The Collected Stephen Tall's Total Politics Columns (2013-14)

8/10/2019 The Collected Stephen Tall's Total Politics Columns (2013-14)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-collected-stephen-talls-total-politics-columns-2013-14 1/14

The Collected Stephen Tall’s‘The Underdog’ columns

for Total Politics magazine

October 2013 - December 2014



October 2013:The Lib Dems are stil l suf fering thehangover-from-hell that we woke upto on the morning of 7 May 2010by Stephen Tall on August 30, 2013

Lib Dem conferences used to be nice and simple. A

couple of thousand freakishly zealous activists wouldschlep off to the seaside, engage in five days’ ear-nest debates ignored by the media barring specula-tion about that year’s leadership crisis, and agree aload of policy that made us feel good but whichstood absolutely no chance of troubling the statutebooks. We’d then return home, probably a bit toopiously pleased with ourselves, ready to burn someshoe leather pushing more Focus leaflets throughletterboxes to convert the good folk of Localsville toour cause.

Then we did something that no political party withambitions to growing its popularity should ever do.We entered government. Life is no longer so niceand simple as it was in opposition. (Nigel Faragetake note.) Even worse, we entered into a coalitiongovernment. With the Tories. It’s one thing to takeresponsibility for your own mistakes (*cough* tuitionfees), quite another to have to take responsibility fortheirs as well (*cough* bedroom tax).

My party’s still suffering the hangover-from-hell thatwe woke up to on the morning of 7 May 2010. Untilthen we had been able to maintain a pretence, atleast for our own benefit, that we would form a majority government and introduce our manifestowholesale. And if that didn’t happen in one boundwe’d wangle it so that electoral reform guaranteedus our fair share of MPs the election after. The dous-ing of Cleggmania followed by the crushing AV refer-endum defeat was a double whammy. Our brighthope of changing the face of British politics hasgiven way to the grim reality that 2015 will be whatparty president Tim Farron has termed a “survivalelection”.

It’s all much easier for the Tories. Sure, they’ve hadto compromise in government: “poor old David Cam-eron is governing with one hand tied behind hisback,” laments Peter Bone, the comedy caricatureTory MP. But they can credibly pitch to the voters atthe next election what an unshackled Tory govern-ment would do. The Lib Dems, though, face the un-appetising prospect of an election campaign domi-nated by journalists asking of each of our pledges,“But do you actually mean this one? Is it a red line oris it up for grabs?”

As the interminable hangover lingers, Lib Dems aregetting more grumpy with each other. Nick Cleggaccuses activists of “hankering for the comfort blan-ket of national opposition” – a pretty ungracious re-sponse to a party which has stuck by him and the

Coalition even as hundreds of our councillors arescythed at successive local elections through nofault of their own. Yet Clegg and his team feel theyget scant credit from activists for constantly battlingto thwart Tory efforts to sneak through illiberal meas-ures on civil liberties and immigration within a Coali-tion in which they’re out-numbered 5-to-1.

In truth, both the leadership and activists are comingto terms with having less power in government thanthey would like. That feeling of impotence is turninginto a destructive passive-aggressiveness againsteach other. It’s been on simmer for months, butwe’re likely to see it bubbling over when the partymeets in Glasgow this month. The big debate willfocus on the economy, an issue the leadership craft-ily dodged discussing when the Lib Dem conferencelast met in March when a triple dip recession ap-peared possible. But this time, with even the doubledip erased from the history books and the Britisheconomy picking up pace, the leadership – afforcedby the perennially popular Vince Cable – will be con-fident of victory for a motion which is broadly suppor-tive of the Government’s record. At least I assumethey must be because Nick Clegg’s been lined up asthe concluding speaker.

That doesn’t mean the leadership will emerge un-scathed. Lib Dem members are, after all, a feistilyindependent bunch: they will inflict at least onebloody nose on Nick, partly on the principle of theissue (whichever one it is) and partly to show theycan. There are plenty of potential flare-ups. For ex-

ample, there’s a proposal to drop the party’s opposi-tion to tuition fees (yes, in spite of everything, the LibDems are still officially against them, though I don’tknow anyone who thinks we can seriously put that tothe voters again). Or there’s the cautious welcomeoffered to well-regulated fracking. Emergency mo-tions on the detention of David Miranda or Britishintervention in Syria, for instance, could also throw acurve-ball.

The most likely defeat, however, will be on Danny Alexander’s half-hearted proposal to oppose both

like-for-like Trident replacement and nuclear disar-mament and instead triangulate a middle-way of“taking a couple of steps down the ‘nuclear ladder’ ofcapabilities” (as the party has excruciatingly ex-plained it). Desperate to find a compromise that willplease everyone, we have put forward a policy thatpleases almost no-one. But the plain fact is that,unless and until we can persuade either Labour orthe Tories to adopt our approach, whatever confer-ence decides won’t matter a jot. In fact, it’ll be justlike the old days.

Available online at:http://stephentall.org/2013/08/30/my-total-politics-column-the-lib-dems-are-still-suffering-the-hangover-from-hell-that-we-woke-up-to-on-the-morning-of-7-may-2010/#sthash.5Osh3wkl.dpuf



November 2013:The Lib Dem reshuff le was male,pale and stale – and l ikely to remainsoby Stephen Tall on October 13, 2013

It’s easy to see why party leaders don’t like reshuf-

fles. What seems like the moment of ultimate power,when you hold in the palm of your hand the destiniesof your colleagues, more often triggers a chain reac-tion of unintended consequences. When Nick Cleggelbowed aside Scottish secretary Michael Moore,whose self-effacing, sweet reason out-smarted AlexSalmond in the Edinburgh Agreement negotiations, itwas because he reckoned his replacement, the gen-ially feisty Alistair Carmichael, would be a bettermatch for the SNP leader in next year’s independ-ence campaign.

It wasn’t just Mr Moore’s feathers which were ruffledby his ruthless despatch; so too were those of SirMenzies Campbell, who looked on the now ex-Scottish secretary as his protégé. It’s probably not acoincidence that Sir Ming, whose formidable wifeElspeth had given strong hints he’d re-stand for asixth term in Fife North East in 2015, decided thatsame week to announce his retirement. His 9,048majority may look healthy on paper, but it means theScottish party’s meagre resources will now have tobe stretched even thinner to defend a seat whichwould otherwise have been thought rock solid.

Another incident is perhaps more revealing of howthe best laid schemes ‘gang aft agley’. Last year,Nick Harvey was briskly dismissed as armed forcesminister by the Deputy Prime Minister, who guiltilygave him a knighthood to make up for it. This year,Sir Nick Harvey was offered re-entry into govern-ment with the post of Lib Dem chief whip, vacantthanks to Alistair Carmichael’s elevation. But, in-stead of being grateful, Sir Nick turned plain old MrClegg down. The Lib Dem leader was forced insteadto promote old-hand Don Foster (who famously van-quished Chris Patten in Bath in 1992 to the sound of

cheers from jubilant Lib Dems and right-wing Toriesalike). It’s hard to square this same-old-names merry-go-round with Mr Clegg’s declared aim of “provid[ing] the opportunity for as many in our ranks as pos-sible to contribute their skills to Ministerial office”.

That choice quote is from his exchange of letterswith another of the evictees, home office ministerJeremy Browne. Regarded as a Coalition loyalistand the party’s Über-Orange Booker, his was thesurprise exit of the reshuffle. I asked one Cleggitewhy he’d been booted out: “He was given the

chance to put a liberal imprint on the Home Office. Ask yourself if he took that opportunity,” came thepointed reply. Well, quite. The issue which hascaused Mr Clegg most grief in the past year hasbeen civil liberties. Whether it was the ‘snooper’scharter’, the extension of ‘secret courts’, the “go

home” illegal immigrant vans, or the arrest of DavidMiranda, the perception has taken root in the partythat Lib Dem ministers have too often caved-in toTheresa May’s authoritarian demands.

