The future’s bright…the future’s orange
A personal view of Conference 2011: I walked away from conference on Wednesday with that bloody annoying mobile phone company’s strap-line in my head. I certainly didn’t expect that when I headed out on Saturday.
In fact to be frank, for the first couple of days of conference I confess that I thought it was more grey than orange. Dreary grey Brummie clouds hung menacingly over a huge ugly grey conference building that seemed packed to the rafters with earnest young men and women in grey suits. I have never seen so many corporates at a Lib Dem conference. Welcome to power and influence I suppose. Even the mood was pretty grey. I thought at first it was gloom and despair (or was that just Vince’s speech!). But actually it was more steely than gloomy, more resolute than resigned. But you could almost feel the burden of power weighing heavily on the party’s shoulders.
So….a grey, dull conference. But dull is good. Dull means no reckless, immature muscle-flexing from conference played out for all the nation to witness. Dull means no leadership humiliations. No pictures of 2000 or so voting passes held up high. No hurried press calls to “explain” what the hell just happened. Dull is good.
It was father funny to see so many media types scratching their heads and tearing up their scripts. Lib Dem conference all serious
and grown up. With conference refusing to play ball, there was just the the danger that some journalists might actually have to leave the comfort of the bar/media centre and go do some proper journalism around the place. Perish the thought.
Actually conference was not as grey as it first looked. It was also very yellow. I was struck by the conference hall – didn’t it look very, very yellow compared to last year where we saw much more blue? Doubtless this is all part of the “distinctiveness” strategy. And what about that fabulous dress Miriam turned out in on the last day?
It was also very very orange. Never have I met so many economic liberals in the bar, in the fringes, in the conference hall itself. I don’t know how many have always been there keeping a low profile and how many were new. Some were definitely new . They were university students, graduates, first jobbers, newbies to conference. They get liberalism; they are internationalists; they stand up for civil liberties; and yes they are orange bookers. They are definitively NOT Tories. Some were clearly old guard – some even had beards! They had long thought that liberalism had been neglected by the party. Too many years in opposition had allowed us to get flabby – promise spend on everyone and everything. That policy was being driven by a small highly organised minority that had over the years actually got out of kilter ith the mainstream of the party….
But every political party has it’s factions. Factions are good. They expose weak arguments , encourage the generation of ideas, test and often improve ideas. And you see this nowhere else like you see at conference. On line, behind the anonymity of the pc, people can be hideously rude. Vicious even. You only have to have read the comments on the Liberal Vision blog to see how much anger and bile we have been subjected to. At conference – and especially at this conference we saw the factions of the party talking to one another, laughing with each other, challenging each other, and agreeing with other. I know the media don’t like that – maybe some party members won’t like it either… but from the sharp end i saw it happen…
So the party has grown up. The conference was mature. The factions more engaged with one another. I guess when times are tough and the stakes get raised you pull together. I certainly hope so.
Sad to say howeve
r – I do not think that I can say the same for some of the party’s leading lights. Yes I get the need for us to be distinctive. I understand the urge to show at every opportunity that we are not “Tory patsies” . But there is a fine line between being “distinctive” and being destructive. And that was a line several senior MPs crossed. I doubt it was intentional. I could be generous and say that they were simply playing to the gallery. I could be harsh and say they had one eye on the next leadership challenge. I certainly don’t buy the idea that this was co-ordinated. But the outcome was that for a while the conference descended into a cacophony of increasingly vitriolic anti-Tory rhetoric. The Tories had “tainted us” and their political tactics were “evil”. (Farron). They were “too city dominated” and the Conservative Right were the “descendants of those who sent children up chimneys” (Cable) or Tea Party extremists “slavering” to cut taxes for the rich (Huhne). I was particularly sad to see two of our senior Government ministers leading this unseemly assault. What were they thinking?
It was a sign of the maturity of the conference that this did not go down as well as you might expect. Yes, conference had enjoyed the bloody spectacle at the time. But in the bar the talk was definitely NOT about how great this all was. Many of those you might expect to be relishing the Tory bashing were shaking their heads. There was genuine concern. “It’s gone to far”…”I’ve got to work the the Tory councillors next week…. ” Why aren’t we giving Balls or Milliband a kicking?”… “It looks so crap on TV” … “How can he go back into cabinet after saying that?”…. well you know its gone too far when Shirley Williams calls time on the Tory bashing.
So praise be that come Wednesday, Nick gave possibly his best speech at conference since becoming leader. Guns blazing. Fire in his belly and a gleam in his eye. His closing speech to conference was a masterclass in the right way to get across the party’s distinctiveness. Talk about what you have done, what you want to do and (most importantly) tell people why you are doing it. Some of our critics called the speech lean. I call it perfectly measured. It was a serious speech, but a passionate one. . Rarely have I seen the conference react so warmly to him.
