SDP Robert Maclennan was one of the original MPs who left the Labour Party to found the SDP, eventually becoming its third, and last, leader.Tony Little interviewed him during this year’s Liberal Democrat conference at Harrogate. BreakingBreaking thethe mould?mould?

n , twenty-nine Labour MPs and one Con TL: The seat you fought (Caithness and Sutherland) was Iservative, backed by some senior political figures held by a Liberal. who were not in Parliament, defected to the newly RM: It was. In  I defeated a Liberal by a mere formed Social Democratic Party. Their bold plan sixty-four votes. The choice of Caithness & Suther- was to break the mould of British two-party politics land had been mine. I had expressed an interest to and this led first to the Alliance with the Liberal the Labour Party in fighting that particular seat. It Party and eventually to merger and the formation of was in a part of the country I knew and cared for the Liberal Democrats. and had known for a very long time. Robert Maclennan was a leading figure in this TL: You seemed to have quite a fast rise in the Labour process. He first entered Parliament as Labour MP Party. In your first Parliament you became a PPS and then for Caithness & Sutherland at the general election of a junior minister. Were you ambitious? , defeating the Liberal incumbent George RM: I was ambitious to hold the seat at first because Mackie.He was one of the few MPs who defected I had a very small majority. The first job was to get to the SDP to hold onto his seat at the  general myself re-elected. After that, I had hoped that even- election. When the SDP membership voted for tually I would get involved in foreign affairs and be- merger with the Liberals, resigned as come a spokesman and eventually a minister. I had party leader, later opting to keep a ‘continuing SDP’ no doubt about that being an appropriate goal. But in being. Robert Maclennan was elected unopposed in the period following the  general election, at as leader of the SDP for the period of the merger which I did hold my seat, the issue of the European negotiations, and was joint leader of the new merged Community (as it then was) rose up to the surface. I party with David Steel until the election of Paddy felt very angered about the direction the Labour Ashdown in July . Party took. I really was putting my position as a ris- This background has given Robert Maclennan a ing young politician at risk, because I resigned from unique perspective from which to comment on the an Opposition Front Bench spokesmanship in , triumphs and disappointments of political defection quite early on. I had only been there for a couple of and to talk about the personal pain of leaving behind years and the whole period had been plagued by friends and achievements in one party to embark what I saw as an unfortunate and indeed an unac- into an uncertain future in another. ceptable U-turn on European union. TL: What brought you into politics in the first place? TL: You presumably participated in the referendum campaign? RM: A desire to improve the condition of our fellow RM: I did, and I was one of the sixty-nine MPs who human beings; a sense of anger at the low aspirations of voted against the party three-line whip on the issue politicians in government. I really became active in the of Europe along with and Shirley thirteen years of Conservative government after . Williams and others and that really was the begin- TL: Your choice of party, was it inevitably Labour? ning of my disaffection. So it started quite early in RM: Not absolutely inevitably. But it seemed to be the my Parliamentary life. party of the progressives in British politics at the time TL: In terms of defecting from Labour, was Roy Jenkins’ and the only vehicle through which one might hope to Dimbleby Lecture (delivered on  November ) the achieve one’s political goals. The Liberal party, which I crystallising factor for you? did consider, seemed to be so reduced and with so few RM: No, not altogether. In a sense to me, my conver- prospects of being even in a position of influence that it sion had occurred earlier. I was a junior minister in the seemed to me quite impossible to join it at that time. government of –. During that time I was con-

40 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 25: Winter 1999–2000 came very acrimonious after the general support. When I decided to make the election had been lost by the Labour gov- break and told the constituency, the ernment. It became increasingly a break SDP was not yet formally in being. The between friends, many of whom shared Council for Social Democracy (CSD) the same objections to the tendency of had been formed, and indeed the the party. In addition there were the Declaration had been made, moves towards de-selection against indi- but it was only a signal that we were vidual MPs in their constituencies and likely to break. The response to the for- then there was an appalling conference in mation of the CSD was so immense Blackpool in the autumn of . And and positive that the bringing into be- that actually was