In a recent survey of party members by LibDem-Voice, Mr Browne recorded the worst net popularityrating (-18%) of any Lib Dem minister since the Coa-

lition was formed. Mr Clegg’s verdict seems scarcelyto have been any warmer. His decision to substitutethe thrusting Mr Browne with the rough-hewn Nor-man Baker was calculated, and a little bit brilliant. Ithas, of course, upset ultra-Blairite pundits like JohnRentoul and David Aaronovitch who regard as dottyMr Baker’s investigations into the death of Dr DavidKelly. But it means the Lib Dems now have in theHome Office a minister who is a libertarian by in-stinct, licensed by his leader to speak out the nexttime Mrs May or her officials decide to make a unilat-eral grab for increased security powers. In case youwere wondering, Mr Baker’s net popularity ratingamong Lib Dem members was +37%. If he does the job as Nick Clegg hopes he will, it’ll soon be higher.

Have you noticed what all the names mentionedabove have in common? Yes, they’re all men.(They’re also all white and, let’s be kind, at leastmiddle-aged.) Nick Clegg promoted only one womanto become a minister, Susan Kramer at Transport,and she was drafted in from the House of Lords. It’sshaming that the party which proudly proclaims itsbelief in equality has never yet appointed a femalecabinet minister. Perhaps this omission will be recti-

fied should Jo Swinson, about to go on maternityleave, be made Scottish secretary if (when?) nextyear’s referendum delivers a ‘No’. But by then therewill be just a few months of the parliament left, and itwould be little more than a face-saving exercise.

The key problem is the lack of women Lib Dem MPs: just seven out of the 57 elected in 2010. Worryingly,only two of these – Jenny Willott and Lynne Feather-stone – have anything like healthy majorities, andeven they will face tough battles defending their2005 gains from Labour. It’s true, women have been

selected to defend two of the party’s strongholds(Hazell Grove and Berwick), as well as in two toptargets narrowly lost to the Tories at the last election(Montgomeryshire and Oxford West and Abingdon).But we’ve been here before. At the last election, theLib Dems selected almost as many women (25) intheir top 100 seats as did Labour (27), but were a lotless successful in getting them elected. And whothinks 2015 is going to be any easier for the party?The sad reality is that Nick Clegg’s future reshuffles,whether in government or out, are likely to be just asmale, pale and stale as this one.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2013/10/13/my-total-politics-column-the-lib-dem-reshuffle-was-male-pale-and-stale-and-likely-to-remain-so/#sthash.lzu5kl4L.dpuf



December 2013:Be careful what you wish for. LibDems weren’t in 2010. Will we be in2015?by Stephen Tall on November 11, 2013

Be careful what you wish for. That’s what commen-

tators warned the Lib Dems every time the pollsteased us that a hung parliament might come topass, that we could end up holding the balance ofpower. It’s not the most helpful advice, to be honest. After all, what was our choice in 2010? Turn down aonce-in-a-century opportunity to give government ago and confirm the verdict of the sceptics that we areindeed a wasted vote? No chance. No choice. Wehad to do it. “The British people are the king-makers,” acknowledged Nick Clegg. “The bastards,”he didn’t add but could have.

The Coalition has not been kind to the Lib Dems.Our leader is pilloried and our poll ratings havehalved. One-third of the party membership has goneMissing In Action. We have fewer councillors than atany time since 1984 (and at least then numberswere on the up).

In the circumstances, we might be forgiven for turn-ing round to the voters and saying: “You know what,guys, next time you can’t make up your minds don’tlook to us to break the deadlock. You can just enjoyConservative/Labour minority rule instead. That’sright. See how you like the government being con-stantly held to ransom by Peter Bone and NadineDorries or by Len McClusky’s hand-picked squad ofUnite-sponsored MPs. We tried this ‘compromisingfor the sake of the national interest’ thing and all itbrought us was a load of grief. So we’re going towash our hands of it.”

Yet that isn’t the mood of Lib Dems. At all. Threethings strike me as pretty remarkable features of theLib Dems in Coalition.

First, the unity of our MPs. Not that they’re united in

supporting the Coalition’s policies. Far from it. Infact, there isn’t a single Lib Dem MP who has beenon the backbenches throughout this parliament whohasn’t rebelled at least once. But – and it’s a bigBUT – there has been no whisper of a revolt againstNick Clegg’s leadership. Nor has there been a de-fection to Labour (remember the silly season mediachatter in 2010 that Charles Kennedy was about toswitch sides?), even among those Lib Dem MPsmost likely to lose their seats to them. When SarahTeather declared herself “desolate” at Lib Dem com-plicity in the Coalition’s immigration and welfare poli-

cies she didn’t make her point by jumping ship butby walking the plank, saying she’d stand down as anMP in 2015. Indeed, her most damning line was that“my own party [is] just as afraid of public opinion asthe Labour party”.

The second remarkable thing is this: that those42,000 Lib Dem members who remain have stoodfirm behind remaining within the Coalition and tryingto make it work. Close to 80% continue to support it,according to our latest LibDemVoice survey. Eventhe Social Liberal Forum – an influential activistgroup set up to challenge what they regard as the

leadership’s economically liberal ‘Orange Book’agenda, and which views the Coalition with deepsuspicion – has stopped short of calling for the partyto withdraw from it.

Here’s the third remarkable thing – in spite of every-thing the party has endured within the Coalition,three-quarters of party members want the party tocontinue playing an active part in government after2015. You might expect MPs still to be enamouredby the novelty of ministerial office (either its continu-ing reality or future prospect). But that the poor,bloodied infantry is still prepared to go over-the-topin the hope of advancing the liberal frontier a fewmore yards is pretty admirable/foolhardy* (*deleteaccording to taste).

There is a paradox, though. By a 2:1 majority, moreLib Dem members would prefer Labour as our part-ners to the Conservatives next time. Yet among theparty’s 57 held seats, the Conservatives are in sec-ond place in 38. This means the post-2015 Lib Demparliamentary party is likely to be dominated by MPsin Tory-facing seats (usually with Labour in a distantthird). True, any deal with Labour might allow us to

squeeze their vote further in those areas. But thebigger risk will be Tory-turned-Lib Dem voters return-ing to the fold to get rid of Labour. So if, as ex-pected, we lose a chunk of our current seats to La-bour in 2015 as a result of the Coalition with theConservatives it’s at least as plausible that we’ll thenlose a chunk of those seats that remain to the Toriesin 2020 if we go into coalition with Labour. Talkabout a double whammy.

The party that’s become famous for the success ofits ‘squeeze message’ – “Only the Lib Dems can

beat the Conservatives/Labour* here!” (* delete ac-cording to seat) – could well become the victim ofthe biggest squeeze since the party was all-buteliminated in the 1950s. You know what? We’d bet-ter be careful what we wish for.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2013/11/11/my-total-politics-column-be-careful-what-you-wish-for-lib-dems-werent-in-2010-will-we-be-in-2015/#sthash.UGq3o3eF.dpuf



January 2014:How can the Lib Dems halt theirpolling Groundhog Day?by Stephen Tall on December 9, 2013

Here’s an easy question to start the new year – whatare the Lib Dems currently averaging in the opinion

polls? The answer’s 10 per cent, but the reason it’seasy is because it’s exactly the same as the partywas polling in January 2011, January 2012 andJanuary 2013. Welcome to Lib Dem GroundhogDay. Here’s a harder question – what can the partydo in 2014 that will halt this time-loop?

