How Labour is preparing the ground for a coalition with the Lib Dems

Ed Miliband's PPS John Denham warns Labour not to assume it will be able to govern alone after the next election.

One reason why the Lib Dems are less despondent than their poll ratings would suggest is that the party could still hold the balance of power after the next election. The Conservatives will struggle to win the majority they failed to secure in 2010 - no governing party has increased its share of the vote since 1974 - but the party's existing support could prove sufficiently resilient to prevent Labour getting over the winning line of 326 seats. For this reason, the Lib Dems, who expect many of their sitting MPs to defy the national swing, believe that Ed Miliband's party could be forced to turn to them for assistance in another hung parliament.

There are now signs that Labour is acknowledging as much. Yesterday on The Staggers, former cabinet minister John Denham, previewing the launch of a new group called Labour for Democracy, wrote that "rather than Labour re-establishing itself as the sole party of choice for progressive voters, it's more likely that the progressive vote will be split as it has now been for decades." In other words, the Lib Dem vote will prove more durable than many in Labour currently assume. It is a message reinforced by Labour for Democracy, which states on its website: "All Labour members will work hard for every Labour vote.  But whether we win the outright Labour majority we all seek, or end up with a less conclusive result, the change Britain needs will require the support of all who share our values."

Though the words "tactical voting" do not appear in Denham's piece, his prediction that the progressive vote "will be split" is a reminder that it could play an important role at the next election. The Conservatives are in second place in 38 of the Lib Dems' 57 seats and half of those on its target list are held by Clegg's party. If Labour is to prevent the Tories from decapitating scores of Lib Dems, it will need to consider whether to advise its supporters to cast tactical votes (as Peter Hain and Ed Balls came close to doing at the last election).

Denham goes on to note that "despite the failures of the coalition, the public still generally want politicians to work together when they can, rather than exaggerate their differences." What makes his intervention particularly significant is that he is now PPS to Miliband (he was one of the Labour leader's early shadow cabinet supporters), suggesting that he is acting with the approval of the leadership. He concluded:

It is tempting to see pluralism as a sign of weakness, a lack of confidence; even an unwanted attempt to give Nick Clegg a permanent and undeserved place in government.

But we must be bigger than that. Tribal differences have obstructed progressive change in the past. Voter allegiances to the major parties are declining as fast as the icecaps are melting. There are even signs that the ‘progressive majority’ that split its vote in the 1980s is itself shrinking in the face of recession and insecurity.  If we want to change Britain in a progressive direction, Labour must show it is willing to work with, not just lead, everyone who will support all or part of that change.

So, while Clegg's head remains the price of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition (indeed, Denham was one of the first senior Labour figures to state as much), Labour is increasingly clear that it may not be possible for it govern alone after the next election. Expect Denham's article to mark the beginning of a prolonged rapprochement.

Labour leader Ed Miliband's PPS John Denham called for Labour to work with other progressive parties. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496