The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Clegg's strategy is clear, but now he must deliver

The next 12 months will show if the electorate is willing to give the Lib Dem leader a hearing.

By Richard Morris Published 27 September 2012 14:25

Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

Nick Clegg aims to present the Liberal Democrats as economically responsible and socially liberal. Photograph: Getty Images.

I asked Nick Clegg yesterday at Lib Dem conference for a short description of what we stand for. What is the liberal language we should be using in our everyday conversation? What's the elevator sell?

I rather liked his answer: "We should answer the call of the head and the heart." By this he meant that we should offer the fiscal responsibility the country needs (and Labour can't claim to have delivered) and also ensure that the life chances of every person are never blighted by the circumstances of their birth - everyone should have an opportunity for greatness. The 'caring' territory that the nasty party (not my phrase) would struggle to own.

Reading the above makes perfect sense in the context of Nick’s speech to the Lib Dem conference yesterday. What’s interesting is that I wrote the above 12 months ago at the Birmingham conference. And here we are, 12 months on, and the message remains the same.

Are you ready to trust Labour with your money again? And do you really think the Tories will make Britain fairer? Because the truth is, only the Liberal Democrats can be trusted on the economy and relied upon to deliver a fairer society too.

And the other truth is that it’s been this ever since we entered government

Leading up to Nick’s speech, there was no shortage of advice about how we should restore our standing in the polls and in the eyes of the electorate. "Turn left" was the advice of the Telegraph's Mary Riddell – "The party’s voters won’t allow a deal with the Tories in 2015 – it’s time to make eyes at Labour". Keep right was the advice of Richard Reeves, Clegg's outgoing director of strategy, in the New Statesman– "Any attempt to position the Liberal Democrats as a party of the centre left after five years of austerity government in partnership with the Conservatives will be laughed out of court by the voters – and rightly so".

But Nick’s message from the last week is clear: yes, I have made political mistakes, but my principles have stayed the same. And for the second half of this Parliament, I will demonstrate that we remain an economically responsible and socially liberal party and you will see that.

The chatter around the grassroots throughout the conference was pretty consistent. Yes, Nick’s got stuff wrong – and large swathes of the party remain livid about it. Yes he’s got a lot to prove – to us, even before the rest of the world. But the next 12 months will show if Nick can deliver against the agenda he outlined yesterday. And if the electorate is willing to give him a hearing.

The party has approved that agenda, supporting the leadership on its economic strategy, while giving it a bloody nose on socially illiberal Tory led policy like "secret courts". Now let’s see the leadership deliver. The grassroots – and the electorate – are watching. And the clock’s ticking ...

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg

More from Richard Morris

View the discussion thread.

19 comments

Sun, 2012-09-30 20:42 — anonymous coward (not verified)

Articles like this are fantasy. The liberal democrats are in denial of their position. The question in the next election is not whether they do badly but whether they can cling on to their position as the third party. If they do not, and it looks like they will not, can they survive as a party of any signifiance at all? Media appearances will all but disappear and they cannot rely on a split in a major party like the one that created the social democrats to rescue them.

Clegg and the rest of the leadership seems to think things will carry on essentially as before with just a ittle unpopularity. This is wishfiul thinking and dangerous self delusion.

Sun, 2012-09-30 08:19 — SammyW (not verified)

Yes Clegg's position is clear, he is a Tory and anyone in the Liberal Democrat following him is a Tory too and his strategy is clear they should be honest to their supporters (who they conned and stole their votes) and cross the floor of the House and then give the electorate the chance to give their opinion.

Mon, 2012-10-01 18:04 — Leekliberal (not verified)

This is no more than vulgar abuse!

Fri, 2012-09-28 02:06 — blinkers

OMG he is going to deliver a baby!

Let Hannibal Lectory be his midwife!

Fri, 2012-09-28 00:07 — Rev Graeme Hancocks (not verified)

"Clegg's strategy is clear, but now he must deliver". Yes - lose as many seats as possible for the libdems and leave us all in peace.

Thu, 2012-09-27 23:33 — One of the electorate (not verified)

Let me say something once and for all. The main argument against the 50p tax was that it didn't bring in that much money. But the 45p tax rate brings in even less, by definition. Could your leader have kept taking the inefficient 50p tax and added some more to the tax bill for the rich.?

A simple yes or no will do.

"And here we are, 12 months on, and the message remains the same."

How prophetic.

Fri, 2012-09-28 11:19 — Tom Papworth (not verified)

"The main argument against the 50p tax was that it didn't bring in that much money. But the 45p tax rate brings in even less, by definition."

No, it doesn't. Think about a 100% tax bracket. It would bring in almost nothing, because nobody would bother to work if they were being taxed at 100%. The point of lower rates is that they can bring in more revenue if they encourage people to exchange leisure time for work/income. This has been proven in practice: when Presidents Coolidge and Kennedy, and when Nigel Lawson, reduced the highest rate of tax, the total amount collected from upper-rate taxpayers increased.

"Could your leader have kept taking the inefficient 50p tax and added some more to the tax bill for the rich.?"

