The Alliance: Parties and Leaders How successful was the Alliance? Was merger the right road to follow? Michael Meadowcroft puts the case against.

It is still difficult to take a sufficiently dispassionate political and electoral damage. On occasion one relied – usually rewarded – on one’s tar- personal view of the seven-year period from the get audience reading between the lines. formation of the SDP to the two parties’ final votes The title of this essay emanates from my read- to merge. I still have very emotional feelings on how ing of the history of the period. The relation- ship between the two parties and their leaders much better it could have been, on how badly the was, to my mind, the most influential factor in Liberal Party qua party was treated, particularly in the way that the key events unfolded. I focus the early days, on whether or not, in retrospect, it on the political aspects of the Liberal leader, rather than his personality. I have always found would have been better – or even possible – to reject David Steel personable and easy to get on with. the Alliance root and branch, on the tactical naïvete Unusually for a politician, he does not appear of David Steel, on the eventual supineness of almost to harbour grudges. He also has a good sense of humour and likes jazz – what more could one all the Liberal Party’s negotiating team, and on ask! Alas, his relationship with the Liberal Party whether the final settlement really did represent a was always one-sided and, I believe, his political  judgement was highly flawed. It is clear from compromise too far. his autobiography that Steel revelled in being If one had to deal with developments since somehow above the party debate. merger, I suspect that the difficulty of being less than dispassionate would be still more evi- dent. Suffice to say that an absence of com- The Grimond legacy  ment does not indicate a weakening of resolve!  marks my fortieth year as a member of In exploring these questions I am con- the Liberal Party, and to a larger extent than is scious of the excellence of Tony Greaves’ and often realised, one’s perception of the poten- Rachel Pitchford’s account of the merger ne- tial and the frustration of the Alliance years is  gotiations. The very few quibbles that I have coloured by one’s experience of previous op- with their text will become apparent in due portunities and failures. The party of the course. Also, I have never been able to hide Grimond years was by no means as ‘Left-Lib- from, nor disavow, current views – even if I ertarian’ as Jo was. To a certain extent the in- wished to – as I have always found it difficult crease in support, and the byelection victories, to resist invitations to write for any journal in the – period rode on a social demo- or publisher aware of how easy it is to flatter cratic style, and an anti-Conservative appeal,  me. Also I have always had a quaint belief in in places where Labour could not hope to win. the need for intellectual rigour and philo- In a curious reversal of the Steel years, the then sophic consistency in politics, without which leader was, at least in terms of philosophy and it is invariably difficult to accommodate the policy, more liberal than the party. Why else necessary tactical compromises. As a conse- would the then Young Liberals have felt the quence there are numerous texts extant which need to launch its excellent New Orbits series put on the record what I felt vital at the time. of pamphlets? The contrast with – is To be sure, there are weasel words therein; in salutary. politics one can never wholly shrink from the For me, at the time at party HQ as Local necessity to avoid every possible scintilla of Government Officer, the  local elections journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 17 were a great shock. The party had tween leader and party, the Young romped home in council after coun- Liberals had continued their Liberal Leader versus party cil in May  on the coat tails of odyssey into their ‘Red Guard’ pe- Those Liberals who committed the March Orpington byelection, riod, and were duly taken on pub- themselves to involvement in the winning seats in town after town, of- licly for their pains, with debilitat- party nationally – often at consider- ten with little or no organisation. In ing effects. able domestic, financial and electoral March  the immense opportu- The relevance of this period to the cost – were not, with very few ex- nity of a possible gain from Labour Alliance years is threefold. First, the ceptions, wild revolutionaries deter- in Colne Valley presented itself and struggle to maintain the party’s lib- mined to embarrass the leadership was, I believe, tactically muffed. Even eral identity vis-à-vis its leader began at every opportunity. The much- maligned Liberal Party Council, for instance, spent far too much of its The failure of David Steel to extract time agonising over how to temper its policy leanings towards the ‘lead- sufficient political and electoral benefits ership’s’ position where the latter was from the Pact gave clear and adequate known or assumed, or how to present palpably different strategy notice that he was not going to be the decisions as being an example of tough leader determined to protect his party unity. Of course, from time to time, sometimes when goaded by the party in crucial negotiations. leader’s – and, by and large, the whole Parliamentary Party’s – ne- glect or criticism, the Party Council without such a timely byelection with Jeremy Thorpe, not with David went to the barricades but, in gen- boost we expected to repeat the  Steel, and was a direct consequence eral, conscious of the retribution that successes. With a number of honour- of the lessons learned in the Grimond the electorate tends to wreak on able exceptions we dropped back in era. Second, the contrast between the party disunity, the party was remark- place after place. The palpable disap- response within the party to the ably well behaved – even when pro- pointment was followed by a number Thorpe-Heath talks in February voked. I am absolutely convinced   of defections of sitting councillors  and the Steel-Callaghan pact that had ‘the leadership’ chosen to  and it was certainly clear to me that of  is revealing. During the ’s, work with the Party Council (and to if Liberal officers and candidates did I was leader of the Leeds City Coun- a less public degree, the Party Ex- not possess at least some understand- cil Liberal Group and a national party ecutive), as some MPs did, includ- ing of liberal philosophy they were officer. When Jeremy Thorpe went to ing John Pardoe and, from time to liable to be wafted about by every Downing Street immediately after the time, David Penhaligon, rather than passing political breeze. Again, the February  election, my tel- treating those who were, after all, comparison with the – period ephone, along with other regional Liberal colleagues with barely con- is, I believe, significant. and national colleagues’, was perma- cealed contempt, the gains in mu- Grimond was so personally at- nently occupied with irate and wor- tual trust and recognition would  tractive and charismatic that, even ried Liberals appalled at what deal have had immense benefits during though he was invariably plain might be being contemplated. In the traumatic Alliance years. As ex- speaking, few members of the pub- , my recollection is that I had amples of what would have been lic, let alone many members of the three mildly concerned calls over the possible, one only has to look at the party, looked beyond the sound of Pact. It would have been impossible civilised debates and the acceptance what he was saying to the words to carry the party into a coalition of party consensus at the special as- themselves. In contrast, the Thorpe with the Conservatives in , what- semblies called to debate specific years were politically and organisa- ever the terms, but, despite perfectly crucial strategic issues. tionally horrendous, if at times justified fears as to its possible effect electorally successful. Labour’s deep on the party, the Lib-Lab Pact of unpopularity from  and Heath’s – was generally accepted as Byelection candidates stolid leadership, particularly in Op- being a justified risk. Third, the fail- To take two key examples of the position, provided an unrivalled op- ure of David Steel to extract suffi- , frustration and, indeed, the lack of portunity which was simply dis- cient political and electoral benefits understanding of basic courtesy, one sipated and finally sunk in the po- from the Pact gave clear and ad- only has to examine the question of litically catastrophic entrails of the equate notice that he was not going  the Alliance candidatures for the Thorpe trial. And whereas the to be the tough leader determined Croydon North-West and Crosby party was mired in the struggle to to protect his party in crucial nego- byelections. An astute Liberal Party present a semblance of unity be- tiations.

