The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Clegg’s attack on Labour marrs Yes to AV speech

The Lib Dem leader is alienating the voters Yes to AV needs to win over.

By George Eaton Published 21 April 2011 14:22

After lying low for much of the referendum campaign, Nick Clegg emerged today to make the case for AV with an op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph and a speech at the IPPR.

But the latter was marred by an inappropriate and highly partisan attack on Labour's economic policy. Clegg insisted that the coalition's work would continue "regardless of the result of the referendum" and repeated one of George Osborne's favourite attack lines: that Labour would have cut spending by just £2bn less than the coalition in 2011/2012.

He said:

In Labour's case they are going round the country pretending they wouldn't make these decisions when their own plan, the Alistair Darling plan, was to cut £14bn this year compared to the £16bn we are cutting. For every £8 we are cutting, they would cut £7. To deny that reality is to treat the British people like fools.

This claim, of course, ignores the changes that Ed Miliband has made to the Darling plan. Labour would still halve the structural deficit over four years but it would do so through a 60:40 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises, rather than the original 70:30 split. As a result, the difference between Labour's cuts and the coalition's would be greater than £2bn this year. The switch to a 60:40 ratio means that total departmental cuts have fallen from £44bn to £34bn, compared to the coalition's cuts of £61bn.

Even if we accept Clegg's claim, the coalition's decision to cut spending by £6.2bn in 2010/2011 (when Labour would have made no cuts), means that the true gap between the parties' spending plans is £8.2bn, not £2bn.

But leaving that aside, Clegg's attack was politically foolish because, as I pointed out yesterday, the Yes campaign needs to win over Labour voters if it's to stand any chance of winning on 5 May. The latest YouGov poll shows that while Lib Dem voters are overwhelmingly in favour of reform (83 per cent to 17 per cent) and Conservative voters are overwhelmingly opposed (84 per cent to 16 per cent), Labour voters are split exactly down the middle (50 per cent to 50 per cent). Clegg's ill-tempered attack on Labour only reminds us why some in the party are so keen to give him a bloody nose.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: AV referendum Nick Clegg Electoral Reform

More from George Eaton

23 comments

Mon, 2011-04-25 16:04 — Rosie (not verified)

I was voting 'No' then I was really wavering after listening and reading up, then Nick Clegg attacked labour and I felt insulted by him, so now I am definitely voting NO. I will not have that man and his arrogance in my face for longer than is necessary.

Mon, 2011-04-25 16:09 — Rosie (not verified)

Marcus
21 April 2011 at 13:57
"You sounds like you are trying to convince yourself about the Labour cuts and lack of deficit here."

Yet Labour is accused by Osborne of making cuts £2bn less than his? make your minds up why don't you?

Fri, 2011-04-22 01:04 — thinkov

Clegg gets more incapable by the day

a complete and utter cock

Fri, 2011-04-22 07:34 — Luddite (not verified)

Mr Clegg is inside government not sniping from the political wilderness. There is no escaping responsible government, who ever said reducing the the previous governments appalling mountain of debt, would be easy or painless. Hard and extremely difficult decision have to be made, and lets be brutally honest here, if Labour was still in government it to would be doing very much the same.

Sat, 2011-04-23 22:40 — matthew fox (not verified)

More nonsense from Conservatives, more inflationary hikes on the way, and all we are getting is blame Brown.

Sun, 2011-04-24 02:07 — Glen (not verified)

I read with interest one comment describing the deficit as appalling. What a load of Bollocks!! The deficit per GDP was the same in 1948 when Nye Bevan created the NHS. Doesn't that tell you something? Also, how is the country meant to get out of trouble when tax receipts are diminishing by the day as these regressive cuts bite. The best way to avoid trouble is to commit to investment as every other successful economy is doing. If you read all the figures becoming available, this policy of drastic cuts just isn't working and they are actually creating a worse situation than was Labour's legacy.And this is down to policy, not reckless bankers as was Labour's problem.

Sun, 2011-04-24 09:54 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

I see now Nick Clegg is a prick a foul piece of work all because he wouldn't join Gordon Brown's rainbow of every other party other than the Tories including parties that refuse to sit at Westminster!

The Labour Party are worse than the Tories in that they have had a year to offer an alternative and haven't.

Labour and the Tories will always be centered on their own elite.

After the muck thats been thrown at Nick Clegg it's nice to see him hitting back.

Fri, 2011-04-22 14:04 — Kit Spartan (not verified)

I don't support AV, not for political reasons..just mathematical ones! I too am fed up with the stupid behaviour of Politicians. I don't see either Nick or Ed as Leader material, Dave could be, he seems less willing to throw mud in public anyway.
I can see why it's called the House of Commons..they behave in such a common way so often after all.
We as the majority must not be silent ever and voting is surely our way of showing our views too. I always vote and voice my disdain or praise when appropriate. I support the coalition as long as it's working.

