A very modest Lib Dem rebellion on the benefits cap

Sarah Teather dodged a vote the first time round, now she has sided with Labour.

Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent Central and children and families minister until she was sacked in the autumn reshuffle, was on the front page of the Observer last weekend decrying the effects of the government's benefits cap. She called it "immoral and divisive" and said she saw clear evidence while in government that the policy wouldn't save money while being sure to inflict social harm and trauma to some very poor, vulnerable families.

Teather is not the only Lib Dem to have strong feelings about the cap and its passage into law provoked a mini rebellion in the party ranks. As a minister, Teather was obliged to support government policy but found a way to be absent from the crucial votes. That pointed abstention provoked fury on the Tory side and triggered demands for her resignation.

As it happens, that wasn't quite the end of the cap's journey into law. As I noted in my column the other week, there was still a 'deferred division' due on a statutory instrument bringing in the last regulations required to implement the policy. This is an unglamorous parliamentary procedure - a tying up of loose ends - that allows MPs to signal their assent or dissent without a noisy debate in the floor of the chamber. It happened yesterday.

Having read about Teather's feelings on the cap, I was curious to see if she would put her vote where her mouth had been on the weekend and side with Labour. A quick look at today's Hansard, column 692, reporting the list of voting MPs confirms, that indeed she did. Not the noisiest, most flamboyant, well-advertised rebellion in Commons history. But a rebellion none the less.

Liberal Democrat MP and former children's minister Sarah Teather. Photograph: Getty Images.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political 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.