18 journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 leader, faced with the Croydon op- years early – was also present at to be curiously antipathetic to fight- portunity, and having a perfectly rea- Bradford. We were both outraged. ing Labour. sonable desire to secure the election Suffice to say that Anthony Hill gen- There certainly was at the time of an attractive SDP luminary, would erously accepted and supported a big difference between those Lib- have immediately consulted the ob- Shirley Williams at the byelection. erals – the majority of the party – vious key people – the Croydon However, I am inclined to think that who had no direct personal experi- NW Liberal Association candidate had the situation been handled dif- ence of Labour in local government and officers, the party’s national ferently, and given the different lo- control, and those, such as the party officers, and significant ‘trouble mak- cations and personalities, one just in Leeds, who suffered and struggled ers’ – and attempted to sort out the might still today have Shirley against sophisticated political chican- minimum terms for a ‘deal’: the next Williams and Anthony Hill as MPs ery and the calculating and cynical vacancy guaranteed for a Liberal, for Croydon NW and Crosby re- – and legal – abuse of public funds minor concessions on seat negotia- spectively. to maintain Labour in office. The tions generally, something vague on former saw only the pleasant, pro- policy etc. gressive but mildly erroneous Labour Instead, faced with Steel bully- Labour hegemony Party, whereas the relatively few Lib- ing – from, as usual, a great distance Like, I imagine, most Liberals dur- erals winning seats from Labour – the Liberal Party Council at ing the early s, I observed the knew a very different political ani- Abingdon (this rather curious loca- suicidal tendency of the Labour mal. Inevitably this dichotomy of tion is etched in my memory) re- Party in action with a mixture of party priorities coloured the debates sponded by passing enthusiastically disbelief, hilarity and sheer unadul- and negotiations with the SDP in  a motion supporting William Pitt terated joy. I vividly recall driving the succeeding years. (the Defector). I recall seeing David along the M – to or from what oc- Steel in his bijou House of Com- casion I cannot now recall, but it was The inexorable spiral mons office early the following week virtually bound to have been a Lib- and asking him what he now in- eral meeting – as the news came ‘Our’ failure – my failure – to po- tended to do. He replied, extremely through of the special Labour Con- liticise the Liberal Party, and our er- churlishly, ‘I suppose I’ll have to bow ference’s totally bizarre decision on ror of taking for granted the pre- to democracy’! the arithmetic for its electoral col- sumed existence of an inherent radi- Not long afterwards the SDP lege to elect its leader and deputy calism in the party at large, were salu- embarked upon a pro-British Rail leader. Had I not been bombing tarily brought home to us at the campaign. It wasn’t intended as such along a motorway I would have Llandudno Liberal Assembly of  – indeed, it rather backfired when done a dance of joy, as it was I con- – the Alliance Assembly. Those of us BR failed to deliver the conference fined myself to a minor whoop. Per- who sought to argue for a philo- delegates on time at, I think, Great haps naïvely, I had at that time no sophical position vis-à-vis the SDP, Yarmouth (and why not!) – but was premonition of the dangers lurking and for constitutional niceties, such planned as a typical SDP mould- ahead for the Liberal Party, even as the – minor? – point that the SDP breaking gimmick of a ‘rolling’ con- though there had been a number of was not at that time actually consti- ference at three locations, as opposed letters, and even introductory arti- tuted, were comprehensively to the infinitely more boring but at cles, in the serious press, and in The swamped by a wave of enthusiasm least achievable and even sustainable Guardian, for the eventual SDP by for some vague but attractive emo- practice of assembling at one resort its soon-to-be luminaries. I saw it as tional spasm, epitomised by the pre- – usually beginning with the letter an unrivalled opportunity to under- Assembly rally with Shirley Williams,  ‘B’. The SDP at least recognised the mine a hegemonic, politically cor- Roy Jenkins, Jo Grimond, David latter imperative by holding one- rupt and illiberal Labour Party. Those Steel, Gordon Lishman and – a val- third of its Conference en route at who shared this view, and who suc- iant but downbeat – Tony Greaves.  Bradford, which I duly attended. ceeded against the odds to win seats Having been Assembly Chair for five Whilst in the bar at the St George’s in the big cities and other Labour years, and therefore well aware that Hall, ascertaining, as one does on fiefdoms, not only believed theoreti- on setpiece occasions heart always such occasions, the real facts of the cally in the vital necessity to defeat wins over head, I suppose I knew state of play of the SDP, I was as- Labour electorally, but actually set that the ‘promote Liberalism, safe- tounded to hear, over the PA system, about doing it. It was always a strange guard the party, vigilance, watchful- Shirley Williams unilaterally an- paradox to find ourselves castigated ness and all that’ case was doomed; nouncing her candidature for the as being political theoreticians, un- nevertheless, having opted for the Crosby byelection. The existing and interested in power, when we were tactical compromise of an amend- properly-selected prospective Liberal actually winning seats. Winning, ment to delay assent to the Alliance candidate for Crosby – whom I had moreover, without visible support (nothing more could conceivably personally recruited to the party  from the party centrally who seemed have been salvaged from the wreck- journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 19 age at that point), the vote on it was ficult to break, addiction to accept- Bridge proved to be accurate. at least respectable. However, one of ing commissions to write, I followed No ‘working’ politician with any the great myths of that Assembly is my Liberalism for a New Decade with nous believes that leaders shouldn’t the subsequent final vote on the pro- a booklet for Liberator, Social Democ- lead, or that there are never occa- Alliance motion itself. From the racy – Barrier or Bridge. This delved sions when leaders cannot immedi- Chair, Gruff Evans simply counted into the background to social de- ately share with their party col- the  delegates against the motion, mocracy, and analysed the state of leagues all the delicate nuances of subtracted that figure from the total play between the Liberal Party and possible developments, but the number of registered delegates and the SDP. It stated that ‘[t]he SDP is willing acceptance of such reality re- announced that as the result. The at one and the same time the great- quires, first, confidence in the lead- votes for were never counted and, est opportunity and the greatest dan- er’s capability to deliver, and, second, consequently, the substantial number ger to Liberalism for thirty years.’ a visible willingness to work to en- of abstainers – either by conviction This was intended as a contribution sure that the led follow the leader. or, like me, out of sheer gloom, were to what one presumed would be an On both counts David Owen suc- unknown. ongoing debate on the fluid and ceeded and David Steel failed. An The problem of party ‘placement’ evolving relationship, but its recep- assessment of the style and achieve- in the political spectrum, and its con- tion was altogether different. Edward ment of the two men during the sequential imperative in seat alloca- Lyons QC, then Labour turned SDP crucial period of the Alliance’s life tion etc., lay some way ahead and, at MP for Bradford West – and with turns on its head the received truth the time of the formation of the his wife, Barbara, extremely good of the responsibility for the Alliance’s SDP, I felt genuinely excited by the company, then and now – became ultimate disappointment. This is not evident potential for a cataclysmic almost incoherent during a joint ra- an assessment of the policies and transformation of the political – and dio interview in Leeds at my sug- election tactics pursued by them – electoral – structure. Like, I suppose, gestion in the booklet that, as things for instance Owen’s error during the others, I smiled wryly at the launch then stood organisationally with the  general election of admitting a of the new party and at its obses- two parties, the Liberals should fight preference for working with the sion with PR styles and with reject- at least  seats and the SDP some Conservatives was a significant fac- ing all received ‘truths’, but was pre- of the rest. Provocative this clearly tor in losing Leeds West – but rather pared to give it the benefit of the was, but the rebuttal, generally, lacked a judgement on the way each han- doubt and to be proved wrong. confidence and content. Alas, far too dled his party. The problem of the In line with the previous, and dif- many of the concerns of Barrier or Alliance was not, as is commonly thought, the problem of David The first contest: Steel and Jenkins before the ’83 election. Owen but rather the problem of David Steel. One knew where one was with Owen – for better or for worse – but one was never sure of what Steel would come out with next – whatever had been agreed in his presence at the party meeting in advance.

