Redefining the Liberal Democrats

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the Liberal Democrats have a problem. A problem growing in size and importance. The coalition with the Tories has created divisions within the party - divisions that will, at some point, damage or potentially destroy the party. There are some who favour the arrangement made with the Tories, while others would have been happier jumping into bed with Labour. The reason is simple; the Lib Dems have, from their inception as the Liberal/SDP Alliance right up until the moment their leader became Deputy Prime Minister, been the party of apparent perpetual opposition. Therefore, its MPs tend to define themselves through opposition to the government of the day.

Don't believe me? Look at when the leading lights, for want of a better phrase, came into the Commons and what their positions are on the coalition. Those who are left-leaning - those who would have preferred a union with Labour - all came to power when the main focus for the Lib Dems was opposing the Tories. Simon Hughes, Paddy Pantsdown Ashdown and Charles Kennedy were all elected to the Commons in 1983, Menzies Campbell in 1987, Cable (who initially stood as a Labour candidate during his long bid to get into the Commons) in 1997. For these people, the Tories were the enemy - they would have cut their political teeth opposing the Conservative party. Of course the sudden union with the Tories in May upsets and unsettles them; to those of that pedigree, the Tories are the enemy.

Whereas for David Laws (elected to Parliament in 2001), Clegg, Huhne and Danny Alexander (all elected 2005) the enemy would be Labour - particularly since they will have endured first hand the rump end of Blairism and the absolute, abject failure that was the Brown administration. Of course, for this lot their natural coalition partners were their fellow opponents against Nu Labour: the Tories.

This, then, is the challenge for the Liberal Democrats - they need to work out what they do now they are in power, and have had to make a choice as to which party they ally themselves with. They can either work to amend their identity in line with the choice they made in May, or they can let their growing schizophrenia tear the party apart. Because they can no longer simply define themselves in opposition to the incumbent government; they now have to define themselves against what they have achieved as part of that incumbent government.

Yahoo! News shows us that the war on knife crime is going well:

An adult caught in possession of a knife has been fined just £1.

A whole English pound? Wow. That must have had the stabby so and so quaking in his boots. Still, at least Chris Huhne - possibly the least likable of all Liberal Democrats - is on hand to sound a bit shrill:

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne accused the Government of "posturing" on knife crime penalties while an anti-crime charity described the punishments as a "slap in the face".

Ironically, the anti-crime charity* has got the right idea: a slap in the face would actually be a more credible punishment than a £1 fine.

*Presumably they are keen to disassociate themselves from all those pro-crime charities.

Memo to the Lib Dems: DITCH CLEGG!

An interesting poll over at Political Betting – both the Tories and Labour are up in the nation’s hearts. Of course, the Tories are still way in the lead, with Labour desperately trying to claw back all the ground they have lost. But for me the interesting figure is the Lib Dem percentage. Because the only way in which the Tories AND Labour have managed to go back up in the polls is through the Liberal Democrats losing 5% of the vote.

Except, they’ve lost more than 5% of their support. They’ve actually lost 27% of their overall support between polls. That is so much a dip in popularity as bleeding support from a major artery. Unless it is a freak poll for the party, it is a catastrophe for the Liberal Democrats.

And if this trend continues, or if they don’t regain that support that has suddenly vanished, then the Liberal Democrats really do need to work out why there has been this nosedive in their support. The answer, as far as I can see, is obvious. Their leader.

There are popular and high profile Liberal Democrats (despite the alarming shite they spout) – both Chris Huhne and Vince Cable seem to be able to generate column inches and, in the case of the latter, actually seem to be quite popular with both the media and the general population. The problem is that neither one of those fellas is Liberal Democrat leader – although you just know that Huhne is plotting away somewhere right now for a new way to try to win that position. No, their leader is, of course, Nick Clegg.

Nick Clegg is one of the reasons why the Lib Dems struggle to get any support these days. The guy is perhaps the least spectacular politician since Iain Duncan-Smith mumbled something about being a quiet man. Somehow – and Lord alone knows quite how they managed it – the Liberal Democrats managed to find the one person in the country with less charisma that Ming Campbell. And made him their frickin’ leader.

