How the Tories Could Win the Next Election. Oh, and Labour*.

As things stand, we’re probably heading towards another hung parliament. Cameron is not repelling people as much as many thought he would, despite his apparent lack of anything approaching a spine. Ed Miliband is a total disaster for his party, and is largely responsible for that party failing to make headway even as the coalition becomes less popular than dysentery. But both of those leaders could win the next election – but only if they are willing to take a gamble and do something bold. But both could do it.

How? Cameron could offer an referendum on the EU. Or, even more radically, he could redress our membership of the EU perhaps even to the point of pulling us out of that whole fucking mess. In doing so, he would become the hero of his party (including those on the right who remain very suspicious of young Hug A Husky). People across the country would also love this; it would be met with rapt applause from The Sun and The Daily Hate. Sure, many wouldn’t like this, but they would be the sort of people who wouldn’t vote for Cameron anyway. The ex-marketing man would be the hero to millions of people across the country, and he’d be able to spin himself as the courageous and visionary leader who dragged his country out of an expensive, bureaucratic mess.

What about Miliband Minor? Well, he could try being the socialist he sometimes hints at wanting to be. He could ramp up the rhetoric against the banks, and present himself as a genuine man of the people fighting on their behalf against reckless and dangerous financial institutions. He could get himself photographed with those members of Middle England struggling to make ends meet, and talk about how he is going to help them. Hell, he could even stand with those at the Occupy protests and claim that he, too, represents the 99%. Of course, it would be a blatant attempt at naked populism. But talking at the anti-war demos never hurt Charles Kennedy, for example. In fact, the opposite is probably true. And yeah, some people would find this sort of approach utterly repellent – myself, for example. But guess what? Those people, including me, would never vote for Miliband Minor anyway.

Which is part of the problem our party leaders have; they are so determined to try to please everyone all the time they lose sight of the fact that to do so is impossible and in trying they run the risk of really pissing off their core supporters. They fight so hard for the centre ground that they become myopic about the whole, broad range of the political spectrum. And then they wonder why fewer people vote, and they get approval ratings that, at best, are flat-lining, and at worst in free-fall. There is a real need for bold leadership in this day and age; unfortunately our leaders do not seem willing or able to provide it. So instead, we end up with cowardly, centrist jellyfish who actually please no-one; not even the core supporters of their own parties.

*And the Lib Dems? How could they win the next election? Well, they can’t. Hell, I don’t even know how they can maintain the disappointing result they got in 2010. Unless something pretty bloody spectacular happens, then the next election is not going to be very pleasant for the Liberal Democrats. 

Predicting the Opinion of Political History

This proved, somewhat unexpectedly, to be a very interesting documentary.

In a sense, I know very little about the Wilson/Heath years. I mean, I know the basic outline of what happened, if only because it provides some of the context for contemporary politics. But for me, the Wilson/Heath years (and the Callaghan administration) is part of the dour, drear post-war consensus era – that dull time when politics ground to a halt because the main parties pretty much agreed on everything. The programme did little to change my opinion of this era, but it did reframe it in a way that I hadn’t considered before through making it a duel between two of Britain’s least compelling Prime Ministers. It’s an interesting way of looking at politics between the mid-sixties and the mid-seventies.

And it did leave me wondering how the current political era will ultimately be viewed when similar documentaries are made in the future. I mean, in a sense it is easy to write the history of the Nu Labour years as it has two defining characteristics (ignoring the obvious ones like spin, mendacity and crushing incompetence). You can sum up the Nu Labour years by referencing the illegal and pointless war in Iraq at the same time as talking about the Blair-Brown rivalry. Unlike the Wilson/Heath years you don’t really need to mention whoever was in opposition. But what about the current era? How will the first year of the coalition be remembered?

I suspect that it will be remembered as the time when politics – or at least politicians and political commentators – went a little mad and forgot that the main party in government was the Tories rather than the Liberal Democrats. It will be about how the opposition party decided to fight Britain’s third party rather than the first party, and how the pointless chunterings of a second-rate politician like Vince Cable became front page news. And I rather suspect that historians will be incredulous as to the extent to which Nick Clegg became a Teflon coating for David Cameron. Above all, though, I think that this era could be framed around the question of why the Labour party allowed the Tories to coast to a real general election victory under the vacuous and utterly pointless Ed Miliband…

Ed Miliband - On Borrowed Time?

You know, I really feel sorry for Nick Clegg. He's spent the best part of the past year acting as a teflon coating for David Cameron, and since Thursday's elections, he's doing exactly the same thing for Ed Miliband. Because it is only the fact that the Liberal Democrats did so badly on Thursday that hides the fact that it was also a very difficult and disappointing set of results for the Labour leader.