There were two elements of his speech that were particularly revealing about where Nick is taking the party. And it is good news for all of us. Firstly I don’t recall having ever heard the word “liberal” used more in any speech at our conference. He talked of our “liberal spirit“ and “liberal values” of “a liberal nation” and a “liberal society” . I confess I gave a tiny cheer (in my head – not out loud of course) on each and every one of the 19 times he used the word.
Secondly, he used the word “Labour” 13 times… And what he says tells us a lot….
“Another term of Labour would have been a disaster for our economy. So don’t for a moment let Labour get away with it. Don’t forget the chaos and fear of 2008. And never, ever trust Labour with our economy again”
Nick was on top form on Wednesday. He has put liberalism front and centre of our party and made Labour the focus of his scorn (ruling out any chance of a LibLab pact) and got a standing ovation in the process. This does not surprise me. We should be concerned that David Cameron wants the liberal badge for himself. And we should never ever let him have it. It’s ours. So when our leader sends out a very clear signal that he will defend it come what may, we should applaud. We should also remember how much we hated the Labour party in power. The money they spent, the public sector ballooning out of all reasonable size, the pensions they stole, the chronically unfair education system they left us. Of course we should applaud when our leader says “never,ever trust Labour with our economy again”. Damn right.
The party walking out of conference on Wednesday had the hint of a spring in its step. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that we were collectively skipping our way down to New Street Station. But we have got through a hideous year. We had a sober, grown up and uniting conference – with a clear shift back towards the centre ground – the best place for this party to be. The future is definitely looking a tiny bit brighter and a lot more orange….
September 25th, 2011 at 9:34 am
I agree with you on the Tory bashing – I’d rather we spent our goodwill credits on getting policies through rather than throwing insults. The thing is, wasn’t Nick’s attacks on Militant just as bad? Ed has his flaws but I think he’s genuinely trying to push his party in a more liberal direction. Also, should we be lucky enough to get another hung parliament, we want options with both parties. If Labour were poised to deliver us a better agreement but it was made impossible due to MPs on both sides having burned too many bridges then that would be VERY frustrating!
September 25th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
The fact that we attacked Labour heavily (and with good justification) does not mean that we have ruled out working with them in future – and I’m sure Nick would not intend to rule out such an option either. But since the election Labour under Ed Miliband has lurched into fantasy land on the economy – refusing to acknowledge the large part they played in getting us into the mess we’re in, refusing to acknowledge how desparate the situation is now and most importantly failing to offer any credible alternative to the painful decisions the coalition is having to take. Ed I’m afraid is a weak leader who doesn’t seem to have the courage to take on the unions or commit Labour to any difficult policy decisions. He and they prefer the easy route of fantasy economics, backed up by shrill attacks on us and personal abuse of Nick in particular. Hopefully they will grow out of this – until they do, we shouldn’t go near them with a bargepole.
September 25th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
I’m not against criticisms of Labour. Their new policy on tuition fees, for example, is plain daft. Tim Farron made a few cracks at their expense, accusing them of being incompetent.
The thing is, Nick seemed to go further saying that they should never be trusted with the economy again. That’s more than attacking, that’s almost a declaration of emnity.
You’re right that it doesn’t mean Nick Clegg has ruled out working with them ever, but it certainly burns bridges that would be necessary for a successful coalition in the future.
September 25th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Hey Daniel – Thanks for taking time to give me your thoughts.
Yous say ” Weren’t Nick Cleggs comments about Labour just as bad?” and that Nick has burnt bridges with Labour..
I dont agree that Nicks comments were just as bad.. and I dont agree that Nick has burnt the bridges.. Labour burnt them… There are no bridges to burn.
Let me explain why I say that…
1. Nicks speech provided some balance to what was otherwise an almost hysterical and unseemly attack on our coalition partners from some of our most senior party members. Tim, Vince Chris and others almost made it a necessity if we were to not have the media hounding us for the next 6 months about “divorce”.
2. Again I dont know but if i were advising Nick I would have said that the anti-tory attack from the Lib Dem leading lights – coming at a time when the markets were wobbling horribly – might well have sent a disastrous message to the city. Nick was right to attck Labour if for no other reason than to send a coded message to the markets that the coalition was secure… I am now almost beatifying Nick – but I think it was the right message on Wednesday if only to the markets.
3. Lets ignore Labour’s near-crimnal attempt to buy the last general election with obscene levels of spending on the public sector and its dessimation of civil liberties and so forth ..on a pure political level Ed Miliband personally prevented Labour from engaging in the Yes to AV campaign…cynically because his advisors believed it would cause a break in the coalition… He even went on the attack against Nick and refused to appear on the same platform.. so bridges have already been burnt. He played politics on AV and Lib Dems should not forgive him on that one.
4. Ed Miliband is NOT trying to move the party in a more liberal direction… He is as far to the left of all parties as you can imagine and then some.. We should not be taken in by his apparent liberalism. His reform of the party is all mirrors and glass and his actions all spin.. .
