Analysis: Why Lib Dems won’t be bolshy
Lib Dems are supposed to be pushier after elections this month. The reality, for those who aren’t in government, is more mundane: they just want to be closer to power.
We all get the narrative. After a year of demonstrating that the Liberal Democrats can work with the Conservatives in government – an operation which seems to have gone a little too smoothly – the Lib Dems have fallen out over the AV referendum campaign. That battering in this month’s elections has underlined the need for a change. And so Nick Clegg has promised one: a more “muscular” kind of liberalism, where the Lib Dems push their weight around more. This is a new ‘phase’ of the coalition. No more Mr Nice Clegg.
The most senior members of the party who are not actually involved in the government will have a key role to play. These are the party’s middle-ranking MPs, who last year were tasked with presiding over backbench policy committees covering the breadth of government activity. After delays in setting the structures up, the co-chairs spent months trying to work out what their jobs actually were.
These teething problems have mostly been resolved. Question-marks remain about how they can be used to best effect, however.
They are, at least, getting the basic approach right. Yesterday, Jenny Willott, co-chair of the work and pensions committee, called on the coalition to reconsider the increase in the state retirement age for women. The day before that, international affairs co-chair Martin Horwood criticised a leaked letter from Liam Fox questioning aid spending. It might take a while for most to notice the difference, but the cumulative impact of this change isn’t to be underestimated.
Still, the broader narrative of a shift towards more bolshy Lib Dems could still be undermined. In keeping with Clegg’s new approach, it would follow that these committees would be more confrontational. They may engage in posturing. But some Lib Dems are beginning to feel like fewer quarrels could end up being more effective.
The first year in government holds other lessons beyond the need for a more punchy Lib Dem presence. Take the health and social care bill, where Lib Dem resistance has increased more or less in proportion to the swelling opposition from across the health sector. “Sadly, we’ve been on a reactive footing since the white paper appeared in July,” says John Pugh, the co-chair of the health committee. He has played a key role in leading the Lib Dem fight against the bill, organisational as much as inspiring.
Dr Pugh’s achievement has been to get the broad opposition within the Lib Dem party “crystallised into a set of positive suggestions to our coalition partners”. He calls it “lining up the ducks”, making sure that all the opponents – ex-SDP chief Shirley Williams, former MP Evan Harris and other members of the parliamentary party – are “more or less broadly on the same page”.
“I’ve been engaged in the process of shuttle diplomacy to make sure what we’re saying has buy-in across the whole party,” Dr Pugh says. His efforts appear to have paid off. Earlier this week Clegg told the parliamentary party he would oppose the proposed statutory obligation on healthcare regulator Monitor to promote competition on nothing else. It’s a major victory for the backbenchers.
It would have been better still had the Lib Dems had their say a little earlier in the process, though. This, more than winning arguments with ministers, is the best way forward for the backbench policy committee chiefs.
“As they [the committees] mature we will ensure that Liberal Democrats are having input further upstream, that’s what this is about,” Tom Brake, who co-chairs the home affairs committee, says.
“We want to try and get our views reflected as early on in the process as possible because from the coalition government’s perspective if we can resolve issues before a bill is produced, for instance, that’s much better than trying to resolve it when it’s in the Commons or the Lords.”
Stephen Williams, who is in charge of the economic committee alongside Lorely Burt, agrees.
“By the time it becomes parliamentary business, when it hits our radar, it’s almost too late,” he explains.
“What we need to hear from ministerial colleagues is ‘this is what we’re thinking of doing, what would your reaction to that be?’
“That’s what we need to mature to. That requires governments to be more open, but that should be an advantage of coalition politics.”
The problem may be that, however enthusiastic the backbenchers are, ministers aren’t really listening. Junior ministers are attending meetings more than they were six months ago, and sometimes even the five Lib Dems at Cabinet level turn up. There’s not the same reciprocal access for Lib Dem MPs to government departments, however.
“I don’t think it’s matured in the other direction,” Williams adds, “of us having so much time in the ministries themselves, influencing decisions”.
Ministers need to be able to respond to the concerns of Lib Dem backbenchers if crises are to be averted further up the policy pipeline. Their apparent reluctance to do so could cause problems. So the likelihood is that trouble will still crop up.
This lesson is underlined by the Lib Dems’ extremely poor performance in May’s elections, Williams believes.
“The Liberal Democrats do badly when the government does badly,” he says simply.
“So it’s in our interest as well as the government’s to spot problems before they explode out of all proportion. As soon as both parties in the coalition have conversations, the better.”
It’s all about means and ends. All Lib Dems are clear about their ultimate end of this new ‘phase’ – doing more to demonstrate to the public that this government is doing things differently to a purely Conservative one.
But what about the means to get there? Yes, they can be bolshy and have arguments. But that won’t work all the time. So Lib Dem backbench policy committee chiefs have an alternative, less high-profile alternative. Quiet, backroom negotiations need to extend below ministerial level if more NHS rows, forestry U-turns and the like are to be avoided.
The question now is: will ministers respond?