Let's look at the best result for Miliband Minor - the fact that the Labour party have gained seats and, indeed, overall control of some councils. As things stand (Saturday at ten to two, fact fans) Labour have gained 800 seats and 26 councils. Yet the vast majority of those gains have been at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, and taking votes from them at the moment really is like taking candy from a baby. But what should be worrying Miliband - what should really be worrying him - is the result for the Tories. Over the past year, they have been heading up a coalition pursuing, for many, deeply unpopular and divisive policies. In fact, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest against those policies. The results at their first electoral test in government? 81 new councillors, and 4 new councils. Far from struggling to hold onto their territory, they have actually gained ground since taking power. Ultimately, Miliband Minor needs to be able to take on the Tories properly if he wants to be installed at Number 10. There's no evidence here that he will be able to do it. In fact, the council results suggest all he has managed to do is win some seats that the Labour party should never have lost in the first place from a massively unpopular third party.

And the council results are the best for him of the day.

Because in Wales, Labour have made some gains, but still seem unable to take control outright. And Wales - Labour's heartland, again where they should never have lost popularity at all - is a crucial sign of the well-being of the party in general. These election results suggest that they health of that party is damaged at the very least. But that's nothing compared to what happened North of the Border in Scotland.

There, the Labour party appear to have handed overall control of the Scottish parliament to the SNP on a silver platter. And this is Scotland, for fuck's sake, where the last Labour Prime Minister was born. If they can't win here, then they are going to struggle to make any headway whatsoever in far more hostile parts of the UK. Furthermore, what is particularly damaging to Miliband Minor is that he campaigned in Scotland, and he's been rewarded with a big fat "fuck you" from the Scottish voters.

He also campaigned for AV, and guess what happened there? Oh, the movement was defeated conclusively at the polls. Miliband Minor seems to have inherited that inverted Midas Touch of his former boss - everything he touches turns to shit. In fact, this t-shirt (via Guido) seems very harsh but also extremely apt:

With results like these, I'd be surprised if Ed Miliband is still leading the Labour party come the next election. In fact, his best bet to lead Labour into that election would be if the coalition collapsed right now. Of course, he could do something extraordinary to turn his fortunes around, but he gives no indications that he is willing to do so, or even that he feels he needs to do so. He's just waiting for the electoral pendulum to swing back to Labour and install him as PM. These results show that just isn't happening.

In fact, we could use this as a litmus test of how serious the Labour party is about winning the next election: they will show they are serious when they get a credible leader, capable of communicating and coming up with some sort of genuinely different, and popular, policies. In other words, when they get a leader other than Ed Miliband.

Election Predictions

With the usual caveat about how dangerous it is to make predictions in politics, allow me to speculate on what might happen in the elections today.

Firstly, Labour should do reasonably well. Not because they deserve to, but simply because it is far easier for the opposition party to fare well in these sort of elections than the governing one. And also because, in the stale end to the Blair years and in the abysmal failure that was the Brown administration, Labour was damn near wiped out in many parts of the country at a council and regional level. It is far easier gain seats when you have previously lost so many, and far easier to end up with a victory that looks far better than it actually is since all you are doing is making up the ground you've lost.

The Liberal Democrats are, of course, going to get a drubbing at the polls. Again, they don't really deserve this - or, at least, their leaders don't. Their supporters - in particular those who cannot understand the need to be pragmatic and flexible in power for the sake of the country - perhaps do deserve it. But then again, it will be those ones who will be flooding into the Labour camp. Which is fine, as far as I am concerned. Stupid people flocking to the stupid party.

And the Conservatives? There'll be losses, and perhaps a partial retreat into their heartlands. But I'd be surprised if there was a wipeout. Mainly because many of their supporters have vivid, recent memories of just how appalling the last Labour government was.

And as for AV, I suspect the "no" camp will win. Mainly because their campaign was simple, overwhelmingly negative and very well-funded. It'll be a victory for them, but hardly the sort of victory that political legends are made off. They won by spending a fortune on slagging off their opponents. Well done you.

And how will I be voting? I won't. Not because I don't want to, but because Leeds City Council have effectively disenfranchised me. Nice work, Leeds. You're breaking new ground in the fiercely contested field of incompetence in local government.

Vince Cable wants to prevent future Tory victories. This from a man in a Tory-led government, who was once a member of the SDP (a party that helped to guarantee Tory victories just by existing).

Yeah, Vince. Basically, you're talking shit. Now as always.

Towards a Libertarian Union?

