Liberal Democrats: losing the plot

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/29/liberal-democrats-lost-plot

Version 0 of 1.

Those who embark on plots to oust an elected party leader need to be certain in advance about three things. First, that a more plausible alternative leader is ready in the wings; second, that there is a groundswell of discontent in favour of change; and, third, that the potential gains from the wielding of the knife clearly outweigh the potential losses. Unless all three are true, discretion is the better part of valour. Lord Oakeshott's problem in plotting to topple Nick Clegg this week is that he allowed his passionate belief in the first of these conditions – he has always wanted Vince Cable to lead the Liberal Democrats – to skew his judgment about the second and the third.

On these, the realities were solidly lined up against the anti-Clegg plot. The groundswell against Mr Clegg has been limited, even after the dire election results suffered by the party last week. This is in part because in 2010 the Lib Dem leader was careful to ensure that, after decades out of government, his party dipped its hands in the blood by all having to vote before going into coalition. As a consequence, most activists believe they have to soldier on, in coalition and under Mr Clegg, just as they have done ever since 2010. To do anything else would be to go back on their word just because times were tough, and would mean the Lib Dems would then be seen as a party that preferred the comfort zone of opposition to the heat of the governmental kitchen.

Lord Oakeshott also made the error of resting his finger on the scales. There was nothing wrong in principle, given his interest and his wealth, in commissioning polls to test opinion in Lib Dem seats to see if party MPs were in danger that could be avoided under a different leader. But there was a lot wrong with then tweaking standard poll methodology to produce a result that suited his case. The figures in Lord Oakeshott's polls were certainly alarming for the affected Lib Dem MPs, all of whom stood to lose if they were accurate. Yet if standard ICM methods had been used, the results would have been more favourable to Lib Dem incumbents – in some cases, including Mr Clegg's own, much more favourable.

The consequence is that Lord Oakeshott has damaged himself and, rather more seriously for the party, Mr Cable, the extent of whose involvement is obscure, while helping to secure Mr Clegg's position. Mr Clegg will clearly now lead his still remarkably well-disciplined party into the 2015 election, an outcome that is likely to help Labour, which is relying on disaffected Lib Dem voters, and thus weaken the Conservatives. At some point next year, the Lib Dems will have to look in frank depth at what they stand for and where Liberalism stands in modern British politics. That soul-searching exercise cannot be put off for ever. But the time is not now.