Three ways the Lib Dems could fail themselves if rumours are right

Rejection of “progressive alliance”, bottling out of cabinet places and electoral reform with a gove

This is clearly a very time-sensitive post, so let's get to the point. If the rumours about the Clegg-Cameron agreement are correct, there are three potential ways in which it would fail both progressive politics and, in the long term, the Liberal Democrats themselves.

1. By avoiding a "progressive alliance" with their natural bedfellows in Labour and others, the Lib Dems will have let go of the possibility of not just proportional representation and a number of seats -- perhaps six or seven -- in the cabinet. They will also have failed in the immense historic possibility of reunification between two movements -- Labour and Liberal -- that belong together and that were, once, together. From such a reunification, there might have flowed a fairer Britain, if not a fairer world, with a more progressive tax system and a more ethical foreign policy.

2. Much is being made of this bizarre concept of "supply and confidence", under which the Lib Dems would prop up a minority Tory government, passing through the "emergency Budget". The Tory-supporting press in particular is excited about it. Not surprising. But what is not clear is how it benefits the Lib Dems, other than to retain an element of their already heavily qualified "purity" as they avoid becoming tainted by a party with which they have been in intense talks for days. It is hard to see how a one-party government of the Tories would support the progressive politics advocated by people such as Charles Kennedy. Further, it would mean the Lib Dems have bottled out of sitting in the cabinet and making politics better and more plural. I do know some anti-Tory voters who are happy for a Tory-Liberal coalition, but -- far away from the Westminster village -- it has not occurred to them that there will not be any Lib Dems in the cabinet. "Supply and confidence", they would neither understand nor welcome.

3. Even if there is some sort of perceived Tory concession on electoral reform, it would be a mirage, not least because the Tory government would campaign for a "No" vote, resulting almost certainly in just that, and in the Lib Dems having squandered their most real chance in decades for genuine change.

Nonetheless, some version of the above seems likely to happen, if rumours are to be believed. If so, a progressive moment this is not.

Special offer: get 12 issues for just £5.99 plus a free copy of 'Liberty in the age of terror' by AC Grayling

James Macintyre is political correspondent for the New Statesman.
Getty
Show Hide image

In your 30s? You missed out on £26,000 and you're not even protesting

The 1980s kids seem resigned to their fate - for now. 

Imagine you’re in your thirties, and you’re renting in a shared house, on roughly the same pay you earned five years ago. Now imagine you have a friend, also in their thirties. This friend owns their own home, gets pay rises every year and has a more generous pension to beat. In fact, they are twice as rich as you. 

When you try to talk about how worried you are about your financial situation, the friend shrugs and says: “I was in that situation too.”

Un-friend, right? But this is, in fact, reality. A study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that Brits in their early thirties have a median wealth of £27,000. But ten years ago, a thirty something had £53,000. In other words, that unbearable friend is just someone exactly the same as you, who is now in their forties. 

Not only do Brits born in the early 1980s have half the wealth they would have had if they were born in the 1970s, but they are the first generation to be in this position since World War II.  According to the IFS study, each cohort has got progressively richer. But then, just as the 1980s kids were reaching adulthood, a couple of things happened at once.

House prices raced ahead of wages. Employers made pensions less generous. And, at the crucial point that the 1980s kids were finding their feet in the jobs market, the recession struck. The 1980s kids didn’t manage to buy homes in time to take advantage of low mortgage rates. Instead, they are stuck paying increasing amounts of rent. 

If the wealth distribution between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s is stark, this is only the starting point in intergenerational inequality. The IFS expects pensioners’ incomes to race ahead of workers in the coming decade. 

So why, given this unprecedented reversal in fortunes, are Brits in their early thirties not marching in the streets? Why are they not burning tyres outside the Treasury while shouting: “Give us out £26k back?” 

The obvious fact that no one is going to be protesting their granny’s good fortune aside, it seems one reason for the 1980s kids’ resignation is they are still in denial. One thirty something wrote to The Staggers that the idea of being able to buy a house had become too abstract to worry about. Instead:

“You just try and get through this month and then worry about next month, which is probably self-defeating, but I think it's quite tough to get in the mindset that you're going to put something by so maybe in 10 years you can buy a shoebox a two-hour train ride from where you actually want to be.”

Another reflected that “people keep saying ‘something will turn up’”.

The Staggers turned to our resident thirty something, Yo Zushi, for his thoughts. He agreed with the IFS analysis that the recession mattered:

"We were spoiled by an artificially inflated balloon of cheap credit and growing up was something you did… later. Then the crash came in 2007-2008, and it became something we couldn’t afford to do. 

I would have got round to becoming comfortably off, I tell myself, had I been given another ten years of amoral capitalist boom to do so. Many of those who were born in the early 1970s drifted along, took a nap and woke up in possession of a house, all mod cons and a decent-paying job. But we slightly younger Gen X-ers followed in their slipstream and somehow fell off the edge. Oh well. "

Will the inertia of the1980s kids last? Perhaps – but Zushi sees in the support for Jeremy Corbyn, a swell of feeling at last. “Our lack of access to the life we were promised in our teens has woken many of us up to why things suck. That’s a good thing. 

“And now we have Corbyn to help sort it all out. That’s not meant sarcastically – I really think he’ll do it.”