Where next for social liberals? Is it ideology, rather than necessity, that is driving the liberal democrat leadership?

• Published in: Soundings (London, England) England), 2011-01 (47), p.75-82
• Main Author: Grayson, Richard S
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aims and objectives; Analysis; Coalition Formation; Coalition governments; Coalitions; Elections; Expenditures; Ideologies; Knowledge; Leadership; Political Parties; Schools; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 1362-6620

Much has now been written about the formation of the coalition government, and the competing analyses have a great relevance to how we understand the way the coalition has been operating. Indeed, if anybody is to form a view of where the coalition might go, it is important to have some view on why it was formed. Only by understanding the motives of those who created it can we even begin to imagine what the political agenda might look like at the time of the next election. There are broadly two versions of events. One is the necessity school of thought. This has been given its fullest treatment by David Laws. His narrative 22 Days in May (Biteback 2010) set out an account of even-handedness on the part of the Liberal Democrat leadership when it came to negotiations with the other two parties. In this version of events, a deal with Labour was primarily hindered by parliamentary arithmetic, and the added (alleged) problem that in any case Labour's entire approach to the negotiations was hostile. Much is made of the 'body language' of Labour figures. This case, which David Laws has set out more starkly than anyone, and was certainly based on inside knowledge, finds much favour with most Liberal Democrats. Through supporting the coalition deal overwhelmingly at a special party conference, and in the positions which so many have taken since the election, they have shown that they accept the basic 'no choice' argument; and they also believe that the Lib Dems are getting a good deal in terms of the policies being implemented by the coalition. A different school of thought focuses on ideology. It argues that the Lib-Con deal can best be understood as the logical outcome of the current Liberal Democrat leadership taking the party - in simple terms - to the right, away from the broadly centre-left policies on spending and the state which have previously dominated the Liberal Democrats. So when it came to negotiations there was more likely to be common ground between the Liberal Democrat team and the Conservatives, both on the pressing issues of the day and in terms of the general direction of travel on the central question of state spending. Adapted from the source document.