Searching for some bullish optimism I called TimFarron, the party president known for his good-humoured frankness. How did he rate Lib Demchances in 2014′ s European and local elections, thelast polls before next year’s general election? Hewas realistic – which is a polite way of saying we canexpect another bum year.

The local elections will be fought in the tough terrainof metropolitan councils, where the Lib Dems havesuffered serious collateral damage from the Coali-tion. The party hopes its results have bottomed out,but could find itself ousted from areas such as Man-chester in spite of formidable community campaign-ing by Withington MP John Leech.

And the picture isn’t a lot prettier when we look atthe Euro elections. As Farron pointed out to me, the

party has never done well when the British peopleget to vote on Europe: “Even in 2009,” (when theparty was twice as popular as it is today) “we onlywon in four of out of the 63 seats we then held atWestminster in the Euros.”

That MEPs are elected by proportional representa-tion should offer some protection to the 12-strong LibDem group. The party is keen, rightly, to highlightthat its fortunes are faring much better in our targetseats than in the country as a whole – as the suc-cessful defence in the Eastleigh by-election demon-

strated. However, given the enormous size of theUK’s European constituencies – South East Eng-land, for instance, stretches from Dover to Oxfordtaking in nine counties – the party desperately needsto get out its vote where it has MPs to make up forthe collapse of support elsewhere.

The doomsday scenario is this: the local electionsare dire, while Lib Dem MEPs are wiped clean offthe map with the party trailing in fifth place behindthe Greens. It’s not impossible. Nor is it impossiblethat such an atrocious result would force Nick Cleggto quit – though Lib Dems I’ve spoken to rate thisprospect as the less likely of those two outcomes.

In any case, there is an upside, one that Farron waskeen to stress. In 2014′ s Euro elections the issue of

Europe will dominate in a way it hasn’t done before.Ukip will toot its populist anti-EU, anti-immigrationtune while Tories in the south and Labour in thenorth do their utmost to stop their voters dancing toit. This offers the Lib Dems the chance to occupy adistinctive niche in British politics as ‘The Party of In’.

The party’s internal polling shows this pro-European

message plays well to the 15 per cent of voters whodon’t currently support the Lib Dems but would con-sider doing so. (They also like Nick Clegg, by theway.) If the party can woo even half this group of ‘LibDem considerers’ – what Clegg’s strategy guru RyanCoetzee terms “our market” – between now and May2015, its ratings would climb to 17-18%. That wouldbe good enough to save some 40 to 45 Lib Demseats and give the party real leverage in the event ofa second hung parliament.

This is the logic driving Nick Clegg’s declared intentto stand “smack bang in the liberal centre” – moreresponsible than Labour, more caring than the To-ries. This kind of split-the-difference positioning isunloved by activists – who label it defensive and un-ambitious – yet it’s the only realistic option availableto the Lib Dems. I call it an option, but it isn’t, notreally. It was thrust on us by the voters when theypopped the ‘Cleggmania’ balloon in May 2010 andthen torpedoed electoral reform by rejecting AV ayear later.

The party now has to confront the truth that its onlyroute into government for the forseeable future is in

coalition with either of the two main parties. That in-evitably means compromise, pegging the Lib Demsas the party of moderate, fair-minded pragmatism.Clegg’s embrace of the ‘liberal centre’ is a case ofmaking a virtue from necessity.

And he will use every opportunity possible in 2014 tohammer this home. You want a government that willtackle the deficit but not take an axe to public ser-vices? Then you need the Lib Dems to de-toxify theTories. You want a government that will stick up forthe underdog but not bankrupt the economy? Then

you need the Lib Dems to leaven Labour.

Will it be enough to save not only Nick Clegg’s skinbut the skins of the three dozen Lib Dem MPs at riskif the party stays stuck at 10 per cent? In GroundhogDay, Phil Connors (Bill Murray) re-lives the sameday again and again, and by learning from his mis-takes and his experiences he becomes a better per-son. Eventually (*spoiler alert*) he gets his girl. LibDems will hope to wake up in 2015 to a similarlyhappy ending.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2013/12/09/my-total-politics-column-how-can-the-lib-dems-halt-their-polling-groundhog-day/#sthash.E336vOxw.dpuf



February 2014: A spectre is haunting the Lib Dems— the spectre of wipeoutby Stephen Tall on January 17, 2014

A spectre is haunting the Lib Dems — the spectre ofwipeout. No, I’m not talking about the 2015 general

election (though I’ll come to that), I’m talking aboutthis year’s two sets of elections, both set for 22 May,the locals and the Euros. Do you hear that sound?No, me either: it’s the sound of silence, of Lib Demspinners not talking up the party’s expectations.Here’s why. Both are likely to be bad for the party.

The last time these local council seats in England’stowns and cities were contested was on 6th May,2010: ie, back when we were popular. In fact, theresults that day were pretty disappointing – we madea net loss of 132 councillors and lost control of fourcouncils – though they were overshadowed by themore crushing national disappointment of Cleggma-nia’s failed allure and the nervous excitement of en-tering the first peacetime coalition government.

The party scored 26% in that election. Since then,the Lib Dems have polled 15% (2011), 16% (2012)and 14% (2013) when the public chooses who runstheir town halls. A repeat of that pattern this year willresult in the all-too-familiar defeat of hundreds of LibDem councillors. Our total number of councillors –the foot-soldiers essential in building our support forthe party’s MPs – could dip below 2,000 for the first

time since 1982. Ouch.

That might sound bad for the Lib Dems – but that’sonly because I haven’t yet told you the prognosis forthe party in the European elections. Last time, in2009, the party won 14%, enough to get a decent 11out of 72 MEPs elected. It’s not impossible – if, say,the party’s vote is squeezed down to 6% – that thistime the Lib Dems could finish with not a singleMEP: none, zero, zilch. Ouch again.

Such a result would be especially painful for Nick

Clegg. He is a European to his fingertips: a polyglot,married to a Spaniard, born to a Dutch mother. Hewas inspired to enter politics (by Paddy Ashdown)when working for the European Commission inStrasbourg. His first election victory was as a LibDem MEP in 1999. “The Liberal Democrats seemedso outward looking and forward looking, comparedto the tired, old, introverted politics of Labour and theConservatives. For me, that was it. That’s how Ifound our party,” he explained in his most recentconference speech.

A devout internationalist, Clegg is unabashedlybranding the Lib Dems as ‘The Party of In’. But theprinciple is laced with calculation, too. It offers theLib Dems a distinctive niche, with both Conserva-tives and (to a lesser extent) Labour making Euro-

sceptic noises to fend off the challenge from Ukip,‘The Party of Out’. Internal party polling indicates itfinds favour with the Lib Dem ‘market’ of target vot-ers, the 25% of the public which would currently con-sider voting Lib Dem. And it certainly plays well withthe instinctively pro-European Lib Dem activists,whom Clegg desperately needs to enthuse to get outand sell the party message on the doorstep, no mat-

ter what their concerns with the compromises ofCoalition.

But how will those same activists react to this possi-ble ‘double whammy’ of bad election results? Willthey write them off as the price to be paid for beingin government; or might they turn their fire on theparty leader in the hope of avoiding a similar melt-down in 2015? If you don’t want to know the result,look away now… Clegg will stay as Lib Dem leader.That’s not to say there aren’t some Lib Dems who’dlove to see him stand down in favour of Vince Cable,seen as the acceptable Lib Dem face of coalitionbecause he’s never looked for a moment like he ac-tually enjoys working with the Tories. But they’re notin the majority (and, crucially, they know they’re not).