Part of the problem is defining exactly who Nick Clegg is. Sure, if you put him next to Gordon Brown, then you would be able to tell the two apart Mainly because Brown resembles one of Dracula’s hunchbacked minions from an old Hammer Horror movie, where was Clegg just looks like a middle manager in an accountancy firm. Whereas if you put Clegg next to Cameron, then – amazingly – Clegg makes Cameron look charismatic. Sure, Cameron looks like an insurance salesman, but at least you get the impression that Cameron would bother to come up with some sort of accidentally patronising platitude for you. Whereas Clegg would just stand next to Cameron, looking faintly sad. Like a four year old who has lost his mother in the supermarket, and is on the point of tears as a result.

The simple truth is that Nick Clegg has been a disaster for the Lib Dems. Not the earthquake sort of disaster – not blatantly destructive like the ginger drunk, who left the party devastated in his wake. No, Clegg is more of a quiet, slow moving disaster. Like the gradual erosion of your house. You don’t really notice anything is happening until your house starts to vanish altogether.

The Lib Dems need to replace Clegg – and fast. Huhne or Cable would be good candidates. They can at least talk. But as well as giving us a bit of entertainment*, there is another reason why the Lib Dems should be working to make themselves more popular through having a leadership election. After the next General Election, the Labour party will be broken. And the country will need some sort of an opposition party. For all of his flaws, Charlie K did at least manage to offer some sort of Opposition to Nu Labour in the aftermath of the Tory meltdowns in 1997 and 2001. A continuation of the Clegg leadership will instead see a rump of a Liberal Democrat party, capable of nothing other than fighting for their survival.

*And man alive, that contest to replace Kennedy was fucking hilarious. We should so have another one of those.

Huhne on freedom of speech

The Hideous Huhne has written a remarkable article in which he tries to position himself as a champion of free speech at the same time as, well, advocating the restriction of freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it. The decision to stop people from exercising this fundamental right must never be taken lightly. Neither should a decision to ban people from visiting this country.

It is an audacious start – freedom of speech is crucial, yet it is ok to suspend it. It is a bit like saying the heart is essential to a human being functioning, but it is ok for it to stop working every now and again.

And I’d have thought that if freedom of speech was so important to Huhne, he would be less quick to suspend it. But there we go.

As a result, I have in the past defended people with some particularly odious views, such as the recent case of the Australian Holocaust denier Dr Frederick Toben.

Great. So Huhne has defended freedom of speech in the past. Big whoop. Shame he can’t manage a certain level of consistency with his views, though.

In a civilised society, however, there has to be a dividing line between the right to freedom of speech and when it topples over into incitement to hatred and violence.

No. In a civilised society, there should be the prevention of violence. You cannot stop people inciting that violence and you cannot stop them from hating. People can experience whatever emotions they want. And they have the choice as to whether they commit violent acts or not. People are adults – I really don’t see people as being so easily swayed by films or the opinions of others.

In my opinion, Geert Wilders' revolting film Fitna crosses this line, as its shocking images of violence and emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing serious harm to others.

Which is a matter of opinion. Which is not so much creating a tyranny of the majority, but is actually creating a tyranny of the Huhne. You can say what you like, as long as in the opinion of Chris Huhne is that it won’t create any risks on society.

The key liberal principle was enunciated by John Stuart Mill in his essay "On Liberty", in which he stated that the only legitimate reason for coercing someone against their will was to prevent harm to others.

Coercing Wilder not to speak and not to enter the country doesn’t prevent harm to others. Wilder didn’t come to this country to harm anyone – he came here to speak about his film. The sentiments of his film are wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it actually harms anyone. Huhne’s invocation of Mill is irrelevant.

It is precisely the prevention of harm to minorities that justifies the restrictions to Mr Wilders' freedom of speech.

Wilder – and I have no time whatsoever for his views – is expressing an opinion. He is not harming anyone else. If you start restricting his right to communicate his abhorrent views, then guess what. You give yourself the licence to shut up anyone else you think has abhorrent views. And that – right there – is the start of the slide to towards being totalitarian.

If you disagree with Wilder, make the case against him. But let his voice be heard, and argue why people shouldn’t listen to him and why people shouldn’t respond to his message with acts of violence. Anything else is totalitarian and is going to achieve nothing other than making our society a little less free at the same time as making Wilder into a martyr.

Chris Huhne, defender of free speech, has revealed his true colours with this piece. And his true colours show that he is perfect for the Liberal Democrats because – as I have said before – they are neither liberal nor democratic.

h/t Guido.