for me the break point. I ing of the SDP had to be advanced. told my constituency party that I would TL: But that suggests there was always a not stand again as a Labour candidate if plan to have a separate party. the policies which had been adopted at RM: There was a contingency plan to do that autumn conference were to become so. If we had not evoked such sympathy Robert Maclennan MP the policies on which the Labour Party and support we might have remained as a fought the next election. cerned about the role of the trades union separate faction within Labour. movement, particularly in relation to the TL: How did they react? TL: A relatively small number of Labour conduct of economic policy at the Treas- RM: Most of them were rather sup- MPs compared to the total size of the party ury under Denis Healy. I thought their portive and agreed with my general joined at the beginning. Was that a disap- bullying tactics were unacceptable and I view about the monstrousness of what pointment? became more and more disenchanted had been done. with the class politics of the Labour Party. RM: No, not at all. I think we were ac- I was doing a job which I thought was TL: Was this backing at constituency level tually pleased that we got so many on important within the government and I unusual amongst those who defected? the very first day, I think twelve if I re- thought it was right to get on with the RM: I was unusual in several respects. member rightly. By the end it was job, but at the same I was very disturbed First of all, I had made my declaration twenty-nine. That was a pretty good about the corporatism, if you like, of the long before anyone else had. It was unu- tally. The pressures against leaving a Labour Party and the fact that all the time sual in that there was a very considerable party are very strong. The uncertainty the trades unions were trying to call the degree of understanding and agreement about whether one survives as a politi- shots and dictate where the public interest and support for my position and after- cian are immense. And you have to be lay. I did not really believe that was appro- wards when I did leave the Labour Party prepared to accept the probability that priate. Even before the Dimbleby Lec- many of the people in the management you will not survive. committee of the Labour Party in the ture, I had really decided before that if a TL: There was a lot of criticism by the La- constituency went with me. A third went new party was formed, I would join it. I bour Party then that those who did defect immediately and another third followed had talked to Roy Jenkins in the period were not prepared immediately to offer them- shortly thereafter. I had talked very between  and the general election of selves for re-election. openly with my agent about the situation. May . I used to go to Brussels quite a RM: We did discuss that and I would have And I kept the public informed. lot as a junior minister dealing with issues been willing to stand again but I thought of agricultural prices because I was con- TL: Did you find it a very painful experi- the consensus was that it would have sumer minister and I attended Council of ence, given that you had been in the Labour been quite selfish so to do, because I was Ministers’ meetings. I often saw Roy and Party so long? in a position where I felt in my bones that exchanged views with him about the RM: In one sense, obviously, it was the pubic was with me and would prob- state of play and the state of mind of many painful to break with people, many of ably have re-elected me. But I recognised members of the Parliamentary Labour whom I liked personally, many of that there were other constituencies Party. So my mind had moved to the pos- whom shared my views about policies where support for the Labour Party was sibility of a break. but were not able for one reason or an- instinctual and almost hereditary, where it TL: To what extent was there coordination other to make the break but I never had would not have been so and I thought we among the disaffected Labour MPs at that any pain however in leaving the institu- should all behave in the same way. So far time? tion of the Labour Party. I do not think as the constitutional position was con- RM: There was no coordination. There I have ever regarded a political party as cerned, I had been elected as a Labour was an exchange of views with people an institution to which personal attach- MP, it is true, but I had also made plain my continuously. There were all kinds of lit- ment should be given, as it if it were views on issues of policy and they were tle factions and organisations within the some form of religious creed. A party is very far removed from those which the Labour Party and I was seriously con- only valid as a means to obtain political Labour Party spent a lot of time making cerned about the way the party was go- ends and once it ceases to enable you to great play. And indeed very far from the ing. Of course it all accelerated and be- do so, it is only rational to withdraw manifesto on which we had fought the  election.

