things stand, the two experienced contenders are not making much of an impact, look too much like ‘same old same old’ and lamentably failing to motivate the Labour membership. They are giving no indication as to how they would change policies and where they truly stand on issues that matter to people today. Instead it’s safety first—being careful not to slip up—so as not to give the other candidate an advantage or accidently offend their core vote. What they actually think about, for example, proportional representation, the governance of the UK, EVEL, Welfare reform, HS2 and replacing Trident is not clear...  

So we are left with the two candidates who, at least, are endeavouring to talk about what they believe in. Liz Kendall, often referred to as a ‘Blairite’, seems to use little of the rhetoric that brought Labour to power nearly 20 years ago now. She has much of the political style and policy platforms that made Labour electable in 1997, but I doubt whether the Labour membership is in the mood to listen to that anymore. Moreover, as someone said the other day, when Blair was campaigning to become Prime Minister he offered a vision of a Britain in which ‘your child in distress is my child, your parent ill and in pain is my parent, your friend unemployed and helpless is my friend, your neighbour, my neighbour.’ Liz Kendall needs to pick up on that sort of message because so much of real politics and the responsibilities of public office is about hope, care and understanding.

Jeremy Corbyn has been making most of the running during the campaign and is receiving the majority of the media’s attention. It is ironic that Corbyn owes his presence on the ballot paper to the generous help given him by Andy Burnham’s supporters to achieve the necessary number of MP nominations to allow him to stand for the leadership. His nomination, it was argued, would ensure a wider choice for the Labour membership between the differing wings of the party—left/soft left/centre-right. Maybe my description is a crude one, but it is not too far off reality.

The fact that he has made an impact is in no doubt. Corbyn’s supporters argue that he is the only one offering an alternative, the one who is against austerity and, more tellingly, that he is ‘the only true Labour candidate’.  Hitherto most opinion polls and social media comment etc certainly bear all that out. In fact, I have seen surveys that show Corbyn is more in tune with public opinion on some ten major areas of policy including the renationalisation of the railways and the welfare cuts agenda than the other three candidates. His two potential weak points concern his role in Militant at the end of the 1970s/early 80s and his unclear remarks as to how he would vote in the forthcoming referendum on the European Union. Along with quite a few of the left of the Labour Party, he probably still remains broadly an anti-European Union political figure. 

Furthermore YouGov and Guardian polls have revealed interesting results that are quite favourable to Corbyn. Unsurprisingly, they have resulted in quite frenzied and, at times, highly personal press and party comments in a manner that suggests the end of the Labour party is nigh! Even Blair has been pushed into entering the fray whilst others on the soft-left are urging Lord Kinnock to make the anti-Corbyn case as well. So Corbyn is having quite an unexpected impact on the leadership election. The polls referred to are included as links at the end of this article.

Whichever gloss is put on Labour’s present weak and ineffective state of play the evidence of decline is real. Recently, a report from the Labour-leaning Smith Institute concluded that if the decline was to continue then Labour’s prospects of competing as a party of government will steadily diminish (see link below). Throughout its history there is a belief within the party that it will always bounce back. Even in 1910 Keir Hardie concluded that ‘the Labour party had ceased to count’ but in 1924, Labour formed its first government. Then after the formation of the SDP and the poor election results of 1983 there were other purveyors of doom and gloom, but yet there existed optimism over the future. This was based upon relief in the fact that the election result had not been worse and that the SDP had failed to finish Labour off.  There was also relief that the vast majority of moderate Labour MPs had stayed within the fold. Again, after the 1992 election there were predictions of Labour’s demise but within five years, in 1997, it won one of its largest ever electoral victories and the coalition of differing strands within the party were holding together.

So what will be the fall-out following the 2015 general election defeat? Will the 35 year coalition and compromise that is the modern Labour Party hold? Some will argue that maybe, just maybe, that the left-wing have had enough and they now want the real Labour Party back after all this time. The very real prospect of Corbyn becoming the next leader poses a profound moment of choice for the Labour party, signalling that the period of compromise politics years is coming to an end. Maybe the left are not going to buy into any more arrangements and dumbing down of policies just to build alliances within the party in order to win an election and form a government in 2020.

Furthermore, the way the party is behaving and performing over recent times will inevitably lead people to increasingly ask ‘what indeed is the point of Labour?’ So questions as to Labour’s future are surfacing again and these arguments are becoming personal—are we indeed on the verge of another re-alignment in the centre ground of UK politics? In a year or so time, will it be a case of 1981 revisited? Indeed, as I conclude this blog, two articles have appeared this morning that lend credence to my question.

Corbyn ahead in Labour’s leadership contest

Labour leadership election, who are you planning to vote for?

Red alert, why Labour lost and what needs to change

Labour less electable than under Miliband and needs a radical rethink

Corbyn win would effectively form new party says socialist group

 

Signposts to the Senedd elections of May 2016—using Kirsty’s 'Road Map'

Article written before new leader announced.

Last week, Kirsty Williams, Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, made a very good contribution towards analysing what went wrong in coalition with the Tories—an analysis with which I fully concur, as expanded upon in my last blog.

In essence, she stated that the party struggled to locate a compass to navigate its way through the five years in coalition with its values unscathed.  Party workers were told time and time again on the doorsteps of past supporters that the Liberal Democrats had lost its way.

The central component of the speech was an outline of what she termed the ‘Road Map’ for the Senedd elections 2016 which I repeat below:

‘We will strengthen our identity. The Welsh Liberal Democrats feel strong sense of national identity - we must communicate that. We have the deepest roots of any Welsh political party; yet unlike other parties, we embrace the Wales of today and we will speak for all of Wales, no matter who you are or where you live.

