Why Ed Miliband should be grateful to the Lib Dems

Clegg has hemmed the Tories into an ideological corner from where they will struggle to reach a majority.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. Photograph: Getty Images.
Clegg's party has provoked the Tory right and undermined Cameron’s authority. Photograph: Getty Images.

Few sentiments pollute political judgement like the feeling of having been betrayed. Most Tory MPs worry about losing the next election but the level-headed ones recognise that David Cameron remains the strongest available candidate to lead them into that battle. For the minority that want an immediate change of leader, electoral calculation is subordinate to rage against the Prime Minister for conspiring to snuff out the flame of true Conservatism. Most voters have no idea what that means, just as they have no attachment to a venerable “Labour tradition” that Ed Miliband is always liable to be accused of traducing.

It is Liberal Democrat MPs who seem the least driven by puritanical notions of what their party is supposed to represent. Labour and Tories say that proves an innate lack of principle. Lib Dems prefer to see it as pragmatism, born of the obligation on a small party to compromise if it wants to see its policies enacted.

That could be an attractive trait. The public warms to a non-partisan spirit, as the coalition’s rose-scented honeymoon showed. Compromise looks less appealing when cast as stitch-up or sell-out, which is what political tribalists smell in cross-party collaboration. Nick Clegg’s misfortune is to have partnered with a party that is hostile to the idea that coalition should form part of the standard repertoire of British politics. Tories see it as a distasteful one-off episode; a toilet break at the policy service station on the road to Conservative hegemony.

Mutant cousin

The same problem would arise in an alliance with Labour. There is a strong feeling in the opposition ranks that Clegg’s outfit, carrying both liberal and social-democrat DNA, is a mutant cousin of the real left. By installing Cameron in Downing Street, the Lib Dems completed, in Labour eyes, an arc of historical treachery.

The Labour leadership, calculating the probability that the next parliament will again be hung, takes a more nuanced view. In recent months, fragments of complicity with Vince Cable, Lib Dem Business Secretary, have surfaced: some text-message exchanges with Ed Miliband; a hint of tax policy proximity from Ed Balls. These overtures are tolerated by the Labour faithful only on the assumption that the motive is mischievous – to undermine Clegg and destabilise the coalition. (That is the interpretation in the Deputy Prime Minister’s office. Clegg loyalists deride Cable’s micro-flirtation with Labour and dismiss chatter about his leadership ambitions as naivety amplified by vanity.)

Labour has to hate the coalition for locking it out of power but the arrangement has not been wholly disastrous for a party crawling unsteadily back from electoral mauling. It awarded Miliband a monopoly on opposition in Westminster. At first, shadow cabinet ministers belittled that boon, complaining that a media obsession with the novelty of coalition deprived them of an audience. Given how slow Miliband’s policy formation has been, a lack of public scrutiny was not such a hindrance. No one was listening to Labour at the point when they had nothing much to say.

Then, as coalition relations soured and the intimacy of the early months threatened to dissolve Lib Dem identity, the party embarked on a strategy of “differentiation” that abetted Labour’s attacks on Cameron. Clegg’s implicit message has been that Conservative instincts are as sour as they were when the “nasty party” label hung around their necks. Coalition is meant to sweeten the mix.

Labour dismisses the Lib Dems’ policy contribution to government but they cannot deny that the junior partner’s assertiveness has provoked the Tory right and undermined Cameron’s authority. It has forced the Prime Minister to neglect the already atrophied liberal wing of his own party, meaning the project to modernise and “decontaminate” the Tory brand has stalled.

Senior Lib Dems cite backbench Conservative fury as a measure of their impact on policy and so a refutation of Labour’s assertion that Clegg’s role is negligible. The Deputy Prime Minister is presented as the voice of moderation at the centre of a hysterical, partisan fray. “When left and right are both screaming with the volume turned up to 11, with contradictory stories, it would suggest that we are doing something right,” says one senior Clegg aide.

Downing Street depicts Lib Dem identity-hunting as nostalgia for the kinds of soft left positions that many voters hate: pro-Europeanism; squeamishness about welfare cuts; tolerance of immigration. “The things they can differentiate on are issues where the public are somewhere else,” says one senior Tory source.

Unarmed sentry

Mindful of that hazard, the Lib Dems are making “fairer tax in tough times” the theme of their annual conference. They hope to remind the country that they own the only popular policy from an otherwise disastrous Budget – raising the income-tax threshold for low earners – and plan more in the same vein. The Tories are then left holding toxic tax cuts for the rich.

Labour will continue to heap personal scorn on Clegg as an unarmed Cameron sentry. Even loyal Lib Dems accept that their leader’s image as a serial breaker of promises is proving hard to shift. But the challenge of restoring confidence in Clegg, they insist, is inseparable from the task of showcasing coalition as an attractive model of government. The hope is that, over time, some of the choices currently seen as betrayals can be presented as compromises made necessary by the pursuit of nobler ends. Regicidal rumblings are cast as a temporary wavering of nerve.

It is a long shot. But there is sure to be a slice of the electorate that will have more sympathy for the dilemmas the Lib Dems have faced than is felt in the tribal Labour and Tory camps; enough, perhaps, to save the third party from destruction at the next election. If that poll does indeed produce another hung parliament and Ed Miliband is in a position to form a government, it will be in no small measure because Clegg has hemmed the Tories into an ideological corner from where, history suggests, they struggle to reach a majority. That isn’t the reason most Conservative MPs, obsessed with the contamination of their purest policy ambitions, are angry with the Lib Dems. It is a reason why they should be.

