The Liberal Democrat party of Russia and the Liberal Democrat party of the United Kingdom are not, on the face of it, natural bedfellows. Google declares that the latter’s main policies are ‘healthcare reform, the replacement of Ofwat and closer integration with Europe’. The former’s main policies are the shooting of political opponents, the deportation of all Chechens and something they ominously term ‘imperial reconquest’.
However, as unlikely as it may seem, they are not without their similarities. Both have been accused – not without some justification – of being neither liberal nor democratic. Crucially, one of the main charges critics level against the Russian Lib Dems is that they are part of the nation’s ‘systemic opposition’: essentially fellow parties who give the appearance of a functioning democracy whilst only ever actually voting with the regime. Now doesn’t that sound familiar?
In fairness to the Lib Dems, it wasn’t ever thus. Few did more in the Commons to undermine the premiership of Gordon Brown than Sir Vince Cable – who famously decried the Prime Minister’s transition ‘from Stalin to Mr Bean’. However, the leadership of Sir Ed Davey has marked a particular nadir. Even as Labour MPs such as Diane Abbott, Rachel Maskell, Florence Eshalomi and Karl Turner held Sir Keir Starmer’s feet to the fire in the House of Commons, Davey could be relied upon to deliver craven, easy-to-bat-off non-questions. His number two, Daisy Cooper, invariably does a better job of holding the government to account at Deputy PMQs. Inevitably Davey would bleat on about civility by way of explaining away his dolly-drop quizzings of Sir Keir, but he was perfectly capable of viciousness when he wanted to be: just ask the Tories, Reform or the sub-postmasters.
Yet something more suspicious is happening in the Lords, where Lib Dem peers are increasingly supporting the government on legislation which, on the face of it, they have no obvious reason to back, and which sometimes contradicts their MPs’ actions. The Liberal Democrats have recently been awarded more peerages than the Tories, taking five in two recent lists to the Conservatives’ three (and Reform’s zero), despite being over-represented in the Lords for years thanks to a Coalition-era hangover, and having fewer Commons seats now. It is not unreasonable to wonder whether these two facts may be related.
Lib Dem MPs were highly critical of the Chagos surrender ‘deal’ in the Commons, and voted against the bill on its third reading, yet they declined to back a motion to regret the bill’s passing in the Lords. Though this involved a cross-party coalition of Tory, DUP, UUP, crossbench – and even some brave Labour peers – not a single Lib Dem would put their name to it. Though their MPs had tabled a Commons bill to make domestic violence an aggravated offence, Lib Dem peers joined Labour in voting down an amendment to the sentencing bill to exempt domestic abusers from the automatic presumption of a suspended sentence. After their MPs voted with the Tories to retain a 50 per cent voter threshold for strike ballots, Lib Dem peers later reversed this position in the Lords.
Earlier this week, we saw this strange alliance in operation once more, as Lib Dem peers voted down a motion that would have enabled a single debate about Andy Burnham’s still-mystical plans for government, which we are largely hearing about through media speculation and anonymous briefings. Burnham has so far been remarkably allergic to both parliamentary and press scrutiny. He may rank as the least-examined PM in living memory. For all their faults, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss conducted numerous debates up and down the country, setting out their policy platforms during the Tory leadership contest. Even Alec Douglas-Home, another PM who, like Burnham, entered Downing Street through unorthodox means (being appointed PM from the Lords before winning a by-election to enter the Commons), faced parliamentary questions within five days of being returned by the voters of Kinross, and a general election within the year. By contrast, following a glorified coronation, conveniently happening just as the parliamentary recess began, Burnham can look forward to six largely unscrutinised weeks on his terms, spurning longform interviews with experienced broadcasters in favour of social media clips and friendly pow-wows with Gary Lineker.
After the government made certain that Andy Burnham wouldn’t face any scrutiny in the Commons before recess, there was a last-ditch attempt by Tories in the Lords to get the new government to answer some questions before September. Though this wouldn’t have compelled Burnham to turn up, it would at least have forced his ministers in the Upper House to field a few questions about their leader’s plans for the country. Inevitably this was stymied by the Lib Dems cravenly voting against, presumably for the sole reason that it was a Tory motion. The usually affable Conservative leader Lord True savaged Lib Dem peers’ claims that they believed in ‘relentless scrutiny’ with a surprising ferocity.
The Liberal Democrats have many highly capable and free-thinking MPs
Lib Dem Lords leader Lord Purvis of Tweed expertly ignored the principle at stake and instead waffled for several minutes about precisely when a letter had been sent, before trooping his collection of peers into the government’s lobbies. He complained about Boris Johnson and prorogation, prompting the question of why, if the Lib Dems care so much about the sanctity of parliament, they are unmoved by Burnham’s reluctance to be held to account by either House. It was classic displacement activity – or, as our editor Lord Gove put it during the debate – ’probably the most momentous missing of the point since the crowd called for Barabbas to be freed’.
The Liberal Democrats have many highly capable and free-thinking MPs; among their number are some of the most impressive in the Commons. However, these independent-minded MPs are at risk from a clunking and illiberal central operation of the party. There is something particularly sad about watching the Lib Dems disown their roots. Nowhere is this more the case than in attacks on Christians within their ranks. Most recently, the deselection of candidate David Campanale on the basis of his religious beliefs suggests that the old liberal principle of conscience no longer exists. If Gladstone were running today, the Lib Dems would probably deselect him.
This rush to become representatives of an illiberal progressivism raises the question of whether the Lib Dems actually serve a purpose anymore. Indeed, as they seem less interested than ever in the business of providing serious opposition – one wonders whether, like their Russian counterparts, it’s even worth identifying them as a distinct entity at all.
Comments