Ok, so, following on from my pessimistic post from the other day, what next for UK libertarians? I’m not going to rehash my arguments about why I think LPUK is screwed. What I will point out is this – the members of and advocates for the party who approach a realistic position are those who, like me, would argue that any real success for that party lies in the distant future. And given the constant encroach of statism and its advocates, the question is pertinent – what do libertarians do while waiting for LPUK to get up and running/do if the party disappears?

We can find a clue in the Rally Against Debt. A grassroots campaign started by two UKIP members has grown massively in a very short space of time. Indeed, its growth is something that LPUK could, and perhaps should, be jealous of. Why has it been so successful? In part, it is about topicality. Debts and spending cuts are at the heart of the debate raging in British politics today. But there is another reason. The rally against debt is not party political, and thus it is not exclusive. It can attract people from the Tories, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, LPUK and independents. Whereas a political party can only really attract those with no other party affiliation, or an affiliation that they are happy to sacrifice. That automatically limits its potential. So topicality and being inclusive rather than exclusive. What sort of organisation could allow for that?

It occurs to me that some sort of Union might be the way forward (or Federation, for those right-wingers who can’t cope with the idea of Unions). An organisation that can offer people membership in tandem with membership of other organisations – just as members of Trade Unions can be (and often are) members of the Labour party. But rather than offering representation in the workplace, this could be an organisation that fights for its members in the pursuit of liberty. As a Federation/Union, it could do things other than fight elections directly. It could offer support to campaigns run by other organisations (like No2ID, the IEA and the Adam Smith Institute) and highlight events like the Rally Against Debt. At the same time, it could run its own campaigns. It could also have spokespersons on crucial issues and topical events – for example, an organisation that might offer Tim Worstall as Economics Spokesperson and Chris Snowdon as Health Spokesperson (or at least debunking the spurious claims of health “experts” spokesperson) would be pretty formidable. And it could do so without demanding they join a particular party. Likewise, it could attempt to attract high-profile libertarian politicians to write for it on occasion.

But where it could be most formidable is through having a dedicated band of volunteers who could work on behalf of libertarian leaning politicians in election campaigns. Politicians like Douglas Carswell, Steve Baker and Dan Hannan. And LPUK, if they ever become credible contenders in elections. On the flipside, it could also campaign against egregiously statist politicians. A host of Libertarian inclined people pounding the streets in Ed Balls' constituency arguing against his re-election could make all the difference, for example. Indeed, the organisation could replicate the influence of the Tea Party in America (albeit without that organisation’s occasional lapses into insanity). Not backing one party or running its own candidates, it could instead offer support to any candidate it perceives to be a champion of liberty.

Of course, it wouldn’t be easily achieved. Getting libertarians is, as numerous people point out, like herding cats. And there would be a need for the organisation to be professional at all times. There’s no point it being a super-swear-blog; candidates should want to be associated with it, rather than embarrassed by it. But a looser organisation than a political party, one more able to choose what battles it fights, might be able to circumvent the inherent anti-small party biases of our political system. A powerful, grassroots pressure group that can make or break candidates in constituencies maybe far more effective than entryism into an existing party or LPUK. The aspiration would be to have a UK based version of the NRA or a major Trade Union (albeit not necessarily with the core beliefs of either). It wouldn’t be easy, but it might just be worth it.

British Politics, Libertarians and LPUK

This post will be long; for that I offer a warning, but no apology.

I haven’t been a member of LPUK for about a month now, and after Anna Raccoon’s devastating post on that party’s current leader, it seems unlikely I will be again. Personal responsibility is crucial to almost every successful formulation of libertarianism, but according to Raccoon’s post, the current leader of LPUK is utterly irresponsible. More than a bit of a problem, I would argue.

Of course there may be those who argue that I’m judging based on only one side of what will probably be a vicious argument. But the facts presented in the post fit the facts as I have observed them, and the whole post has more than a ring of truth to it. And it is a thoroughly depressing truth.

LPUK now appear to have two choices. Either they can ditch Withers and elect a new leader (Christ knows who, and doing so would enhance the perception of a party in crisis) or they can keep him on, and become increasingly like a version of Veritas without the unique selling point of having a celebrity as leader. Neither fate is particularly edifying; it is more than possible to see the Libertarian Party of the UK as entering terminal decline.

But there’s another reason why I don’t much care about hearing both sides of the story. And it’s this: the accusations about Withers are just the icing on the cake for me. The reality is that it is easy for LPUK to enter terminal decline, and easy for it to wink out of existence. And the reason for this is simple – they have made startlingly little progress since they were formed. The party, when it has contested elections, has done beyond poorly. And this is a crucial, debilitating problem. If you can’t credibly contest elections, then the media won’t care about you. If the media doesn’t care about you, you can’t win elections. And so the vicious circle continues, and LPUK remains a largely virtual entity, incapable of the sort of practical action needed to make a genuine political impact in our deeply flawed democracy.

