Nick Clegg on the Lib Dem role in the Spending Review

Emphasises role of Lib Dem ministers in Spending Review, but denies that cuts aim to create a smalle

Nick Clegg has just sent out an email to Lib Dem members giving some of the rationale behind the Spending Review. It's very light on detail, but does provide a couple of interesting insights into how the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to position his party politically going into this afternoon's announcement.

The core argument is, naturally, the same as the one offered by Cameron and Osborne – the outcome of the review is about fairness and, above all, cutting "Labour's deficit". But there are also certain phrases that demonstrate once again how tightly Clegg's fortunes are now tied to those of the coalition's leading Tory figures. The following paragraph is particularly interesting:

The spending review is a thoroughly Coalition product. Liberal Democrat ministers have been involved every step of the way. Our values and priorities are written through the review, like the message in a stick of rock.

As my colleagues Mehdi Hasan and James Macintyre pointed out in the run-up to the Lib Dem conference, the spending review is just the first in a series of tests for the Lib Dems as a party of government, perhaps the most significant being the local elections to come next May. But with the polling numbers long suggesting we can expect a big swell of unpopularity for this afternoon's announcement, the Spending Review isn't without its challenges for the Lib Dems. Members, and a fair number of Lib Dem MPs, will be feeling very uncomfortable this afternoon.

However, the key paragraph of the letter comes at the end, where Clegg lays out his version of the motivation behind the cuts:

We are not taking the decisions today because they are easy or because we want to see a smaller state, we are taking them because they are right.

He said something similar in his conference speech – it's clearly a line designed for the membership, many of whom will be feeling uneasy about the Tories' mantra of "smaller state, bigger society". Now that Clegg has positioned his party and his ministers so centrally to the Spending Review, it will be fascinating to see how his backbenchers choose to respond, come the inevitable fallout.

Caroline Crampton is web editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.