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 25: Winter 1999–2000 41 TL: There was a considerable amount of ecutive committee, the arrangements for went down to the unit of the constitu- sympathy from the public to the formation of assemblies and so forth. ency. But the Federal constitution which the SDP. Was that a surprise to the people was developed for the Liberal Democrats TL: When you were doing that, you were involved? was really building on the thinking of the obviously setting out to do something that RM: I think it was a surprise. We were SDP. We had a number of things which was very different from the Labour Party’s very pleased and recognised that what we carried on, for example the appeals proc- constitution, but how much was that your had been saying about the readiness of the ess to avoid disputes having to be decided own work and how much the ideas of a country to break away from the old two- by committees when they really were es- group of like-minded people? party politics was not just an expression of sentially quasi-judicial matters. RM: It was pretty much my own work. I hope; it was a diagnosis of a condition. did have the assistance of Will Goodhart, TL: When the SDP was formed, was there a TL: Did the enthusiasm mean that the contin- who actually was the lawyer who drafted common decision of the group of MPs that gency plans really were not adequate, that the the document, but I prepared the brief they would approach local Liberals and seek thing took off faster than you could cope with? and took it through the decision-mak- an Alliance? RM: No, not at all. The initial enthusi- ing steering committee of the party. RM: I think that varied from individual asm and the huge response from the to individual. In some parts of the TL: You were involved in drafting the consti- public which flooded in gave us all country the Liberals were not very tution of the Liberal Democrats as well. Did wings. We really did set up the organisa- strong and that was part of the reason you find there were lessons from the drafting tional structure very quickly, engaging why the SDP was a separate party. In of the SDP constitution of things to avoid or people to work with us. We drafted an some areas they were rather stronger things to bring in? initial constitution and we had great and we naturally gravitated into talks RM: Not altogether. The situation was a success in the arrangements for the with each other. But it was the situation little different. Some of the best features of early conferences for which we trav- on the ground really that determined the SDP constitution we retained. But elled the length and breadth of the what was the sensible thing to do. some of them had been necessities for the country. The whole development was moment when we were a growing party TL: So in your own case, presumably there almost spontaneously enthusiastic and and were not necessary when we united was a reasonably strong Liberal Party in people gave enormous amounts of time with the Liberals. For example, we had Caithness and Sutherland? and money to make it work. had as a basic unit of organisation in the RM: It was more of a strong Liberal tra- TL: What part did you play yourself in the SDP the area party, which straddled con- dition than a strong Liberal Party. Actu- setting up of the organisation? stituencies. This was in order to enable the ally they had not fielded a candidate RM: I played quite a big part in it. I was membership which was active on the against me at the previous general elec- present at the launch of the CSD. I went ground in one constituency to help the tion. So they were not all that strong or- to Scotland as the only Scottish Member formation of parties in other constituen- ganisationally and there was never any of Parliament associated with this move cies, or at least to attract members and en- question of putting a Liberal candidate to carry the flag there. I drafted the initial sure there was activity. It also helped to up against me as I understand. The gen- document which really was the consti- have this structure when it came to nego- eral picture in the country was of the tution of the CSD, and then took par- tiating seats during the Alliance with the SDP being stronger in areas where the ticular responsibility for the constitution Liberals, deciding which party would Liberals had not been strong. It was a of the SDP which set up the structures, stand in which seat. But that was no complementary relationship in many the policy committee, the national ex- longer required when we merged and we parts. There were areas where there were difficulties, obviously, but I participated in the discussions with the Liberals on Founding the new party: David Steel and Robert Maclennan. the sharing of seats for the Parliamentary elections in Scotland and we really man- aged it without serious ructions. And I think at the end of the day, most people were satisfied. Some people had to make sacrifices but they did so with a rather good will. For some it paid off. Jim Wallace, for example, had been selected or was expected to be selected as the Liberal candidate for Dumfries but he made way for the SDP. He was shortly thereafter selected to stand for Orkney and Shetland. TL: There were those who came with you from the Parliamentary Labour Party and

