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.
Show Hide image

Clegg's pledge to borrow to invest moves the Lib Dems closer to Labour

The Deputy PM's rejection of "austerity forever" is an important point of difference with the Tories. 

Nick Clegg's first speech since the Lib Dems' disastrous election results is an attempt to respond to criticism from both the left and the right that voters no longer know what his party stands for. In the address at Bloomberg's London HQ today, he will say that the Lib Dems have a "unique mission" to advance "liberal values" and that he is "not interested in coalition at any cost". This is a qualification of the stance previously outlined by Danny Alexander, who earlier this year ruled out Lib Dems support for a minority government, a position which some in the party feared would make it harder to achieve its negotiation priorities (since there is no threat of a veto). 

As part of his attempt to provide the Lib Dems with greater definition, Clegg will announce the rules that will govern his approach to tax and spending in the next parliament. Most significantly, he will say that while committed to reducing the national debt as a share of GDP (the "debt rule") and to eliminating the current deficit (the "balanced budget rule"), he supports borrowing for capital projects that enhance growth or financial stability.

It is a move that aligns the Lib Dems more closely with Labour than the Tories. Unlike George Osborne, who has pledged to achieve an absolute budget surplus by the end of the next parliament, Clegg has recognised the case for borrowing to invest in infrastructure programmes (such as housing, transport and communications) that benefit the economy. This puts him on the same page as Ed Balls, who has pledged to eliminate the current deficit and to reduce debt as a share of GDP by the end of the next parliament, but has left room to borrow for capital spending. Clegg's refusal to clear the remainder of the deficit through spending cuts alone, as the Tories propose, and to raise taxes on the rich, through measures such as a mansion tax, is another important point of agreement with Labour. 

There are some differences that remain. Labour has pledged to eliminate the deficit by the end of the next parliament (2020), while Clegg wants it gone by 2017-18, and Clegg's stance precludes borrowing to invest in schools and hospitals, which Labour's may not. As he will say: "Gordon Brown used to slap the words 'capital spending' on anything and everything just so he could get away with borrowing to pay for it. That can never be allowed to happen again. Sound investment yes, reckless borrowing, no."

But it is the contrast with the Tories that is most notable. As he will say of Osborne's position: "We are not the Tories. We don’t believe in an ever-shrinking state. We are not so ideological about making cuts that we’ll deny people the things they need.

"We’re not so dogmatic about borrowing that we’ll jeopardise Britain’s economic health. Responsibility – yes; austerity forever - no."

We can now add borrowing for investment to the striking number of shared Labour and Lib Dem policy positions. As I've previously noted in the NS and the Times, both favour a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2m, EU reform without a guaranteed referendum, a voting age of 16, an end to the use of unqualified teachers in state schools, radical devolution to city regions and local authorities, a mass housebuilding programme, greater oversight of the intelligence services, a 2030 decarbonisation target, scrapping winter fuel payments for wealthy pensioners, reform of party funding and the maintenance of the Human Rights Act.

While the personal animosity between Clegg and some Labour figures, and the enduring tribalism of many in Miliband's party, means a coalition would not be smooth to assemble, it is far easier to see what a Labour-Lib Dem government would do than what another Tory-Lib Dem administration would. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

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.