Show Hide image

A patronising letter and a few calls to Vince don’t augur a Lib-Lab pact

The Lib Dems don’t want redemption on Labour’s terms.

The Lib-Lab pact, like moustaches and flared trousers, is something that seemed obvious in the late 1970s and never entirely went away.

For a generation, talk of an electoral alliance between successors to the old Liberal Party and Labour has been alternately ridiculous and fashionable. It is now entering the modish phase – the natural accessory to Westminster speculation about the survival of the current coalition. That chatter has gone up in pitch since Nick Clegg allowed his MPs to abstain in a parliamentary vote, called by Labour, on whether Jeremy Hunt should be referred to the independent adviser on ministerial standards over his intimate relations with News International. That retreat from coalition solidarity was a rebuke to the Prime Minister, who has declared Hunt’s behaviour impeccable.

The Lib Dem abstention was a permission rather than an endorsement of the opposition attack on Hunt, but that is enough, against a backdrop of recent Labour overtures, to excite Westminster gossip-mongers.

At the beginning of June, Steve Bassam, Labour’s chief whip in the House of Lords, wrote to Richard Newby, his Lib Dem counterpart, suggesting they “keep lines of communication open” with a view to what might happen after the next election. Around the same time, reports emerged of friendly telephone calls between Ed Miliband and Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary.

Some seduction

Cable is the obvious target for cultivation by Labour. He bashes financial greed with a gusto that heartens the left. He has bona fides as a sworn antagonist of Rupert Murdoch. Labour is convinced he is envious of their rhetorical meanderings around the theme of “responsible capitalism”. One enthusiastic shadow cabinet minister recently told me: “We’re saying the things Vince wants to say but can’t.” In March, an attempt was made, through a mutual acquaintance, to persuade Cable to share a platform with Miliband at an event to discuss new models of corporate ownership. The idea was politely rebuffed.

There is a delusional component in Labour’s approach to the Lib Dems. The tendency is to think of them as a breakaway republic to be annexed. Clegg’s decision to form a government with the Tories was thus judged not as a rational calculation but a treasonous surrender to the enemy. Those Lib Dems who look unhappiest in the coalition are presumed to be more amenable to reintegration with the Progressive Motherland.

There are descendants of the old Social Democratic Party on the left of the Lib Dems who might be happier ideologically rehoused in Labour. Cable is not one of them. His criticism of the British economy derives from the urge to redeem classical liberal capitalism from the extreme, ultra-free market mania that inflated the deadly debt bubble. It contains no left-wing nostalgia. As one colleague of the Business Secretary puts it: “Just because Vince looks like he’s swallowing back his own sick when he stands next to Tories, it doesn’t mean he buys into the whole social democrat agenda.” The view in Clegg’s office is that a few calls between Ed and Vince, coupled with a patronising letter from a Lords whip, hardly amounts to a thaw. “If that is supposed to be seduction, they have a lot to learn about seduction,” says one senior aide.

The scale on which Lib Dems measure goodwill gestures from Labour begins with parliamentary support for House of Lords reform. Enough Tory MPs are opposed to Clegg’s plans that opposition votes might be needed to get it through the Commons. Miliband has yet to decide his position. The temptation to sit back and watch the coalition tear itself apart will be hard to resist.

There are many senior Labour figures who recognise the strategic advantage for the party in looking less consumed by hatred towards the Lib Dems. But there is also the assumption that, in the event of another hung parliament, Lib Dem partnership will be up for negotiation regardless of past relations. The appetite to stay in government will override old grudges.

Meanwhile, the two parties have entirely incompatible interpretations of what rapprochement would mean. For Labour it is the offer of an escape route from suicidal partnership with the Tories, implying absolution from the sin of abetting Cameron in the first place. But the Lib Dems don’t want redemption on Labour’s terms. They want help delivering their policies.

Fashionable chatter

Labour still struggles with the idea that Lib Dems, however gloomy their electoral prospects, are as protective of their independent identity as any other party. The Tories now understand that better. In the early days of coalition, some Conservatives close to Cameron envisaged co-opting Clegg’s MPs to reinforce their own atrophied left flank. The plan was to hug the Lib Dems so close as to absorb them by political osmosis. It didn’t work. As the existential threat of intimacy with the Conservatives became clear, Clegg switched to a strategy of “differentiation”. “They were smart enough to see the crocodile at the end of our smile,” says one liberal-minded Tory MP.

Not that differentiation reversed the slide in Clegg’s popularity. The activists are getting nervous. According to one recent survey by the Liberal Democrat Voice website, a third of party members think there should be a change of leader before the next election. But despite heavy losses in council elections, collapsing membership and empty coffers, there is no organised dissent against Clegg.

The party is sustained by the momentum of that initial decision to join the coalition. The conviction holds that it is better to be defending choices made in government than to be written off as unable to make difficult choices at all. The hope (unsupported yet by evidence) is that voters will arrive at grudging admiration for the little party’s doughty resilience.

Putting such a strategic premium on a reputation for riding out tough times also means the Lib Dems, whatever fashionable chatter there might be to the contrary, are firmly attached to their current coalition partner; especially when the other crocodile can barely muster a smile.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 18 June 2012 issue of the New Statesman, Drones: video game warfare

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.