Why the LibDems screwed us
I was never particularly interested in politics, it just wasn't a big thing in our house. As a teenager I think I leaned slightly to the left though I'd never have been able to explain why. It's embarrassing to admit, but it wasn't even British politics that I first became interested in, it was American. I became a fan of The West Wing and it was through Josh and Toby and CJ that I learned about the political process. I know the show was idealised (certainly no real life Republican seems as accommodating and rational as those on the show) but I was hooked. I watched the results of the Bush/Gore election and a few years later I saw Stephen Colbert do what no political analyst or journalist seemed capable of doing and take Bush to task for the failure of his presidency. US politics was incredibly interesting and incredibly important. They were the world's last superpower and what they did affected everyone. The UK political scene paled in comparison.
Despite my general apathy, I've voted pretty much every chance I got. Most of the time has was via proxy as I've was studying away from home (sometimes outside the country). My proxy (my mum) has tried to reflect my views as best as possible and I think I've largely voted Green and LibDem. I'd be a perfect Green Party member were it not for their opposition to nuclear energy and GM crops and it was only at the last election that they changed their stance on alternative medicine. While this suggests they're becoming more evidence-based in their policies, only time will tell.
But as a (seemingly perennial) student, my heart was really with the LibDems. I never really paid that much attention to them, or any of the parties really, but it seemed from what little I saw that they were the party for me. The Tories seemed to care only for money and business, Labour seemed a bit too 'leftie' (back when I thought this was a bad word). The LibDems were moderate, the best of both worlds. They thought society should provide a safety net but after that it was up to you. They interfered only when and where necessary and they seemed to care about students. I have no idea, in hindsight, if any of this was ever true, but this is opinion I'd formed.
One of the reasons the LibDems appealed to me was their staunch objection to tuition fees. I'm long past the point in my student career where this matters but it's still extremely important to me. Higher education should be, as far as I'm concerned, based on academic ability not financial ability. If we want a strong economy then we need highly skilled people and preventing talented people from obtaining qualifications simply because they can't afford it is not just wrong at a gut-instinct level, it's stupid too.
So you can imagine my joy when, in 2010, the LibDems looked like they might at long last have a chance to govern. At times my idealism ran away with itself and I dreamt that they might actually be able to form a government but I hoped, at the very least, they'd be able to form a coalition with one of the other parties and be a moderating influence, a stabilising force, a salve against their radical left or right flanks. Nick Clegg seemed to be a voice of reason in the debates (or at least the bits I watched) and I was impressed that we seemed to have a leader who actually seemed leaderlike at a time when he might actually get a chance to do some proper leading. Exciting times . . .
The election came and went and a Coalition was formed. I wasn't scared at this idea, having lived in New Zealand for a few years where coalitions were the norm rather than the exception. This would be fine, I thought. The LibDems can restrain the crueller tendencies of the Tories and we can get out of this recession and back to the good times. They'll use their power to get a few things they want in return for a few moderate concessions to the Tories.
Then reality hit.
One of the first parliamentary votes of the government was on the "Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010", more commonly known as the Tuition Fees bill. Now was the time for the LibDems to show their worth, to show that they were a full coalition partner and vote against this bill. This bill that went against their manifesto promise to "scrap unfair tuition fees", a bill they claimed would be a "disaster" for students, a bill that went against everything they and their members held dear. But instead of holding firm to their manifesto promises they caved. Twenty-one went against the new party line and voted against but 27, including Clegg and the other ministers, all voted for it.
It was at that moment my allegiance was lost. How could they do this? How could they turn so quickly? Was the merest whiff of power enough to turn them into amoral cowards? It seemed so. The complete failure of the AV vote Yes campaign to even effectively counter the blatant lies from the No camp sealed their fate. The LibDems were a lame duck party. It's the only reason I can think they've kept the Coalition going this long: they know at the next election they'll sink without a trace and aren't willing to let that time come any sooner than they need to. The Conversatives are fine with this arrangement because everything they do tars the LibDems and means they only have to fight against Labour in a proper two-horse race.
So that's what went wrong but why did it go wrong? Why did the LibDems say 'to hell with the manifesto' and screw over a key demographic so quickly and so comprehensively? Were they just so stunned at actually getting in power they lost all sense of free will? Or was there something more sinister at work? I wish it was the former but it turns out it's actually the latter. Let me introduce you to the Orange Bookers.