SDP triumphalism The SDP was an ‘all or nothing’ break for fame and power. Inevita- bly it ended up as nothing. There are those who argue that it could have been all. Maybe there was an out- side chance but I doubt it. There was a problem from day one with the SDP’s parliamentary recruits, and, in particular the SDP leadership – with the exception of Roy Jenkins – ini- tially generally treating Liberals in rather the same way as Steel did: as dedicated espousers of worthy causes, but with no commitment to the required discipline for gaining

20 journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 power. To some extent this was a ing a new mandate. The moral au- were concluded without much dif- consequence of being elected as La- thority of SDP MPs elected as such ficulty, but others had to be recon- bour MPs ‘on the ticket’ and be- would have given them considerably vened time after time, using up time ing initially wholly unaware of the greater stature in the House, rather which could more valuably have immense problem of achieving elec- than having permanently to coun- been spent actually winning the seats tion as a third party. SDP MPs, ter the argument that they had been in question. faced with tough Liberals, for whom elected on a different ticket. Such One ought not to disparage nor political survival was a daily strug- judgement is, of course, subjective, minimise the many cases and occa- gle, came to revise their opinions, but but frankly, in the circumstances, it sions when Liberal and SDP col- too late to revise the strategy for the was well worth the risk. I have to leagues worked together effectively and efficiently but there was often a very different attitude to politics and ‘The problem with the Liberal Party’, said political activity. Paradoxically, it was often the reverse of the general per- Owen, ‘is that you have a leader who isn’t ception of which of the two parties interested in policy’. was playing at politics and which was serious about winning. Liberals tended to despise the SDP’s predi- lection for interminable meetings on longer haul. A less arrogant and pat- confess, as one who soon came to detailed policy formation and its af- ronising attitude, and, for instance, a believe in the need to protect and fection for social gatherings – pref- seat allocation strategy which con- preserve the Liberal Party’s base and erably with big names – whilst the centrated less on an equality of seats its position from the SDP maraud- SDP tended to deride the Liberals’ fought and more on who was most ers, aided and abetted by the Liberal incessant community-politics activ- likely to win each seat, might con- leader, I was mightily relieved that ism. Such differences tended to arise ceivably have not only produced they didn’t choose the byelection from the SDP view that victory more ‘Alliance’ victories but would route! would come via the ‘Grand Slam’ arguably also have entrenched the As it was, the Alliance soon be- whereas the Liberals believed in the SDP on the scene far better for the came a bureaucratic nightmare. It necessity of the incremental long long haul. was difficult enough for Liberal haul. Perhaps it was emotionally im- council groups to have to accept In the end, although the trauma possible for the then SDP to have SDP members who were often of getting there left a number of swallowed a numerically ‘junior’ role amongst the Labour, and occasion- scars, it was surprising in the circum- but the consequences of not doing ally Conservative members they stances that only three seats in the so are numerically apparent today. had in the main felt least affinity with  general election were contested Paradoxically, the one tactic that – though in the main they swallowed by both SDP and Liberals. could have given the SDP electoral hard and got on with it – but we and political dominance over the had to embark on an interminable Liberals, and, indeed, could have round of joint committees, particu- Owen’s dominance given them phenomenal impetus, larly to determine seat allocation. I learned a lot from David Owen’s was the one they backed away from The bureaucracy involved was phe- chairmanship of meetings. The joint – the defectors resigning their seats nomenal! There were ‘gold’, ‘silver’ meetings he chaired did not only  and fighting byelections. The argu- and ‘bronze’ seats, allocated to each come to a conclusion on some ment was, of course, finely balanced. category on the basis of their policy point or on some item on the The parliamentary custom and prac- winnability, and each party had to following week’s parliamentary or- tice of the party holding the seat have its due share of each. There was der paper; when agreement had been choosing the timing of the a national ‘panel’ of representatives reached, Owen would then ask, ‘OK byelection – not to mention the cost who either led the team – usually – now what are the politics of this?’  of so many campaigns – would, for on the SDP side, the Liberals be- There would then ensue a short dis- instance, probably have denied the ing happier to rely on leading local cussion on how one dealt with the SDP a significant tactical advantage. colleagues – or who ‘observed’ each decision made and what were the However, in the heady electoral at- negotiating meeting, and there was tactical implications of it. The need mosphere of the SDP’s early days, provision for an appeal mechanism to relate policy and parliamentary and with an extended stream of par- in the event of deadlock! Some of decisions to the current political liamentary recruits, my firm belief is these meetings, often where little was agenda would certainly not have that the electorate would have re- at stake in terms of winnable seats, been dealt with in so disciplined a acted positively to the highly prin- or constituencies which had been way in a purely Liberal context. cipled action of each individual seek- nursed for many years by a Liberal, I had the adjacent office to David journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 21 Owen in the Norman Shaw North bility outside the constituency in parliamentary colleagues when I ar- building on the Embankment, and order to concentrate on winning rived at the House that the Leeds from time to time when we walked Leeds West, though I did manage to West victory was unexpected. It has together across to the main building write a fair bit to defend the Liberal been suggested to me that it was also he would say, ‘The problem with the Party whenever it was being ma- unwelcome to some, but I never had Liberal Party is that you have a leader ligned by its own leader, or misun- any sense of this from anyone. who isn’t interested in policy’. This derstood by the SDP – both of Stephen Ross – a splendid Liberal was palpably obvious, as the later fi- which occurred fairly often. Cer- who always wore his heart on his asco over the infamous ‘dead parrot’ tainly in West Leeds at that time the sleeve – did say to me after a couple document demonstrated, but one SDP was no vote winner. General of years, ‘When I heard you’d won could well have responded that the opinion, particularly in the six Lib- Leeds, I thought, ‘Oh, we’re getting a problem of the SDP is that it had a eral clubs there, was, first, that they troublemaker’, but you’re actually the leader who was obsessed with the should have stayed in the Labour ultimate loyalist!’ The only response minutiae of policy. Not as desperate Party and continued to fight their I could come up with was to ask how a fault, to be sure, but nonetheless a corner, and, second, that particularly he thought it could be otherwise af- barrier to a healthy policy formation as seen through Leeds’ eyes, Liberals ter my  years in the party. partnership between party and had been fighting these self-same Stephen Ross’ comment came leader. One innocent analysis of SDP people for years and could hardly during my period as Assistant Lib- policy came from one of the splen- embrace them now. The local party eral Whip. With the increase in Lib- did sign language interpreters who was virtually unanimous in deciding eral members, and the heavy spokes- translated for both the Liberal As- that tactically we should be ‘Liberal’ person duties each of us had to carry sembly and the SDP Conference. I on the ballot paper ‘without prefix (apart from David Alton and Cyril went to the Salford SDP Conference or suffix’ and should not seek to Smith, who refused to take on any and spotted one of these colleagues depend on any Alliance-based assist- such responsibilities), Alan Beith felt duly performing on the edge of the ance. We had no outside speakers and that it would be useful to have two stage. When she descended I went no outside money, but we did have Assistant Whips. Archy Kirkwood round to greet her. ‘Oh, Michael’, she the excellent Leighton Andrews and and I were appointed, Archy particu- said spontaneously, ‘I’m so glad to see Jim Heppell (who should both have larly to look after Scottish interests. you. I’m having awful trouble trans- been fighting seats themselves but I was very happy to take this on. I lating these speeches. There’s no sub- who weren’t) who added a winning regarded it as an opportunity to de- stance to them!’ flair to all the solid fifteen-year local velop the vital relationship between As SDP leader Owen was also build-up. the Parliamentary Party and the phenomenally alert to immediate party in the country, which would press comment. He believed that it be crucial to winning many more was essential to impress the media The 1983–87 seats. I was more interested in being with his ability to know what was Parliament one of  than being one of  and going on at all times and to be first the risk of spending more time at with a comment. John Sargent of the The early days of the new parliament Westminster than was wise in terms BBC remarked to me once that the were taken up with one of the most of holding Leeds West seemed worth apogee of this came when, in April bizarre episodes of my time in the taking if, over the course of a full , Owen ‘phoned the BBC Liberal Party. Instead of concentrat- parliament, we could make the Lib- newsdesk with a comment on the ing on how we could build on the eral Party sufficiently attractive as to shooting of WPC Fletcher in St huge popular vote we had just won, boost the national vote sufficiently. James’ Square, opposite the Libyan the initial Parliamentary Party meet- Also, and relevant to this article, I Embassy, before the newsdesk had ings were taken over by vitriolic at- hoped to play a part in developing a heard of the shooting! Owen was tacks on Steel’s leadership by Cyril healthy and mutually useful relation- also rather wryly proud of having Smith, supported by David Alton. ship between the Alliance parties, spoken at one of LINk’s ‘Radical Steel himself was clearly fed up with which were organised separately – Conference’s’ at which, gauging his the whole business and it was left and whipped separately – for most audience well, he gave just about his largely to David Penhaligon to try of the – Parliament. In any most left-wing address of the Alli- and restore calm. This led to Steel’s case, contrary to some popular be- ance period – extracts from which so-called ‘sabbatical’, though in fact lief, I reckon that I am a ‘natural’ were forever being quoted thereaf- he actually resigned the leadership Whip! I believe that party solidarity ter by Leighton Andrews. and had to be talked out of it over is extremely important and that, for The Alliance nationally between some days – often at long distance. instance, council group discipline is  to  is less vivid to me than Astonishingly it was somehow kept also vital – and has to be worked at it should be, mainly because I with- out of the press. rather than simply imposed. Over drew from virtually every responsi- I gathered from the response from my  years as council group leader

