Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Syndicate contentRSS

Clegg’s contradictions

The Liberal Democrats need to sort out their line of attack on Labour’s “deficit deniers”.

One of the (many) downsides to the Liberal Democrats being in coalition with the Conservatives, and Lib Dem press officers like Lena Pietsch having to serve under Tory spinners like Andy "Bully" Coulson, is that the Lib Dems have had their talking points written for them, word for word, by their Conservative coalition partners.

Take the deficit. I've blogged before about Clegg and Cable's humiliating and inexplicable U-turn on the issue of spending cuts and the timing of deficit reduction, but have you noticed how Tory-esque their attacks on Labour's economic policies seem to have become in recent weeks? The whole Osbornian "deficit denier" stuff has been swallowed wholesale by the Lib Dem front bench.

Last month, in a joint press conference with the Tory party chair, Sayeeda Warsi, the Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, said it was "inexcusable" that none of the Labour leadership contenders had come up with any policies to tackle the record Budget deficit. And on Sunday, Danny Alexander wrote to the Labour leadership candidates, accusing them of "opportunism rather than economic competence".

And in yesterday's PMQs, stand-in Nick Clegg, the deputy PM, told the Tory MP Mark Pritchard::

They [Labour] were irresponsible in government, and they are now living in denial in opposition.

He told the Labour MP Nic Dakin:

One hundred thousand members of the public have made suggestions about how we can try to bring some sense to our public finances without hitting the vulnerable and without hitting front-line public services. Have we heard a single suggestion from anyone on the opposition benches? Not a single suggestion.

But, in the same session of PMQs, he said to the Labour MP Joan Walley:

I simply ask the Honourable Lady and her colleagues whether they have any qualms about the fact that her party and her government announced £44bn-worth of cuts but never had the decency or honesty to tell the British people where those cuts would fall.

Hang on! He accepts that Labour had planned "£44bn-worth of cuts", but accuses Labour leadership contenders -- including David Miliband, who is sticking to the Brown/Darling deficit reduction plan -- of being in "denial". Contradiction?

And he tells Dakin (above) that we have not "heard a single suggestion from anyone on the opposition benches" about how to fix the public finances, despite being well aware of the various proposals that have emerged from the five leadership candidates during the course of the campaign.

Take David Miliband, for example, who wants to abolish charitable status for private schools and introduce a mansion tax.

Take Ed Miliband, who wants to retain the bankers' bonus tax.

Take Ed Balls, who wants to introduce a 50p tax rate on those earning more than £100,000.

Take Andy Burnham, who wants to end the ring-fencing of the NHS budget.

Take Diane Abbott, who wants to scrap Trident (something the Deputy PM once wanted to do!).

Now, I accept that most of these proposals have yet to be fleshed out in detail, and none of them on their own (or, for that matter, combined) will eliminate or even halve the structural deficit, but to pretend that we've had nothing but silence from in-denial Labour leadership candidates is simply untrue and absurd.

It also, as I said, flatly contradicts his other line of defence -- Labour planned cuts, too! -- which he deployed against Joan Walley yesterday, and again on the Today programme this morning against John Humphrys.

Get your story straight, Nick!

UPDATE:

I hear Danny Alexander refused to appear on Newsnight yesterday to debate Ed Balls. The shadow schools secretary has, of course, been praised for his grasp of economics and fiscal policy by, among others, centre-right figures such as Irwin Stelzer, Martin Wolf and Boris Johnson (!).

Check out Balls's reply to Alexander's letter to the candidates here.

You can read Mehdi Hasan's politics column each week in the New Statesman magazine.

12 comments

Mrs Nobody's picture

Before the election my 16 year old son asked why I didn't LibDem because they sounded so much more right on than the Labour Party. I told him they were as old as the Tory party and just another face of the status quo but I secretly did consider the idea. What a mug. I listened to Vince Cable - St Vince of the financial meltdown era - on the radio today promoting the full privatisation of the Royal Mail. Vince you and your chums have committed electoral suicide make the most of your time 'in power' you'll never have it again.

ps I did complete the history lesson to my son of how the Labour Party had risen to power to give a voice to the masses but had been subsumed into the status quo.

Tom's picture

Oh you are so scrapping the barrel.

Do you want to tell us where the £44 billion worth of cuts Labour called for will fall ? Want to tell us which of the coalition cuts Labour won't be opposing because they formed part of Labours cuts programme.

Diane Abbott has been sooooo effective in scrapping Trident - years as a Labour Backbencher of so little influence, credibility or signifiance that only 2 Labour MPs backed her to be Labour Leader.

