Would Clegg’s head be the price of a Lab-Lib coalition?

Shadow cabinet minister John Denham suggests that the Liberal Democrats would need a new leader.

This week brought the "revelation" that Nick Clegg insisted on Gordon Brown's head as the price of a Lab-Lib coalition but could Labour turn the tables on the Lib Dems at the next election?

Should Labour emerge as the single largest party in a hung parliament, many will want to force Clegg's departure before any coalition is formed. In an interview in the latest edition of Fabian Review, John Denham, the shadow communities secretary, suggests that Labour could not work with a Clegg-led Lib Dem party:

It would require a new leader and a new politics. The idea that the Lib Dems can do this now, and then, in a few years, say they'd like to be friends with Labour when they are fundamentally unchanged is out of the question. Many people, including electoral reformers like me who always thought there could be a centre-left coalition with the Lib Dems, have to understand they have taken a historic position which puts them outside that game until they change profoundly.

That Denham, a Labour pluralist who supported attempts to form a "progressive coalition", feels this way suggests that many others in the party do, too. For now, the Lib Dems remain surprisingly united behind Clegg. As Richard Grayson points out in his cover story for the latest issue, the trauma of losing Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell in quick succession has made the Liberal Democrats extremely leadership-loyal.

But Clegg's fate is now almost entirely intertwined with that of the coalition, which could leave him dangerously exposed if, as expected, the forthcoming spending cuts make the government rapidly unpopular. Should the Lib Dems suffer significant losses in the May 2011 local elections, we will start to hear the first proper rumblings of discontent.

Either way, it makes sense for Labour to begin planning war-gaming scenarios for a hung parliament now. So which Lib Dem figure could replace Clegg and win over a rejuvenated Labour Party? Step forward, Charles Kennedy.

Subscription offer: 12 issues for just £12 PLUS a free copy of "The Idea of Justice" by Amartya Sen.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

This election is about Brexit - don't kid yourself otherwise

The phrase "taking back control" will come under scrutiny like never before. 

Politicians always say that general elections are important. Usually they say they are “the most important for a generation”. But this time, when they say that they are right.

This election is about power, and about Brexit. It is about the right to negotiate Britain’s relationship with the European Union, and to try to shape our relationship with the rest of the world.

But it is also about the right to try to shape our country’s future at home. Because the way Britain works right now is simply not accepted by millions of people. That is the lesson we all should have learnt from last year's referendum.

The message in the referendum was clear enough: British citizens wanted to "take back control". But the meaning has been lost in interpretation. It has become a caricature of itself.

The Brexit vote has been taken to mean that we are a nation obsessed with repatriating powers from Brussels and keeping immigrants out. And yes, it's true that these are the elements of control which many people most readily turn to when asked. Do a quick, surface-level canvass of voters, and you may well take away that message ­– and that message only.

But keep listening, and you will hear something else. You will hear people yearning to gain some purchase on the places where they live, and the forces which shape their lives. You will hear people desperately seeking some way of taking control over the things that matter to them – their work, their homes and the prospects for the people they love.

Even among those who voted Remain last year, almost half think big business and banks have too much control over them. And at least three-quarters of all voters feel they have little or no control over Westminster, their local council, public services, even their own neighbourhood. When faced with that level of malaise, you have to question whether Brexit will deliver the control which people so clearly want.

The dominant narrative would have us believe people are delighted that our long-held protections – in the workplace, in the market, of the air that we breathe – are all up for barter through Brexit. Anything for the parody of control offered by leaving the European Union. In reality, we cherish these rights. The control we seek does not involve throwing them away.

We want real control. That means building power in our workplaces, where new technology is combining with the old power of capital to leave ever more people at the mercy of forces beyond their control. It means greater influence over where we get to live, in the face of a vicious housing market which continues to deny so many of us a decent, affordable place to live.

 It means taking control in our local communities, which are so often overlooked by top-down efforts at regeneration. It means taking control of our essential services like energy, rather than allowing six giant companies to dictate terms to everyone. And it means taking control of our financial system, so that banks can start to serve the public interest and not just their own.

This election is about Brexit. Anyone who pretends otherwise just isn't paying attention. But ask people what they really mean when they say they want control, and you may be surprised by the answers you hear back.

Marc Stears is the chief executive of the New Economics Foundation

0800 7318496