22 journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 in Leeds we ran a very tight ship and from not being part of the team to – or allies. it served us well in a tough political being responsible for it. Clement We were clearly in for a bout of situation. Freud, as commendably straightfor- mindless activism, with overheated The two years as a Whip were ward as ever, told me that Steel had photocopiers, a deluge of House of hard going but not exceptionally dif- originally wanted to appoint me but Commons franked envelopes, and ficult so far as the Alliance was con- ‘the Welsh won’t have it’! with whole forests being lined up for cerned. There were rare occasions slaughter, rather than continuing to when the two parties agreed to pro- develop radical and soundly-based mote different arguments and to The 1985 reshuffle political and campaigning initiatives vote in opposite lobbies but these I regard that particular Wednesday, in linking parliamentary and party cam-  were regarded as worthwhile exam- July , as a disastrous day. The paigning. Given the changes that ples of being two parties and suffi- commitments to making a Liberal were being made, which were bound ciently rare to be promoted as such Party – and Alliance – impact na- to make it more difficult to win Leeds without damage. John Cartwright tionally were, in theory, in parlia- West, all I could do was to opt out of was the remarkably well-organised mentary terms, less than half way my then spokesmanships to try and SDP Chief Whip and the relation- through, but were being, as I saw it, spend enough time in Leeds to hold ship between the two parties’ Whips seriously damaged by Steel’s changes. the seat. We had no-one full-time in was as amicable and cooperative as Knowing how Steel operates – lead- Leeds. The local association slaved one might expect faced with the ership by announcement – I realised away devotedly, helped conscien- joint pressures of maintaining a ‘third that he would come to the Parlia- tiously and innovatively by my Par- party’ presence in the face of a two- mentary Party meeting at pm that liamentary staff – from a distance – party system. The parliamentary par- evening with a fait accompli. Early that but the lack of someone able to pull ties met separately each Wednesday afternoon, when Steel’s changes were the strings together day by day was a  evening to discuss the following known, I saw Paddy Ashdown who great handicap. Eventually in  week’s parliamentary order paper offered to make ‘representations’ to the Rowntree Social Service Trust – and then met jointly to compare Steel. I replied that this was, alas, no bless ’em! – came up with enough notes, with the two leaders alternat- use. Unless he told Steel categori- funds to employ an agent but, alas, it ing in the chair. cally that, in the circumstances, he was too little too late. Such detail is The tasks of maximising the Lib- would not take on the Trade and only worth mentioning because it il- eral impact in the House, of writing Industry spokesmanship – and thus lustrates the inherent lack of party and and debating – such as with Tony putting the reshuffle back into the Alliance commitment to winning and Benn and with Ken Livingstone – melting pot – it would all be done holding seats which would otherwise  of building the partnership with the and dusted before the pm meeting. be Labour. party in the country, and of find- ing the most acceptable modus oper- andi for operating the Alliance, The Liberal Party was side-stepped by the coursed through the Whips’ office for two years, and had to be carried Steel/Owen trick of appointing ‘expert’ on alongside coping with constitu- commissions which were supposedly ency casework and nursing West Leeds. Then, in July , came one bipartisan but whose members were not of David Steel’s perennial obsessions even rubber-stamped by the party. with ‘reshuffling’ parliamentary re- sponsibilities, mainly in order to re- move Alan Beith from the Whips’ Paddy didn’t believe me but kindly During the – parliament  Office. I had had hardly any prob- went to make his ‘representations’ we had a number of Liberal Parlia- lems in working with Alan and anyway, particularly to state the ob- mentary Party ‘away days’, for which would have been very happy to con- vious: that the Parliamentary Party I religiously prepared papers on tac-  tinue, but, if he was to be moved, should have the opportunity to dis- tics and strategy. At this distance in then there was no secret that I would cuss the proposals that evening. At time I don’t recollect any of these have been happy to have been pro- .pm the changes were an- sessions resulting in any effective col- moted. There were those in the Par- nounced to the press, and the meet- lective action. The Parliamentary liamentary Party, including Paddy ing an hour and a half later, as ever, Party meetings became more and Ashdown and Archy Kirkwood, who rather than having a public row with more Alliance-oriented – which was pressed for it, but Steel eventually its leader, knuckled under. It was a not necessarily a bad thing, though telephoned David Alton, who was at well tried technique of the leader Owen was consistently disparaging the time in the USA, to persuade and, in a narrow sense, served him of Ashdown, and Penhaligon regu- him to take the job on! Alton went well, but it didn’t make many friends larly teased Owen. We had Alliance journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 23 spokesmanships and endeavoured to weakness. Just before the report was approached Simon Hughes and my- make the best of a difficult political due out, David Steel made an un- self with the idea of producing a situation. All the time, however, fortunate lobby lunch comment book of essays on defence which policy problems were simmering, which appeared to divulge the con- would explore the increasing steril- without any effective party mecha- tents on the key issue of a non-nu- ity of the sloganising between the nisms for resolving them. The Lib- clear Britain. Owen was furious and pro-NATO hard-liners and the eral Party was side-stepped by the used his SDP conference to go over emotional CNDers. Others, includ- Steel/Owen trick of appointing ‘ex- the top. The result was that the un- ing Archy Kirkwood, joined in the pert’ commissions which were sup- fortunate Commission Chairman, discussions and, to our pleasant sur- posedly bipartisan but whose mem- John Edmonds, was forced to amend prise, we all found the meetings ex- bers were not even rubber-stamped his report in a last-minute attempt hilarating. Contrary to what Steel by the party. The problem with this to find a new consensus. The result later alleged, the meetings were open was that there was consequently no was unimpressive. As a rescue at- and were usually held in a meeting party accountability for these ‘Com- tempt Steel and Owen embarked on room at the Norman Shaw North missions’’ findings and they had to a round of European defence con- Building, where a number of Lib- be bludgeoned through the Party sultations out of which emerged eral MPs had offices. Eventually, Assembly. We, the Alliance – me be- their Euro-bomb option. As a policy rather than writing individual essays, ing the Whip in charge – nearly it was unsustainable, and even the there was enough common ground came unstuck over the Northern usual refuge of calling frantically for to produce the booklet under our Ireland motion at the  Bourne- unity and for backing the leader(s) joint names. It had unambiguous ar- mouth Assembly and the lesson sim- at the subsequent Liberal assembly guments on the intellectual ply wasn’t learnt. could not hide the threadbare case. unsustainability of the deterrence There is a useful analysis of the theory but it was far from being the Eastbourne  debate in Radical unilateralist rant that it was later de- Defence Quarterly and, therefore, there are picted as. Then came the biggie: defence. This only a few extra items of importance While this was going on, Clay one had run and run. The Alliance to relate here. First, the booklet Across Freud, as the Chair of the Policy  Defence Commission beavered away the Divide, which was produced by Committee – a job he carried out with commendable conscientious- a number of Liberals at the time was with commendable seriousness and ness. Bill Rodgers was, as ever, sen- attacked for being deliberately in- assiduity – was trying to get Steel to sible and undogmatic. Laura tended as an ‘alternative’ defence agree on a wording for an assembly Grimond organised a number of commission. Why this should have defence debate which would have to valuable consultations and those of been necessarily a heinous political deal with the commission report. I us with views on the subject were sin is debatable, but it was certainly was also a member of the Policy much involved. But Owen was, per- nothing of the kind. It gained a no- Committee and was perfectly ame- fectly legitimately, a hawk on the is- toriety way beyond its then signifi- nable to having a motion which sue and would not countenance a cance. Essentially it was a Young Lib- would get us over a big political hur- report which gave the impression of eral initiative. A small group of them dle. I seem to recollect that William Wallace produced a wording which ‘Aaah, isn’t that nice – he’s wishing us luck!’ (26 September 1986) was adequate. Steel would have none of it. He rejected attempts at mediation and decided to go for the high wire act. Which is how the Euro- bomb came to be on the Eastbourne agenda. It was unnecessary and, alas, all too typical. The high-wire act requires a specialist in get- ting to the other side. Our erstwhile leader was not such a person! The outcome of the debate is well enough known. The appalling events of much later that evening are less well known. Inevi- tably, rather hyped up by the