But, that's always your blind spot, Diane Abbot supported a Labour Government that backed Trident, went to war in Iraq and stuffed the poor while she sent her son to Private schools but that's OK cos in her heart she was against it. Whereas MR Clegg has been forced by circumsatnces to drop policies he belives in as the price of a coalition government, a coalition that would look a whole lot different if we had a fair voting system.

LabMike's picture

@Tom: On cuts, Nick Clegg wanted to go deeper than the Tories by his own admission. He also changed his mind about the timing of the cuts, by his own admission. He hasn't dropped policies he believed in- he used the opportunity to drop policies your party voted for that he never personally believed in.

Now please, get it into your thick skull that the *government* hasn't laid out exactly where the cuts will fall, all we have is a speculation, so to blame Labour for not doing so is ludicrous. You know that ministers don't personally pick where every pound comes from anyway? That Labour's cuts would have been pretty much in the same areas just to a lesser extent because it would be the same civil servants and public bodies making those cuts?

M Wilson's picture

Tom - you seem to be missing the point here!!(as do half of the country)

The cuts that the coalition have announced are mainly in year cuts....which labour wouldn't have made!

As for the rest Labour set out a loose framework of 44bn cuts....to be confirmed in a comprehensive spending review. Along with 19bn of tax rises!

Plus they would have an extra year to sort out where the cuts would fall within departments, thus having a better chance of reducing the front line impact of cuts on departments.(not to mention waiting for growth to be fully re-established - thus having to cut less)

Whereas this joke of a government has gone on a reckless campaign of slash and burn economics, cutting valued and much loved childrens and community building projects, without any public consultation.

oh and by the way...have the government announced all their planned cuts? NO!

Ps: Medhi...if you get the chance...can you please ask a tory what they would have done about public spending if there had been no recession. Lets see if this is ideological

LabMike's picture

"Clegg and Cable's humiliating and inexplicable U-turn on the issue of spending cuts and the timing of deficit reduction"

It's not inexplicable- Clegg said that he changed his mind before the election, the FT ran rumours that Cable had never believed in delaying cuts and the Lib Dem negotiating team- particularly Huhne and Laws- were arguing for Labour to cut immediately in talks after the election.

No word on whether they also told the Conservatives of their conversion. I imagine they played pretend for a while to gain concessions from the Tories, "convince us of something we secretly agree with by giving us something in return." We know they had no qualms about lying in those discussions by telling the Tories that Labour had offered AV without a referendum.

ottispenning1024's picture

If Clegg did change his mind before the election why didn't he tell the electorate?

Because he is a coward and was prepared to lie to the electorate to get some semblance of power. I will never ever come as close to voting lib dem as i did during the last election again. I simply have lost all faith in them.

Kershan's picture

Surely nobody believes that Clegg changed his mind before the election, LabMike. He simply wanted to make it look like he wasn't being steamrollered by his new masters. He went from being a big fish in a small pond to being a tadpole in a pond of piranhas. I'd have respected him more if he had said the truth, namely that he was the minority party in this coalition and that he really didn't have any say in anything. He claims of a pre-election U-turn are cowardly. And if they are true, he owes his voters and his party a very big explanation.

Reginald-Fah-fah's picture

I wasn't a fan of Nick Clegg, but after the way he stepped in for our great leader David Cameron during PMQ, Mr Clegg has earned some respect! I take my hat of to him!

He nearly was a good as a Tory!

LabMike's picture

It would certainly explain why his team was arguing with Labour for cuts to start immediately, before the deal with the Tories was done.

Clegg said different things to different audiences- in an interview with the Spectator (entitled: Clegg- heir to Thatcher? if you want to search it) for example he was saying that the deficit should be dealt with purely through cuts. Purely, compared to the Tories 80/20 and Labour's 66/33. This while making speeches about how Tory cuts wouldn't be seen as legitimate to a Sheffield audience.

gregstone's picture

Surely the point of the attack is that Labour are refusing to say what they would cut to fulfil their manifesto plan of £44bn cuts. They were dishonest in failing to specify those cuts before the election, and dishonest in not doing so. MH's article is a smokescreen designed to disguise the fact that Labour's would-be Emperors have no clothes.

LabMike's picture

Psst, gregstone, we don't know what exactly is being cut by the government yet. Since most of it is likely to be the result of reviews and so on, it's likely that Labour would have cut whatever those reviews come up with but to a lesser extent.

bonk's picture

having read some of those "suggestions" for cuts on that website it made my teeth itch,some hadnt been dusted off since Hitler was in power before they where taken off so Clegg shouldnt be crowing too much about how great that exrcise was.

Latest tweets