With Labour sinking in the polls, there’s an increasing likelihood that whoever forms the next government will need the Liberal Democrats’ help to do it. So what kind of impact might the Lib Dems have on national politics? If a visit to their spring conference is anything to go by, very little, says Emma Revell
Unusually, while I started last week thinking about how the Conservatives could get Britain back on track, I ended it thinking about the Liberal Democrats instead.
Last Monday, my employer, the Centre for Policy Studies, had gathered the great and the good on centre right for our annual Margaret Thatcher Conference. Aside from when a couple of ranty protestors ineffectually interrupted Kemi Badenoch’s keynote address, the calibre of the discussion was excellent.
The meat of the conference was dedicated to the theme of ‘remaking conservatism’ – how to apply sound, free-market policy solutions to the problems of today while navigating damage to the Conservative brand. There was also a heavy focus on learning lessons from the global centre right – Spain, Argentina, Germany, Canada, the USA and so on.
But George Osborne – someone who knows what it’s like to take a party from opposition back into government – drew our attention to something else: the Lib Dem question.
What, Osborne asked, is the Tories’ Lib Dem strategy? How are they planning to recapture the seats lost to Ed Davey? Are they completely ruling out the possibility of a post-election deal? He pointed out that he and David Cameron put an awful lot of effort, between 2005-10, into wooing Lib Dem voters – but gained very little ground.
But it’s not just a question for the Tories. With Labour continuing to sink, there’s a high likelihood that – if Keir Starmer does remain as Prime Minister in 2029 – he’ll need the Lib Dems to do it. So what sort of impact would that have on the nation’s future?
There’s no reason the Lib Dems shouldn’t be as devoutly pro free trade as the Conservatives
By coincidence, I was invited to speak a few days later on a panel on free trade at the Lib Dems’ spring conference in Harrogate. I dutifully agreed, partly because I believe there’s no reason the Lib Dems shouldn’t be as devoutly pro free trade as the Conservatives, but also out of morbid curiosity about whether a party I’d last been a member of over a decade ago had got any more liberal and any less navel-gazing since then.
The short answer, sadly, is no.
I’ve written previously on these pages about my constant disappointment at the Lib Dems’ failure to be actually liberal and my belief that a strong liberal voice in British politics would do us all the world of good. Free trade is, I believe, an innately liberal goal, but in Lib Dem minds its merits are almost completely overshadowed by their zealous commitment to the EU. Of course, the EU is a free trade area – but one which defines itself by its tariff borders with others (and hasn’t made much progress on many aspects of the free trade agenda, such as trade in services).
I wasn’t naive enough to expect the strength of feeling among grassroots members to have changed much since 2016. Still, I made the case that the personal distaste many members clearly have for Donald Trump shouldn’t blind us to the enormous benefits of improved trade relations with the US and that being outside of the EU had strengthened our hand when it came to avoiding or minimising the impact of Trump’s tariff wars. While the discussion didn’t give me overwhelming cause for optimism, there were enough heads in the audience nodding along to my comments that I felt not all was lost.
Lib Dems are obsessed with process
What made me think Osborne shouldn’t be quite so worried, though, was the conference at large.
Most people don’t know that the Lib Dems are a party obsessed with process. And I do mean obsessed. They use their party conferences to propose, debate and vote on the party’s policies and constitution. Line by line. Fairly democratic, sure. But conducive to being taken seriously as a potential party of government again? Absolutely not.
And it was striking that the most controversial motion in Harrogate by far did not concern how the UK should deal with Trump, restoring international aid, animal welfare in the food supply, or even the one on gender which skirted around the Cass Review (although it came close). It was on small changes to the party’s process for selecting general election candidates, updating arrangements which date from the merger between the Liberals and the SDP.
If you combine this obsession with niche constitutional arrangements, a blinding obsession with the EU, and a comms strategy which – while incredibly effective during the general election – cements your leader in the public’s mind as a bit of a clown, you don’t get a devastating political force.
Osborne may be right to caution that CCHQ can’t afford to forget about the Liberal Democrats.But from what I’ve seen, I wouldn’t be having any sleepless nights – save for the prospect of their getting back into power without doing far more hard thinking about the problems Britain faces.
Emma Revell is external affairs director at the Centre for Policy Studies