24 journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 emotion of the debate and its out- clue as to where he was going or nothing to deserve such disloyal come – though not so hyper as to where he had gone. treatment. In the foyer afterwards, muff a ‘let’s put the lid on this; good Those who were present, or who despite such provocation, Tony debate; now let’s get on with the followed the assembly on television, Greaves and others still managed to politics’ television interview with a will doubtless remember the valiant temper their response to the inter- highly professional Bill Rodgers – efforts of the Chief Whip, David viewers. Archy Kirkwood and I were booked Alton, on breakfast television the Back eventually at the House, a to play in the jazz band at that night’s next day, to make a disaster out of a more constructive atmosphere took Liberator review, which left us on difficulty, parading the tabloid head- over and an uneasy but wearable even more of a high. We finished just lines in front of the camera. Worse compromise Alliance defence posi- before midnight and Archy tel- was to follow with the leader’s tion was hammered out which I de- ephoned Steel’s hotel suite, where speech. Knowing Steel well, and as- fended, somewhat uncomfortably, in there had been the scheduled regu- suming that Alton had cleared his the Chamber. It was akin to the po- lar Parliamentary Party meeting, just outburst with him, I guessed that sition which had been available to to check that it had finished. He Steel would use his speech to con- Steel in advance of the Liberal As- came back from the telephone look- tinue the attack. For these setpiece sembly and which he had rejected. ing suddenly serious and said that he occasions the parliamentary party and I were urgently needed at the had assigned seats on the platform meeting. We went straight across and in full view of the television cam- The 1987 election experienced just about the most ap- eras. I therefore sought out the par- Preparations for an Alliance mani- palling and unpleasant Liberal meet- ty’s press officer, Jim Dumsday, and festo were already underway by this ing I have been to in  years in the told him that I would not sit on the time. Sensible and practical ar- party. The level of anger and bitter- platform as I did not wish to be in rangements had been made for its ness was beyond belief. Simon the spotlight when Steel attacked his composition. Rightly, an original draft from a ‘single pen’ was thought important and Alan Beith duly pro- Those who were present will doubtless duced a typically professional piece remember the valiant efforts of the Chief of work. As anyone accepting such a commission would have done – as Whip, David Alton, to make a disaster out opposed to writing a Liberal mani- of a difficulty, parading the tabloid festo – Alan produced a draft which reflected Alliance thinking, such as headlines in front of the camera. it was, and wrote with an eye to what would be acceptable to a consensus of both parties. Thereafter the draft Hughes had been under personal colleagues. Jim, faced with yet an- was referred to a joint committee of attack for some time before we ar- other PR problem, was understand- both parties, chaired by myself and rived, and our colleagues then started ably unhappy with this information Ian Wrigglesworth, with the help of on us. Simon was surprisingly cool and said that he couldn’t believe that a ‘New Ideas Group’, chaired by Des – and, to his immense credit never Steel would do such a thing. I said Wilson and Shirley Williams. This criticised our culpable neglect of him that, if he was right, it would pre- latter was charged with the not un- that night – but the others seemed sumably be possible for him to find known task of ‘thinking the un- to have had some sort of collective a way of getting an assurance on the thinkable’. It duly did so and some aberration. Stephen Ross, of whom matter. Jim suggested that I see Steel of its better ideas found their way I was extremely fond, wagged his myself and obtain a copy of the ad- into the manifesto, sometimes as lit- finger within inches of Archy’s face vance of his speech. I duly went tle inset boxes within the text. Other and shouted, ‘I can understand across to his hotel suite and was de- ideas were less sound, including one Michael – he’s always held these views nied access by the Special Branch to help first-time house buyers by – but you! You! Steel made you!’ It officer outside. So, in due course, I making capital grants to them.  was bizarre. Eventually, after a lot watched the speech on a television was still a time when house prices more of the same, George Mackie, monitor outside the hall, and, despite were flying high and it was an eco- whose physical stature was somewhat being mentally prepared for it, I was nomic fact of life that house prices substantial, virtually frog-marched sickened to see the Liberal Party reflected the amount of cash avail- Archy away with him, and the meet- leader, without any warning to them, able in the market, so that any capi- ing subsided. The following morn- attack his own colleagues in public, tal grants made available to prospec- ing Archy told me that, when he had and to watch the cameras home in tive purchasers would put the price finally got away, he had got into his on Archy, Simon and on Maggie of houses up by approximately the car and driven around without any Clay – loyal Liberals who had done same amount. This was debated on journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 25 would clear it with Alan of massive city council resources Beith, which I duly did. against us by our city-councillor La- When I got back to the bour opponent, and an inability to House the next day I squeeze the Conservative vote. A bumped into Maggie reasonably accurate comment from Smart, David Owen’s per- one Conservative voter was that I sonal assistant. She was more dangerous than Labour! I laughed when she saw suspect that this was a common re- me and told me that sponse; after all, one cannot main- David had been breath- tain the kind of radical position ing fire and slaughter which goes with Liberalism and not whilst awaiting my call expect it to be understood from time and had stamped off to time. into his private room to However, I recall the moment take it. He had eventu- when I realised that we were not ally emerged smiling going to win. I was doing some day- and announced, time canvassing on a council estate ‘We’ve an even better when the news was broadcast that policy now’. David Owen, when pressed at a The  Alli- news conference, had said that on ance manifesto was, I balance he would find it easier to do believe, a respectable a deal with Mrs Thatcher. In the in- and reasonable at- dustrial West Riding this was far tempt to maximise from being a seductive appeal to pro- the Alliance’s politi- spective ‘Alliance’ voters who had cal attractions. It wasn’t a been painstakingly weaned away Liberal manifesto but it represented from Labour over almost  years, the report of the ‘New Ideas Group’ the best that could be produced from and whose views on Mrs T were and duly referred to the full joint a partnership which had ceased to more sadistic than salacious. The manifesto committee. As it happened fire the imagination of the elector- sharp change in the response on the it came up quite late on the latter’s ate. I got on fine with Ian doorsteps was predictably sudden. agenda when most of the SDP had, Wrigglesworth – which might shock probably sensibly, departed. I duly some colleagues – and we had no explained the economics of the pro- great difficulty in reconciling our Merger posal and it was agreed to drop it. I different perceptions in order to pro- There was little enough time to sulk then went to King’s Cross for the duce a readable final text, so much after the result. Steel launched him- train back to Leeds. I arrived at so that, from time to time during the self into the dash for merger, and yet home to be met by Liz saying that I more traumatic moments of the another futile attempt to protect the had to ‘phone Owen immediately. I merger negotiations, he would sug- cause from its leader had to be made. did so and was told that I ‘had played gest that he and I should be sent of The Harrogate Assembly of  a dirty trick tonight by waiting un- to produce an acceptable format for was a very different affair from that til the SDP members of the com- both groups. of . I ran for election as Party mittee had gone and then getting This task completed, I headed President, as much to tackle a worth- this attractive idea defeated’. I went back northwards to grapple with fate while party job whilst out of Parlia- through the economic arguments yet in West Leeds. Our local association ment as anything else, but one could again and was met by a brief silence, agonised briefly over the description not, I suppose, escape from the con- then ‘OK – so what do we do for on the nomination paper and com- test between myself and Susan Tho- first-time buyers?’ I suggested that promised on ‘Liberal Alliance’. Add- mas tending to be depicted as rep- more assistance with ‘back-loading’ ing ‘SDP’ stuck in the throat. I reck- resenting different positions on the mortgages, i.e. lower initial interest oned that we would need a national Alliance and, by extension, on rates and higher later ones, would vote of around % for us to hang merger. I won, and Susan went to help first-time buyers but would not on and the final tally was some % the House of Lords. There are some have anything like the same finan- short of this figure. There were other rewards for being in the Liberal cial effect. Owen then said, ‘Can you minuses (including horrendous li-  Democrats! explain this to Alex?’ Wearily, I did bels, legal actions on which were not In retrospect, when contrasted so and Alex conferred with Owen. finally won against Maxwell and with the special merger assembly at Then Owen asked, ‘Can you get this Murdoch until after the election), the Norbreck Castle – a somewhat through your side?’ and I said I including the legal but immoral use giant Fawlty Towers – in Blackpool