In fact, LPUK are a standing rebuke to those who wax lyrical about the importance of the internet in modern politics. The internet has a role to play, for sure. But if your party was formed, largely managed and supported through the internet, then you have a problem. In a constituency based electoral system such as ours, you need to have constituency organisations that are building support across years, doing the endless (and endlessly tedious) work of canvassing on rainy Saturday mornings. If you are largely an internet organisation, you don’t have that. In fact, the internet becomes as much a virtual prison as it does a virtual tool. After several years in existence, LPUK have remarkably little to show for their efforts. And for all the talk of a resurgence under Withers (a resurgence surely dead in the water now, if it ever truly existed) the party has a mountain to climb, and seemingly precious little resources to allow it to do so in order to get anywhere. The odds were stacked against the party before this scandal (if we can call something a scandal that precious few people in this country will really care about). Now proper political influence seems further away than ever before.

There will be some who will crow over my acceptance that LPUK are not going to go anywhere; the sort of libertarians who have always argued for entryism into the main political parties now have every right to say “I told you so”. Except their victory is pyrrhic, and their laughter hollow. Because there is no natural home in British politics for the genuinely libertarian.

Anyone who argues that libertarians have a natural home in one of the main parties (by which I mean a party larger than LPUK; a pretty minimal hurdle to overcome) is simply wrong. We can ignore anyone who says that libertarians have a natural home in the Labour party as utterly delusional. The same for anyone who might make the claim that the Greens have something to offer libertarians. Their environmental and economic policies could only ever be implemented through draconian state intervention.

Which takes us to the Tories. So many professed libertarians seem to reside in the Tory party, and I don’t really understand why. The Tories are deeply socially conservative. And there is nothing libertarian about social conservatism. In fact, I have a little litmus test I always use when I think that the Tories are a good idea. I think about whether I could honestly vote for the policies they championed at the last election. Then I think of their National Service plan, and remember why I don’t vote for them.

The same for UKIP. There are some who would make UKIP a libertarian party. Sadly, I think they are in an ineffective minority. And to emphasise that point, I can always remember something like their proposed ban on the burqa to reassure me that they are often little more than the right-wing of the Tories in self-imposed exile.

And the Liberal Democrats? Well, I had hope when Nick Clegg was elected. And it lasted for about five seconds. He’s an apologist for the Tories with, according to his writing in The Orange Book, staunchly Europhile leanings (albeit with a reformist bent). Not an intolerable position, but hardly libertarian either. And his party is fatally flawed in my eyes because, as vast swathes of the party has shown since they gained some real political power, far too much of it is still social democratic, and thus Labour supporters who can’t quite bring themselves to be Labour.

Which leads us back to LPUK. A tiny party that has spent most of its life fighting for survival, rather than for power. And I want to stress this point – the alleged behaviour of Andrew Withers is just the tip of the iceberg. The party is sinking; which is hardly surprising, since it has always struggled to stay afloat.

But whatever. I don’t need to be a member of a political party. In fact, a spell as an independent is very, very appealing. I wish LPUK the very best – and they’re going to need all the goodwill they can get over the coming days, I rather think. But no more money from me; no more links; no more support.

And that’s that. LPUK is done, as far as I’m concerned. Finished.

What’s next?

Labour Win Safe Labour Seat Shock!

Labour candidate on winning the Barnsley Central by-election:

Mr Jarvis said the result sent "the strongest possible message" to David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Quite how a Labour candidate winning a seat that they have held since it was created in 1983 represents any sort of message, strong or otherwise, is a little beyond me. Particularly since only 36% of the electorate bothered to cast a vote. But you have your moment of splendid hyperbole, Mr Jarvis. Then pack your bags, head off to Parliament, and make yourself comfortable on those opposition benches. Because I rather think you'll be there for a while...

Exit Johnson, Stage Right

Far be it from me to speculate on something I don't know the details of, but I can't help but think that there is something behind Alan Johnson's decision to quit as Shadow Chancellor. The phrase "personal reasons" is almost beyond parody; it means nothing and everything simultaneously. It is pretty much calling out to the press to investigate - and speculate - further.

Of course, it might all be down to personal reasons. It might be that Johnson does want to spend more time with his family. It might be that there is a scandal brewing - something in his private life that prevented him from running for Labour leader and from challenging Brown went it might have made a difference to Labour's chances at the 2010 election. Or it might be - and this is what I suspect is the truth - that Johnson just thinks Ed Miliband is a massive twat that he simply cannot work with.