Clegg’s future has been safe since the Lib Demsheld on at the Eastleigh by-election – it showed MPsand members that “where we work, we win” (a fa-vourite slogan of Stakhanovite activists). Since then,the party has got its head down, buckling downwhere we have MPs and in our top targets – whatparty president Tim Farron has billed the ’75-seat by-election strategy’. As a result, the collapse in Lib

Dem membership – down by one-third since 2010 –seems now to have bottomed out; indeed numbersgrew slightly in 2013. Nick Clegg has also sharp-ened his attacks on the Conservatives, accusingthem of being locked in a “deathly embrace” withUkip, and criticising their “remorseless” assault onwelfare payments to the most vulnerable.

Expect more of both throughout 2014: relentlesscampaigning in the seats we need to win, and stri-dent differentiation from the Conservatives to wooback progressive voters. It might well be enough to

save the party’s skin in 2015, and perhaps even se-cure the Lib Dems another five years in government.

But such a strategy has dangers, too. First, that theLib Dems end up pushed back into defending 50heartland seats with few prospects for growth. Andsecondly, that constant bickering with the Conserva-tives annoys the voters so much that the very idea ofanother coalition becomes toxic. Now that reallywould be a meltdown.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2014/01/17/my-total-politics-column-a-spectre-is-haunting-the-lib-dems-the-spectre-of-wipeout/#sthash.kaHWfglZ.dpuf



March 2014:It’s War! The Lib Dems’ “ enemywithin strategy” shows it’s no longerpeace in our timeby Stephen Tall on February 16, 2014

It’s War! Here’s how Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nick

Clegg, broadcast the news to the nation: “This morn-ing the Lib Dem Ambassador in London handed ourCoalition partners in Government a final Note statingthat, unless we heard from them by 11 o’clock thatthey were prepared at once to withdraw their right-wing agenda, a state of war would exist between us.I have to tell you now that no such undertaking hasbeen received, and that consequently this party is atwar with the Conservatives.”

I’m lying, of course. Nick Clegg is still, officially atany rate, holding on to the piece of paper he has

bearing both the Prime Minister’s name and his own,headed ‘The Coalition: our programme for govern-ment’, which promised peace in our time. But thispolicy of appeasement, which has kept the phoneypeace fragilely intact since May 2010, is fracturing,having served its useful purpose of postponing for afew years the inevitable resumption of hostilities be-tween two old enemies.

Okay, let’s not torture the war analogy any further.This much is clear. We are little more than a yearaway from the general election campaign. It’s in bothCoalition parties’ interests to shout their disagree-ments a little louder. That is why David Cameron ishappy to tell The Spectator “that there’s a good listof things I have put in my little black book that Ihaven’t been able to do which will form the next Torymanifesto.” And it’s why Nick Clegg highlighted in hislast conference speech 16 Tory policies he’s blockedwithin government: “Sometimes compromise andagreement isn’t possible and you just have to sayno.”

It’s what pundits term ‘differentiation’ and suddenlyit’s all the rage. Matthew Oakeshott, the pugnacious

Lib Dem peer who acts as Vince Cable’s paramilitarywing, is delighted at this new-found enthusiasm forpublic spats: “What I think is significant is that we’veseen a string of attacks – almost what I would call anenemy within strategy.”

He cited recent interventions by Nick Clegg, who hasspoken of his frustration at the Tories’ refusal to look“openly, imaginatively” at reforming the drugs laws;by David Laws, who has declared his fury at MichaelGove’s meddling in the supposedly independentschools inspectorate, Ofsted; and by Danny Alexan-

der, who declared that Tory plans to cut the higher-rate of tax below 45p would happen only “over mydead body”. What links all three – Clegg, Laws, Alexander – is that they are the most devout of Coa-lition believers, and seemingly happiest working with

the Tories. If this Lib Dem trinity are now agnostics,does the Lib-Con Coalition even exist any more?

To the more excitable in the Westminster Village,this newly intensified differentiation spells the end(as, it should be noted, did every other previouseruption at the time). In reality, what Oakeshottterms the ‘enemy within strategy’ was always inevi-

table and has long been planned. Nick Clegg’s firststrategy adviser, Richard Reeves, once drew agraph plotting ‘Government unity and strength’against ‘Lib Dem identity’ as two lines, the formergoing down and the latter rising up, between 2010and 2015. We are approaching the point when thetwo lines are as far apart as it’s possible to get.

But what is the ‘Lib Dem identity’ now? To right-wing journalist Fraser Nelson it’s obvious – Clegg is in red-blooded pursuit, he wrote in the Daily Telegraph, of“the people he had given up on: the Left-wingers”,blaming Reeves’ successor, Ryan Coetzee, for thisalleged lurch. Nelson’s assumption is a fundamentalmisunderstanding of the current Lib Dem strategy,as shaped by Coetzee, who has initiated the party’sfirst ever extensive private polling operation of whathe terms the Lib Dem ‘market’ – the 25% of voterswho say they are very likely to vote for the party(10%), or who would at least consider doing so(15%), in 2015.

These 15% of ‘persuadables’ are pretty evenly splitthree ways, between people who are currently Con-servative or Labour voters or who are undecided.

They are the small-l-liberal voters who (for example)like the Lib Dems’ tax-cuts for the low-paid, who arethemselves willing to pay for well-run public services,who are pragmatically pro-European, and who wantto see investment in renewables to protect the envi-ronment. In other words, moderate, progressive cen-trists, who worry that the Tories are too uncaring andthat Labour is too irresponsible.

The party’s slogan for 2015 – ‘Building a strongereconomy and a fairer society’ – is aimed squarely atthese ‘persuadables’. If Clegg succeeds in his mis-

sion to convince a decent chunk of them to vote forthe party, he will likely hold the balance of poweronce again. In which case another parliament ofpeace in our time may yet beckon. Just don’t expectit to hold for a full five years.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2014/02/16/my-total-politics-column-its-war-the-lib-dems-enemy-within-strategy-shows-theres-no-longer-peace-in-our-time/#sthash.FqJ3O5La.dpuf



April 2014:Nick v Nigel – hope is now theoff icial Lib Dem electoral strategyby Stephen Tall on March 16, 2014

“Listen, don’t mention Ukip! I mentioned them once,but I think I got away with it.” It’s not (quite) a line

from Fawlty Towers, but has been the conventionalwisdom of the three main party leaders for years.

David Cameron broke this omerta once, labellingUkip’s supporters “fruitcakes, loonies and closet rac-ists”. That was back in 2006. Afterwards, the Tories,Labour and Lib Dems reverted to the agreed line:stick your fingers in your ears and pretend NigelFarage doesn’t exist. “If you want Britain to leave theEU then only a vote for Ukip will achieve that,” he’dbellow. “Did you hear someone say something?”Cameron would ask. “Nothing,” replied Nick Clegg.“Nor me,” echoed Ed Miliband.

Until now, that is. Suddenly the Lib Dem leader hasbroken ranks. In February Clegg struck a d’Artagnan-like duelling pose, throwing down the gauntlet to hisUkip foe: “I will challenge Nigel Farage to a publicopen debate about whether we should be in or out ofthe European Union, because that is now the choicefacing this country and he is the leader of the partyof ‘Out’, I am the leader of the party of ‘In’.” Farageaccepted 48 hours later, though his response lackedits usual ebullience: “I have absolutely no choice.I’ve got to say yes.”

At the Lib Dems’ spring conference in March, Faragewas everywhere. I turned to page 5 of the confer-ence agenda: there, prominently staring at me, wasa picture of the Ukip leader. He was there in thepunchlines of party president Tim Farron’s rallyingpro-EU speech: “So Nigel, are we better off in orout?” And he was there on stage, when – in perhapsthe most misjudged conference appearance sinceSarah Teather tried her stand-up routine – SolihullMP Lorely Burt donned a Farage mask, and bran-dished a pint of beer and a cigarette. (Don’t worry, it

was a fake cigarette: this was a Lib Dem confer-ence.)