10 comments

AlunP's picture

"But there is sure to be a slice of the electorate that will have more sympathy for the dilemmas the Lib Dems have faced than is felt in the tribal Labour and Tory camps"

Maybe, but I'd guess that even those who agree that the Lib Dems were dealt a bad hand, Clegg has played it incredibly incompetently.

"because Clegg has hemmed the Tories into an ideological corner from where, history suggests, they struggle to reach a majority."

Exactly. But not only has Clegg done that in this parliament, it is Clegg's stated aim to move the Lib Dems away from social liberalism and social democracy, and towards a more classical liberalism. If he succeeds, he'll lose at least 2-3 million votes, but will be directly challenging the Tories on the centre right. This will inevitably produce the opposite problem that we had in the 1980s, when the anti-Tory vote was split between the SDP/Liberals, and Labour. If Clegg gets his way, we'll see the anti-Labour vote split between the Lib Dems and the Tories. The question is, will Clegg manage a complete long term transformation of his party, with long term benefits for Labour, or will this sharp shift towards a Thatcherite economic policy be a brief Cleggite last hurrah within the party?

By my reckoning, if this is a long term trend, then it paves the way for Labour to supercede the Lib Dems as the natural party of opposition to the Tories in the south of England, with the Lib Dems fighting amongst the Tories and UKIP for liberal/authoritarian and Europhilic/Europhobic economic right votes.

hugh markey's picture

Labour will never break-in the UK electoral horse. It's far too skittish. Only calms down for Labour handlers when the Tories apply too much whip. Of course in recent years the LibDem jackass has made something of a running and has been worth an each-way bet.
In the event of a tie next election Labour should not even consider saddling up with some other political hoss thief. Rustlin' s a capitol offence, pardner. Reckon there'll be a lynching if'n those galoots gets hitched.

Bookies' Runner

Benjamin Rae's picture

At around 8-10 % of the vote ( no reason to suggest that is going to change) the Lib Dems are unlikely to have a lot of seats. The Lib Dems 23% at the 2010 election was a significant reason for the hung parliament. I suspect a hung parliament isn't as likely as some seem to believe.

anonymous coward's picture

There seems to be an endless stream of articles that labour should cosy up to the lib dems to facilitate a future coalition.

None of this makes any sense. The liberal democrats will struggle to be th efourth buggest party in teh next election. They will be an irrelevant to the formation of a government and the chances of a hung parliment are in any case small.

The liberalshave alienated a substantial part of their own supporters and probably more importantly undermined any possibility of tactical voting in their favour. Historically the liberals benefitted from conservatives who voted to keep out labour and labour supporters who wanted to keep out Conservatives. The labout half of this has clearly disappearred but the conservative part will also disappear unless they are seen as more likely to win in a seat than conservatives and this will prevent any tactical voting in their favour.

The motivation for these articles seems part a fascination with the more complex permutations of political process itself and partly self deception and wishful thinking by liberals.

The focus of the labour party simply needs to be the failures of the government . The conservatives did remarkably badly under the circumstances in the last election and have done very badly so far. When the rising unpopularity of any goivernment and the difficulties of coalition leading up to an ellection are factored all laboutr has to do is oppose. Exactly what they should be doing anyway. Any hint at an understanding with the liberal democrats would be damaging to both and almost certainly pointless.

An interesting article would be what the lib dem strategy should be in 5 years time? The first liberal leader I can remember was Jeremy Thorpe and it took decades to build up from that level. It will be interesting to see how the liberals fare when they have a handful of seats.

frances smith's picture

i mean this in the nicest possible way, mr behr, and i do understand that being a journalist who is paid to write about the machinations of the political class requires you to write about the machinations of the political class.

but you are sounding like the manager of my local supermarket arguing over whether a product would sell better near the door or further down the aisle, or even nearer the raw meat counter.

when this is just tactics and the reality is that the incompetence that will destroy the coalition is their strategic failure to create growth while reducing the structural deficit as they claimed they would do when forming the coalition;

and this was how the lib dems justified forming a coalition with the tories, so if neither party can deliver on what was promised economically they are both doomed at the next election, and with our current political system as it is the only alternative is labour, who next to cameron and osborne look less unappealing than anyone would expect.

frances smith's picture

and though the osborne/cameron tragedy will cause grief in the tory party, it is a tragedy of their own making, as they returned to finish off the job thatcher began, but in the process of setting the financial sector free and selling off energy companies they have created the perfect conditions for inflation to erode the incomes of ordinary people, and it will be inflation that really destroys them.

if osborne had been brave enough to get inflation under control by reining in the bank of englands loose monetary policy, and the energy companies price fixing he might have given the tories another term, but not doing that is what will destroy them.

in other words their support for the free market will erode incomes to such an extent that they will not survive.

An observer's picture

The problem lies not in the (little common) nature of having a coalition government, but in the clearly mistaken and much misleading governance the coalition carries on.

RichardM's picture

"fairer tax in tougher times"

The only thing that will remind the electorate of is their tax cut for the rich. Whp advises these eejits?

RichardM's picture

"“When left and right are both screaming with the volume turned up to 11, with contradictory stories, it would suggest that we are doing something right,”

You do realise these empty words are ultimately meaningless, don't you? Since if the public truly believed they were doing something right, they wouldn't be struggling to reach double figures in opinion polls.

RichardM's picture

"a toilet break at the policy service station"

You mean like a cottaging fumble?

Latest tweets