And coming so soon after David Miliband - Ed's own brother for fuck's sake - decided the backbenches are better than the Shadow Cabinet, this can't be anything other than an indictment of the leadership of Miliband Minor. Either his judgement is flawed in making Johnson his Shadow Chancellor or he is such an arse that a generally genial figure like Johnson cannot work with him.

What happens next is difficult to predict - although it will probably be nothing. At least not in the near future. But with the government following austerity policies and the Lib Dems about as popular as chlamydia, Miliband Minor should be riding the crest of a wave. As things stand, he is unable to get those closest to him to work with him/continue to work with him. This doesn't feel like a politician at the height of his powers; this feels like a leader unable to lead. And having endured a similar sort of leader in the form of Gordon Brown for several years, I can't help but wonder how long Miliband has left to show his own party that he is different in style and capability from the man who was his mentor.

The Coalition's Progress

The coalition came to power promising a new politics; a common enough aspiration, and it is easy enough to understand why the Con-Dems would want to distinguish themselves from the completely compromised failure that was the Brown administration. But, as Obama has so clearly demonstrated in the US, it is far easier to talk about change in politics than to actually implement it. So how have the Con-Dems got on thus far?

In terms of spending cuts, they’ve obviously made a start – although the caveat about a reduction in future spending not being the same as an actual cut in spending is ever present and ever relevant. However, where the Con-Dems have completely failed is in the battle to dominate the discourse when it comes to spending “cuts”. Rather than making the case for spending cuts, and thus reducing the size of the state, they have treated cuts as something nasty that they are being forced to do. A bit of empty, half-hearted rhetoric about the Big Society is not enough to make the case for a smaller state and a freer, but more responsible, populace. Plus, the Con-Dems have completely failed to punish Labour enough for making these cuts inevitable. Every time Ed Miliband opens his stupid mouth to spout spurious nonsense about the “cuts”, the coalition should be responding with “well you and your party caused them!” There is an opportunity here to keep Labour out of power for a generation, but that will only happen if people truly understand the cost of Labour’s incompetence during their thirteen years of misrule.

The coalition has also made a small start with civil liberties. It is great that the ID card scheme has been scrapped, but that is simply a reversal of one of Labour’s most egregious attacks on our civil liberties. It is not the start of a genuine move towards a freer society in any meaningful way. And the much vaunted commitment to civil liberties from the coalition is not materialising in terms of practical politics. The state can still spy on us to a massive extent; landlords are not allowed to decide whether to allow smoking on their premises or not; protest is still draconically policed; we are all still “nudged” towards the sort of behaviour the state wants from us. If there is a distinction between the coalition and the last Labour government, then it is in a commitment to paternalism rather than overt coercion. Thus, we’re in a better state of affairs than we were under Blair and Brown, but there is still a hell of a long way to go.

The area where the coalition has had its most success is in maintaining what is a fragile and unlikely union between two different parties. Sure, there have been grumblings – particularly from the Lib Dem contingent, but generally speaking the coalition has defied cynics and managed to hold itself together, even through deeply divisive issues such as the rise in tuition fees. It is well within the realms of reality to now predict that the coalition will serve a full five years in office – something that, on paper, never really appeared possible even in the first flush of the new political union last May.

But this is somewhat depressing; the most effective the coalition has been, according to this analysis, is in clinging onto the reigns of power. In other words, by acting for itself. The self-interest that has dominated so much of recent political history is present and correct in the “new politics”, rather sadly. And the progress of the coalition thus has not been impressive; at the moment, the very best that they can claim is that they haven’t been as bad as Labour. But if they genuinely what to do something new, and create a decisive break with the past, then they have to spell out a decisive vision for a smaller state and at the same time turn their rhetoric in civil liberties into something meaningful and practical. Forget the Big Society; the coalition can be genuinely ground-breaking if it speeds up the pace of change and gives us a free society instead of the status quo.

The Liberal Democrat's Perpetual Crisis

So Labour's won a by-election. Fuck-a-doodle-doo. It's only a seat that they've had since 1997 - which is also the year when this particular constituency was created. Honestly, you crazy labour types - you're going to have to do better than this at the next General Election if you want to win back Number 10.

But what amuses me is the Lib Dem response to this by-election defeat (man alive, Elwyn Watkins must be massively tired and hacked off by now). We have had Nick Clegg attempting to achieve great new things in the realm of platitudes by noting that "it's a challenging time for Liberal Democrats". Well yes, yes it is. For the first time ever, you have political power. And it hasn't been as easy as it looked to be when you were carping from the sidelines, eh?

