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

The government has quietly shut the door on vulnerable child refugees

The government has tried to halt the Dubs Amendment, a scheme designed to save thousands of vulnerable child refugees.  

The "Dubs Amendment" to the Immigration Bill of last year, in which the government begrudgingly promised to accept 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees from other countries in Europe, was halted this month after only 350 children had been admitted.

It has since become absolutely clear that the government is wriggling out of its obligation to accept child refugees, shutting the door on the most vulnerable. 

The amendment was named after my Labour colleague in the House of Lords. Alfred Dubs, who grew up in Britain and was saved from the hands of the German Nazi regime by Nicholas Winton, who rescued 669 children virtually single-handedly from Czechoslovakia.

The decision – announced at a time when the media was mainly concentrating on Brexit - has since been the source of much outcry both within Parliament and beyond. People across Britain are clear that the government must end these efforts to prevent refugees arriving here, and this is not who we as a society are.

Labour simply cannot accept the government’s decision, which seems to breach the spirit of the law passed with cross-party support. I have challenged Home Secretary Amber Rudd on the issue. 

The government's actions have also been criticised by Yvette Cooper, who heads Labour’s refugee task force and the Home Affairs select committee, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who called it “a clear dereliction of the UK’s moral and global duty”. 

Then at the recent Bafta awards, a number of those in attendance including the actor Viggo Mortensen, also wore lapel badges reading “Dubs now”.

And we have seen more than 200 high-profile public figures including Ralph Fiennes, Keira Knightley, Sir Mark Rylance, Gary Lineker, Michael Morpurgo and the band Coldplay write to Theresa May calling on her government not to close the scheme, decrying the decision as “truly shameful” and adding that “the country we know and love is better than this". 

As the letter states, it is embarrassing, that this government cannot match even Winton’s total. As his own daughter put it in her letter to the Prime Minister, “I know we can’t take in every unaccompanied child in Europe, but I suppose there was a sense when the government accepted the Dubs Amendment that they would make a bigger contribution than they have.”

We need to be clear that where safe and legal routes are blocked for these children, they are left with a terrible choice between train tracks on the one hand, and people traffickers on the other. These children have been identified as the most vulnerable in the world, including girls without parents, who are susceptible to sex traffickers.

The government’s decision is particularly disappointing in that we know that many local authorities across Britain, which assume responsibility for the children once they are admitted to the country, are willing to accept more refugees.

Yet the public outcry shows we can still force a change.

Interestingly, former Conservative minister Nicky Morgan has argued that: “Britain has always been a global, outward-facing country as well as being compassionate to those who need our help most. The Conservative party now needs to demonstrate that combination in our approach to issues such as the Dubs children.”

Let’s keep the pressure up on this vital issue. The internationally agreed principles and the Dubs Amendment were never conceived as a “one-off” - they should continue to commit to meeting their international treaty obligations and our own laws.

And on our part, Labour commits to meeting the obligations of the Dubs Amendment. We will restore the scheme and accept some of the most vulnerable children in the world.

 

Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and shadow home secretary. She was previously shadow secretary for health.