Nick Clegg gives a speech on International Development at The Village Hall in Hoxton Square yesterday. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Will Clegg suffer death by a thousand cuts?

The Lib Dem leader has avoided a palace coup but party activists are circling. 

If Nick Clegg's position as Lib Dem leader is more secure than it was at the start of the week (largely thanks to the ineptitude of his enemies), it is also clear that he is not safe yet. While he has the support of a majority of his party's MPs (who have the power to trigger a leadership election through a vote of no confidence), he could still face a contest if at least 75 constituency associations and student groups demand one.

It is significant, then, that Clegg is coming under increased activist pressure. In a letter to today's Times, the well-organised Social Liberal Forum writes that "It’s right that the party re-examines its strategy, how we deliver it, and what we will be offering the electorate at the general election in 2015 — and it is right that this debate should include who leads the party. The membership will hold the key to this re-examination, and we acknowledge that views differ on how to approach these issues within the party — as they do within the Social Liberal Forum (SLF)."

But while it's unsurprising to see the left-leaning SLF challenge Clegg's leadership (its co-chair Naomi Smith is an aide to Lord Oakeshott), it's the intervention of Liberal Democrat Voice editor Stephen Tall that will most trouble the party's high command. The usually loyal Tall, who has edited the activist website since 2007, argues persuasively that Clegg should resign on the grounds that the party "needs a leader who can negotiate the best deal possible to advance the Lib Dem manifesto". 

He writes: "I don’t think Nick will be able to secure a Coalition deal with the Conservatives that Lib Dem members will be prepared to sign up to: there is too much suspicion lingering from the current deal. Nor do I think Nick will be able to do a deal with Labour that he will be able credibly to communicate to the voters as anything other than a complete about-turn on the previous five years of cohabitation with the Tories.

"In short, Nick is one of the impediments (not the only one, but a not insignificant one) to the Lib Dems being free to negotiate a second Coalition if that’s the hand we’re dealt."

He adds that Clegg could remain as Deputy Prime Minister until May 2015, allowing the new party leader to "present the party’s manifesto unencumbered by the compromises of coalition." 

It's the kind of pragmatic argument that could quickly gain ground among party members (39 per cent of whom currently want Clegg to resign). While the Lib Dem leader has avoided a palace coup, the danger is that he now suffers death by a thousand cuts at the hands of his activists. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.