5. To imagine that Gordon Brown was some loan mad beast is to misunderstand the power and influence that the two Eds had in the Labour Government… they have not changed the beast – just the face… We should be very wary . That was Nick;s message and he spot on..
If there is a coalition I cannot see how on earth it will be with Labour…The Conservative leadership and the Lib Dem leadership are trying – under difficult circs to save the UK economy.. all Ed Miliband is trying to do is derail and destabilise it all. When Labour grows up and wants to play with the grown up we might be able to think about building new bridges.. but not until then.
September 25th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
I was glad to see the attacks on Labour, whose policies were entirely aimed at creating a client state of vested interests across all wealth boundaries: from tobacco companies to welfare-dependents. Labour is a bit like a cat: it needs its face rubbing in its mess so it won’t do it again. Certainly, those on the left who seem to be operating on false pemices ought to have it spelt out to them how untenable their positions are.
Milliband himself seems rudderless: he prefaced the Purple book, he’s endorced Blue Labour, his campaign office is littered with opinion poll returns… thought it was rather rich of him to call on David Cameron for leadership on the economy today.
September 25th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Cheers for the reply.
Your first two points claim that Nick’s attacks on Labour were a balance for the attacks on the Tories. That’s fair enough – like you said, balance was necessary.
But if we’re going to criticise attacks on the Tories, shouldn’t we give attacks on Labour the same treatment?
Your points 3-5 was more about your own criticisms of the Labour Party. It’s clear that you prefer the Tory Party to the Labour Party, which is fair enough – I’ll confess to preferring Labour to the Tories and we’re both entitled to our opinions here.
Thing is though, whichever party we like the least, we still can’t be holding double standards on treatment. Our attacks on our coalition partners went beyond constructive and so did Nick’s. We need to find a balance between being critical and being “nasty”.
I think it’s more constructive to attack our opponents’ policies rather than personalities. That way we can stand up against a policy we don’t agree with while minimising the chances of a personal conflict that’ll prevent us from working together in future. I mean to hold this same standard for both parties.
September 25th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
With Ed, I’ll defend him a little with the saying “Never put down to bad intentions what can be better explained by incompetence”
I personally think that he has the best intentions but isn’t strong enough to lead his party so often ends up trying to appease their more reactionary wings. I had high hopes for him when he was first elected but this latest tuition fee announcement rounds up a year of disappointment.
Nevertheless, I still think the party should avoid getting in to “Yaaah Booo!” mode with them, if nothing else because it suits the Labour Party for us to behave like that. Labour have always thrived best as the “anti-Tory” Party. They like a simple battle versus their natural enemies. We complicate things by espousing a more moderate position inbetween.
Tribalists baited Nick at the beginning of the coalition and I think by getting drawn in to the point scoring he fell in to their trap. Labour got into their comfortable “Us Vs Tories” territory and this has played to their advantage.
I think that no matter who our opponents are we need to rise above the childishness, which is what this article actually expressed really nicely.
My point that we should treat Nick’s attacks on Miliband the same as our other attacks on the Tories was a small one really.
September 26th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Daniel – OK I hear you… I agree that we should avoid what vince cable described as “punch and judy politics” whenever possible…. it doesn’t go down well with the voters and is rather a poor way of putting across our own case…
my point was simply that I think that the sheer number of attacks on the Tories from such senior party figures kind of left nick with with no option but rebalance the assault… imagine the media analysis if Nick had NOT given (a rather small) dig at the what is afterall the OPPOSITION… it really would have been all about what he didn’t say about the opposition….
Had it just have been Simon Hughes, or just Tim Farron swiping at our partners in Government I think it could have been ignored/brushed aside … but when Lib Dem MINISTERS weighed in too… well you saw the coverage as well as I did – it was just too much – they should have stuck to achievements and plans for the future…
So I wont treat Nick’s attack on Labour the same as our other attacks on Tories.. as I say I think he had no option given what his collegues in Government had said..
September 27th, 2011 at 12:39 am
Okay.
Fair enough – sounds like we’re agreed.
Although we wouldn’t normally endorse such attacks, Nick had to balance what was said by other ministers. Besides, the Eds seem determined to use their conference to try and prove him right… :s
Someone should have a word with Huhne.
Whenever he announces what he’s achieving in government he comes across like a hero, but whenever he tries to criticise the Tories it NEVER comes out right. Even when he’s right (like in the AV referendum) it still doesn’t help. He does more for our liberal identity by working with the Tories to push our policies through than he does by bitching about them!
September 27th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
hey Daniel. spent most of day sorting LV website that was causing PCs to crash (no wise cracks just as we get to be friends!) – so was delighted to catch up this evening and see your last post. really appreciate it. We can agree to disagree on some things..because WE KNOW as Lib Dems we agree on most things. Am now having glass of wine and toasting you.