The new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government will come as no surprise to those who have studied the development of the free-market philosophy at the core of current Lib Dem thinking. What we have seen since the general election is the culmination of a right-wing grab for power in what was formerly – albeit loosely – perceived as a progressive centre-left party.
The final nail in the coffin for a progressive alliance of the centre-left was marked by the leadership contest between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne in 2007. Both are on the centre-right of their party and the contest was between two advocates of the free market far more interested in individual rights (by itself commendable) than in state intervention to address manifest injustices.
The party of Jo Grimond, David Steel, Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy has had its progressive heart hollowed out by neo-economic liberal activism and replaced by a right-wing cabal that includes Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne, Ed Davey, David Laws and Vince Cable. A coalition with the Tories was no ideological barrier to their personal ambitions. Meanwhile, supposed left-leaning Lib Dem MPs such as Simon Hughes are being condemned as Tory lackeys and hypocrites.
The only faction within the Liberal Democrats that would have been able to oppose the relentless drive to the right in their party, the Beveridge Group, made up of social liberals who are convinced that the role of the state should be as a force to increase social welfare by state intervention, has been emasculated. Aside from Chris Huhne, only two of its 28 members in the House of Commons have been given ministerial posts – and inconsequential ones at that, as deputy chief whip and junior transport minister.
The Beveridge Group (whose inspiration includes Keynes as well as Beveridge) would have been the core of any progressive alliance with Labour. Even if it had been a loose arrangement in this Parliament, it would almost certainly have been able to help Labour block the worst excesses of George Osborne’s savage cuts. Instead they have meekly allowed Clegg and his followers to take the party to the right
Beveridge Group member and Orange Book contributor Huhne has tried to straddle both factions. Formerly a successful City economist, he is independently wealthy. He owns seven houses and, since his personal political journey is to the right, may not be heartbroken that the mansion tax has been shelved.
It can be argued that the Lib Dems have reverted to being a party that has much in common with the Whigs, with principal concerns focused on the defence of the merchant class and free trade rather than any real or feigned concern for the working class.
What Britain now has is a blue-orange coalition, with the little-known Orange Book forming the core of current Lib Dem political thinking. To understand how this disreputable arrangement has come about, we need to examine the philosophy laid out in The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism, edited by David Laws (now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and Paul Marshall. Particularly interesting are the contributions of the Lib Dems’ present leadership.
Published in 2004, the Orange Book marked the start of the slow decline of progressive values in the Lib Dems and the gradual abandonment of social market values. It also provided the ideological standpoint around which the party’s right wing was able to coalesce and begin their march to power in the Lib Dems. What is remarkable is the failure of former SDP and Labour elements to sound warning bells about the direction the party was taking. Former Labour ministers such as Shirley Williams and Tom McNally should be ashamed of their inaction.
Clegg and his Lib Dem supporters have much in common with David Cameron and his allies in their philosophical approach and with their social liberal solutions to society’s perceived ills. The Orange Book is predicated on an abiding belief in the free market’s ability to address issues such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government and prisons.
The Lib Dem leadership seems to sit very easily in the Tory-led coalition. This is an arranged marriage between partners of a similar background and belief. Even the Tory-Whig coalition of early 1780s, although its members were from the same class, at least had fundamental political differences. Now we see a Government made up of a single elite that has previously manifested itself as two separate political parties and which is divided more by subtle shades of opinion than any profound ideological difference.
Orange Book contributors Laws, Cable, Clegg, Huhne and Davey are all Oxbridge-educated, as is Danny Alexander, the other member of their cabal. Four of the five went to private schools. (Cable was a grammar school boy.)
These men – significantly, they are all men – have never had to struggle financially, socially or academically. Clegg went to the expensive Westminster school, as did Huhne. Clegg was also educated at his family’s expense in the United States and at the exclusive College of Europe in Bruges. He was a member of the Conservative Association at Cambridge University and subsequently an integral member of Tory European Commissioner Leon Brittan’s private office in Brussels. So it’s no wonder that he feels comfortable with the Tory Party and its leaders.
The notion that the Lib Dem leadership clique could have sat easily with Labour either in government or in opposition was always fanciful. The hope of those on the right of the Labour Party that an accommodation could be reached was always going to be a forlorn one.
The electoral arithmetic gave Lib Dem leaders an excuse not to side with the Labour Party. While hints of a possible deal with Labour were useful in negotiating with the Conservatives, Clegg was never really interested in the former arrangement.
The main justification given for the cynical Cameron-Clegg deal is that the country needs strong and stable government. The reality of that is the Tories and the Lib Dems want to be in power for a guaranteed five years. The gerrymandering of parliamentary procedure – the proposed 55 per cent vote of MPs required to bring down the Government – and the short-term stitch up of the House of Lords is both duplicitous and dangerous.
The basis for the Con-Dem coalition is elitist class interest that will cost the people of this country dear. The fear is that the deal could endure beyond the initial five-year plan.
