The Lib Dem rebels: who they are and what they want

Your guide to the four Lib Dem MPs planning to rebel against the increase in VAT.

Vince Cable may now claim that the Lib Dems only warned of the dangers of a VAT rise during the election in order to "score points" over the Conservatives, but there are others in his party who have always opposed this regressive move on principle.

One of them, Andrew George, has now tabled an amendment demanding an assessment of the impact the new 20 per cent rate will have on low-income groups. It has been signed by three others -- Bob Russell, Mark Williams and Roger Williams.

There is no evidence that Simon Hughes and Charles Kennedy have joined the rebellion, though it wouldn't be surprising if the Gang of Four (as they will undoubtedly soon be known) had their tacit support.

Meanwhile, Russell, who has previously threatened to vote against the Budget in its entirety, has dismissed an Independent on Sunday report that the rebels have secretly agreed to co-operate with Labour MPs as "poppycock" and "Labour mischief-making".

He said: "There is not a conspiracy involving Simon Hughes or Charles Kennedy, this is about backbencher unease from members. If Labour think there is some yawning chasm they are going to be sorely disillusioned."

It remains to be seen whether the amendment will be put to a vote on Tuesday, but the rebellion is an important reflection of the wider unease felt by Lib Dem activists over the Budget.

The MPs have no obvious ideological agenda, but Russell has a record as a Lib Dem maverick. He previously rebelled against the party whip to vote against equalising the age of consent and the sexual equality act.

Russell's name and those of his fellow conspirators are certainly worth noting for the future.

Andrew George

Age: 51

Constituency: St Ives (elected 1997)

Majority: 1,719 (3.7 per cent)

Significant moments: One of the first Lib Dem frontbenchers to threaten to resign if Charles Kennedy did not stand down as leader. Later sacked by Kennedy's successor, Menzies Campbell.

Bob Russell

Age: 64

Constituency: Colchester (elected 1997)

Majority: 6,982 (15.1 per cent)

Significant moments: Rebelled against the party whip to vote against equalising the age of consent and against the sexual equality act.

Mark Williams

Age: 44

Constituency: Ceredigion (elected 2005)

Majority: 8,324 (21.8 per cent)

Significant moments: Dramatically increased his majority at the last election from 219 to 8,324.

Roger Williams

Age: 62

Constituency: Brecon and Radnorshire (elected 2001)

Majority: 3,905 (10.2 per cent)

Significant moments: Served as shadow Welsh secretary for the Lib Dems from 2007-2008.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.