Thu, 2011-04-21 14:40 — Gauss (not verified)

Still, Labour doesn't have a credible economic policy, does it? A little bit less austerity is still a strategy for abject failure (except for the stateless super-rich).

Austerity cannot work following a recession with high unemployment and low interest rates - there's nothing left to give except the exchange rate, but we don't make anything any more, and if we did it's a route to becoming a sweatshop economy, not economic recovery.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/austerity-games-here-and-there/

Balls and Miliband know this perfectly well. So why don't they have the integrity to say it?

Can we have some politicians not in the pockets of ultra-big business please?

Thu, 2011-04-21 14:44 — Clem the Gem

Agreed, but more interestingly, as we hear the howls of "partisan" and "triba" levelld at Labour leaders past and present, it is Nick Clegg who has done his best to destroy the unity of the Yes campaign.

http://clemthegem.wordpress.com

Thu, 2011-04-21 14:45 — Robert Barr (not verified)

I am sure you are right, but I think you are ignoring human nature. Labour have been so unnecessarily vindictive to the LibDems in general and Nick Clegg in particular since the election that it would take super human patience not to react.

While you might quibble over the figures, all of Labour's rhetoric has identified no cuts, and tolerates demands from its supporters for additional unsustainable spending. That is simply not a credible or responsible position.

Bob

Thu, 2011-04-21 14:46 — Dave C (not verified)

Well, I've never rated Clegg as a political strategist or tactician. He went for a full coalition and is consequently destroying his own party.
If he'd gone for confidence and supply, his party would be so much better off.

Thu, 2011-04-21 14:53 — emilia (not verified)

Gauss, do you consider Germany, where they most assuredly do make things, to be a "sweatshop economy"?

Thu, 2011-04-21 14:57 — Marcus (not verified)

You sounds like you are trying to convince yourself about the Labour cuts and lack of deficit here.

It is in Ed Miliband's interest to cut the cuts. The question is, would he really do that upon winning?

I for one doubt he could.

Thu, 2011-04-21 14:59 — tamster (not verified)

The Lib Dems always used to rattle on about 'pluralist' politics.

What that's turned out to mean in reality is Clegg wants to attack Labour all the time.

In his delusionary state he thinks the history books will call him the Great Reformer.

The truth is he'll be seen as the Great Dissembler, and the man that turned a generation or more off voting Lib Dem.

Thu, 2011-04-21 15:30 — capt-price (not verified)

Let's stop even posting about this prick. He deserves no attention whatsoever.

Thu, 2011-04-21 15:37 — Sam (not verified)

That's pretty pathetic given the rhetoric that Miliband, Balls and other use, all the while Clegg is being spat at and other not particularly nice things.

Unless you believe Clegg is purposely trying to destroy Britain, show some f*cking humility.

Thu, 2011-04-21 15:58 — Widdershins (not verified)

Did Labour spell out where the tax rises in their 60:40 split would come from? Can't be on VAT because that's regressive and they attacked the coalition for doing it. National Insurance/tax on jobs? Fresh air?

Thu, 2011-04-21 16:06 — writeoff (not verified)

Widdershins - fair point. Labour would have raised VAT, they're still weak on supporting the 50p rate, let alone extending it. Nevertheless everyone can give their own political bete noir a kicking in the local elections and vote AV for a more representative government. If the Lib Dems are wiped off the local map, Clegg will be under huge pressure anyway, so we'll still have the pleasure of seeing that.

Thu, 2011-04-21 16:16 — lusina

Clegg is terminally foolish. He is confirming my assessment that he is beyond redemption. Doesn't he realise that Labour voters have turned against AV for the simple reason that they are now bloody minded where Lib Dems are concerned for their treacherous behaviour in coalescing with the Tories. His anti-Labour comments coming at this critical times for AV is simple beyond understanding.

Fri, 2011-04-22 22:15 — Millsy (not verified)

Could you please post a link to wherever Miliband or Balls announced the change in economic policy from the Darling plan?

Thu, 2011-04-21 16:52 — David Hall (not verified)

I think his speech indicates that he doesn't care whether the referendum result is a success for AV or not. The whole thing is a massive pr exercise and total waste of scarse public money, everyone's time, and newspaper column inches. All to keep Lib Dems happy and make it look like they are keeping at least part of a promise they made their members, and help to deflect attention from the shambolic and ill considered behaviour of the coalition. It's one of the most unnecessary, unpopular (in that very few people have even asked this reform prior to now), shallow and cynical political exercises ever carried out.