In British politics what is supposed to happen rarely happens. In the build-up to this summer's referendum on electoral reform, there was near-universal consensus about what would follow. A "No" vote would lead to near meltdown within the Liberal Democrats, making Nick Clegg's stormy first year in power seem like a gentle breeze. At his party conference he would be hanging on by his fingernails as the hurricane struck. Sure enough, there was a loud and decisive "No " vote. But what was meant to follow has not followed. The referendum triggered a different sequence. There will be no meltdown next week when the Liberal Democrats gather for their annual conference. Clegg is under no threat, for now, as leader of his party and is less easy to stereotype simplistically as the figure solely responsible for every unpopular decision taken by the Coalition.
The reason for the relative stability is directly connected to the referendum slaughter. In the immediate aftermath, Clegg had no choice but to stress distinctiveness, after being singled out ruthlessly by the Conservatives as a reason why voters should vote "No". Until the referendum, Clegg had gone out of his way to convey unreserved enthusiasm for his new relationship with the Tories. This was a mistake, if a partially understandable one, as he sought to show in the early days that the Coalition would hold.
In the immediate aftermath of the catastrophic plebiscite, Clegg took a different approach. Dependent on the Lib Dems for his own survival and having won the referendum, David Cameron was happy to give him the space to do so. Wisely, Clegg has used the space selectively and not with a panic-stricken, indiscriminate rejection of all that had happened in the previous 12 months. Nonetheless, he regularly highlights distinctive contributions from his party, so much so that some Conservatives worry that any so called progressive policy is attributed to the Liberal Democrats and more rightwing MPs start to complain publicly about the influence of Clegg and his party.
Since losing the referendum, Clegg has stressed his party's commitment to removing low earners from income tax, suggested there would have been no cap on student fees if it were not for the Lib Dems, claimed credit for the reform of the original NHS proposals, condemned the excessive sentences passed after the summer riots, argued that so-called free schools must be fair, dismissed Tory arguments that the euro as a concept is fatally flawed, and pressed for radical banking reform. Another of the changes since May, a simple but important one, is that Clegg has ceased to be provocatively demonstrative during Prime Minister's Questions. Previously, he cheered Cameron with the enthusiasm of a true believer and jeered Labour with as much passion as any Tory. Now he sits impassively – a wise impassivity.
There are limits to distinctiveness even in some of the areas Clegg has chosen to highlight. It is not clear how so-called "free" schools will be "fair" or, to put it the other way round, how centrally-imposed fairness is reconciled with claims that the schools are "free". With good cause there are ongoing concerns within Clegg's party about the NHS reforms, now an expensive shambles. Clegg's enthusiasm for the original proposals still causes internal concern, although their most forensic critic, Baroness Williams of Crosby, believes he played an important role in ensuring a review took place.
Consider what would have happened if Clegg had won the referendum. The Conservatives would have been in a state of riotous panic as Liberal Democrats danced several nights away celebrating. If Conservative MPs are twitching nervously now, imagine the facial contortions if they were dealing with a new electoral system because of those wretched Liberal Democrats. Instead of clearing space for Clegg, Cameron would have had to ask his deputy to keep quiet and to tell his party to keep its head down, too. Forget about the Liberal Democrats claiming every popular or progressive policy as their own. Clegg's role would have been to prop up Cameron as he sought to reassure Conservatives.
Again, there would have been limits to the practical differences if the Lib Dems had won the referendum. Within the dynamics of the Coalition, there is a genuine if misguided coming together on deficit reduction that withstands the internal political needs of either party. But, on other fronts, Clegg would be preparing for a party conference with the garland of electoral reform and little else. Instead, he is managing the balance between distinctiveness and Coalition unity more effectively than before.
As a result, he is in a stronger position now, not only compared with the period before the referendum but also in comparison to his first conference as Deputy Prime Minister. All hell was then about to let loose over tuition fees, cuts and the decision to withdraw a government loan for Sheffield Forgemasters – a move that symbolised an excessive disdain for government activity and a masochistic willingness for sacrifice on Clegg's part as he represents a constituency in the city.
As a bonus, the referendum may not prove as significant as it seemed. The current voting system, though often ridiculously distorting, is starting to deliver results Clegg's predecessors would have died for. In spite of being disappointed by the result, Clegg became a big player and still is. It is possible that at the next election the Liberal Democrats will lose a substantial number of seats and yet still pull levers. Cameron/Osborne have not made a decisive electoral breakthrough and, as economic gloom deepens, may not do so. There is no sense that Labour is striding towards overwhelming victory. Another hung parliament is likely. Because Clegg lost what his party regarded as the historic referendum, Cameron gives him more leeway and yet the loathed voting system is starting to deliver hung parliaments. This is what is known as a double whammy.
Of course, both leader and party navigate a dangerous path. Their poll ratings are poor and deep internal divisions, obscured for decades by the anonymity of near meaningless opposition, are now vividly exposed. Some MPs wonder if Clegg can lead them into the next election. But at least, for the first time in decades they command attention and wield power. Clegg makes history in a nerve-wracking narrative that will last longer than many expected, however uncertain and potentially grim the ending might still be. He is still standing rather than tottering, an achievement in the stormy brew of coalition politics. Losing the referendum was the best possible outcome for Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.
s.richards@independent.co.uk
Comments