We will fight for the underdog. You have to be brave to be a liberal, but it's our liberal values that set us out from all the rest.  The Human Rights Act, the Green Agenda, mental health - we've proven that we lead on the issues that no-one else will. 

There is nothing progressive about poor public services. Over the coming months, the Welsh Liberal Democrats will be unveiling people focused policies - ones that show we are on the side of the pupil, the parent, the patients.

We will focus on opportunity. Our Pupil Premium, our extra investment in our schools, shows our commitment to fairness and equal opportunity. Over the coming months, we’ll build on this, unveiling a pro-enterprise vision that strengthens our economy and creates wealth’

Sadly, after five years in coalition, the road back is going to be a long and tortuous one—gone are the days of 20% plus support for the Liberal Democrats in Wales. However, the key point is that such levels of support once existed.

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. The key factor is to be ready to benefit and capitalise on unexpected developments when they happen.

Now, on the surface, all looks bleak but the discerning observer can envisage more twists and turns ahead than the conventional wisdom assumes. At present, the opinion polls—about which I blogged recently—continue to indicate that the Tories and UKIP will do well next May, with Labour and Plaid Cymru stagnating, if not regressing, and the Welsh Liberal Democrats nowhere—indeed, threatened with extinction in the Senedd.

I accept that is how it looks today, but picture this...

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. Their unwarranted attack on the young, underprivileged, low earners struggling to make a living, public service workers and those on welfare will probably mean that it won’t be a case of ‘glad glorious morning’ for them by the beginning of next year!

UKIP has yet to be tested as to their Welsh credentials and policies. I can foresee a direct assault on them coming from all directions. They benefited considerably from the prevailing public mood of disillusionment and disenchantment that had manifested itself with a vengeance at the General Election. When Wales’s future in Europe will be a greater focus and the realisation that UKIP puts at risk the benefits Wales currently receives, then matters can soon change. There will be a bigger test for UKIP in a Senedd ‘focused’ election. 

However, the level of support for UKIP in Wales has to be taken seriously, but it can be dismantled. I don’t have a feeling that such a party sits comfortably in the heart and soul of Wales. They have appeared at a time when, across Wales, middle and lower wage earners as well as the unwaged, in particular, don’t feel Labour listens anymore and, quite frankly, does not represent them. The old industrial areas and the valley communities probably feel this the most...

My view is that Labour will have to be extremely careful in how it responds to the election campaign and the Tory agenda. It faces a real dilemma—left, centre or centre/right. As a party, it is in danger of being asked—as I posed recently—‘What is the point of Labour?’ In addition, I have a feeling that none of their four candidates will emerge as Prime Ministerial material and they will be stuck with the Foot/Kinnock/Miliband scenario once again. 

For reasons best known to it, Plaid Cymru too has stagnated for more than two decades. Firstly, when the opportunity came calling to have their own First Minister in the Senedd during 2007, they spurned it. Plaid has lost its way even more so by now, and has an image of being further to the left than Labour in its attempt to be seen as more socialist. Now, it is perfectly possible that Leanne Wood is comfortable in that scene—but are all the traditional party supporters?

To me, the main point about Plaid is that it is no longer anywhere close to having the ideals and vision that Gwynfor Evans once created for them and the Welsh people. I genuinely feel more of a ‘nationalist’ now than most people in Plaid Cymru—and most certainly more so than its current leader. I have had a feeling, for quite some years now, that having secured a Senedd the party is broadly happy to play politics in that limited arena. Now, of course, that is only my perception but I don’t think I am too far off the mark... 

Finally, the Liberal Democrats, which in the eyes of many people has lost the plot—not to mention its vision. For me the only way back is to be that radical movement once again. Certainly, that is where I am happiest. The party also needs to start speaking more plainly and without fear. The two leadership candidates are of a similar frame of mind, but I do believe that Tim Farron would be the best choice to meet the challenges ahead..

It has been my view for quite some time now that politics in Wales has been too cosy—and the only way back for the Liberal Democrats is to stop being part of that ‘softly, softly approach’ in the Senedd community.

In her speech, Kirsty said:

‘far too often it seems that Welsh solutions at best lack impact, but at worst often exacerbate, Welsh problems and no amount of made in Wales strategies, statements or summits are seen to be providing answers’. That is absolutely correct.

Continuing:

‘Even when a Welsh government keeps tuition fees low – there is still a huge gap in educational attainment between our less well-off communities and our richer neighbourhoods’.

Again, that is correct but it is a much wider, deeper and bigger concern than that. Improvements in Welsh education provision are insufficient—with standards and the performance of our schools nowhere near good enough. This will be a topic of a future blog after my 18 years experience of inspecting schools.

Two other points made by Kirsty: 

‘Although prescriptions are free – you can’t afford to fall ill on the weekend, or be in need of a speedy ambulance response’. Then she went on ‘even as the Welsh Government just this week attacked the UK Government for redefining child poverty, nobody seriously expects them to meet their own target to abolish child poverty by 2020’.

For me the trouble with the Senedd and the Welsh Government is its complacency and how easily pleased the AMs are with mediocrity and lack of any ‘real’ action.  

Plans, proposals and initiatives are forever been talked about. These give the impression of action. There are endless apologies over poor delivery in the public services; Health ministers are having to try and explain why there has been mismanagement in the NHS or there has been a lack of proper care in residential homes and the community; some other Minister having to explain why public funds are not properly handled and controlled—frankly the list goes on and on.

The central question is what is being done to remedy these matters? Are things changing and are people being held to account? All I hear is the often repeated standard statement that ‘lessons are being learnt’.  It really is time for a shake up.

So, I begin to see signposts on the road map becoming clearer. And although there’s a long way to go, my advice is to never write off the Liberal Democrats—its roots are stronger in Wales than many other parties. 


Click here to see speech by Kirsty Williams

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.