Skip to main content

Considering the virtues of a coalition with Norman Tebbit

The Rt Hon. The Lord Tebbit of Chingford C.H., a.k.a. the Chingford Strangler, or the "semi house-trained polecat" of Michael Foot's imagination, has been- I think it fair to say- slow to warm to the virtues of coalition. Nevertheless, even he is now prepared to reconsider some of his previous views. He is for the moment amongst the majority in the Conservatives who are, if only pragmatically, prepared to support the idea. There are, however, still a fair number of Conservatives who are- shall we say- ambivalent.

I would be lying if I said that it was all was sweetness and light amongst the Liberal Democrats. There are a number of people who could not support the Conservatives for any reason or at any price: several of them have left the party. There are a number of people who did not understand that the Liberal Democrats meant what they said about how the virtues of coalition and partnership in government could make a transformation to our political system. Equally, and more understandably, there are a number of true Liberal Democrats who regard the coalition as either a strategic or a tactical mistake. This last group may have a point, even if the first two groups can be safely ignored, if only for now. I can understand Nich Starling being disappointed and fearful for the future of the party, but if we are genuinely going to construct a new politics then we are going to have to give a certain amount of trust in order to be trusted.

It is a risk, but given the state of the country and the mathematics in the House of Commons, we must at least dare to take such a risk- for the benefits of more Liberal policies and a more open politics are significant- even necessary- advantages in our struggle to repair the damage to the British economy and society that has been left by Labour. If the Conservatives betray their word, it will be a public betrayal and they may be forced to take the consequences just as much as the Liberal Democrats would were we to fail to live up to the responsibilities given to us in government.

As I think the special conference will show: the party is at least 90% behind the leadership it its sincere attempts to promote the Liberal changes we believe in through this new coalition. In my view, the esteemed Lord Tebbit apart, I suspect that a good third of the Conservatives are actually in shocked denial about what has happened to them. That is a number that means that David Cameron has also has little choice: he too has been forced to take a risk, and if the coalition were to fall, he would certainly be swept away in the aftermath. As it stands, the coalition is a Mexican stand off: neither side can now shoot the other, for fear of being shot in return, yet, for the time being, neither side will relinquish its weapons. The media will -as usual- be trying to create the usual drama and conflict- but even still, I noticed the Daily Telegraph was able to find only a very few Liberal Democrat malcontents. For the time being, the party is prepared to give more than the 20 minute attention span of Sky News to consider the coalition for what it is. So, to my surprise, is Lord Tebbit.

So before some in my party make a fateful decision to leave, I ask them to consider this: we have always said we believed in working with any party in the National Interest. There was neither the means nor the will to construct a stable coalition in any other way. The British political system will continue to get more pluralist, not least through reform that we ourselves can now enact, not just of the House of Commons but also the House of Lords and local government- including more proportional systems than AV (which may in any event become simply a way mark on the road to STV anyway: the way you vote is the same, listing candidates in order of preference, it is only the number of candidates elected that is different: one under AV, more than one under STV). If we have to fight a referendum, so be it: I am a democrat and I am not afraid of putting the policies and principles I believe in to the people in a fair vote. I think we may be surprised to find not only Labour supporters, but also many Conservatives on our side of the referendum campaign.

But there is more: the Liberal Democrats will now be able to promote such policies of fairness as the £10,000 income tax threshold from within the government. While we must accept that the Conservatives have won the great offices of state, nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats can legitimately say to their voters- for the first time- that every single Liberal Democrat vote has helped the party to put at least some of the economic, social and political agenda that they voted for into practice. It is worth noting that such Conservative mistakes, such as the raising of IHT will not now be enacted, while the likelihood of Parliamentary time being granted to waste further hot air on the hunting issue is now also very small.

We have always said that we wanted a positive agenda, so to retreat into small political ghettos because "We hate the Tories" is the antithesis of our real agenda and even more so our real interests and the interests of our country. It is time for us to act with maturity and to accept both the opportunities and the limitations of power. If we can make this government work, then the opportunity to demonstrate by real actions the virtues of our Liberal ideology is extremely significant. It can set out a whole new agenda and structure for politics in the United Kingdom.