But then again, when haven't the Lib Dems been facing challenging times? The drop in support owing to their coalition with the Tories is only the latest in a long line of crises. In fact, since the Ginger Drunk resigned, they've had nothing but crisis after crisis. There was the post-Kennedy leadership debacle contest that ended with the election of the least charismatic man in history as Lib Dem leader. The fall of Ming the Merciful so soon after his election allowed the party to choose Nick Clegg as their new leader. And, lest we forget, Clegg said and did nothing as Lib Dem leader until he was allowed to debate with the big boys (well, both Brown and Cameron are a little portly) on TV. And as a result, his party was lucky not to lose a large proportion of their seats at the last election; any chance of a breakthrough was simply hype.

Pretty much since the Ginger Drunk jumped on a populist bandwagon by (quite rightly, in retrospect) opposing the Iraq War, the Lib Dems have been in crisis. So these may be challenging times for Britain's perennial third party, but that is nothing new for that party. They've lurched from crisis to crisis for the past few years like a political version of Gordon Brittas; this election result is nothing more than business as usual for the ever amateurish Lib Dems.

The Real Vince Cable Stands Up

Very few things have amused me more in recent times than the sudden realisation from many that Vince Cable is not a great leader, but rather a vapid political lightweight who has all the political convictions and charisma of a rag idly floating in the breeze. And I remain surprised that it has taken this long to for so many to realise who Cable actually is.

Seriously, this chap makes Nick Clegg look like a conviction politician. A former senior employee of Shell, he is a (failed) Labour candidate, a Lib Dem candidate then MP, and now a minister in a Tory-led coalition. Hardly reeks of ideological commitment now, does it? And to top it all off, he is now talking about abstaining from a vote on a piece of legislation that comes from his own department. Honest to fuck, a jellyfish in a condom has more backbone than Vince Cable.

Then again, what did anyone expect from Old Man Cable? The sole thing he has ever managed to achieve of any lasting value is the putdown about Brown going from being Stalin to Mr Bean. It is the sort of comment that you might expect from a third-rate comedian; it certainly isn’t any sort of indication that we might be dealing with a first-rate political leader.

So let’s enjoy Cable being exposed for what he is – utterly, utterly vacuous.

When Will Nick Clegg Go?

It can now only be a matter of time before Nick Clegg loses his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats. There is a certain Faustian element to his decision to get into bed with the Tories – he got the job of Deputy Prime Minister, but in the long-term, damnation and (almost certainly) eventual dismissal from his own party. Let’s not rehash whether he made the right choice, but instead consider when the deed will finally be done, and his increasingly uncomfortable party gives him the chop.

Frankly, I can’t see it happening while the coalition holds. As much as many Lib Dems might not like the coalition, the lure of being in power coupled with the chance to temper the Tories (no matter how limited that power is) will stop them from changing their leader while the coalition exists. So the best chance Clegg has for a prolonged time as Lib Dem leader is the extension of the coalition arrangement for as long as possible. The other alternative elections results would lead to Clegg being bounced before he had any time to think about it.

If the Tories (most likely) or Labour win an outright election victory, then the Lib Dems will be out of power. What use would the Liberal Democrats then have for a former Deputy Prime Minister in a Tory led coalition as their leader? They would need to redefine themselves in view of the changed political circumstances. And if Labour won but not outright, you can be absolutely sure that one of their conditions for a entering into a coalition with the Lib Dems would be the sacking of Nick Clegg.

But when the enforced retirement finally hits Clegg, he can at least take some comfort that he has been the first Liberal in decades – and the first Liberal Democrat ever – to get to one of the top positions in British politics. The cost of his political influence and power is longevity as Liberal Democrat leader. But when the history books are written Clegg’s time as Deputy PM will probably be what they note rather than his leadership of Britain’s perennial third party.

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.

The Labour Vitriol Against The Liberal Democrats

Well, this is going to whip the Labourites into an even greater anti-Liberal Democrat fever:

"I totally understand that some of these people are not happy with what the Lib Dems are doing in coalition with the Conservatives. The Lib Dems never were and aren't a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour Party. There is no future for that; there never was."

Well, the problem Clegg's got is that for some, the Lib Dems were a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour party; it is just for him and his fellow Orange Bookers that its not. But I do think that the future for the Lib Dems isn't in joining with the Labour party again. And the main reason for that is the behaviour of many in the Labour party since the election.

Since the Lib Dems did the only thing they realistically could in May and joined in coalition with the Tories, the Labour party have acted like a bunch of mad stalkers that have been spurned by the object of their affections. The level of bile that the Labour party have heaped on the Lib Dems is entirely out of proportion with their "crime"; after all, the Lib Dems joined with the effective winners of the last election, but before they did that, they negotiated with Labour and certainly gave that party the chance to win them over. But no, the Labour party have acted with arrogance and bile towards the Lib Dems; the occasional lip service paid by some of the contenders for the Labour leadership to the idea of the future Lib-Lab pact doesn't make-up for the bitter vitriol thrown at the Lib Dems by the Labour party since May.

