Nick Clegg was probably grateful for the virtual news blackout of last weekend's Lib Dem SpringFest in Sheffield. The media's preoccupation with Japan and the Middle East ensured that most attention was elsewhere and coverage of the Yorkshire gathering was patchy. Although well contained the gathering could not conceal the reality that what masquerades as a single party is probably several.
With no chance of ever exercising real power on its own, the party has heitherto been able to range far and wide and be the political wing of assorted groups of banner wavers. It has encompassed almost Conservarive Liberal Tories, people pretty close to where David Cameron really is, through to others certainly to the left of New Labour and some probably to the left even of New Old Labour (the brand of the 2 Eds). It contains both liberal views about a free trading economy, less state control and the importance of individuals and their freedoms through to some very illiberal ones enthusisatic about collectivism, monopoly state suppliers and less choice in public services and life in general. No wonder the party presents a confused and often hostile to anything face.
To take one area of philosophical confusion, the protesters about student fees are saying that the costs of educating the fortunate people who progress to tertiary education should be shared by those who do not.Similarly, those protesting about the proposed reform of largely unfunded (ie they come out of current annual government expenditure, reducing the amount available for other purposes) public sector pensions are saying that those in the private sector whose schemes were in many cases seriously undermined by Gordon Brown's tax swoop should pay for these generally better and fully guaranteed schemes. In both cases , why should they? Does the ludicrousness of the propositions not appear to those who say they are wedded to equality, fairness in society and all those good things? Is it a one way street? Public sector good? Private sector bad? That doesn't sound very liberal.
One has to sympathise with the actually rather brave Nick Clegg for trying to explain simply to his party the benefits that being in the coalition government has brought in terms of being able to dispropotionately influence policy and get things they want. This has been far more efective than shouting into space and waving banners from the sidelines. In May 2010 the Lib Dems had a constitutional duty to ensure that Gordon Brown, clinging for several days to the possibility of not calling in the removal vans, was removed from office.They did that and by entering the coalition have secured probably more than they could have ever hoped. David Cameron has been far more accomodating than Brown and his comrades, indeed comrades, were ever likely to have been. Some of the party's supporters have abandoned them at least for the time being. Some would have liked to see an unholy alliance with Brown & Co and some would have simply liked to say "Neither of the above" and,apart from the occasional deal on which way to vote, have languished in sulky irrelevance.
The Lib Dems now have the opportunity to redefining their position towards the admittedly rather crowded centre and representing themselves as the real third way. They are making some progress and enjoying the taste of power but still don't seem grown up enough to seize the moment, shed their illiberal side and look like a real alternative to the Big Two (Parties, not Eds). Fortunately for them the unlikely pair, the natural disaster in Japan and the unnatural one in Libya have ridden to their rescue and ensured that few have paid much attention to what was going on in Sheffield.