He could have added more to the bill, but it is less clear that he could have added more to receipts. In particular, if you tax things that are mobile (e.g. capital, or the wages of highly skilled, highly mobile people) you risk capital flight and emigration.

And all the above considers only tax reciepts. By discouraging additional work/enterprise and driving away talent and money, high taxes also reduce economic growth, which means fewer jobs and lower salary rises for everybody.

Fri, 2012-09-28 00:34 — RichardMorrisUK

Yes. If we had won a majority at the last election we would never have dropped the 50p threshold.

Do remember that for all bar the final 5 weeks of the last Labour government, the top rate of tax was 40p.

New Labour don't have a very good record on taxing the rich. Its dodgy ground to argue on.

Thu, 2012-09-27 23:41 — One of the electorate (not verified)

NB: if you try to argue that people who usually avoid tax are more likely to come back and pay the 45p rate i.e. they are happier to pay that tax than another higher one, you are tacitly endorsing of tax avoidance rather than fighting it, which is what every party, including your (probably?) pretends to do.

So which is it, yes or no (to my previous question)?

Fri, 2012-09-28 11:30 — Tom Papworth (not verified)

"if you try to argue that people who usually avoid tax are more likely to come back and pay the 45p rate... you are tacitly endorsing of tax avoidance "

It's not just about emigration. It's about the balance between work and leisure. Obviously a person on a low income is going to work every hour they can - they have no choice, which is why the Lib Dems have increased the personal allowance so that low-earners take home more of their imcome. But a person earning a high salary can choose to sacrifice income for leisure. Strictly speaking, that may be "tax avoidance", but I challenge you to make a case against it.

Now think of the consequences. A surgeon might earn £112,500/year gross, but pays 60% (yes, 60!) on the last £12,500 she earns. Faced with that rate of tax, she might choose to go down to four and a half days a week. The result is that the taxman doesn't collect £7,500 in tax, and the rest of us have access to marginally less medical care.

There are plenty of other ways to "avoid" tax that aren't about using complex financial instruments, and that aren't inherently wicked. The main questions in fiscal policy should be 1) what is the optimal tax level/rate for economic growth, and 2) how can we maximise the efficiency of the system. It should not be 1) how much do we want to punish successful people, and 2) how are we going to fund all this stuff we've decided to do.

Fri, 2012-09-28 17:43 — One of the electorate (not verified)

"Strictly speaking, that may be "tax avoidance", but I challenge you to make a case against it."

Okay, but if a surgeon is employed by the state, the state can stipulate the contracted hours. This is scuppered by competition from the private sector (due to privatization) who might offer more flexibility. But there could be measures taken to limit what the private sector can do, this however would lead to people leaving the country to work elsewhere, so it is about emigration. The trouble is the country can't keep trying to bribe people to stay here. Consider the bankers for instance. They love to talk about upping sticks at the first sign of regulation, so we just keep bailing them out in the hope that they will bring anything other than the cyclic disasters we are used to.

Fri, 2012-09-28 00:35 — RichardMorrisUK

see above

Fri, 2012-09-28 00:03 — One of the electorate (not verified)

Sorry, but one last thing.

If I end up any better off because of changes to taxation for the worst off I may be happy about it, but I would rather have a good NHS, good education, a good social framework that protects people from the ravishes of dispossession and continue to pay the tax I have become used to paying - not that it seems fair, while rich politicians 'flip' their homes etc. - but it is about basic decency and and a sense of citizenship, something you cannot have off-shore.

That is all.

Thu, 2012-09-27 23:08 — mamamia (not verified)

Clegg's strategy is clear, but now he must find a way to climb out of Cameron's pocket.

Thu, 2012-09-27 18:50 — blinkers

He is just miming for his and Cameron's foreign bosses.

Thu, 2012-09-27 17:13 — nourredine

I refer you to an article in the daily mail today.

'Pleb' row Tory given £11,000 backing from tax haven firm (who've also donated £777,000 to the Lib Dems)
Andrew Mitchell, Conservative chief whip

Thu, 2012-09-27 15:03 — Barrie J (not verified)

Quote:
Are you ready to trust Labour with your money again? And do you really think the Tories will make Britain fairer? Because the truth is, only the Liberal Democrats can be trusted on the economy and relied upon to deliver a fairer society too.
End quote.

Two NOs and who would now trust the Lib Dems to do anything other than serve themselves.
Treacherous, parasitic scum

Thu, 2012-09-27 14:39 — FormerLibDem (not verified)

Too late for a re-launch. The electorate have written Clegg off beyond redemption. I am (only very slightly) less sure whether they have also written off the lib dems in their entirety. Certainly if the party continues to follow the Orange Book and crazies like Reeves they are doomed.

The current crisis is one that revolves around a core contradiction in the logic of capitalism itself. This is a problem only the left are able to even conceptualise. However the Lib dems have shed any left wing credentials, just when left wing thinking was most needed. They are on the wrong side of history - as are the Blairites in today's Labour party.

The only way forward is a sharp left turn and the lib dems are now stuck in the right hand lane.

Fri, 2012-09-28 00:09 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Good accurate post. It beggars belief that after the failure of the right wing consensus what was needed a more extreme version of the same. It will go down in history ridiculous and regressive.