Why the Lib Dems won't be choosing their coalition partner anytime soon

If the election results in another hung parliament, the party will side with whichever partner gives it the most liberal government.

So Nick Clegg suggests George Osborne is on the verge of making a monumental mistake, next thing you know Ed Balls is describing Nick as a man of integrity, suddenly there’s a Twitter love-in going on, and everyone acts like we may as well not bother with the 2015 general election, as a Lib-Lab coalition is a done deal. Coaliscious

Or is it?

Well, as Labour figures get increasingly nervous about whether it will be able to achieve a majority in 2015, you can see why they are suddenly making rather kinder noises about Nick than ever before. They’ve been positioning themselves as more Lib Dem friendly for a while now, with their adoption of policies like the Mansion Tax and low carbon energy targets, partly to secure the 2010 Lib Dem voters that have moved to them already, but also just in case the next election result leads to coalition negotiations with the Lib Dems. As it seems increasingly likely that Nick will be leading the party into that election, a softening of attitudes towards him was also inevitable.

But is the feeling really mutual?

I suspect the true feelings of the Westminster Lib Dems are better expressed when you look at the press release put out on Tuesday by the red-hot favourite to be next deputy leader of the party, Lorely Burt, where she said:

“I would also stand up for the Liberal Democrat Party’s core values of fairness and economic responsibility, which the Conservatives and Labour are incapable of delivering on their own.

“As we draw the battle lines for the next General Election against both the other major parties, I want to see the Liberal Democrats continuing to deliver more jobs, lower taxes for ordinary workers, and a fairer start in life through free school meals and help with childcare.”

In other words, a plague on both your houses.

The Lib Dems have consistently refused to say which side they would jump to if a repeat of the 2010 result happened. Rather, we’ll be talking to the largest party first – but not necessarily uniquely. And let’s not even get into the scenario where the Tories have the most votes but Labour have more seats.

Sure it's lovely when Ed Balls starts making cow eyes in your direction. But if the votes fall for a coalition, we’ll be looking for whichever partner gives us the most liberal government. We’re a way off deciding whose Prom invite we’ll be accepting just yet.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband attend a ceremony at Buckingham Palace to mark the Duke of Edinburgh's 90th birthday on June 30, 2011. 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
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.