Liberal democrats

Wednesday

Alex Massie

A Modest Conservative Case for Modest Electoral Reform

No electoral system is perfect. First Past the Post has its advantages and it’s a mistake to suppose that switching to the Alternative Vote or multi-member constituencies elected by STV solves all problems. On the contrary it probably replaces one set of difficulties with another. Nevertheless, one wonders how sustainable FPTP is. Traditionally it has done a pretty good job of corralling extremism and producing more-or-less coherent governments that can command a majority in the House of Commons (and that can be unceremoniously turfed-oot once they’ve outlived their usefulness). Unfortunately – and increasingly – those governments enjoy only minority support in the country-at-large. Political allegiance is more fluid and conditional

Daniel Korski

Get ready for “Clameronism”

Since the Lib Dems starting surging there has been no shortage of speculation about the possible coalitions that may emerge after the election – Lab-Lib, Lib-Lab, Con-Lib. There has also been breathless speculation about what posts Nick Clegg might demand, including by yours truly.  But none have been as cleverly-written as Hugo Brady’s. A think-tanker for CER, Brady is predicting the rise of “Clameronism“: ‘Buoyed by a huge increase in the Liberal vote, Clegg at first opted for opposition. He bet that a swift second election was likely and that the Liberal Democrats would again double their seats. But the threat of a new financial crisis later that year spelt

David Blackburn

Cable catches a broadside

What is the difference between ‘an alternative’ and ‘an addition’? It is on this question that the Liberal Democrat manifesto turns. If there is a difference, then there is a substantial black hole in their deficit reduction plans. There is a difference. The manifesto presents a £3.4bn public sector payroll measure as an addition to existing government measures, when in fact the small-print discloses that it’s an alternative. Caught double counting, at best the Lib Dems would cut £36.6bn of the £40bn or so pledged. Under further scrutiny from Andrew Neil and Stephanie Flanders, Cable could not define where a further £10bn of cuts was coming from. £20bn of the

Alex Massie

A Tory-Liberal Coalition is Easier than a Lib-Lab Pact?

I’m glad to see that more people – Iain Dale, John Rentoul, Iain Martin among them – are paying attention to Labour’s eclipse. At present Labour could finish third in the popular vote for the first time since 1922 and yet many people seem to assume that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition or arrangement of some sort is the most likely, even inevitable, outcome of a hung parliament. I don’t believe this is the case and not only because of Nick Clegg’s attack on “desperate” Gordon Brown this morning. The Liberal Democrats have based their campaign for proportional representation on the grounds that it is unfair that, as they did in

David Blackburn

Taking the attack to Vince

With Cable’s and Clegg’s personal ratings being so high, the trick is to play the ball not the man. Ken Clarke and George Osborne achieved that at this morning’s press conference. Clarke said: “(Nick Clegg’s father was) a very nice, very wise guy, he was a very successful City guy, but he wasn’t a flashy guy… he was a Tory. It would have been better if Nick had stuck to the political principles of his father. (Nick Clegg) must regret going into the strange wastelands of Liberal Democrat politics.” He added that whilst he agreed with “70 percent” of Vince Cable’s analysis on the financial collapse, Cable’s solutions left him

Alex Massie

The Lib Dems' Iran Gaffe

It’s a gaffe, of course, because it is both true and something you’re not supposed to say. Be this as it may, it strikes me that while political professionals and grizzled foreign policy specialists may chunter about the Liberals’ naivete and the rest of it, the general public will be less likely to complain that the party opposed to attacking Iran is the dangerous, mad party that can’t be trusted. Both views, for sure, have some merit. And so do Brother Korski’s questions: What would the Lib Dems do if negotiations fail? Negotiate some more? So what happens if the International Community agrees to military action? What would Nick Clegg

Daniel Korski

Nick Clegg and the 3 am phone call

Compared to many CoffeeHousers, I don’t find the Liberal Democrat’s foreign policy positions as problematic. Nick Clegg is smart, internationalist and has – unlike David Cameron and Gordon Brown (and Tony Blair) – plenty of foreign policy pre-leadership experience. But looking through the Lib Dem manifesto, I came across its pledge on Iran, which is quite problematic for a party that is keen to shed its beardie-wierdie, peacenik image and whose leader may even end up running the Foreign Office. The manifesto says that, on the one hand, the Lib Dems support “action by the international community to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.” But the party also makes clear that

Tuesday

James Forsyth

What happens if this is the result?