“Why?” you might ask. What do the Lib Dems thinkthey’ll gain from promoting Farage as the bogeymanof the European elections and themselves as hisvanquisher?

For a start, the Lib Dems aim to appeal to that seg-ment of the British population that shares their pro-Europeanism, a group spanning the progressive left,moderate right and internationalist liberals.

Happily enough, this principled stance is also smartpolitics. In the Nick v. Nigel debates, far more peoplewill be agreeing with Nick than at any time since May2010. And among the 25 per cent of the public who

would consider voting Lib Dem – the party’s target‘market’ – the pro-European pitch plays pretty well.

But the strategy isn’t just aimed at the voters: NickClegg needs also to re-enthuse his party. After fouryears of Coalition compromise – welfare cuts, tuitionfees U-turn, NHS reforms, ‘secret courts’ – histroops are battered and bruised. The Lib Dems have

shed one-third of their members and thousands ofcouncillors have been lost in battle. For a party thatis reliant on the foot-slog of Stakhanovite activistsdelivering leaflets and canvassing door-by-door toget its message across, such attrition poses a majorthreat to its get-out-the-vote operation.

2015 has been labelled a ‘survival election’ for theLib Dems, and it is. But Clegg knows he needs tooffer his party more than simply avoiding beingwiped out next time to ignite its energies. Farage is auseful enemy. His anti-immigration isolationismgenuinely offends the polyglot Clegg, married to aSpaniard, whose mother is Dutch and grandmothera Russian émigré. There is nothing feigned orstrained in his passionate denunciation of Ukip’s pa-rochialism.

On this, Clegg and his party are as one. His ‘I loveBritain’ conference speech – delighting in eccentricBritish obsessions such as the shipping forecast,queuing and cups of tea, interspersed with praise forBritish traditions such as tolerance, human rightsand the rule of international law – earned him agenuine standing ovation. This was a transformation

from the grudging ‘we’d better get to our feet be-cause the cameras are watching’ applause of recentyears. Clegg’s party has fallen a little bit back in lovewith him. And it’s all thanks to Nigel Farage andUkip.

That isn’t enough, of course. The European elec-tions on 22nd May will still be tough-going for the LibDems, likely to lose half (and possibly all) their cur-rent MEPs. That same day’s local elections – con-tested for the first time since the pre-Coalitionheights of Cleggmania four years ago – will see an-

other few hundred Lib Dem councillors defeated. Itall seems grimly familiar. But Lib Dems are a stoiclot. This is a party, after all, which each year singsthe self-deprecating shanty ‘Who’ll come-a-losingdeposits with me?‘ at its end of conference knees-up.

“I can take the despair. It’s the hope I can’t stand,”said another John Cleese creation in Clockwise. Yetit’s the hope that keeps Lib Dems going. “Hope ver-sus fear – it’s the oldest dividing line in politics,” ar-gues Nick Clegg. That’s right, it’s official: hope isnow the Lib Dem electoral strategy. Fingers crossed.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2014/03/16/my-total-politics-column-nick-v-nigel-hope-is-now-the-official-lib-dem-electoral-strategy/



May 2014:Might Clegg jump before 2015?Here’s how it could work…by Stephen Tall on April 20, 2014

It’s time to talk about Nick Clegg’s future. He’s nowin his seventh year as Lib Dem leader, and that anni-

versary’s famous itch is starting to chafe. Should hestay or should he go now? This question – one pre-viously asked only by the most fervent anti-Cleggites – is beginning to be whispered by loyalists too.

The reasons for these jitters are not hard to pindown. Clegg’s initiative of the ‘Nick v Nigel’ debateswas widely praised as a bold move, one that wouldgalvanise Lib Dem support and help define his partyas the rallying point for pro-Europeans ahead of the22nd May elections.

Their first encounter buttressed this view. True,Farage was named the winner in YouGov’s insta-poll, but the reminder of the Clegg of 2010 – charm-ing, persuasive, sensible – enabled him at least toshare the honours. Then the second debate struck.This time there was no room for doubt: Farage wasthe victor over Clegg, whose contrived attempts toemote pro-European passion seemed mainly tocomprise a string of laboured jibes against the Ukipleader.

The moment that crystallised Clegg’s defeat – andwhich left even loyalists with their heads in their

hands – was his response to the question, “What willthe EU look like in 10 years’ time?” This was aneasy, short-pitched delivery begging to be hit for sixby a reforming, liberal leader batting for Britain. YetClegg’s dispiritingly bland response was: “it will bemuch the same as it is now”.

Still, Lib Dems took consolation from the fact thatthey had at least firmly established themselves as‘The Party of IN’, their antidote-to-Ukip Euro electionslogan. Until, that is, the arrival of a poll from ICM –traditionally the firm whose methodology is kindest to

the Lib Dems – which showed them tied with theGreens on just 6 per cent, a result which would likelysee the party’s 11 MEPs wiped-out of the EuropeanParliament.

The fear that this might be a foretaste of the generalelection to come sent a shiver down the collectiveLib Dem spine. Perhaps, more than a few sadly con-cluded, it’s not just Clegg’s pro-European messagewhich is irrecoverably unpopular: it’s the messengerhimself.

And it’s not just the Euro elections that worry the LibDems – local elections are held the same day. It willbe the first post-Coalition test in London, home tosenior MPs like Ed Davey, Lynne Featherstone andSimon Hughes, and the party is braced for the loss

of another few hundred councillors across the coun-try. Indeed, the total number of Lib Dem councillorswill very likely plummet below 2,000 for the first timesince 1983 – and at least then the SDP/Liberal Alli-ance was on its way up, not down.

How would the Lib Dems respond to this doomsdayscenario: battered in the Euros, bloodied in the lo-

cals? Officially Nick Clegg has vowed to stay on untilat least 2020: “I fully intend to continue being leaderup to, through and beyond the next election, andthrough the next parliament.” He knows no other an-swer would satisfy the media. In reality, his fatehinges on two decisions: that of his party this May,and that of the voters a year later.

Clegg will probably be allowed by his party to hangon until 2015. One of the remarkable features of thisparliament has been quite how loyal to their leaderLib Dem MPs have been: few noises-off and no de-fections. Yes, Vince Cable remains (somewhataloofly) ready to wear the crown, though never, ap-parently, to wield the dagger. And yes, there havebeen some signs of jockeying for position – Danny Alexander in particular seems to be on manoeuvres – but this is with a view to a post-2015 leadershipcontest, not a direct challenge to Clegg’s authority.None of Clegg’s colleagues appear willing to givehim the push.

Might Clegg jump? Might he bite on a cyanide pill forthe sake of Lib Dem survival? It’s not impossible.Here’s how it could work… Clegg announces that he

will resign as party leader but continue as DeputyPrime Minister:

“I have a duty, on behalf of my party and my country,to see through the job that I signed up to,” he wouldnobly say. “There is much we have achieved in thelast four years of which we can be proud. But it isclear that the Lib Dems need to be able to fight thenext election as a proudly independent party. I rec-ognise this is best done under a new leader with afresh mandate.”

This statement would trigger a contest offering theLib Dems a valuable media spotlight right through tothe party conference in October, when Clegg’s suc-cessor (almost certainly current party president TimFarron) is unveiled.

A fantasy, maybe. But for those Lib Dem MPs look-ing nervously at this May’s results it may seem a farbetter alternative to the reality that otherwise awaits.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2014/04/20/my-total-politics-column-might-clegg-jump-before-2015-heres-how-it-could-work/#sthash.3RTtIp1N.dpuf



June 2014:The pragmatists have it – why Cleggwill cling onby Stephen Tall on May 26, 2014

Thursday, 22nd May, was the Lib Dems’ own BlackThursday. Over the following four long, agonising

days, the party watched as first the local and thenthe European election results brutally revealed thecost of entering into coalition with the Conservatives.