42 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 25: Winter 1999–2000 those who had sympathy but who did not TL: Do you see it as a great achievement vote. It was also a tragedy that so many defect. Was there work put in to try and con- that the founding of the SDP eventually good people were not elected. We had vert more people? forced the Labour Party to reform? not learned about targeting seats. Per- RM: Members of the new party were RM: I certainly think that it had a be- haps we did not have the resources to do very sensitive to people who might neficent impact upon politics as a whole even that. We certainly did not make the share their ideas but were in different and that it did have an impact primarily breakthrough we had hoped for but we situations on the ground in their own on the Labour Party in moving them did establish a bridgehead from which it constituencies and we really did not away from the appalling class-based poli- was possible to go on and build, and it proselytise amongst our friends. We tics which had scarified the scene in this was a seminal point in the history of the continued to be friendly and if they country for too long. But the Labour Liberal Democrats. We were not wiped wanted to talk to us, of course we Party was not totally converted by our out. We were able to build on the narrow talked. And that did lead to a gradual activities and the basic Liberalism of the base and carry forward the process increase in the ranks of the SDP in Par- Liberal Democrats is something which which in many ways was perhaps liament between  and  which they are incapable of feeling any affinity stronger for having gone through a pe- was very heartening. But there were to. They are collectivist. They are riod of adversity. some people who took it very badly. centralist. They are basically bossy. They TL: At what point did it dawn that it was Some who were genuinely outraged by think they know what is best for every- necessary to have the merger? what we had done. There were some one. They are not drawn to libertarian RM: I think there were some people who were less outraged but regarded us positions. They do not see the individual who thought quite early on that it as something of a threat and as casting a as the person whom we politicians are in would make sense. reflection on their unwillingness to business to protect. There were others make the same move. So there was a They are too ready A political party is not who felt that it range of different responses. to subscribe to the might happen and tyranny of the ma- some form of religious TL: Was this an ideological split, with hos- perhaps that it jority. tility from left-wingers? creed. It is only valid as a should happen but RM: No, the left-wingers in most cases TL: Whilst it would means to obtaining that it should not be wrote us off. Some of them even went so not be fair to character- political ends. rushed. I was cer- far as to say we had done the honest ise his views in that tainly in that camp thing; that we should never have been in way, one gets the im- myself. Others were the Labour Party anyway. The real prob- pression that David Owen was never drawn totally opposed to it and that response lem was with the centre and the centre- to Liberalism in the way you have just de- led to the split within the SDP after the right, people like , who scribed it.  election. I thought it would be bet- despite his evident disagreement with RM: No, I think that is probably true ter if it was not a shotgun wedding, and the direction of the Labour Party, felt with the benefit of hindsight. He was not that the hearts and minds of the SDP that it was treacherous to leave it; that it at heart a liberal with a small ‘l’. He cer- and Liberals should be seen to be well was an institution that should command tainly was not a Liberal with a capital ‘L’. and truly committed to it. So I favoured our loyalty even when it erred. a more gradualist approach than that TL: Did that create problems for you as an which was adopted by the two parties in TL: How did that hostility reflect itself? SDP group? the referendum. But once the members RM: To some extent in the barracking RM: It created immense problems after had expressed their view, it was quite one faced in the House of Commons, the  election. Even before that clear it was a democratic decision fairly in the general hostility of manner and election, there were tensions which and properly arrived at, and the impor- in public denunciations. I suppose it stemmed from his very strong personal- tant thing was to make it work and work eased off gradually but it took an aw- ity and his unwillingness, in truth, to well. It was also very important to estab- fully long while to disappear. Perhaps it work with people when they disagreed lish as a basis for the new party never totally disappeared but as the La- with him at all, Liberals and Social understandings and agreements about bour Party reformed itself there was a Democrats. A lot of people admired how that new party would operate. That slight tendency on the part of some of him hugely for his energy, his commit- was why there were such tough discus- those people not to understand why we ment, his readiness for change and he sions prior to the formal agreement fol- all did not throw our hands in the air was a man of great charismatic personal lowing the referendum. We had a long and say ‘Wonderful; time to go home’. qualities but the political philosophy and rather arduous process of beating They did not seem to appreciate how which informed his stances was always our heads together to reach agreement events had moved on. Some of them, a little hard to detect. on the constitution of the new party. like Roy Hattersley, were even left be- TL: There must have been huge disappoint- This was a matter of real significance and hind inside the Party. It is ment at the result of the  general election it did ultimately lay the foundations for rather curious how that group neither within the SDP? the organisation we have today. Ours is a fitted into the post- party nor into RM: It was an amazing achievement to very strong and very democratic party the post- party. have more than a quarter of the popular with decentralisation in a federal sense

