Some people believe optimistically that the Liberal Democrats will suddenly have a change of heart.
The chances though of the Liberal Democrats joining Andy Burnham MP (see tweet) in the opposition lobby is about as likely as an ostrich landing on the moon.
The construct of ‘collective responsibility’ means that Liberal Democrats in Government vote with major Coalition party. It was Nick Clegg who predetermined that the Liberal Democrats would go into office with the party with the most number of seats. That was a fairly safe prediction at the time.
It’s widely predicted that irrespective of whether there is a hung parliament on the morning of May 8th 2015 that Labour will have the most number of seats. This is particularly more likely given the boundary reforms which the Conservative Party failed to achieve. That being the case, it raises the possibility of Nick Clegg being the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Liberal Democrats in office, for about a decade despite having never ‘won’ two elections.
It also raises the possibility of Liberal Democrat votes being used to repeal legislation from the lifetime of this parliament, albeit that no party can legislate to bind its successors. But the idea of the LibDems suddenly having a change of heart, to differentiate themselves as per the “differentiation strategy”, is scuppered by three prominent issues.
Firstly, the major thrust of any Government is its economic policies, and the LibDems have already indicated that they can only sign up to aggressive deficit reduction. This could be fine of course if Ed Balls offers the same meat but with slightly different gravy.
Secondly, the recent history of the Liberal Democrats is more than clear. They have got rid of the “social” bit in “The Social and Liberal Democrat Party”. Nick Clegg, having trained under Leon Brittan in the EU, has a competitive neoliberal philosophy, and he mixes in the company with people who share his zest for that sort of thing. Like David Laws. He would with Chris Huhne. A neoliberal firestorm in closing hospitals down due to failure régimes, of the type seen to by clause 118 is entirely in keeping with this neoliberal philosophy, not a social democrat one based on local democratic power.
Thirdly, there is no basis for believing that the Liberal Democrats will suddenly ‘come good’ as the term of this parliament comes to an end.
On 20th March 2012, the Commons voted the Health and Social Care Bill through at 10.15pm, spending less than 6 hours debating the 357 amendments made in the Lords. The Labour motion on disclosure of the risk register was lost by 328 to 246 votes. Two LibDems voted with Labour, Greg Mulholland and Adrian Sanders and three abstained. Most of the Lords amendments passed and the government won most by about 80-90 votes as the bulk of the Lib Dems voted with the government. The unpopular Health and Social Care Act came into law under this Government, though.
Also, despite near universal professional opposition and strong political pressure, the Section 75 regulations that explicitly open up the NHS to competition law were approved in the House of Lords A three-line whip on Liberal Democrat peers ensured a majority of over a hundred, with Baroness Shirley Williams speaking warmly of “an exciting new direction” for the NHS. This is the same Baroness Williams whom Tony Benn alleges in his diaries wished to tax benefits in the Callaghan government of the 1970s. The unpopular Section 75 Regulations came into law under this Government, though.
In January 2012, the government fought off a fresh challenge to its controversial welfare reform bill, when peers rejected a proposal to delay the full introduction of slashed new disability payments after ministers offered concessions. The unpopular Welfare Reform Act came into law under this Government, though.
As the cabinet hardened its tactics by agreeing to overturn a series of defeats in the House of Lords, a cross-party group of peers failed to introduce a pilot scheme before a new regime for disability allowances can be fully introduced. But Lib Dem cabinet ministers agreed with their Tory colleagues to overturn the amendments when the bill returns to the Commons.
Whilst it might suit some with social democrat ‘roots’ to wish the Liberal Democrat Party to ‘come good’, there is no evidence at all that would happen. Attempts to bring out this simple fact tends to become squashed with the attack that ‘Liberal Democrat’ votes are all to play for, and that LibDem MPs reading a fair discussion of this might change their mind from the party line.
LibDem MPs don’t work like that. Their motto, ‘fair society, strong economy’, is reflected in the UK only having performed very badly for three years and with the decimation of legal aid and law centres.
The hospital closure clause gives Trust Special Administrators greater powers including the power to make changes in neighbouring trusts without consultation. It was added to the Care Bill just as the government was being defeated by Lewisham Hospital campaigners, in an attempt to ensure that campaigners could not challenge such closure plans in the future. But the new Bill could be applied anywhere in the country.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Allyson Pollock said that that the clause would “undermine equal access to care in England” and removes “checks and balances designed to ensure that changes are in the interests of the communities affected” with Trust Special Administrators only having to consider market money.
Neoliberal means neoliberal. It means free movement of capital such that multinationals can buy parts of the NHS. It means everything is put out for competitive tendering. A social movement to pull on LibDems heart strings, with the unflappable Baroness Williams, will be a waste of time, but I suppose one should have dreams.
But dreams ought to be realistic. The Care Act, with its ‘closure clause’, will come into law, again only made possible through help of the Liberal Democrats.
