The polls that YouGov has carried out for Prospect are stark (p22). As Peter Kellner writes, if the Liberal Democrats faced a general election now, they would have only about 10 MPs, compared to 57 now. The present parliamentary strength reflects the euphoria of the spring of 2010, when Britain’s third party seemed to be in striking range of the other two. Nick Clegg’s performance in the televised debate, which prompted Gordon Brown’s refrain “I agree with Nick,” and inspired a thousand lapel badges, seemed to have pulled off a transformation that in politics is priceless—of making his party sound like the future, and the others like the past.
Now, there are mutterings about whether to ditch Clegg for Vince Cable, quit the coalition, or split the party. They are wrong. Clegg is right, or at least, he has been more right than wrong. As David Steel has put it, “because of our commitment to proportional representation, an unwritten attachment to the principle of coalition is in the party’s DNA.” That means compromise. To argue, as Dick Leonard does (p27), that the party, with its centre of gravity on the left, should never have done a deal with the Conservatives is to deny it the influence that it has had, and to exaggerate the difference of views in British politics about how to handle the deficit.
Judged by the changes the Lib Dems have secured in Conservative policy, they have done far better than the polls would suggest. True, Clegg’s reversal on tuition fees was a bad call, a gratuitous rebuff to his supporters. He runs the risk of being remembered mainly for the things that have gone wrong. But he can claim solid achievements on income tax for poorer people, on pensions, on bank regulation, and on resisting Conservative impulses to curtail civil liberties.
And reform of the House of Lords, where Clegg has been mocked across the board? True, again, it failed to resonate. But he is right on the central point. More than a decade into the 21st century, the present arrangements are an embarrassment for any country which claims a place in the modern world. Britain’s Olympic euphoria (see Mo and Me, p28) sits oddly with a system which awards legislative power by party patronage and inheritance.
It is easy in Britain, with its long tradition of democracy, to dismiss those who urge an improvement, accusing them of ignoring more urgent problems. But that is too cavalier. Even apparently vigorous democracies can come under threat, old as well as new. That is a theme of Gershom Gorenberg’s report on Israel’s Orthodox population (p36), as well as of our report on the economic impact of the Arab Spring (p63). Meanwhile, our coverage of China (see “Copycat China,” p44, and Letters, p11) is infused with warnings of the limit that political failings put on its future.
The Olympics opening and closing ceremonies celebrated the best of Britain, an indulgent tumble of the National Health Service, taxis, Spice Girls, and well-preserved rock stars. They might have included Britain’s third political party too. It may be the butt of national jokes but it is also the custodian of the country’s core liberal values. The polls suggest that extinction is conceivable; that would be a sad reward for the courage of forming the coalition, and would be Britain’s loss.