Had it been only the local elections which disap-pointed, the party might have shrugged it off as theusual mixed bag: painful losses offset by successfuldefences in held and target seats. But while losingone election might be considered a misfortune, los-ing two look like carelessness. Though the Lib Demsavoided the ultimate humiliation of being wiped offthe European electoral map – one of the party’s 11MEPs survived – the party trailed in fifth place be-hind the Greens, its 7% share of the vote half thatwon five years earlier.

Even before this humiliation was officially declared,some Lib Dem activists were calling for Nick Clegg’shead. An open letter was published by a groupcalled #LibDems4Change urging fellow party mem-bers to elect a new leader “who will get a fair hearingfrom voters about Liberal Democrat achievementsand ambitions for the future”. Its organisers are, inthe main, drawn from the social liberal wing of theparty, aggrieved at what they see as its right-leaning,

‘Orange Book’ direction under Nick Clegg: austerityeconomics, the NHS bill, ‘secret courts’ and the bed-room tax are chief among their grievances.

The hundreds who signed included a handful of par-liamentary candidates. But current Lib Dem MPswere more restrained. Even the most vocally criticalof the awkward squad stopped short of inciting regi-cide, with Southport’s John Pugh confining himself tothe more coded suggestion that the party “calmlytake a root-and-branch look at our current strategy,including how and by whom it is presented”.

For many of the rebels, business secretary VinceCable remains the great hope: a Keynesian socialliberal who has never troubled to hide his discomfortat serving in a Conservative-dominated cabinet. Fewdoubt he’d love the chance to wear the crown. Moredoubtful is his desire to wield the dagger. Indeed, hesquashed speculation about his own intentions, issu-ing a statement declaring (somewhat optimistically)“There is no leadership issue”. Meanwhile the otherking across the water, party president Tim Farron,appealed for unity: “it would be absolutely foolish forus as a party to turn in on ourselves”.

Clegg is not short of loyalists among the member-ship. Many sprung to his defence, arguing it wouldbe folly to ditch the leader who had given the party

its first post-war taste of national power. Defeatedcouncillor David Schnitz took to LibDemVoice to as-sert “with all the force of which I am capable thatNick must stay”. International development ministerLynne Featherstone, campaign manager for ChrisHuhne when he fought Clegg for the leadership andwhose London seat would likely be lost if these elec-tion results were repeated, praised him to the hilt:

“He is brave and capable, and taking us into govern-ment has achieved remarkable progress.”

The truth is that neither the rebels nor the loyalistscan offer a convincing argument of how, respec-tively, either ditching Clegg or sticking by him willimprove Lib Dem chances in May 2015.

#LibDems4Change pin their hopes on the belief thatClegg’s departure, and his replacement by a moresocially liberal leader, will allow the party to wooback those Lib Dems who’ve deserted the party forLabour since the Coalition was formed. Yet pollsshow neither Cable nor Farron would make muchdifference to Lib Dems popularity – and of coursethe moment either became leader they would besubject to the same attacks which have been relent-lessly (and damagingly) levelled against Clegg thesepast four years.

Clegg loyalists pin their hopes on the belief that theirman will, over the next 11 months, earn belated rec-ognition from the voters for his stoic resilience. Yetthe 22 May elections give precious little indicationthis will happen. And his debate defeat at the hands

of Nigel Farage showed that even Clegg’s much-vaunted communication skills may count for nothingif the voters don’t want to listen to him any more.

Between the rebels and the loyalists lie the rest ofus: the pragmatists. We fear, sadly, that NickClegg’s lustre is too tarnished to be of much assis-tance to the party at the next election. Yet we don’tbuy the easy claim that swapping him for a Cable ora Farron will magically transform Lib Dem prospects.The status quo will, therefore, win by default. As RabButler half-heartedly said of Anthony Eden, he’s the

best leader we have got.

And, of course, the big story of these elections wasUkip’s continuing electoral success – the chief out-come of which is to make it far less likely that eitherLabour or the Conservatives can win an outright majority in May 2015. A second hung parliament beck-ons. If the Lib Dems can retain around 40 seats (assuggested by the local election results) Clegg willonce again be Kingmaker. What a comeback thatwould be. No wonder he’s clinging on.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2014/05/26/my-total-politics-column-the-pragmatists-have-it-why-clegg-will-cling-on/#sthash.485ACpGF.dpuf



July 2014:Why getting battered and bruisedmay turn out to be an unavoidableoccupational hazard of being LibDem leaderby Stephen Tall on June 20, 2014

Nick Clegg emerged from May’s local and Europeanelections battered and bruised, but with his leader-ship intact – just about. The cack-handed attempt byVince Cable’s friend Lord Oakeshott to stir insurrec-tion against Clegg by leaking unfavourable privatepolls he’d paid for in battleground seats backfiredspectacularly. Though there’s no shortage of LibDem activists none too chuffed with their leader,handing ammunition to the enemy is seen as an un-pardonable act. Oakeshott was forced to resign fromthe party: Clegg stayed put. With no MP willing tochallenge him, the coup quickly fizzled out.

But discontent remains, with dozens of local partiesholding meetings to vote on whether there should bea leadership election. Though nothing like the 75needed to trigger a contest will choose do so, eachone that no-cons the leader inflicts another wound.Clegg knows he needs to do more than just survive.Limping, beleaguered by unfriendly fire, towardsMay 2015 – acknowledged to be a survival electionfor the Lib Dems – won’t be good enough. He needsto rally the troops, to inspire them that a great liberalvictory is possible (or, more realistically, that a truly

awful defeat can be avoided).

So Clegg’s sought to re-focus Lib Dem sights on the2015 election. In a major speech in June at Bloom-burg, he extolled its “unique mission” and promised“a manifesto which will set out our own distinct ambi-tions for Britain”. Here was the Lib Dem leader differ-entiating himself from the Deputy Prime Minister.Gone was his usual talk of “anchoring the govern-ment in the centre ground”. Instead, he declared, “Ihave never been interested in power for power’ssake. I have never been interested in coalition at anycost. What I am interested in is Liberal Democrats ingovernment to build a more liberal Britain.”

This is the kind of attaboy-go-get-em-no-compromise spirit the party needs right now. But itdoesn’t alter the fundamentals still facing the LibDems. As no-one, including us, believes we’ll win amajority in 2015, there’s only one way to implementliberal policies in government: by co-operating eitherwith Labour or with the Tories. In which case, we’llhave to accept some of their illiberal policies wedon’t much like, they’ll accept some of our liberalpolicies they don’t much like, we’ll each jettison

some of the impossible policies we’ve had to includebecause our activists cleave to them, and on the restwe’ll work out some kind of compromise. If any ofthat sounds familiar, it’s probably because you’vebeen watching this Coalition for the past four years.

The Lib Dem manifesto-writing sausage factory is acurious mix of democracy and patronage whichcharacterises much of the party’s internal processes – the mostly-elected, 27-member Federal PolicyCommittee, chaired by Clegg’s former PPS, DuncanHames, appointed a 12-member manifesto workinggroup to be chaired by David Laws, who was nomi-

nated by Clegg. The FPC will sign off the final docu-ment.

It is, of course, a work in progress. In his Bloomburgspeech, and a press conference a week later, Clegghighlighted three of the emerging ideas. On theeconomy, the Lib Dems would balance the budgetthrough a mix of spending cuts and tax rises, whilesafeguarding capital spending by re-incarnatingGordon Brown’s ‘golden rule’. On education – atouchy area for the Lib Dems to venture any newpledges – he promised to ring-fence spending onchildren and teenagers “from cradle to college”.Clegg also issued a ‘Parental Guarantee’ ensuringall children will be taught a core curriculum by aproperly qualified teacher in every state-fundedschool, including Michael Gove’s pet ‘free schools’.

