Nick Clegg speaks at the Liberal Democrat spring conference in York last month. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The progressive Lib Dem policies that no one knows about

How many know that the party still aspires to abolish tuition fees and plans to review the bedroom tax? 

When I wrote last week that Lib Dem MPs who had supported party policy by voting against an increase in university tuition fees were likely to receive some sort of credit for this from the electorate in 2015, a senior political journalist asked me if I hadn’t got that the wrong way round – that surely the rebels had voted against party policy?

But in fact this wasn’t the case. Lib Dems who trooped through the lobby supporting the government were in fact the actual rebels, whereas those who voted against the government were - in party terms – bowing to the will of conference and towing the line. Indeed, party policy is to review the system after next year's election with a view to abolishing tuition fees altogether. A fact that I suspect eludes most people.

And there lies the biggest issue for the Lib Dems at present. If senior political correspondents get confused about the minutiae of party policy, what chance for an electorate where nine in 10 voters fail to recognise a photograph of the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Foreign Secretary frequently gets confused with Ross Kemp?

We saw another example of this type of contradiction the other day on the bedroom tax. You might imagine that the bedroom tax enjoys the support of the Lib Dems, but in fact party policy is to review it, Nick Clegg has ordered said review and when you know that, suddenly Tim Farron's intervention against the tax last week all makes sense. Or at least, it makes sense until 24 hours later the majority of Lib Dem peers end up supporting it.

It’s almost like we want to confuse people.

It is into this vacuum that well-written and provocative contributions like Jeremy Browne's new book get confused with party policy and a set of proposals, approved by conference, ready to present to the electorate as a programme for government. And before you know it, you’re being asked whether it's true that the Lib Dems will cut the top rate of tax for the rich on the day that we take thousands more at that the other end of the scale out of income tax altogether. Which doesn’t help. And that’s not Jeremy’s fault – it’s his job to say what he thinks.

The next month will see Lib Dems campaigning hard on one policy that we are both clear about and well known for – our support for the UK’s membership of the European Union. But after that, we need to start filling in the void on every other policy area – because we’ll have just 12 months to tell people what it is we actually believe. 

At the moment – EU and the Mansion Tax aside – I’m not sure many people actually know. 

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

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

Five things Hillary Clinton’s released emails reveal about UK politics

The latest batch of the presidential hopeful’s emails provide insight into the 2010 Labour leadership contest, and the dying days of the Labour government.

The US State Department has released thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails. This is part of an ongoing controversy regarding the presidential hopeful’s use of a private, non-governmental server and personal email account when conducting official business as Secretary of State.

More than a quarter of Clinton’s work emails have now been released, in monthly instalments under a Freedom of Information ruling, after she handed over 30,000 pages of documents last year. So what does this most recent batch – which consists of 4,368 emails (totalling 7,121 pages) – reveal?
 

David Miliband’s pain

There’s a lot of insight into the last Labour leadership election in Clinton’s correspondence. One email from September 2010 reveals David Miliband’s pain at being defeated by his brother. He writes: “Losing is tough. When you win the party members and MPs doubly so. (When it's your brother...).”


Reaction to Ed Miliband becoming Labour leader

Clinton’s reply to the above email isn’t available in the cache, but a message from an aide about Ed Miliband’s victory in the leadership election suggests they were taken aback – or at least intrigued – by the result. Forwarding the news of Ed’s win to Clinton, it simply reads: “Wow”.


Clinton’s take on it, written in an email to her long-time adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, is: “Clearly more about Tony that [sic] David or Ed”.

Blumenthal expresses regret about the “regression” Ed’s win suggests about the Labour party. He writes to Clinton: “David Miliband lost by less than 2 percent to his brother Ed. Ed is the new leader. David was marginally hurt by Tony's book but more by Mandelson's endorsement coupled with his harsh statements about the left. This is something of a regression.”
 

Peter Mandelson is “mad”

In fact, team Clinton is less than enthusiastic about the influence Mandelson has over British politics. One item in a long email from Blumenthal to Clinton, labelled “Mandelson Watch”, gives her the low-down on the former Business Secretary’s machinations, in scathing language. It refers to him as being “in a snit” for missing out on the EU Commissioner position, and claims those in Europe think of him as “mad”. In another email from Blumenthal – about Labour’s “halted” coup against Gordon Brown – he says of Mandelson: “No one trusts him, yet he's indispensable.”

That whole passage about the coup is worth reading – for the clear disappointment in David Miliband, and description of his brother as a “sterling fellow”:


Obsession with “Tudor” Labour plotting

Clinton appears to have been kept in the loop on every detail of Labour party infighting. While Mandelson is a constant source of suspicion among her aides, Clinton herself clearly has a lot of time for David Miliband, replying “very sorry to read this confirmation” to an email about his rumoured demotion.

A May 2009 email from Blumenthal to Clinton, which describes Labour politicians’ plots as “like the Tudors”, details Ed Balls’ role in continuing Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s “bitter rivalry”:


“Disingenuous” Tories “offending” Europe

The Tories don’t get off lightly either. There is intense suspicion of David Cameron’s activities in Europe, even before he is Prime Minister. Blumenthal – whose email about a prospective Cameron government being “aristocratic” and “narrowly Etonian” was released in a previous batch of Clinton’s correspondence – writes:

Without passing "Go," David Cameron has seriously damaged his relations. with the European leaders. Sending a letter to Czech leader Vaclay Klaus encouraging him not to sign the Lisbon Treaty, as though Cameron were already Prime Minister, he has offended Sarkozy., Merkel and Zapatero.

He also accuses him of a “tilt to the Tory right on Europe”.

In the same email, Blumenthal tells Clinton that William Hague (then shadow foreign secretary), “has arduously pressured for an anti-EU stance, despite his assurances to you that Tory policy toward Europe would be marked by continuity”.

In the aftermath of the 2010 UK election, Blumenthal is apprehensive about Hague’s future as Foreign Secretary, emailing Clinton: “I would doubt you’ll see David again as foreign secretary. Prepare for hauge [sic, William Hague], who is deeply anti-European and will be disingenuous with you.”

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.