The Orange Book is, in my opinion, the cause of the problems. It's received very little press and is largely unknown outside the LibDem party faithful and those particularly interested in the minutiae of politics. It was written in 2004 by prominent members of the party and, while it claims to be 'liberal' is clearly centrist (if not even a bit to the right). It focuses on economic liberalism, which opposes government intervention in the economy, despite being counter to the founding principles of the party.
It is, according to of one of its editors, largely responsible for the Coalition:
These policy changes were never properly publicised or scrutinised, despite being agreed on by the major party players including Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Chris Hune. These policies were in large part responsible for the Coalition being formed and have allowed the Conservatives to run roughshod over liberal ideals. Yet the Conservatives have not done this with the objection of the Orange Bookers, they've done it with their full agreement.
In voting for the LibDems at the last election we were not voting for the party as we knew it, we were instead voting for a small faction of economic 'liberalists' that had taken over the leadership. It was a silent coup. The Conservatives knew this which is why they were willing to form the coalition. For those of us on the outside we thought we were getting a moderating influence when, in fact, we were getting cheerleaders for the 'reforms' the Tories set out to make. The LibDems didn't screw us after the election, they screwed us before without us even realising. The takeover of the party's principles by the 'centrist' Orange Bookers led to the inevitable betrayal many felt.
Nick Clegg recently said that he expects another five years in power in part due to the role they've played in the economic recovery. Leaving aside the fact that for many this 'economic recovery' is largely mythical, I don't know whether he's just trying to keep a happy face or whether he seriously believes his deluded statements but I know very few LibDem voters who are going to give them their vote again. The polling figures confirm this. YouGov polls asking voter intentions show the LibDems trailing at around 10%, a position they've held since 2011, and a 20% drop from their high of 31% just before the general election.
It's hard to know what can be done. The core of the Liberal Democrat party has been destroyed from the inside and it's been replaced with Tory-lite. Until the truth of what has happened to the party is widely known I don't see anything changing. People largely see the LibDems as the Conservative's lapdog to do with as they please. They don't realise that the LibDems aren't being forced to go against their principles in the name of political expediency at all. They are following their principle, it's just ones they've largely hidden from the electorate.
We need disaffected voters to explain to the LibDems exactly why they've lost their vote. For my part, it's not just about the student fees any more. It's about lying to me. Lying through omission, maybe, by lying all the same. You simply cannot change the core principles of your party without telling the voters, especially not when you've been given your first ever real chance of power. You were supposed to be better than that. Until you return to your principles and become liberal in your actions as well as your rhetoric you will not be getting my vote. I would rather spoil my ballot.
Despite my general apathy, I've voted pretty much every chance I got. Most of the time has was via proxy as I've was studying away from home (sometimes outside the country). My proxy (my mum) has tried to reflect my views as best as possible and I think I've largely voted Green and LibDem. I'd be a perfect Green Party member were it not for their opposition to nuclear energy and GM crops and it was only at the last election that they changed their stance on alternative medicine. While this suggests they're becoming more evidence-based in their policies, only time will tell.
But as a (seemingly perennial) student, my heart was really with the LibDems. I never really paid that much attention to them, or any of the parties really, but it seemed from what little I saw that they were the party for me. The Tories seemed to care only for money and business, Labour seemed a bit too 'leftie' (back when I thought this was a bad word). The LibDems were moderate, the best of both worlds. They thought society should provide a safety net but after that it was up to you. They interfered only when and where necessary and they seemed to care about students. I have no idea, in hindsight, if any of this was ever true, but this is opinion I'd formed.
One of the reasons the LibDems appealed to me was their staunch objection to tuition fees. I'm long past the point in my student career where this matters but it's still extremely important to me. Higher education should be, as far as I'm concerned, based on academic ability not financial ability. If we want a strong economy then we need highly skilled people and preventing talented people from obtaining qualifications simply because they can't afford it is not just wrong at a gut-instinct level, it's stupid too.
So you can imagine my joy when, in 2010, the LibDems looked like they might at long last have a chance to govern. At times my idealism ran away with itself and I dreamt that they might actually be able to form a government but I hoped, at the very least, they'd be able to form a coalition with one of the other parties and be a moderating influence, a stabilising force, a salve against their radical left or right flanks. Nick Clegg seemed to be a voice of reason in the debates (or at least the bits I watched) and I was impressed that we seemed to have a leader who actually seemed leaderlike at a time when he might actually get a chance to do some proper leading. Exciting times . . .
