Nick Clegg is to make a speech on immigration today, which revises his position. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Nick Clegg's revised stance on immigration just shows up his previous bungles

The Lib Dem leader's tougher words on immigration policy today reveal the lack of "wisdom" from his advisers during his debates with Ukip's Nigel Farage.

Two politicians decide to have a debate.

One – let’s call him Nigel – adopts the position “Black”

The other – Nick – holds the position “White”.

Except it’s not pure brilliant white. It’s more whitie-sh. Indeed, he thinks there are bits of black that are worth considering and adding to the white. So his position is more, well, grey. But definitely the whiter end of the grey spectrum.

“Ah”, says the received wisdom (also sometimes called spads), “you can’t say that. Nigel is going to say black. Just black. He’s going to look like a conviction politician, a man who knows his mind, plain speaking, straightforward. You’re going to look mealy mouthed, wishy washy, weak. Far better to be bold, take a stand, fight your corner.”

So Nick doesn’t go into the debate and argue what he thinks. He argues that white is best, white must prevail, there is no room for compromise. Indeed, when asked what the white will look like in 10 years time, Nick doesn’t say “grey”. Nick says “I suspect it’ll be quite similar to what it is now”.

Nick loses the debate. Which, fine debater though he is, is not surprising, given he wasn’t actually arguing for what he believed in. He was just trying to look like the opposite to Nigel. And Nigel’s more popular than Nick.

Of course, the mistake was listening to the received wisdom in the first place –that you have to take a pure, unadulterated position against a conviction politician. Tonight’s Scottish independence debate will see one side take the position “Yes” and the other, “No – but we could be a bit more independent than we currently are couldn’t we, with a few more tax and spend powers?” And strangely enough, the good people of Scotland seem to be coping with this nuanced position just fine, thank you very much.

And now, Nick’s got even more of a problem. He already has a bit of a reputation for not following through on his pledges. Today he’s going to make a speech on immigration, especially immigration in the EU, in which – if his email to members is anything to go by – will make plain his more nuanced position.

Freedom of movement between EU member states is a good thing. However - and I say this as a pro-European - it was always intended as a right to work, not a right to claim benefits. So we're returning freedom of movement to it's original intention and I believe that when the EU enlarges in the future we'll also need to be stricter on the transition controls we apply to new member states. This isn't about bolting the door; it's about managing the flow of migrants into the country in a way that is sustainable and fair.

He clearly hopes this will be interpreted as showing that, in contrast to anything you thought previously, he is firmly in the grey camp. Indeed, maybe a bit of a darker grey than he’s let on previously. He’s not in the Pure Brilliant White camp at all, deary me no. How could you have drawn that conclusion?

And everyone’s going to answer: “because you adopted the position ‘white’ in two national debates not three months ago”.

And so it goes on. 

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

Chuka Umunna speaks at the launch of Labour's education manifesto during the general election. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

After so badly misjudging the leadership contest, how will the Blairites handle Corbyn?

The left-winger's opponents are divided between conciliation and aggression. 

When Labour lost the general election in May, the party’s modernisers sensed an opportunity. Ed Miliband, one of the most left-wing members of the shadow cabinet, had been unambiguously rejected and the Tories had achieved their first majority in 23 years. More than any other section of the party, the Blairites could claim to have foreseen such an outcome. Surely the pendulum would swing their way?

Yet now, as Labour’s leadership contest reaches its denouement, those on the right are asking themselves how they misjudged the landscape so badly. Their chosen candidate, Liz Kendall, is expected to finish a poor fourth and the party is poised to elect Jeremy Corbyn, the most left-wing leader in its 115-year history. For a faction that never ceases to underline the importance of winning elections, it will be a humbling result.

Though the crash has been sudden, the Blairites have long been in decline. Gordon Brown won the leadership unchallenged and senior figures such as John Reid, James Purnell and Alan Milburn chose to depart from the stage rather than fight on. In 2010, David Miliband, the front-runner in the leadership election, lost to his brother after stubbornly refusing to distance himself from the Iraq war and alienating undecided MPs with his imperiousness.

