David Laws: Lib Dems can be the coalition accelerator, not the brake

At a time when people are seeking to be more critical and questioning of the coalition, let us not lose sight of its notable successes.

Within five days of the General Election, our two parties were able to come together, in the national interest, and craft a clear and strong policy platform, to the surprise of many.

And while there is sometimes an understandable focus on the differences between parties, what is striking to me is that on most days you can switch on the news and be unaware that Britain is being governed by a coalition of two rather different political parties. Indeed, this Government is arguably far more stable, united and collegiate than many previous single party governments.

Let me reflect briefly on why the coalition has been so successful. Firstly, it started with a bold and constructive policy platform. Secondly, the party leaders began by fully embracing the potential benefits of coalition. Thirdly, the coalition has worked well, very well, in practice.

I mean, in particular, that the two party leaders created robust structures to resolve policy tensions and disagreements.

There is not only the Cabinet, but there is the Quad – the real inner Cabinet of the Coalition, two Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats working together to debate and hammer out every policy position.

The existence of the Quad is a great tribute to the Prime Minister’s management of the coalition.

Can you imagine what the “Quad” would have looked like if the Liberal Democrats had gone into coalition with Gordon Brown? It would have been Gordon, his chief lieutenants Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, and Gordon’s chief press officer.

The Quad is crucial, because it gives Lib Dems a real and powerful voice at the heart of the coalition – along with the responsibility and ownership which comes with this.

It is arguable that the very success of the Quad process in resolving differences in private, means that Lib Dem voters are less aware of the real influence that we have. The fourth unifying factor has undoubtedly been the economy. From the very first negotiating session, the economic challenge and threat has been the great unifying force of the Government – demanding coherence and resolve to restore stability and calm the markets, and uniting both parties against the previous government.

The programme for economic recovery is indeed another factor which points powerfully to this Parliament running its full term.

Both parties want to be able to go back to the country having wholly or largely completed the clear up of Labour’s mess. That is a job for five years, not three.

How, therefore, should we manage the challenges of the next three years?

I offer these three thoughts. Firstly, it is essential that this Government remains focused on the big challenges, and does not allow itself to be seriously distracted by either “events” or by the “small change” of politics.

We should, instead, review the 2010 policy programme, and ask how this is progressing and what new initiatives are needed to meet the existing goals.

My second conclusion is this: let us make sure these big ambitions of our Government are not limited to economic recovery and to balancing the books alone, crucial though this is.

Both our parties are united in demanding a social recovery to go alongside this economic recovery.

Not interventions based on a “nanny knows best” central state, and which embed a culture of dependency, but a social strategy that tackles the causes of our divided society.

After our economic programme, the reform of education and of our pensions and welfare systems are the most important challenges facing us. By and large these are areas where the coalition is united. And they are areas which stir passions in both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, which are for some more enervating than the hard slog of balancing the budget.

My final thoughts are on the tricky issue of “differentiation” where there are some very big dangers.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and George Osborne are all wise enough and grown up enough to know that a process which starts with modest intentions in a few discrete areas of policy could, if not carefully contained, become contagious and damaging. Actions that cause resentment often prompt counter-reactions.

And it would be very unwise to allow divisions to open up over our broad economic strategy – there would be a direct price to pay for this in the markets. Fortunately, I can detect no key differences on macro-economic strategy.

Furthermore, it is I believe easier and lazier to differentiate in Government by saying “no” to things, than it is by developing a positive policy agenda.

If both parties sought to differentiate just by blocking each others ideas, we would end up with a policy paralysis that would undermine the coalition, sour relations between the parties and be very bad for Britain.

The Liberal Democrats, in particular, cannot only adopt a role as the coalition’s brake – we need at times to be its accelerator too.

* David Laws is the Liberal Democrat MP for Yeovil and was Treasury Chief Secretary briefly when the coalition was formed. This is an edited version of a speech that he delivered to Bright Blue, an independent organisation campaigning for progressive conservative policies.