Vince Cable speaks at the Liberal Democrat conference in Glasgow last year. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is Lord Oakeshott speaking for Vince Cable?

Cable has previously suggested that the coalition could end early, a demand now made by the Lib Dem peer.

With his usual impeccable timing, Lord Oakeshott has chosen the launch day of the Lib Dems' European election campaign to call for the party to withdraw from the coalition immediately after the contest. He told Channel 4 News:

I think the problem is we have a very good message on what we've achieved, but it's being drowned out by being in government. Four years on, we've achieved most of what we set out to do in the coalition. Now, we must get out of government so we can put our distinctive Liberal Democrat messsage across, both about what we've achieved in government and what we are going to achieve in the next parliament separately from the Tories.

Straight away after the May elections, we must give ourselves a year to get our own messages firmly across. It's quite clear that we Liberal Democrats, having done our duty for the country, supporting the government, getting our reforms through, are actually in grave danger ourselves. It's not in the country's interests for our distinctive message not to be heard.

The key question, as one Lib Dem source suggested to me, is whether Oakeshott his speaking for his close ally Vince Cable (with whom he was on a party fundraising trip today). It's worth recalling that at last year's Lib Dem conference, Cable suggested the coalition could end well before the general election. He said of the chance of an early split: "It’s certainly possible. We are not at the stage of talking about that process. It is obviously a very sensitive one. It has got to be led by the leader. We have not yet had those conversations."

For those speculative remarks, he was slapped down by Danny Alexander, who declared: "This coalition will continue until the end of this Parliament as we promised for the very simple reason that we have a very big job to do - to clean up the economic mess that Labour left behind and entrench the recovery we are starting to see."

Alexander, who, as I wrote recently, has been on manoeuvres, is continuing to attract the interest of his colleagues. One source told me: "We are all talking about Danny. His moves at the moment are bizarre."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn fares well in his toughest interview yet

Labour will be relieved that Corbyn's encounter with Andrew Neil was less painful than Theresa May's. 

Jeremy Corbyn's half-hour BBC1 interview with Andrew Neil was the toughest grilling he has faced since becoming Labour leader. Neil sought to cause Corbyn maximum discomfort by confronting him with his past views on the IRA, NATO and Trident (which he never anticipated having to defend from his current position). 

"I didn't support the IRA, I don't support the IRA," Corbyn said in response to the first. After Neil countered that Corbyn "invited convicted IRA terrorists to tea in the Commons a few weeks after the Brighton bomb," the Labour leader replied: "I never met the IRA. I obviously did meet people from Sinn Fein" (a distinction without a difference, some will say). But after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, Corbyn is aided by the reduced toxicity of the subject (New Labour dealt with terrorists) and the fact that for some voters, the young most of all, "the troubles" are a distant memory.

NATO, Neil recalled, had been described by Corbyn as "'a very dangerous Frankenstein of an organisation', 'a danger to world peace'. Two years ago you said it should be 'wound up'." It is to Corbyn's credit, in some respects, that he struggles to disguise his sincere views, and he did on this occasion. "NATO exists," he observed at one point, eventually conceding after much prodding: "I will be a committed member of that alliance in order to promote peace, justice, human rights and democracy". But nearly 30 years after the end of the Cold War, the subject will seem esoteric to many voters.

Trident, however, is another matter. "My views on nuclear weapons are well-known," Corbyn correctly noted, making it clear that the Labour manifesto committed to full renewal against his wishes. "I voted against the renewal," he said. "Everybody knows that because I wanted to go in a different direction." That the opposition is divided on such a profound issue - and that Corbyn's stance is at odd with the electorate's - is undoubtedly a drag on Labour's support.

But under forensic examination, Corbyn emerged stronger than many predicted. There were few moments of intemperance and no disastrous gaffes. Corbyn successfully dodged a question on whether Labour would cut immigration by replying that the numbers would "obviously reduce" if more workers were trained. Indeed, compared with Theresa May's painful encounter with Neil last Monday, Corbyn's team will be relieved by his performance. Though the Labour leader cannot escape his past, he avoided being trapped by it tonight. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496