Tonight’s YouGov poll has the Lib Dems three point ahead. They are on 34, the Tories on 31 and Labour on 26. In terms of working out what this would mean in seats, I doubt that uniform national swing is that useful. But for the sake of argument, let’s imagine that did occur. These poll numbers would leave Labour as the largest party in the Commons and the Lib Dems as the third party. One wonders what on earth happens then.   The Palace would pretty much have to summon Brown, he’s the sitting Prime Minister and would be the leader of the party with the most seats. But I

Alex Massie

Clegg Helps Cameron, Not Brown

Oh, sure, the rise of the Liberal Democrats is a problem for the Conservatives too and it doesn’t help their chances of securing an overall majority. But it may be an even bigger problem for Gordon Brown. Can anyone really remember anything Labour have said since Thursday’s debate? Not really. It’s as though Labour have been erased from the campaign entirely, leaving the field to the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Cleggathon has had another effect: it reinforces the case for change and strengthens and deepens the media narrative about change. This too must cost Labour dear. The media has constructed a campaign story that accepts that change is a

Peter Hoskin

Numbers which show why the TV debates are priceless for Nick Clegg

How valuable was the TV debate to the Lib Dems?  Well, we’ve seen the poll numbers, of course.  But the Electoral Commission has just released some figures which shine a different light on proceedings.  They show that the Tories received party donations totalling £1.46m in the first week of the campaign.  Labour, nearly £800k.  And the Lib Dems were way, way behind on £20,000.  So, Clegg & Co. are heavily outgunned financially – but they’ve still had the biggest upsurge in publicity and popularity. True, donations to the Lib Dems have risen dramatically since the TV debate – but it’s still unlikely that they’ll reach Tory, or even Labour, levels

Alex Massie

Who's Afraid of a Coalition?

You English, sometimes you are the crazy people. Here’s Iain Dale for instance, dismissing any notion of a Tory-Liberal arrangement: All coalitions end in failure, the partners don’t agree, postponement and indecision become the order of the day. Britain today does not need a two-headed donkey. This, as anyone with any knowledge of politics anywhere else could tell you, is piffle. It’s not even true of British politics. Few people would argue that the Labour-Liberal coalition at Holyrood was one of democracy’s grander moments but it wasn’t obviously worse than, say, a majority Labour ministry might have been and it was, in fact, all too stable and all too able

Daniel Korski

Where is the killer poster?

Most politicos agree that a vote for Nick Clegg will likely prop up a Labour government, even if it will be led by someone else than Gordon Brown. Most voters, however, may not realise this. So what the Tories need is a poster which shows in easy-to-understand ways, the causal link. CoffeeHousers, surely the idea of the Lib Dems propping up Labour lends itself to a number of images – if you have any ideas then either mention them below, or send them in to dblackburn @ spectator.co.uk or phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and we’ll post a selection of the best. 

Peter Hoskin

Brown's leadership back under the spotlight

Things have clearly moved on since I wrote this back in March.  From Rachel Sylvester’s column today: “…those close to Mr Clegg have made it clear to senior Labour figures that it would be difficult for the Liberal Democrats to do a deal with a Labour Party led by Mr Brown. ‘The whole notion of change is so important to Clegg and Gordon doesn’t represent change,’ says one Labour strategist. ‘It’s hard to see how they could prop up Brown in a hung Parliament.’ With Cabinet ministers openly discussing the prospect of coalition, the question of the Labour leadership is back on the agenda. David Miliband is seen as the

Alex Massie

Is Nick Clegg really Robert Redford?