Such ideas sit much more comfortably with Labourthan they do with the Tories. I’ve totted up the num-ber of policies where Lib Dem policies overlap withEd Miliband’s. I make it 21 to date, including tax-cutsfor low-earners, the introduction of a Mansion Tax, amajor council house-building programme, cuts touniversal benefits for wealthy pensioners, rent re-

forms for private tenants, a living wage for publicsector workers, and an elected House of Lords.

If Labour ends up the largest single party in a hungparliament – and if its activists are able to see pastthe red mist which descends when they eye a LibDem – there’s plenty of material for a Lib/Lab pact.The same cannot be said of the Lib Dems and ourcurrent Coalition partners. As the Queen’s Speechshowed, the cupboard is bare of ambitious reformsboth parties can unite behind.

Yet the trend in the polls is now turning in the Tories’favour. It’s always the economy, stupid: Cameronand Osborne are becoming the beneficiaries of theausterity-delayed recovery. My current bet would bethat it’s they who end up with most MPs, thoughshort of an overall majority. The Lib Dems and To-ries might hate the thought of continuing to work witheach other, but the voters may leave them with littlechoice. If so, getting battered and bruised may turnout to be an unavoidable occupational hazard of be-ing Lib Dem leader.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2014/06/20/my-total-politics-column-why-getting-battered-and-bruised-may-turn-out-to-be-an-unavoidable-occupational-hazard-of-being-lib-dem-leader/#sthash.mzOzbZTB.dpuf



October 2014:The Lib Dems are stil l alive… Justabout.by Stephen Tall on September 9, 2014

We few, we happy few, we band of Lib Dems willshortly gather in Glasgow: our final rally before the

election battle to come. The setting will once againbe the city’s confusingly cavernous SECC confer-ence centre. Last year it was quite common to seedisorientated party members wandering around thisreal-life Escher puzzle, sure they had been on theirway up to their intended destination only to discoverthey had been deposited back down at the exit. Thebest metaphors write themselves.

Just a few months ago, last March, the party met inYork at its Spring conference. The sun was shining,the mood was chipper. Nick Clegg had challengedNigel Farage to a TV duel and the party was unitedbehind his call to take the fight directly to Ukip at theEuropean elections. We were ‘The Party of IN’ ac-cording to the vacuous slogan no-one now admits tohaving coined. In it up to our necks, it turned out.Trounced by Ukip, even trailing the Greens in fifthplace, Clegg tottered – but he didn’t fall and he was-n’t pushed. Party members have, stoically and by nomeans unanimously, accepted he will lead us intothe general election next May.

The leader may not have resigned, but resignationhangs heavy in the air. Only the wildest optimists

think the Lib Dems can emerge from the next elec-tion unscathed. Right now, saving anything above 40MPs would be regarded as a blazing triumph eventhough it would leave a third of our current seats gut-ted.

As anticipation of a revival has ebbed so too has talkof a second term in government. In a sense this isodd. Another hung parliament, most pollsters agree,is the most likely outcome in May 2015. This shouldbe our dream: our Eden, Utopia and Promised Landin one. But the cliché was right: be careful what you

wish for. Gone is the wide-eyed enthusiasm for gov-ernment, replaced instead by a grim, taut wariness.

The last four years have cost the Lib Dems dear. Not just in lost votes and members and councillors –though those losses have cut deep – but also in losthope. The party knows it has notched up some bigpolicy achievements – tax-cuts for low-earners, thePupil Premium, the Green Investment Bank – butthey seem scant compensation for the possible for-feit of two decades’ hard won advance. How muchcloser are we to creating a liberal society?, the partyasks itself. Not nearly as close as we hoped, comesthe honest reply.

Once the party could kid itself it would leap-frogstraight into Official Opposition and then seamlessly

seek an audience with HM The Queen. And even ifthat seemed far-fetched, then it was sure it could atleast wrangle electoral reform on the way, puttingliberalism on a secure footing in parliament.

The reality? The AV referendum was lost, an electedHouse of Lords defeated. The Lib Dems are onceagain reliant on the Stakhanovite local fetishism of

its incumbent MPs and shadowy party patronage toappoint its peers to the red benches.

And so the prospect of another five years’ coalitionappears to be more threat than promise, especiallyas the Lib Dems will be in a weaker position nexttime. In 2010, the party had won an additional millionvotes on the back of ‘Cleggmania’ and David Cam-eron was desperate to clinch a deal which wouldmake him Prime Minister. A second Lib-Con alliance? Neither party is likely towear it. A Lib-Lab pact? Possible (there’s plenty ofpolicy overlap) but Labour’s visceral loathing of myparty means it wouldn’t exactly be a bed of redroses. And it would put at serious risk those Tory-facing seats the Lib Dems are most likely to retainnext May.

My hunch is the party will opt instead for the saferharbour of ‘confidence and supply’, offering to propup a minority government in return for key conces-sions, then vote on a case-by-case basis. A bit ofpower in exchange for a bit of responsibility: it’s aneminently Lib Dem approach. Go back to your con-stituencies and prepare to be both in government

and in opposition.

Survive and rebuild: these are the watchwords. On agood day, one senior Lib Dem MP reckons, “wemight only lose four or five seats”. Surprise gainscannot be ruled out (Maidstone and Oxford West & Abingdon are oft-cited). But attention is turning to the‘black spots’, the swathes of seats from which theparty has been driven out. In 2010, it finished first orsecond in almost 300 constituencies. I’d be sur-prised if we made three-figures next time.

We’ve been here before, of course (whether LibDems find that fact is comforting or depressing willdepend on their disposition). And yet, 80 years onfrom George Dangerfield’s The Strange Death ofLiberal England – 25 years on from the bad-tempered merger which almost saw the Lib Demsstrangled at birth – we’re still alive, still kicking. Don’tread us the last rites just yet.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2014/09/09/my-total-politics-column-the-lib-dems-are-still-alive-just-about/#sthash.JYhRGHz0.dpuf



November 2014:The coming Lib Dem battle topersuade the “ persuadables”by Stephen Tall on October 20, 2014

The Lib Dem spinners were more than a little nervousin the lead-up to the party’s conference in Glasgow.

Not about headline-grabbing policy defeats at thehands of the party grassroots — carefully constructedcompromises had been hammered out in advance.Nor about any last-minute tilt at unseating Nick Clegg— even those unhappiest with his leadership havecome to accept he will lead the party into the May2015 general election.

What did trouble them was the change in the usualconference order. Traditionally, the Lib Dems are firstup among the three main parties. That normallymeans fine-ish weather, and, more importantly, thatpolitical journalists are a little sunnier, too: less tired

and cynically acerbic than usual.

But this year, the Lib Dems were last up, displaced bythe Scottish independence referendum. Would thepress pack — which had already been on the road fora month, missing their families and subsisting on anaway-from-home diet of canapés and late nights —take it out on Clegg & Co? The party’s media teamdecided to send them small gifts, such as bunches ofbananas, to cheer them up each morning.

In the end, they needn’t have worried. Going lastworked well for the party. Labour’s ominously flat con-ference will be remembered for Ed Miliband’s glaringforgetfulness in his conference speech: his Freudianfailure to mention the deficit or immigration was anastonishing gift to his opponents. By contrast, theConservative conference was remarkably chipper.David Cameron, his position too weakened by Ukip’sinsurgence to be able to withstand his party’s push tothe right, gave his delegates the red meat they’vebeen demanding: the promise of yet more hardlinepolicies on social security, immigration and Europe.