26 journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 the following year, the delegates at the proposed party and, having asked much later why he ever ac- the Harrogate gathering were clearly proudly fought for the Liberal Party cepted the original draft, David Steel deliberately determined to get the for  years, this was too much to still defended it as an acceptable best deal. The negotiating team stomach and I left – to be unexpect- statement. elected appeared to be weighted on edly door-stepped by John Sargent The special assembly was un- the side of those used to extracting who was waiting in the entrance of pleasant. It was as well ‘fixed’ as I used the uttermost farthing in tough po- Cowley Street on the off-chance of to do as Assembly Committee Chair. litical circumstances. I sallied forth a news item. I resigned over the Those opposed to merger had few to London for this vital task but name, not over the NATO nonsense. big guns and some of those col- found that one had reckoned with- I was still around for the ‘dead leagues who were called to speak out the ex-officio team members, parrot’ episode. Once again it pro- were not unduly helpful – some particularly those from Scotland and vided a vivid example of the party’s were genuinely too upset to cope Wales, who were far more con- leadership problem. David Steel was with the occasion. I suspect that I cerned to get a deal than to stand happy to let Robert Maclennan and made my worst assembly speech ever up for the Liberal Party. One Scot, his aides draft the policy statement and the vote was in any event a fore- Chris Mason, openly admitted that that was to accompany the comple- gone conclusion. I was, however, he was for ‘merger at any price’. And, tion of the merger negotiations. Steel more proud of the ‘manifesto’ that of course, we had a leader who was saw the draft and pronounced him- some of us wrote, printed and dis- often absent, didn’t understand what self satisfied with it. When Alan Beith tributed which put the case rather caucuses were for, and who found and other Liberals saw the final better than the constraints on debate solidarity a difficult concept. Tony document, at the eleventh hour, they permitted in the hall. Greaves and Rachael Pitchford have were horrified at its reactionary con- Even then I couldn’t bring my- done all that is necessary for an un- tents and realised that there was no self finally to abandon the cause en- derstanding of the whole disastrous chance of it being accepted by the tirely. I thought that if Alan Beith negotiation. Time after time Tony Liberal Parliamentary Party, let alone became leader of the new party there and I ended up on the .pm train the party in the country. There was was just a chance that it might be- from King’s Cross to Leeds with the bizarre press conference that come Liberal enough to encompass To ny miserably huddled in his duf- wasn’t, when copies of the draft had those who felt bereft. It was noth- fel coat. I would reach home around to be scooped up again from the ing personal against Paddy Ashdown, am and Tony, I guess, another hour press, and then the frantic efforts to whose company I’ve always enjoyed, or so later in Colne. produce an acceptable version in but simply a political judgement As so often in this sorry tale, the time to rescue the situation. Two based on an assessment of their rela- outcome could have been much bet- things are significant about this epi- tive consistency and awareness over ter. There was no need to form the sode: first, that the SDP’s real views the preceding years. I never paid a merged party on such disadvanta- on policy became starkly apparent subscription but I availed myself of geous terms – which, I would still to Liberals, but didn’t affect my col- the rule which let one’s membership argue, were and are an intellectual leagues’ judgement re the value of extend into the new party, so that I and political fraud. There came a merger; and, second, even when could campaign for Alan. Even that moment, late on in the negotiations when Bob Maclennan dissolved in tears as members of his team re- signed, and said that he would have to withdraw to consider his situa- tion. The Liberal team went back to the National Liberal Club absolutely clear that it was possible to achieve merger, if we so wished, on terms which would be palatable to the Lib- eral Party and which would entail few if any resignations. I was aston- ished to find that the immediate view of a majority of colleagues– the otherwise stalwart Alan Beith in- cluded – was ‘what will it take to get the SDP back to the negotiating ta- ble?’ That, as they say, was the defin- ing moment. Shortly afterwards the Liberals caved in over the name of journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 27 glimmer of a possibility was extin- of this. I believe that in  there – of the late s and the s guished and I headed off into limbo, was a somewhat warmer feeling to- Grimond years had rooted itself in until it became bit by bit apparent wards the Liberals than towards the the determination to build, in Jo’s that there were enough people of SDP, possibly because of the pro-un- words, a ‘radical non-socialist pro- like mind, some of whom had kept derdog feeling that it was the Liber- gressive alternative to the Conserva- their local Liberal associations going, als who had ‘soldiered on through the tives’. This determination, as with to relaunch the Liberal Party nation- wilderness whilst the SDP had so- all political strategies, had continu- ally. In its small way it remains a journed in the tents of the ally to re-interpret itself within the forthright witness to a political cause unrighteous’. I don’t think that this context of the immediate political which has inspired so many indi- response should be oversold, but I agenda. Hence the struggle with the viduals for so many years, and which believe that it was there. Thorpe and Steel leadership cliques; has been treated so badly by some What I am more sure about is that hence the delicate electoral trick of who should have known better. had the Liberals fought all the seats suborning the mainly right-wing in which they had been building up protest vote whilst ploughing a dis- then the tactical, and ‘stature’, argu- tinctly radical furrow; hence the at- Conclusion ment for a Liberal vote would have tempt to develop an intellectually A number of questions arise out of been maximised and a significantly coherent and distinct philosophy in this somewhat diffuse narrative and higher vote could have been obtained. the teeth of an impatient Poujadist deserve whatever measure of objec- tive assessment is possible. First, would the Labour Party have reinvented it- Did the arrival of the SDP and the Liberals’ self without the SDP defections? I think the answer is ‘yes’, but only be- participation in the Alliance harm the cause of the final Conservative elec- Liberals’ political project? Unequivocally, tion victory of  which drove the Labour Party into its ‘anything so long yes. as its not socialist’ desperation phase. I doubt whether, if the SDP MPs had remained within the Labour Party This is, of course, speculation and, element in the Liberal Party ranks; and fought on, the changes would indeed, the tactical opportunity and hence, above all, the dismay at have come any quicker and it is even would never have been conceded by the successful hijacking of this vital arguable that Labour would not have the SDP who were certainly not in and vibrant Liberal project, firstly by been able so easily to jump a genera- business to assist the Liberal Party. the Alliance and then, finally, by the tion to Blair had the SDP still been Whenever the argument of Liberal merger. around. If this analysis is right then it build-up was advanced in seat nego- It must not be thought that follows that the SDP – and by ex- tiations the SDP response was ‘and those of us who committed our tension the Alliance – has given us you’ve failed to win the seat – so let waking hours to this project over the current Labour landslide. Some us show you how’. many years had some sort of curi- of them are, indeed, active within it. Third, would it have been possi- ous umbilical and myopic attach- Second, would the Liberal Party ble to ignore the SDP’s formation and ment to the Liberal Party per se. Far have achieved the  level of elec- to have fought them electorally with from it. Our commitment was, and toral support on its own, without the any chance of success? The answer is, is, to a coherent and highly relevant Alliance? I am inclined to think that alas, firmly ‘no’. For many years the set of Liberal values which we saw, it would have reached around the Liberal Party had tacitly garnered the and see, as the best chance of a civi- same mark had the SDP never been ‘none of the above’ vote without lised, peaceful and convivial world. formed and had the Liberal Party challenging that vote’s motivation, The Liberal Party was, by its con- therefore carried the third-party ban- and enough of it would have slipped stitution, its record and its promise ner alone. The protest vote indicators to the SDP in four-cornered fights the only vehicle for those values. Of were all in place and the party was to have blighted Liberal prospects. course, like all human institutions, in fine fettle, with good harvests of Fourth, did the arrival of the SDP it was flawed. Of course, the graph council seats in the years immediately and the Liberals’ participation in the of commitment and achievement preceding the general election. Alliance harm the Liberals’ political was far from showing a steady up- Within the Alliance vote in  the project? Unequivocally, yes. It is this ward advance. But, at its heart, the Liberals polled significantly higher political disaster – for the country pre-Alliance party was sound and than the SDP. The SDP explained this rather than the party – that is the secure – not least in the sense that as being a consequence of the Liber- heaviest price paid for the way the one could rely on its instinctive re- als getting the ‘better’ seats – as de- eight years from  unfolded. The sponse in a political crisis. fined by the SDP. I am unconvinced political inspiration – and education Nor must it be thought that those