Labour are still in shock from their defeat in May and still labouring under the delusion that they are in some way entitled to power. It is the same arrogance that defined Nu Labour, and ultimately sank the Brown administration. The Labour party still expects to be in power, and if they can't achieve it by themselves, then they expect the Lib Dems to prop them up. The fact that Clegg and Co. chose not remains a point of bitter contention for the Labour party. And given the level of bile thrown at the Lib Dems, I really don't see whatever future they might have resting on an alliance with Labour.

Nick Clegg: The Impossible Choice

Simon Jenkins on the limited political future of one Nick Clegg:

Clegg the politician was a nice chap. He could have made a good departmental minister. Back in May he could have decided otherwise, standing aloof from office and declaring that his party would debate and vote on each government measure on its merits. That would have been a true Liberal Democrat dawn, from which he could have returned perhaps more successfully to fight the Tories at the polls.

Instead Clegg chose glory in death. He came to the rescue of Cameron in the latter's hour of need and enabled him to steer the economy out of Labour's morass. I have no doubt Cameron will show gratitude, offering honorary life membership of the Tory party, a safe seat and a comfy place on the Notting Hill sofa. For Clegg that might be enough. But as leader of the Liberal Democrats, he has booked a ticket to oblivion.

Now I'd agree - in part. Nick Clegg is basically fucked as Lib Dem leader. His decision in May was always going to work for roughly half his party, and really piss off the other half. That's the nature of his compromise. Had he done it the other way round - and jumped into bed with Labour - he would still have alienated half of its parties and half of his followers. He had to make a choice, and he did. It was never going to please everyone, which is what makes it a compromise.

And this notion that the Lib Dems could have chosen a third way (no pun intended) of voting on each issue as and when they arise rather than going into coalition is a non-starter. All that would have happened is the Cameron would have gone to the country again sooner rather than later. His party was the only one with the funds to fight another election, and both the Tories and Labour would have a massive stick with which to beat the Lib Dems - that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for unstable government and for political instability.

This is the tragedy of Nick Clegg; he had no choice but to compromise, but by compromising, he ended up shooting himself in the foot. And, as far as I am concerned, he made the best of a bad situation. That's not going to stop the carping of lefties throughout the country, though...

On Electoral Reform

The recent news about a potential referendum on electoral reform has created a lot of excitement for some. Despite the fact that I can see a case for the reform of the electoral system, I can't get too excited about this referendum. Firstly, all electoral systems have flaws, and you're not going to get true representation under any system. As far as I can see, we'd be replacing one flawed system with another, equally flawed, system.

And there's another reason why I don't think it is worth getting too excited about the concept of electoral reform - it isn't going to happen. I think the referendum will go ahead - it is too important for the Liberal Democrats and therefore for the coalition to be abandoned in the Commons. But at that referendum, only the Liberal Democrats will be campaigning for electoral reform. The Labour party will have overcome their brief flirtation with electoral reform that they experienced after the election, and will use the chance to fight against electoral reform during the referendum campaign as an opportunity to punish the Liberal Democrats for not joining them in a so-called "progressive coalition". The Tories aren't going to campaign for electoral reform either; the current system served them very well prior to 1992, and (the way things are going) will give them a workable majority at the next election. The electoral machines of the two main parties in this country will almost certainly campaign against electoral reform which means, with the best will in the world, that it ain't going to happen.

However, let's not get too carried away with the notion that the Liberal Democrats are seeking electoral reform because, unlike the two main parties, they are concerned with issues of representation. The reason why the Liberal Democrats want a new voting system is because it will benefit them. They are the victims of this current situation, and they - perhaps understandably - want to change that. However, this has nothing to do with democracy; instead it is down to self-interest.

And that's the biggest problem I have with electoral reform - it isn't going to change the way politics in this country works. It is smokes and mirrors - creating debate about a potential change that will, in reality, change very little. The problem with our democracy is that it is now dominated by three parties which, on so many areas, operate in open agreement on political fundamentals. And their party machines choose candidates - they take them, remove independence and thought from those candidates - and turn them into blind automatons to fight elections without using ideology or controversy. Then they can enter the Commons, where they become lobby fodder. In the unlikely event that they reach a position of real political power, they will be so used to conformity and so fearful of taking a controversial position that they will be just as bland as every post-Thatcher PM has been. The problem isn't with the electoral system; it is down to the fact that our "democracy" has become a self-perpetuating oligarchy dominated by bland party machines lost in a general ideological consensus.

Sure, yeah, let's have a referendum on electoral reform. Let's change the electoral system. But until we are actually willing to use that electoral system to reject the bland mainstream parties and consider more radical alternatives, nothing will really change in British politics.

