After winning Eastleigh, Lib Dem members want payback on secret courts

The activists who won the ground war in Eastleigh want their new MP - and all other Lib Dems - to vote against secret courts today.

Poor Mike Thornton. The newly elected MP for Eastleigh may well be experiencing one of those ‘be careful what you wish for’ moments today. Because in his first proper day in the job, he has to decide which way to vote on the Justice and Security Bill this afternoon. And as a large number of activists are no doubt making clear in his inbox - it's payback time...

You don’t get (literally) thousands of activists delivering, phoning and stumping up dosh without them expecting, at the very least, that the new member will be voting in line with party policy on an issue of civil liberty. Such are the perils of people power. Mike’s a got a tough choice to make.

But of course, it’s not just Mike. Every Lib Dem MP must be crystal clear this morning that the secret weapon we have over Labour and the Tories is our ability to mobilise an effective ground war in areas where we are the incumbents – i.e. their own constituencies. And equally, they must be clear that the troops are expecting the generals to deliver what they believe in. If they’re not, there’s a letter in today’s Daily Mail – the most-read newspaper by Lib Dem members, don’t-you-know – reminding them of that fact. Of course, they’re welcome to engage with the membership in debate on the issue – but they’d better know their facts, or else they get mashed up and spat out by a better informed and rather angry set of activists, led by the inspirational Jo Shaw.

The received wisdom in the media was that Eastleigh had bought the Lib Dem leadership time, that the troops would be delirious post-victory and a happy and contented spring conference would follow. They are right that the members are delighted we won Eastleigh – but activists are equally clear that it was a victory for the proles, not the Westminster bourgeoisie and now it's payback time.

As Miranda Green put it last night…

We’re feeling pretty bold, Miranda. We’d like our MPs to vote for party policy today.

No to secret courts.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Liberal Democrat Conference

Liberal Democrat Eastleigh by-election candidate Mike Thornton celebrates his win with Nick Clegg. Photograph: Getty Images.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.