Who passes the Clegg test?

How many of Nick Clegg's four demands do Labour and Tories meet?

So Vince Cable won't be the next chancellor after all. Today's Guardian reports that the Liberal Democrats are planning to rule out forming a coalition government with either the Conservatives or Labour in the event of a hung parliament. But they will be prepared to offer parliamentary support to any party that accepts their "shopping list" of four demands.

So who, as things stand, would pass the Clegg test?

1. "Investing extra funds in education through a pupil premium for disadvantaged children."

Conservatives: The Tories have already promised to introduce a pupil premium, with extra funding for schools that take children from the poorest homes. But the party has yet to say anything about how much it would spend, or where the money would come from.

The Lib Dems have said that the policy would cost £2.5bn a year, with the average school receiving roughly £2,500 extra for every disadvantaged child on its roll.

Labour: Ed Balls opposes a pupil premium, arguing that it would not guarantee that pupils with disadvantages or extra needs actually get the support that they need.

Verdict: A point to the Tories. None for Labour.

2. "Tax reform, taking four million out of tax and raising taxes on the rich by requiring capital gains and income to be taxed at the same rate."

Conservatives: A number of Tories are impressed by Nick Clegg's plan to raise the income-tax threshold to £10,000, but David Cameron has yet to poach the idea. Instead, he plans to focus on cutting inheritance tax and recognising marriage in the tax system. In addition, George Osborne has pledged to reduce corporation tax from 30 per cent to 27 per cent. The Tories have no plans to raise capital gains tax (CGT).

Labour: No plans to cut income tax, but Alistair Darling is said to be looking at raising CGT in the Budget to stop the wealthy exploiting a tax loophole by declaring income as capital gains. This would please the Lib Dems, who could claim to have led the agenda.

Verdict: In anticipation of a rise in capital gains tax, Labour wins half a point.

3. "Rebalancing of the economy to put less emphasis on centralised banking and more on a new, greener economy."

Conservatives: Osborne is sympathetic to calls to split investment and retail banking but has stopped short of calling for a complete separation. Cameron has promised a "localist green revolution" with companies such as Tesco and Marks & Spencer helping to make homes more energy-efficient. But will his backbenchers stand in the way? A ConservativeHome/ConservativeIntelligence survey revealed that reducing Britain's carbon footprint was the lowest priority for Tory candidates.

Labour: The government has so far refused to separate retail from investment banking and is unlikely to change its position. On the "green economy", Labour has promised to create a more than a million new green jobs and to cut UK greenhouse-gas emissions by 34 per cent by 2020.

Verdict: Half a point to the Tories on banking and half a point to Labour on the green economy.

4. "Political reforms, including changes to the voting system and a democratically elected Lords, that go further than proposed by Labour."

Conservatives: The Tories are opposed to any electoral reform and support the current first-past-the-post system. Cameron opposes proportional representation on the grounds that it hands power to the "political elites".

The Tory leader has said he supports a largely elected second chamber but is reluctant to challenge his own peers on the issue, as they are opposed to reform. In private, Cameron has described Lords reform as a "third-term issue".

Labour: Supports the replacement of first-past-the-post with the Alternative Vote and has passed legislation to ensure a referendum will be held. The Lib Dems support the move as a "step in the right direction", but are disappointed that Labour did not opt for a proportional system.

The government continues to favour a predominantly elected Lords. However, Jack Straw has warned campaigners that they will have to wait more than decade before this is achieved.

Verdict: Half a point to Labour.

Final score: Conservatives: 1½ out of 4

Labour: 1½ out of 4

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.