When the younger Miliband lost, the modernisers moved fast – too fast. “They’re behaving like family members taking jewellery off a corpse,” a rival campaign source told me on 9 May. Many Labour supporters agreed. The rush of op-eds and media interviews antagonised a membership that wanted to grieve in peace. The modernising contenders – Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall, Mary Creagh, Tristram Hunt – gave the impression that the Blairites wanted to drown out all other voices. “It was a huge mistake for so many players from that wing of the party to be put into the field,” a shadow cabinet minister told me. “In 1994, forces from the soft left to the modernising right united around Tony Blair. The lesson is never again can we have multiple candidates.”

While conducting their post-mortem, the Blairites are grappling with the question of how to handle Corbyn. For some, the answer is simple. “There shouldn’t be an accommodation with Corbyn,” John McTernan, Blair’s former director of political operations, told me. “Corbyn is a disaster and he should be allowed to be his own disaster.” But most now adopt a more conciliatory tone. John Woodcock, the chair of Progress, told me: “If he wins, he will be the democratically elected leader and I don’t think there will be any serious attempt to actually depose him or to make it impossible for him to lead.”

Umunna, who earlier rebuked his party for “behaving like a petulant child”, has emphasised that MPs “must accept the result of our contest when it comes and support our new leader in developing an agenda that can return Labour to office”. The shadow business secretary even suggests that he would be prepared to discuss serving in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet if he changed his stances on issues such as nuclear disarmament, Nato, the EU and taxation. Were Umunna, a former leadership contender, to adopt a policy of aggression, he would risk being blamed should Corbyn fail.

Suggestions that the new parliamentary group Labour for the Common Good represents “the resistance” are therefore derided by those close to it. The organisation, which was launched by Umunna and Hunt before Corbyn’s surge, is aimed instead at ensuring the intellectual renewal that modernisers acknowledge has been absent since 2007. It will also try to unite the party’s disparate mainstream factions: the Blairites, the Brownites, the soft left, the old right and Blue Labour. The ascent of Corbyn, who has the declared support of just 15 MPs (6.5 per cent of the party), has persuaded many that they cannot afford the narcissism of small differences. “We need to start working together and not knocking lumps out of each other,” Woodcock says. There will be no defections, no SDP Mk II. “Jeremy’s supporters really underestimate how Labour to the core the modernisers are,” Pat McFadden, the shadow Europe minister, told me.

Although they will not change their party, the Blairites are also not prepared to change their views. “Those of us on this side of Labour are always accused of being willing to sell out for power,” a senior moderniser told me. “Well, we do have political principles and they’re not up for bartering.” He continued: “Jeremy Corbyn is not a moderate . . .
He’s an unreconstructed Bennite who regards the British army as morally equivalent to the IRA. I’m not working with that.”

Most MPs believe that Corbyn will fail but they are divided on when. McFadden has predicted that the left-winger “may even get a poll bounce in the short term, because he’s new and thinking differently”. A member of the shadow cabinet suggested that Labour could eventually fall to as low as 15 per cent in the polls and lose hundreds of councillors.

The challenge for the Blairites is to reboot themselves in time to appear to be an attractive alternative if and when Corbyn falters. Some draw hope from the performance of Tessa Jowell, who they still believe will win the London mayoral selection. “I’ve spoken to people who are voting enthusiastically both for Jeremy and for Tessa,” Wes Streeting, the newly elected MP for Ilford North, said. “They have both run very optimistic, hopeful, positive campaigns.”

But if Corbyn falls, it does not follow that the modernisers will rise. “The question is: how do we stop it happening again if he does go?” a senior frontbencher said. “He’s got no interest or incentive to change the voting method. We could lose nurse and end up with something worse.” If the road back to power is long for Labour, it is longest of all for the Blairites. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 03 September 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Pope of the masses