And not in a Cleggover* or Rentoul-bait sense either. No, you remember The Candidate? Of course you do for you enjoy political movies as much as we do. Which means you’ll also remember the movie’s strapline: Too Handsome. Too Young. Too Liberal. Doesn’t have a chance. He’s PERFECT! And you’ll also recall the movie’s final line, delivered after Redford’s character wins an unlikely victory: What do we do now? It was never clear that Redford had an answer to this and nor, frankly, is it obvious that Nick Clegg does either. Again and at the risk of repeating myself, how can Clegg be the “Agent of Change” if, once the

Monday

James Forsyth

The growing sense that the worst is behind the Tories

These have been a grim few days for the Conservative party. But there is a sense, just a sense mind, that the worst might be behind them. Today’s ICM poll shows the Lib Dems still surging, up 3 to 30, but Tory support is only down one from Sunday’s ICM poll to 33. Labour is in third on 28, down one. Obviously, these polls numbers would have been considered pretty darn awful a week ago and no one would pretend that they are what the Tories would like to see right now. But they are not as bad as some feared they might be and as Julian Glover writes, “the

David Blackburn

Where will Clegg meet his Waterloo?

The FT’s Jim Pickard writes: ‘Cameron will be cursing the order of the debates. He’d much prefer to be attacking Nick Clegg on domestic issues than foreign affairs on Thursday.’ I’m not so sure. Foreign Policy is the arena where the Tories are concrete, populist and accessible. The same is not true for the Lib Dems. Along with Iain Martin and John Rentoul, Pete noted that Ed Davey is vague on the Lib Dem Trident replacement policy. Davey’s vague with good reason: the policy is hopelessly confused. The manifesto says: ‘Rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime

Alex Massie

Towards a Tory-Lib Dem Future?

I don’t really know if the Tories “Vote Clegg, get Brown” argument will work but if I had to bet on it I’d guess that it won’t. There’s a large enough constituency out there that doesn’t want either the Tories or Labour. Nevertheless, the post-election environment now becomes very interesting. Suppose, just for now, that Labour come third in the popular vote but actually win the most seats. What happens then? And this could happen. Consider this scenario: Tories 33%, Labour 28%, Lib Dems 29% – according to Electoral Calculus and, admittedly, on a crude national and uniform swing, this could produce a result something like Tories 258, Labour 265,

Martin Bright

Labour Cheery About Lib Dem Surge

Labour’s press conference this morning was a surprisingly cheery affair. Peter Mandelson was very much in control of proceedings and the media mob was clearly feeling benevolent on a lovely spring morning. I’m not sure it was entirely wise to run a spoof post-election news broadcast on the double-dip recession caused by Tory economic policy. It felt too much like the Labour high command has already accepted the inevitable. However, the focus wasn’t really on the Tories but the Lib Dem surge. The Labour Party has the right strategy on this: hug them close and emphasise how much common ground there is. They know the Tories stand to lose most from

Peter Hoskin

And so to Brown...

Haven’t we been here before?  Investment versus cuts, I mean.  Because that appears to be the main message of Labour’s press conference this moring.  Gordon Brown set about the Tories’ Big Society, claiming that it “means big cuts in public services”.  Hm. It’s certainly a punchier, if similar, message to the “agenda of abandonment” one that Labour roadtested last week.  But will voters listen?  Well, amid all the excitement about Clegg and the Lib Dems, it’s easy to forget that Labour are now polling third – with a vote share which recalls the days of Michael Foot’s leadership.  They seem to be in a pretty desperate position themselves. This may

Peter Hoskin

Cameron's two-pronged counterattack

A freewheeling, shirt-sleeve kind of speech from Cameron in Kennington this morning. But not one that was without substance. His main purpose was, as he put it, to “redouble the positive” – which meant more about the Big Society. Cameron has fashioned a persuasive narrative out of this, but question marks still remain over whether it will mean much to voters who just want CHANGE, without the nuance and jargon. As I suggested earlier, this is perhaps the biggest question hanging over the election campaign right now. The other part to Cameron’s speech was a warning about a hung parliament. Or as he put it: “If we get any other