Those "Ideological" Spending Cuts

It is an odd phrase that is really starting to bother me - "ideological spending cuts". Every time the coalition government trims a budget (often canceling planned future spending rather than actually making a cut, mind) the Labour party and its mindless followers scream that the cuts are "ideological". Yet against every available definition of the word "ideological" it appears that these spending cuts are anything but.

First up, let's look at the parties involved in implementing these cuts. The Tories are probably the least ideological they have been since that fat, shambling oaf Edward Heath led them. And the Liberal Democrats showed the extent to which they are a centre-ground, middle of the road ideological vacuum with their shameless flirtation with both parties after the General Election in the desperate hope of gaining some sort of power for themselves. Whatever this coalition might be about, it is based on compromise between two ideologically compromised parties. Their policies, including their spending cuts, are not about ideology.

Then you've got the fact that Labour were also committed to making spending cuts. Would their spending cuts have been ideological too? Or does the fact that the Labour party would have been doing them absolve them from the charge of being ideological? Because the Labour party has never tried to pursue ideological ends before now, has it? Oh, wait...

And then there's the timid, almost apologetic way in which the coalition has gone about its spending cuts. This isn't a bold, ideologically driven government relishing the chance to cut back government spending - this is a fragile coalition desperately trying to avoid a backlash for the spending cuts it is being forced to make owing to the incompetence of the previous administration.

So by all means attack the spending cuts for their size, their targets and the way in which they are being carried out, but don't try to make out that they are ideological in their nature. They're not. I for one would relish a government ideologically committed to reducing the size of government spending and the state; however, this timid coalition is very much not that government.

Disgruntled Lib Dem Supporters

It seems that Liberal Democrats are finding out the downside to power, and don't like it one bit:

Nick Clegg is suffering a fierce public backlash over the coalition's VAT rise, with almost half of Liberal Democrat supporters saying the tax U-turn makes them more likely to desert the party.

A YouGov/Brand Democracy survey, which will alarm already restive Lib Dem MPs, shows 48% of those who voted Lib Dem at the election are now less inclined to back them again as a direct result of the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%.

Well, I voted Lib Dem at the last election (lack of a Libertarian candidate y'see) and I'm not a big fan of the VAT rise. I understand the logic behind it, and I can understand why they did it - had I been in a similar position, though, I'd have favoured spending cuts every time over tax rises. I can also understand how some Lib Dem voters might feel betrayed - Clegg and Co were very adamant on where they stood on a VAT rise, but in power they have done the exact opposite of what they campaigned for. Yet for any seasoned political observer, a newly empowered politician u-turning is the very definition of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

As for disgruntled Liberal Democrat voters, well, there is no real point in changing their support to one of the other main parties. After all, the Tories are the dominant power in the coalition that introduced the VAT increase, while the Labour party are the people who made the VAT increase and all the spending cuts pretty much inevitable with their idiotic, spendaholic policies. So the choice is either for Lib Dem voters to stay put, or look to one of the minor parties for a better deal. And if there are Lib Dem voters looking for a party committed to lower taxes and greater freedom within this country, then there is one obvious smaller party that they could transfer their allegiance to...

The Pointless Simon Hughes

Simon Hughes is stirring again.

I don't particularly care about the detail of what he is saying - there were always going to be those left on the outside, both ideologically and practically, of the coalition deal. And someone like Hughes was always going to be the mouthpiece of the disgruntled wing of the Lib Dems. No, no, what bothers me is this - why is Simon Hughes still in Parliament? No, even more than that - what the hell is the point of Simon Hughes anyway?

The truth is that Simon Hughes is utterly pointless. He's the sort of Lib Dem who gives the whole party a bad name - someone who tries to appear pious and caring on the surface (yet remains faintly patronising at all times - intentionally or otherwise) yet is actually quite nasty, underhand and unpleasant if you even lightly scratch that surface. His campaign against Peter Tatchell in 1983 is an excellent example of that. His constituency blindly re-elects him each time it gets the chance, despite it having some shocking examples of poverty within it and it also being an area of London that is immune to many of the improvements seen in other parts of that great city. He's run for Lib Dem leader, yet failed convincingly. And now he seems to be trying to undermine the coalition - the Liberal Democrats' sole chance to have any political influence whatsoever for more than a generation.

Wherever the Liberal Democrats go after this - to the right, to the left, straight into an ongoing alliance with one of the main parties - I think they need, and should heed, this piece of advice: ditch Hughes. Deselect him. Bin him. Get rid of him. Your party will be far better off without this waspish, poisonous cretin. He contributes nothing to your party, and he is just a headache in desperate need of a pain killer.