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 25: Winter 1999–2000 43 which honours and values the individual Owen and who had the belief that Brit- man beings that have a birth, a life and a membership as sovereign. It is both effi- ish politics could be changed by an indi- death. That whole concept is a non- cient and deliberative in its approach to vidual. For them, he was that man. That sense; although it may have been help- policy-making. These were issues which was never a view to which I subscribed. ful in shaping the book. Beginnings and were very important in my mind be- ends in history are often difficult to TL: Was the break-up of the SDP actually a cause I had felt there had been some point to. There is a continuity, a flow, of more painful experience than your defection weaknesses in the old Liberal Party which the SDP was a part. Many peo- from Labour? which had led to policy lurches which ple in the Labour Party – and I suspect, RM: Certainly for some people it was. I had damaged the public perception of not least, – were influenced was very unhappy about it indeed, be- the Liberal Party as a consistent party. I by the thinking of the SDP. They had cause I had put a lot of creative energy felt you had to give the members of the also noticed the spectacular public sup- into the SDP. I was both angry with party a real opportunity to participate port for it when it was launched. They David Owen and somewhat despairing and that those who did should be prop- no doubt wanted to replicate that ef- of the folly of my fellows who had erly prepared for the conferences and fect. I think it gave some the idea that shown so little regard for the demo- properly representative of their constitu- you really could draw a line under the cratic processes of our party. They had encies; that deci- past and re-present yourself, which is campaigned on the sions should not be what Blair and New Labour have done. slogan of ‘one just taken as a result New Labour is not an There have certainly been innovations member one vote’ of the happenstance which the SDP brought into politics SDP Mark II. The SDP but when the result if you just turned which have been copied by Labour. For went against them, up at a conference. cared about social instance, the SDP was the first party to they felt they were put its membership onto a computer TL: The overwhelm- justice. entitled to try and database and we used public relations ing majority in the smash the whole advisers much more than any party had Liberal Party voted for the merger and very process. So, yes, there was a good deal of done before. We did go in for some few, whatever their misgivings, decided to drop bitterness and that took quite a time to sample polling. We did things which are out. Why was not that the case with the eradicate. But the new party, despite the now taken completely for granted. In SDP? appalling difficulties of the year – organisational terms the SDP was a RM: There was a significant loss of , during which I was joint leader modern party. In ideological terms we membership to David Owen’s ‘continu- with David Steel, actually did establish did contribute to the smashing of the ing SDP’; probably as much as a third of important foundations and in the local class base of British politics, which had the total membership did not join the elections in the spring we did not do as dominated it. Notwithstanding the ex- new party. And it was very much with badly as people feared we might. In fact istence of the Liberal Party, British poli- that third in mind that I had been advo- we did remarkably well, considering. tics was still a class-based war which cating taking the hurdles slowly, but I TL: Do you agree that one of David Owen’s was being fought between two princi- lost that debate and I then had to recog- ideas was that of the ‘virtual’ political party pal players. That is no longer true today. nise that there was a new situation. I re- which could exist as a central entity, propa- gretted that loss of membership and TL: So is New Labour an SDP Mark II, or gandise by television but which did not need David Owen was very largely responsi- are there still fundamental differences? people working on the streets and in the con- ble for that. He personified the SDP and RM: It is not an SDP Mark II. The SDP stituencies; contrasting with Liberal thinking? I think he demonised the Liberals. He had a touch of the old Labour Party RM: When he separated himself from the did not recognise how much there was a about it. It cared about social justice. It SDP and went off on his own, pretending genuine coming together on new did not have Thatcherite beliefs, al- to be the surviving SDP, he tried his theo- ground between the two parties. though David Owen sometimes used ries out on the electorate and he did spec- Thatcherite rhetoric. The membership TL: What was the cause of this split within tacularly badly. I don’t believe there was of the SDP was genuinely more plural- the relatively newly formed SDP? Was it any merit in what he was saying. ist than is New Labour. The SDP from ideological as with the fights that had caused TL: Looking back from today, do you think the very beginning took a strong line people to leave Labour? the breakaway of the SDP influenced the re- on constitutional reform. This brought RM: It was very much more personal- form of Labour or do you think Labour it on to the agenda. Although the Lib- ised. There was a small element of ideol- would have come to its senses and trans- erals had been in favour of many of ogy in it. At that time David Owen was formed in the way it did anyway? these reforms, the support of the SDP more of a central European social demo- RM: I think it is very hard to say. I have for them gave a cutting edge to the de- crat, perhaps, and less of a liberal demo- seen it argued by Anthony King and bate and gave a new impetus to the is- crat, with concerns about individual Ivor Crewe in their book on the life sue. While it has been a Labour govern- freedom. But I really think it was very and death of the SDP * that it made no ment which has delivered on some of largely a personal pull he exerted on the difference. I think they are profoundly these issues, one has felt a certain lack of members. There were some members wrong and I have told them so. I do not who were, frankly, attracted to David believe that political parties are like hu- concluded on page 50