The election came and went and a Coalition was formed. I wasn't scared at this idea, having lived in New Zealand for a few years where coalitions were the norm rather than the exception. This would be fine, I thought. The LibDems can restrain the crueller tendencies of the Tories and we can get out of this recession and back to the good times. They'll use their power to get a few things they want in return for a few moderate concessions to the Tories.
Then reality hit.
One of the first parliamentary votes of the government was on the "Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010", more commonly known as the Tuition Fees bill. Now was the time for the LibDems to show their worth, to show that they were a full coalition partner and vote against this bill. This bill that went against their manifesto promise to "scrap unfair tuition fees", a bill they claimed would be a "disaster" for students, a bill that went against everything they and their members held dear. But instead of holding firm to their manifesto promises they caved. Twenty-one went against the new party line and voted against but 27, including Clegg and the other ministers, all voted for it.
It was at that moment my allegiance was lost. How could they do this? How could they turn so quickly? Was the merest whiff of power enough to turn them into amoral cowards? It seemed so. The complete failure of the AV vote Yes campaign to even effectively counter the blatant lies from the No camp sealed their fate. The LibDems were a lame duck party. It's the only reason I can think they've kept the Coalition going this long: they know at the next election they'll sink without a trace and aren't willing to let that time come any sooner than they need to. The Conversatives are fine with this arrangement because everything they do tars the LibDems and means they only have to fight against Labour in a proper two-horse race.
So that's what went wrong but why did it go wrong? Why did the LibDems say 'to hell with the manifesto' and screw over a key demographic so quickly and so comprehensively? Were they just so stunned at actually getting in power they lost all sense of free will? Or was there something more sinister at work? I wish it was the former but it turns out it's actually the latter. Let me introduce you to the Orange Bookers.
The Orange Book is, in my opinion, the cause of the problems. It's received very little press and is largely unknown outside the LibDem party faithful and those particularly interested in the minutiae of politics. It was written in 2004 by prominent members of the party and, while it claims to be 'liberal' is clearly centrist (if not even a bit to the right). It focuses on economic liberalism, which opposes government intervention in the economy, despite being counter to the founding principles of the party.
It is, according to of one of its editors, largely responsible for the Coalition:
Without the policy changes which the book and its authors anticipated, it is much more difficult to imagine the governing Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition being formed and sustained.
These policy changes were never properly publicised or scrutinised, despite being agreed on by the major party players including Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Chris Hune. These policies were in large part responsible for the Coalition being formed and have allowed the Conservatives to run roughshod over liberal ideals. Yet the Conservatives have not done this with the objection of the Orange Bookers, they've done it with their full agreement.
In voting for the LibDems at the last election we were not voting for the party as we knew it, we were instead voting for a small faction of economic 'liberalists' that had taken over the leadership. It was a silent coup. The Conservatives knew this which is why they were willing to form the coalition. For those of us on the outside we thought we were getting a moderating influence when, in fact, we were getting cheerleaders for the 'reforms' the Tories set out to make. The LibDems didn't screw us after the election, they screwed us before without us even realising. The takeover of the party's principles by the 'centrist' Orange Bookers led to the inevitable betrayal many felt.
Nick Clegg recently said that he expects another five years in power in part due to the role they've played in the economic recovery. Leaving aside the fact that for many this 'economic recovery' is largely mythical, I don't know whether he's just trying to keep a happy face or whether he seriously believes his deluded statements but I know very few LibDem voters who are going to give them their vote again. The polling figures confirm this. YouGov polls asking voter intentions show the LibDems trailing at around 10%, a position they've held since 2011, and a 20% drop from their high of 31% just before the general election.
It's hard to know what can be done. The core of the Liberal Democrat party has been destroyed from the inside and it's been replaced with Tory-lite. Until the truth of what has happened to the party is widely known I don't see anything changing. People largely see the LibDems as the Conservative's lapdog to do with as they please. They don't realise that the LibDems aren't being forced to go against their principles in the name of political expediency at all. They are following their principle, it's just ones they've largely hidden from the electorate.
We need disaffected voters to explain to the LibDems exactly why they've lost their vote. For my part, it's not just about the student fees any more. It's about lying to me. Lying through omission, maybe, by lying all the same. You simply cannot change the core principles of your party without telling the voters, especially not when you've been given your first ever real chance of power. You were supposed to be better than that. Until you return to your principles and become liberal in your actions as well as your rhetoric you will not be getting my vote. I would rather spoil my ballot.
Comments