THE TORIES are in turmoil. Some of them think that is bad news. The Liberal Democrats are not in turmoil. Some of them think that is bad news too. For there are times when a certain amount of turmoil is necessary to jolt a party out of complacency.
The Conservatives badly need to focus on why they lost their third election in a row. If that gives Labour an easier ride for the next few months, so be it. There will not be a better time later in the Parliament for the Tories to indulge in the introspection that they have to undertake.
Why should the Lib Dems be doing the same? After all, their share of the vote rose last month and they gained seats. Shouldn’t they be congratulating themselves instead?
No, 2005 was the biggest opportunity that the third party has had for a generation, and it was squandered. To have both main parties, and their leaders, unpopular at the same time is a concatenation that third-party leaders dream of. It very rarely happens. But this time the goals were open at both ends and the Lib Dems failed to score.
Then there was Iraq. To have both main parties take a widely reviled stance on a huge issue is another third-party fantasy that hardly ever materialises. The Lib Dems had opposed the war from the start. And they had the gift of the Attorney- General’s advice being leaked at a crucial point in the campaign.
Neither of these factors is likely to be repeated for a very long time. At the next election, both Tories and Labour will have new leaders who are likely to be better liked than Messrs Howard and Blair, if only for their novelty. And nothing like Iraq is likely to emerge on which the Lib Dems alone could take a popular position against the other two parties.
So, with the most propitious circumstances imaginable, the Lib Dems gained just nine seats, and their share of the vote rose by only 3.7 per cent, out of a potential floating electorate of 40 per cent. Against the Tories, they actually made a net loss of three seats. If that is success, what counts as failure?
Lib Dem tacticians protest that they made strong gains against Labour, and now stand in second place in more than 150 Labour seats. It is true that, historically, they have always done better against unpopular Tory Governments than Labour ones, and they need to be seen as the repository for disaffected voters when this Government goes out of favour. But the trouble is, only a handful of these second-place seats are winnable. The rest will stay Labour however badly the governing party performs nationwide.
Even Mr Kennedy admitted that his campaign lacked a theme. “We have got to find and fashion a narrative,” he conceded recently. One of his colleagues put it more bluntly: “If you look at these policies, the only thing that joined them together was that they were in the same document.” Voters did not know whether the Lib Dems were left-wing or right-wing, liberal or statist, producerist or consumerist — or just plain opportunist. And who can blame them?
Yesterday was the 22nd anniversary of Mr Kennedy’s precociously early entry into Parliament. The Lib Dem leader, now 45, has spent very nearly half his life in the Commons. You have to wonder: if he has not yet found a narrative for his party, is he likely to start soon? Could it be hidden at the back of his filing cabinet or buried in a hole in his garden? I doubt it. This leader is unlikely to come up with a more compelling reason for voting Lib Dem than a dislike of the other two parties. And he used that tactic to its maximum potential last month.
Perhaps he can delegate the task. He has at least set up a review of all the party’s policies and a re-examination of its philosophy. That is a start. Vince Cable, the Treasury spokesman, is looking at simplifying the tax system, possibly with the use of flat taxes. He is likely to drop the commitment to a 50 per cent rate of income tax on high earners, though the local income tax will probably stay.
Mr Cable and the new health and education spokesmen — Steve Webb and Ed Davey — will argue for more choice in public services than the Lib Dems have in the past. So will David Laws, the work and pensions spokesman, who yesterday called for greater use of markets and competition. Mr Laws believes that trying to outflank Labour on the Left would be a cul-de-sac, particularly if the party were led by Gordon Brown.
Lib Dem MPs, though, are not getting much guidance from the top. “There is a sense of torpor and restlessness around,” says one. Mr Kennedy has been virtually invisible since the election (though he does have a new baby to attend to).
Yet there is no appetite to replace him. For the question remains: with whom? The four obvious contenders, rather like the current bunch of Tory modernising candidates, are much of a muchness. Out of Mark Oaten, Steve Webb, Simon Hughes and Matthew Taylor, none really stands out. None has charisma. And Mr Kennedy is at least liked and known by voters. In practice, the leadership is there for as long as he wants it.
Most Liberal leaders hold the job for ten years or so. Paddy Ashdown did, and so did David Steel and Jo Grimond. Mr Kennedy’s decade would run out just after the next election, assuming it is held in 2009. A handover then would suit the supporters of Nick Clegg, the young, bright former MEP who has just won a Commons seat.
This week Mr Clegg, instantly promoted to be a foreign affairs spokesman, made a decent speech in the chamber on Europe. But he needs to serve at least one Parliament before he could credibly run for leader. The real reason why the Lib Dems are not in turmoil is that those MPs who blame their leader most for the election result want him to keep the seat warm for their man in four years’ time.
maryann.sieghart@thetimes.co.uk