44 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 25: Winter 1999–2000 opposing the introduction of identity its structure is essentially chronological, cards, protecting the privacy of patients’ the subject matter seems at times to jump medical records and supporting moves to around and the story of a particular impose proper standards on those in campaign or political episode is some- public life — all classic liberal themes. times difficult to follow through. But in a More importantly in personal terms, sense this is a reflection of real life. Busy the story is told of Emma Nicholson’s politicians do not campaign neatly on work with children’s charities. In , one issue at a time. Crusades overlap and she joined the Save the Children Fund political themes interact. The organisa- because of her background working in tion of the book brings home the hectic IT, eventually rising to become nature of current political life for an Director. As an MP in  she visited active and campaigning MP. Romania and later founded an All- There is an epilogue to the book Party Parliamentary Group on Roma- which consists of quotations from well- nian Children and launched a financial wishers, mostly traditional Conservative appeal. Against this background and supporters who, like Emma Nicholson, together with an interest in fair and for their own reasons, could stand treatment for international refugees no more of the last government and had and the legacy of the Iran–Iraq and decided to change electoral allegiance. Gulf Wars, Emma Nicholson set up the It would be instructive to know if any issues and policies that Emma Nicholson AMAR appeal in  to assist the of those quoted have reverted to the has campaigned for. These include the Marsh Arabs of Iraq. That appeal raised Conservative fold or whether the deep fight to end all forms of unfair discrimi- £ million over the next five years. A disillusion expressed in their words has nation. Emma Nicholson herself was year later she arranged to bring Amar remained as strong as time passes and born with a hearing deficiency which himself to Guy’s Hospital for treatment the memory of Conservative govern- was not identified until she was seven- to his % third degree burns and then ment fades. Emma Nicholson’s political teen years old. Other causes Emma took him into her own family. This in future is, however, firmly entrenched in Nicholson has espoused are the cam- turn led to greater awareness of the the Liberal Democrats, as a peer and a paign to combat adult illiteracy, the need effects of government policies on those Member of the European Parliament. to persuade and encourage more women in the community and a growing Reading this book, her whole political (particularly members of the ethnic realisation that the Conservative Party life seems to have revolved around minorities) to enter public and political was an integral part of the problem, liberal causes and the only wonder is — life, closer co-operation with our not a means to its solution. what took her so long?

European partners, penal reform, A criticism of the book is that while Graham Lippiatt

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Breaking the mould? the new Liberal Democrats had origi- ceptance of the role of our party in lo- continued from page 44 nated. The differences now are almost cal government, at Westminster and in impossible to detect. This happened very the European Parliament. These [elec- enthusiasm for these policies as if they quickly. Liberals and Social Democrats toral successes] are the easy measures of are concessions given by a Labour Party found they had so little dividing them our advance but the real change is in anxious to win the golden opinions of that it was artificial to talk about it. This the nature of the debate and that, I ‘bien-pensant’ society. But I do not was probably because the members of think, has been our achievement. the SDP who joined the merged party have a sense of their innate enthusiasm TL: And what has been your greatest regret? for the sort of principles which under- were the people who were most moved RM: My greatest regret is that it took so by liberal democratic philosophy. lie the constitutional programme. That long. We are a conservative people. The aspect of SDP thinking has not actually TL: Reviewing politics from  onwards, aspirations of people in politics has not been absorbed by the Labour Party. what would you identify as the greatest matched the needs of the country. We TL: How much do you think the SDP has achievement you participated in? should have been more radical in chal- been the dominant influence on the Liberal RM: Helping to promote into the cen- lenging the nostrums of the other parties. tre of political debate in Britain, liberal, Democrats? Tony Little is the Secretary of the Liberal RM: I do not think it is possible to say. democratic ideas — to end class as the Democrat History Group. One of the most interesting and in a way test of British politics, to end the domi- unpredicted developments was the nance of class in political debate. And to * SDP – The Birth, Life and Death of the speed with which it was impossible to foster pluralism in the political arena. Social Democratic Party by Ivor Crewe tell from which party the members of That is what has led to the greater ac- and Anthony King (Oxford, )

50 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 25: Winter 1999–2000