28 journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 who held these views were somehow phy to find oneself recalling earlier conformist outlook such as was pro- strange denizens of some isolated and speeches. At the risk of demonstrat- pounded on many issues by George   obscurantist sect who went to the ing the truth of this, I well recall the Orwell’, The Observer, October .  I still have a full set of the  published Liberal Party Council to hold hands Liberal Assembly philosophy debate titles, presumably because I did not al- to try and contact the living. These of . I was Assembly Committee low colleagues to borrow them. Number were colleagues who were passion- Chair and I wanted to experiment. , The Left and the Liberals, was a par- ate about the desperate conditions of The Thatcher victory earlier that ticularly prescient and relevant tract for their neighbours in those long ne- year provided an opportunity to do the times, written by one Jim Cousins, Labour MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne glected, quasi-Indian-reservation, ur- so. We set aside an entire afternoon Central since . ban deserts that are misnamed as for a debate without a motion and  It would be a very interesting and po- ‘housing’ estates. These were col- with only a vague structure of ab- tentially valuable research project to fol- leagues who saw the urgent need to stract concepts. It was an inspiring low up the subsequent careers of those  find some way of making the eco- and formative session – which I elected as Liberal councillors in .  See Michael Meadowcroft, ‘Jo Grimond logical imperative relevant to those still have on cassette – and I have – an appreciation’, in Liberator , De- who struggled to conserve anything, from time to time remembered say- cember . let alone energy. These were col- ing that electoral success ‘might fall  One of the perennial ‘what if’ discussions leagues who took principled stands unbidden into our grasp, but politi- amongst Liberals involves pondering how on development aid, on the folly of cal success has to be worked for’. I different the Liberal performance in Oc- tober  might have been had Jo the nuclear deterrence theory, and on dearly wish I had not been so accu- Grimond then been the party leader and the nonsense of nation-state war- rate nor, indeed, so prescient! at the height of his powers as he was ex- mongering. What is more, these were actly a decade earlier when the parliamen- colleagues who did all this in the teeth Michael Meadowcroft was MP for Leeds tary arithmetic was not as helpful. of Labour’s urban hegemony just as West – and a member of the Lib-  The opportunity at the time to gain and much as in the depths of Conserva- eral merger negotiating team. He helped to entrench victories from Labour, cou- pled with the excitement of debating on tive complacency. It is these col- found the independent Liberal Party and at least equal terms with Labour, is shown leagues who survived everything that was subsequently its President. in the municipal electoral record of the the opposition could throw at them period but was apparently marginal to the and, for their pains, were traduced by Notes: party leadership’s national strategy.  their erstwhile colleagues who had  To meet the deadline most of this essay See the most recent, and most explicit, book on the affair: Simon Freeman with been seduced by the superficial was written whilst on mission in Cam- bodia – which may explain, if not ex- Barrie Penrose, Rinkagate – The Rise and sloganising of the Alliance years and  cuse, its somewhat diffuse style. Fall of Jeremy Thorpe (Bloomsbury, ).   had then been stampeded by the sim-  See for instance Michael Meadowcroft, The Liberal Assembly included a plistic attractions of the merger. The Focus on Freedom – The Case for the Lib- private session at which a censure mo- result is a merged party with a stead- eral Party, (Liberal Party, ). tion from Dr James Walsh on the party  Rachael Pitchford and Tony Greaves, officers re their treatment of Thorpe was ily declining electoral base, with vir- defended by the Party President, Chair tually no presence in areas that would Merger: The Inside Story (Liberal Renewal, ) (see review elsewhere in this issue). and Assembly Chair (Gruff Evans, Geoff otherwise be Labour-held, whose  I once committed the ultimate narcis- To rdoff and Michael Meadowcroft re- commendable gains in seats are the sistic indulgence of looking up my own spectively). The three officers agreed be- consequence of tactical voting, and entry in the British Library catalogue, forehand that there was no point in con- and was surprised to see a number of tinuing to cover up the reality of the whose hybridity as a party guaran- Thorpe disaster and decided to confront tees a lack of that intellectual rigour early pamphlets listed which I could not remember writing! the Assembly with the bare facts. If the necessary to forge a visibly distinc-  David once agreed to play the piano on motion was carried, all three agreed to tive image. In one way or another, camera for a ‘Children in Need’ televi- resign. Gruff Evans stunned the packed those of us who couldn’t reconcile sion appeal and then came to me in a room with his frank exposition of what ourselves with merger felt as we did panic in order to get the Granny Lee we had had to go through. I have no doubt that the motion would have been because we were conscious of the cal- Jazz Band to accompany him. We spent a whole morning recording I can’t give defeated but Tony Greaves and John lousness which – at the time, but far you anything but love which, when trailed Smithson decided – uniquely – to act as less evident today – epitomised the on air, no viewer was prepared to pledge conciliators and got it withdrawn.  success of the quick fix over the po- cash to hear! I have the rushes of the At one Scarborough Assembly Cyril Carr litical crusade, and which clearly nei- whole recording session – they are avail- attacked the Young Liberals publicly. This able in exchange for a rather large brown led to the setting up of a ‘Commission’ ther esteemed our long struggle under the Chairmanship of Stephen worthwhile nor had any regard for envelope.  David Steel, Against Goliath (Weidenfeld Te rrell QC to look at the status of the the party which had carried the Lib- and Nicolson, ); see for instance Young Liberals within the party. So far as eral banner with pride for so long, pages , ,  and . I know, no copy of the Terrell Report has  Note, for instance, a typical Grimond survived – assuming that it ever existed. and which was still serviceable and   comment: ‘There must be a bridge be- The February ’ election left no party very much viable. with an overall majority; Heath at- It is, I suppose, a sign of encroach- tween socialism and the Liberal policy of co-ownership in industry through a tempted to arrange a deal with the Lib- ing senility or even of political atro- type of syndicalism coupled with a non- erals to keep him in office. journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 29 How the Alliance worked ....

‘At one session, Steel stormed out .... [When he ‘David Owen has no tolerance for failure. He virtually told returned,] the photographer had to stand on his head to Jenkins to leave. He said, “you’re of no use to us now”.’ make everyone smile. [He] kept calling them Roy Rogers, Bill Rodgers, 1984 Dr Death and so on. They behaved like children, the way they fought and sulked.’ ‘I was against going to bed with the Liberals from the Consultant from Gold Greenlees Trott (who handled the beginning. We should have run against them in the early SDP account in the 1983 campaign) byelections and beat them into the ground. Then we would have had more clout in the negotiations.’ ‘From the beginning, I knew it would have been better David Owen, 1984 without involving Roy, but Bill and Shirley were vacillating .... In the beginning, it was truly a Gang of Three, and ‘Yes. We did make one tactical error. We underestimated we should have kept it that way.’ the capacity of the Alliance to make a mess of its own David Owen, 1984 campaign’ Norman Tebbitt (Conservative press conference, 1987) ‘The others could never have done it without me .... I was the founder. I delivered the Dimbleby Lecture. I made the ‘The press operations should have reflected the strategy first radical move ....’ more .... But of course there was no strategy really.’ Roy Jenkins, 1984 Graham Watson, on the 1987 campaign

 For the Pact, see Alistair Michie and geries in Croydon whilst he went on par- of Derek Gladwin’s discomfort. Derek Simon Hoggart, The Pact – The inside story liamentary delegations overseas. Accord- was the long-serving Chairman of the of the Lib-Lab government, – (Quar- ing to Mary, Bill would also go through Labour Conference Arrangements tet Books, ). the post each morning searching for en- Committee and, when from time to time  Both Christopher Mayhew and, later, velopes which might conceivably contain we compared notes, he used to pride David Owen told me that they were cheques from television interviews, etc.! himself on his ruthless ability to keep the convinced that, had Steel insisted that ‘no  One could add ‘such as they were’; I am Conference under control. PR for Europe, then no Pact’ then it under no illusion that there was a dy-  The ‘winnable seats’ list, to which was could have been delivered. It is interest- namic and well organised association in directed central financial and other sup- ing, also, that no Liberals secured places Croydon NW, but the point is still valid. port, always included the ‘traditional’ on important quangos during the Pact.  