It was all teed-up perfectly for Nick Clegg to remind

the party faithful (and, believe me, those of us who’vestuck by the party this far really are the faithful) of thekey Lib Dem message: “The Liberal Democrats willborrow less than Labour, but we’ll cut less than theTories. We’ll finish the job, but we’ll finish it in a waythat is fair.”

It’s an adroitly triangulated pitch which has been care-fully tested by the party’s own private polling andfound to be popular not only with current Lib Dem vot-ers, but also with those who say they are open to theidea of voting Lib Dem — “the persuadables”, as theparty’s campaigns director Ryan Coetzee terms them.

Collectively, this group — which includes current La-bour and Conservative voters as well as those whoare undecided — is the Lib Dem “market” (another

Coetzee label which can leave the party’s more or-ganic activists wincing). Such voters respond espe-cially well to party lines of which you can expect tohear much more — “Labour wasted their opportunityand ruined the economy”, “You can’t count on theTories to care about others” — including the need forthe next government to be balanced and sensible. Inshort, they like the idea of the Lib Dems being in

power to leaven the worst effects of single-party rule.There is a problem, though. Those identified as sup-porters or potential converts represent only a littlemore than one-fifth of the electorate. In other words,the upper limit of the potential Lib Dem vote next Mayis less than the actual share of the vote the party wonin 2010.

Fortunately, the party has a secret weapon. Actuallyit’s not a secret, but somehow that doesn’t lessen itspotency. It’s known as incumbency, the ability of LibDem MPs to dig in locally — “like cockroaches”, as

party president Tim Farron once remarked — ena-bling them to buck the national trend.

The latest batch of Lord Ashcroft’s constituency poll-ing, focusing on Lib Dem must-win seats and re-leased in the run-up to the conference, showed justhow important it is for the party. When the public wasasked how they would vote in a general election inthe Lib Dem / Tory battlegrounds, just 20% namedthe Lib Dems. Yet, asked how they would vote in theirown constituency, 32% opted for the Lib Dem candi-date, a sizeable uplift of 12 per cent.

Such is the value of incumbency. Though the partyrealises the loss of a swathe of Labour-facing seatswon on an anti-Iraq, anti-fees, anti-Brown backlash isinevitable, two-thirds of its MPs will face Conservativechallengers, and they are all still in play.

It’s that reality which accounted for the dominantmood in Glasgow: a grim, doughty determination tobeat the odds. Talk privately to senior Lib Dems andmost believe the party should hold at least 30, per-haps even 40, seats if they really buckle down in thenext six months.

Their campaigning activity is closely monitored byparty HQ; those whose efforts are found lacking getthe hair-dryer treatment from Paddy Ashdown, theformer Royal Marine who Clegg, very smartly, put incharge of the party’s 2015 campaign. It was Ashdownwho led the Lib Dems when the party doubled its tallyof MPs in 1997. He’s also a trained killer. His full skills-set may be needed in the next six months if the LibDems are to survive the next election.

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2014/10/20/my-total-politics-column-the-coming-lib-dem-battle-to-

persuade-the-persuadables/#sthash.A63PRSqU.dpuf



December 2014:Tidings of comfort and joy for theLib Dems. Ish. Very ish.by Stephen Tall on November 23, 2014

‘Tis the season to be jolly, even for Lib Dems. Bah,humbug. A year ago, I made a prediction: ‘I don’t

expect to see much, if any, uplift in the Lib Dems’ flat-lining 10% polling yet.’ If only… How I now yearn forthe times when the party’s support was stubbornlystuck in double-figures. Instead our ratings havedwindled to about eight per cent, barely ahead of theGreens, and only narrowly edging out the surgingSNP in one national poll.

Yet 2014 started with good cheer. The party wasbraced for the European elections — even in thepast when we were popular we’ve always struggledto sell our pro-EU message to a sceptical electorate— but united behind a positive message: ‘In Europe,in work’. It was a tight, focused pitch designed toenthuse not only our core vote, but also to attractmoderate Conservatives turned off by their party’sdestructive Europhobia as well as fair-minded La-bour voters who acknowledge the Lib Dems’ civilis-ing role within the Coalition. In many ways, it wasintended as a dry run for the campaign the partyhopes to run next May.

Nick Clegg upped the ante by publicly challengingNigel Farage to a live televised debate on Europe.Party activists began organising ‘Nick v Nigel’

events, hoping for a repeat of the triumph of 2010when Clegg grabbed the election by the scruff of theneck and gave the two major parties the fright oftheir lives.

And then it all went wrong. The Ukip leader’s popu-list anti-immigration appeal to voters to stick it toWestminster and join his “people’s army” resonated. A beaten Clegg was left looking tired, defensive, and— worst of all — irrelevant. The Lib Dem campaignnever recovered. We lost 11 of our 12 MEPs (andretained that single one by a wafer-thin margin) and

took yet another pounding in that same day’s localelections, losing a further 310 councillors. For a cou-ple of days it looked like Clegg would, if he didn’t fallon his sword, be pushed onto it.

Yet he survived. And he survived again even when,at last month’s Rochester and Strood by-election,the Lib Dems lost their eleventh deposit of the parlia-ment, polling less than one per cent, a record low. IfClegg were a Premiership manager, the Chairman’saxe would have been swung by now. But the partyhas stuck by him. Why? There are, I think, threemain reasons.

First, most Lib Dems recognise that it is the party’sdecision — freely and democratically entered into —to form a coalition with the Conservatives which is

primarily responsible for our dire position in the polls.Sure, there have been needless mistakes along theway (tuition fees, bedroom tax); but what party ofgovernment doesn’t mess up? The reality is that theLib Dem vote in 2010 was flattered by tactical votersand protest voters: we have since lost half the for-mer and all of the latter. No point trying to pin theblame solely on Clegg for that.

Secondly, there is no-one ‘oven ready’ successor. In2003, when the Tories finally tuned out of Iain Dun-can Smith’s increasingly desperate attempts to turnup the volume, Michael Howard was pumped andprimed. By contrast, Vince Cable, who, if he’dwielded the sword might now be wearing the crown,seemed detachedly ambivalent about doing so. AndTim Farron, who clearly does harbour ambitions, hasno wish to lead the party this side of the comingelection. Besides, neither the unclubbable Cable northe activists’ darling Farron would (unlike Howard)have been elected unopposed; they each have puttoo many of their colleagues’ noses out of joint.Clegg has in part, therefore, remained in post fautede mieux. But that’s not the whole story: the Lib Demleader’s impressive achievement in keeping his MPson-side — not one defection, or even a hint of one— has been insufficiently recognised.

Thirdly, the Lib Dems are cussedly determined to,once again, prove the doom-mongers wrong. Prior toevery election in my living memory, commentatorshave prophesied our demise; but we’re still here. Ofcourse this time it will be different: we’ll have to de-

fend our record in government. One thing will be thesame, though: Lib Dem resilience will depend not onour share of the national vote, but on our ability towin as many of our 75 target seats as possible. Ourhopes aren’t pinned on a repeat of ‘Cleggmania’, buton voters continuing to back their local Lib Dem MP,and a change in leader at this stage is unlikely tomake any difference to their prospects.

So Clegg is safe, at least until May. Beyond that,well, that’s in the hands of the electorate and the lapof the gods. If the Lib Dems do confound the polls

and the pundits and retain a sizeable number of MPs— and if there is a second hung parliament — hemay once again be king-maker. How’s that for tid-ings of comfort and joy?

Available online at: http://stephentall.org/2014/11/23/my-total-politics-column-tidings-of-comfort-and-joy-for-the-lib-dems-ish-very-ish/#sthash.A4rLM1uU.dpuf

Documents

The Collected Stephen Tall's Total Politics Columns (2013-14)