I think we should be confident in our own values and if we are, then the absurd lazy stereotypes of bearded, muesli-chomping sandal wearers can finally be laid to rest. We have a party of openness, tolerance, decency and intelligence. I don't think those virtues should be unsullied by power, indeed I think without those virtues in government, the future of our country is bleak indeed. So, if I do not welcome this coalition with euphoria, I welcome it in a spirit of practical politics: we now have a real job to do. Let us roll up our sleeves and go to work to put Liberal principles into practice and Liberal policies into government.


Newmania said…
Fraternal salutations CS ,I met Norman Tebbit once at a meeting of the Bruges group when he spoke about the spread of International law and its lack of legitimacy Is this reactionary; why ?Quite why it is that ‘Liberals’ are so keen to hand power to unaccountable elites has always struck us as confusing .
He ,Mr. T, was a stalwart defender of freedom against the Union backed socialism of the 70s and 80s when ( ahem) others blew a little with the prevailing wind. He remains entertaining and thoughtful fly in the Cleggaroon ointment but Thatcherite Parliamentarian is surely not the antithesis of a Liberal ?
If the Conservative Party has an awkward squad it would be found in Cornerstone who are as close the moral rearmament of a US sort as we get ,( and goodness it’s a long way away) , not Lord Tebbit .

I do not find any ambivalence to the coalition amongst my own circle .In fact I share a general enthusiasm and willingness to listen to what others have to say. Ones only slight quibble would be the assumption on BBC coverage that Conservatives are to be judged only by the extent which they accommodate Liberals …is that quite fair ? It smacks a little of the dictatorship of the centre one fears PR ( in some florm) would condemn us to

I worry slightly that the working classes , (wide definition) are notably absent in body and spirit .Their defection from New Labour has been the key shift and Heath –like patrician politics has imploded before
Cicero said…
Interesting to see Frank Field has signed up to help the coalition. Of course I agree that the Social Conservatives are the biggest problem that the Conservatives have: most are even now rejectionists, however my focus on Lord Tebbit is that it is pretty obvious that he has had to bite his tongue pretty hard, but if he can do it, so must we in the Lib Dems: at least for a while.

Popular posts from this blog

Trump and Brexit are the Pearl Harbor and the Fall of Singapore in Russia's Hybrid war against the West.

In December 1941, Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor. After the subsequent declaration of war, within three days, the Japanese had sunk the British warships, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, and the rapid Japanese attack led to the surrender of Hong Kong on Christmas Day 1941 and the fall of Singapore only two months after Pearl Harbor. These were the opening blows in the long war of the Pacific that cost over 30,000,000 lives and was only ended with the detonations above Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"History doesn't often repeat itself, but it rhymes" is an aphorism attributed to Mark Twain, and in a way it seems quite appropriate when we survey the current scene. 

In 1941, Imperial Japan, knowing its own weakness, chose a non-conventional form of war, the surprise attack. Since the end of his first Presidential term, Vladimir Putin, knowing Russia's weakness, has also chosen non-conventional ways to promote his domestic powe…

The American National nightmare becomes a global nightmare

It is a basic contention of this blog that Donald J Trump is not fit for office.

A crooked real estate developer with a dubious past and highly questionable finances. he has systematically lied his way into financial or other advantage. His personal qualities include vulgarity, sexual assault allegations and fraudulent statements on almost every subject. 

He lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

He has, of course, been under criminal investigation practically since before he took the oath of office. The indictment of some of closest advisers is just the beginning. His track record suggests that in due course there is no action he will not take, whether illegal or unconstitutional in order to derail his own inevitable impeachment and the indictments that must surely follow the successful investigation of Robert Mueller into his connections with Russia.

However, all of that is a matter for the American people. 

It is also a matter for the American people that Trump is cheating…

In praise of off-shore tax havens

The last few years has seen a spate of "scandals" about the use of off-shore tax havens. The hacking and subsequent leaking of data about who does and does not hold assets in off-shore jurisdictions has become an old perennial in the British press, rather like the "COLD weather happens in winter and QUITE HOT weather happens in summer", whose alarmist capital letter laced headlines are such a lazy part of contemporary "journalism". 

The increasing sophistication of the hackers, whether Russian-inspired or not, has resulted in a steady trickle of information becoming a torrent. After the relatively filleted release of data in the so-called "Panama Papers", the data release of the "Paradise Papers" is even larger.  Of course, just natural curiosity dictates that the off-shore ownership, or even just "ownership", of assets is of general public interest.  Celebrities, from the Royal family to the cast of Mrs Brown's Boys, are …