In the s the Liberal Party indulged Liberal constituencies – for decades  We were usually, in any case, far too oc- in fantasies about moving the Assembly Merioneth was a favourite target for aid cupied in undertaking speaking engage- to exotic locations. A project to hold it – but studiously avoided seats in indus- ments in far-flung outposts. I recall one in Douglas, Isle of Man, eventually trial areas. Leeds had support from the such event in Llanelli where, after an in- foundered because the Isle of Man’s then Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust terminable train journey, I was given a predilection for birching young offend- but never received anything from any of civic welcome by the Assistant Town ers was thought to be potentially em- the HQ slush funds. Clerk – clearly an accurate local assess- barrassing politically. Another scheme to  The evidence for this is among my po- ment of my status! Having thus been show European solidarity by holding it litical papers recently deposited with the well looked after and transported to each in Scheveningen, Holland, had to be British Library of Political and Economic planned venue, I spoke at a dinner which dropped because the party was advised Science (at LSE). I also used much of it in due well-lubricated course progressed that it was probably illegal to hold the during the committee stage of one of the to the hymn-singing stage and I had to AGM of the party outside the UK! local government bills in the – par- find my own weary way back to the sta-  Contrary to the received truths about my liament, and it can therefore be found in tion for the sleeper back to London. antipathy to the SDP, I probably at- the Committee Hansard.  ‘Leadership’, in this context, is not solely tended, and participated in, more SDP  This tendency is even more the case with the Leader himself but that Parliamen- functions than any Liberal MP apart the Liberal Democrats, who appear to tary charmed circle which felt that it had from the leader. have impaled themselves on the memo- to impose whatever ‘corporate’ decision  It may have been the Party Council, in rable slogan ‘End Equidistance’ with the it had alighted upon. In this context The Bath, I think, where Peter Freitag en- inevitable consequence that their vote Economist ( September ) com- gaged me in interminable conversation slumped in virtually all constituencies mented that ‘Social Democrats have lit- on the pavement outside the hotel venue. that would otherwise be Labour. tle difficulty in working with the much There was then a bomb warning and the  Michael Meadowcroft, Liberal Values for a smaller group of smoothies that surround entire hotel disgorged on to the pave- New Decade (Liberal Publications Depart- Mr Steel.’ ment and milled all around us. Peter con- ment, ). William Wallace persuaded   June , on Lib-Lab relationships; tinued his earnest colloquy with me, ob- me to write this booklet and gave valu-  January , on the Lib-Lab Pact; livious to the emergency. Eventually the able editing comments. In particular he – January , on the Liberal-So- ‘all clear’ was announced and still Peter encouraged me to make explicit the dif- cial Democrat merger. impressed his views on me. We eventu- ference between Thatcherite ‘economic  On arrival at Westminster in , I in- ally staggered inside to the Council liberalism’ and genuine ‘political liberal- herited Bill Pitt’s splendid secretary, Mary meeting with Peter totally unaware of ism’. Curiously, William’s drafts for the Walker, who regaled me with stories of the Irish interlude. recent Liberal International th Anni- regularly having to do Bill’s weekend sur-  An extra source of glee was the thought versary manifesto incorporate laudatory

30 journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 support for economic liberalism. and, therefore, against the official Lib- well as being unstable. Efforts to con-  Michael Meadowcroft, Social Democracy eral Party candidate – in Broadgreen. tain the problem only exacerbated it and – Barrier or Bridge? (Liberator Publica-  Sue Robertson, who ran the SDP Whips’ he eventually defected. tions, ). It is interesting that David office with great efficiency, once told me  This was not the only reason for losing Steel began by believing that the SDP that I was David Owen’s favourite Lib- West Leeds. The pervasive and clever should fight one hundred seats (David eral MP. I implored her not to spread (though legal) use of city council funds Steel, Against Goliath, page ). this information. to promote the Labour candidate cer-  To complete the ‘set’ I also wrote two  I shared this office with Simon Hughes, tainly had an effect, as no doubt did a other Liberator Publication booklets: who has been a long-time friend. This highly unpleasant libel action which Liberalism and the Left (), and Liber- friendship was occasionally strained by took four years to win against the alism and the Right (). Simon’s addiction to clerical colonialism, Murdoch and Maxwell empires. As stated  It was a time for setpiece debates and I in that his papers encroached inexora- elsewhere in this essay, Owen’s admis- took part in very well-attended occasions bly across the floor, forcing me into a sion that, if the coalition opportunity with David Marquand (which was pub- smaller and smaller corner! arose, he would prefer to do a deal with lished as Liberalism and Social Democracy  The early chapters of the first edition of Mrs Thatcher rather than with Neil (Arena, LPD, )), Tony Benn, at the David Owen’s book, Face the Future Kinnock was a serious blow. Harrogate Assembly , and with Ken (Jonathan Cape, ), contained much  These are in the papers recently depos- Livingstone, at LSE, in . that strikes chords with Liberals. See, for ited at BLPES.  Roy Jenkins was reliably reported as hav- instance, the positive references to early  Typically it was an abrasive and tough ing attempted to join the Liberal Party libertarian thought in the Fabian move- negotiation with Owen over the word- on three occasions: firstly in the late ment, pages  and . ing of the motion, but, once agreed it s, when he was allegedly dissuaded  The phrase comes from H. H. Asquith, stayed agreed. by Lady Violet Bonham Carter, then in referring to himself in contrast to the  Radical Quarterly , Autumn . the s when the Labour Party was Coalition Liberals,  November .  Across the Divide, Liberal Values for Defence turning against European unity, and fi-  For once, I kept a diary of those early and Disarmament (LINk, September nally at the end of his Presidency of the Parliamentary Party meetings and this is ). European Commission and before the in my papers recently deposited in the  Britain United – The Time has Come, the SDP ‘project’ was mooted, when he was British Library of Political and Eco- SDP-Liberal Alliance Programme for urged by David Steel to launch the SDP nomic Science, at LSE. Government, . The same sweatered instead. David Steel has denied that Roy  It was at this time that the role of the Policy and smiling leaders’ picture as on the Jenkins formally applied to join the Lib- Committee was enhanced with serious manifesto was on many posters around eral Party and told me that the only La- attempts to make it a genuine partnership the country, with the accompanying slo- bour MP actually to ask about member- between the Parliamentary Party and the gan ‘The only fresh thing on the menu’. ship was Neville Sandelson! party in the country. Also LINk (Liberal In West Leeds some wag added ‘Sell-by  Roy Jenkins, in his short period in of- Information Network) was formed, par- date: th June’. fice as the first SDP leader, had a very ticularly with Leighton Andrews and Vir-  Alex de Mont, David Owen’s econom- different style, and did not ruffle feath- ginia Morck, as a vehicle for new Liberal ics adviser. ers in the way David Owen managed to, thinking on topical issues.  Pitchford and Greaves, Merger: The Inside hence the concentration on the Owen  Contrary to what one what might have Story. leadership period. been assumed, the relationship between  ‘I wouldn’t say that there was much  One SDP recruit, Christopher Steel and Beith was neither warm nor wrong with the document itself’. David Brocklebank-Fowler, was elected as a cooperative. Alan Beith appeared to have Steel on the ‘Dead Parrot’ policy state- Conservative MP. no great belief in Steel’s capabilities and ment, BBC Radio ,  March .  When I gently warned Barbara Lyons of David Steel appeared to suspect Beith of  Merger or Renewal? A Report to the Joint this new challenge she looked surprised, permanently angling for the leadership. Liberal Assembly, – January , ‘Oh, I think we’ll be all right – they’ve See, for instance, the whispers that Beith Michael Meadowcroft. always been happy to vote for Edward’. knew in advance about the contents of  Jo Grimond, when asked once in a tel-  The only defector to resign and fight the the ‘Dead Parrot’ document but kept evision interview, whether the Liberal subsequent byelection, in Mitcham and quiet, hoping that it would bring Steel vote was to a large extent a protest vote, Morden, was a late recruit, Bruce Doug- down and open the way to Beith becom- replied, ‘Well, there’s a great deal to pro- las-Mann. His timing was exquisite, with ing leader – an allegation that I believe test about.’ the byelection taking place at the height to be wholly wrong and mischievous (see  A typically biblical phrase used by Sir of Falklands hype. Bruce duly got clob- Ivor Crewe and Anthony King, SDP – Frank Medlicott at the Liberal Assem- bered. The Birth, Life and Death of the Social Demo- bly of , following his return to the  One such difficult councillor recruit, from cratic Party (OUP, ), p. ). Liberal Party after spending  years as the Conservatives, was in Huddersfield,  One exception was the Labour Seats a ‘National Liberal and Conservative’ MP. where the man in question wrote long Committee, financed personally by Cyril Clement Davies, Liberal leader from and often accusatory letters on an antique Smith, but largely coordinated by me,  to , once said that the National typewriter with a bi-coloured ribbon. He with the late Mike Harskin as its some- Liberals were ‘Liberals to save their souls went to the amazing trouble of switch- what capricious, often brilliant but oc- and National Liberals to save their seats.’ ing to the red half of the ribbon for the casionally wayward staff person. This ini-  Jo Grimond was typically contrary, in letter ‘D’ every time he typed ‘SDP’! tiative produced material specifically of that he was opposed to the Lib-Lab Pact  The SDP’s national nominee in Yorkshire use to those colleagues whose main op- but, generally and far from uncritically, was John Horam, who ended up as a ponent was Labour. supported the Alliance. Conservative Minister.  The local situation was not helped by  Alan Watkins told me that he anticipated  These were Liverpool Broadgreen, the embarrassing hijacking of the Lib- it being a disastrous session but that it Hackney South and Shoreditch, and eral nomination for my vacated city had turned out to be one of the most Hammersmith. Official Liberal HQ council seat by a candidate who turned stimulating party conference debates he speakers spoke for the SDP candidate – out to be an undischarged bankrupt as had experienced. journal of liberal democrat history 18: spring 1998 31