Identity is everything in politics.The Liberal Democrats were, up until a year ago, a progressive party of the centre left. They were perceived as a party of principle, that could be relied upon to adopt policies and positions based upon the values that are central to the society that we live in. This was exemplified the other day when in the light of the bin Laden execution, Paddy Ashdown provided an outstanding defence of the importance of due process in dealing with terrorists, in the face of the moral cowardice on the issue shown by the Labour and Conservative Party's. Paddy's defence of justice will have surprised no-one, it was an act that sits comfortably with our ideas about what it is to be a liberal. This principled condemnation of the bin Laden execution was not in the Lib Dem Manifesto, yet as an act it is easily identifiable as liberal , it has a political identity or connotation.
Another type of action that has a political identity is compromise. Compromise is a form of political action that is integral to Nick Clegg's vision of a new kind of politics. It was integral to his success in the television debates and it was his apparent willingness to compromise that set him apart from the apparent tribal absolutism of Brown and Cameron. Yet as we are seeing compromise can be a dangerous thing, for politicians in general and for Nick Clegg and Liberal Democracy in particular. The line between compromise and a perception of political betrayal is an extremely fine one, especially where that compromise involves policies and commitments that are integral to an organisation's political identity. No where is this more powerfully illustrated than in the issue of student fees.
Prior to the election, the Liberal Democrats had successfully positioned themselves as a genuine party of young people and students. The now infamous pledge "to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative." which had been widely adopted across the party had been integral to the Party's success in this area. However, it was a powerful commitment not only because it tapped into a significant political constituency, but because it did so in a way that re-enforced other elements of the Liberal Democratic identity, such as social mobility, equality of opportunity and the role that access to education can play in promoting these. The decision to renege on that pledge, was a profound strategic mistake. In doing so, the Lib Dems were effectively attacking their newest and in the longer term, their most important constituency. They were seen to be betraying a profound commitment, and setting aside the principles of equality, opportunity and access to education, that are integral to the Lib Dem political identity and their conceptions of social justice.
The justification has been the need to compromise for the social good and to deal with the deficit: all well and good, but its a bit like expecting the Labour Party to impose wage cuts with trade union support, or asking the Conservatives to put an 80% tax on big business. They wouldn't do it because they know that they would be losing a cornerstone of their political identity and constituency. In imposing the massive rises in student fees, the Liberal Democrat leadership allowed themselves to compromise on an issue that should have been written in stone. The price for that compromise has not only been the loss of a constituency but also a loss of public faith in their ability to defend the key elements of their political identity.
A party's political identity, is more important than the success or even the existence of a coalition.
No comments:
Post a Comment