Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Business
  2. Economics
8 December 2014updated 24 Jul 2021 4:45am

Coalition rift: Danny Alexander accuses Tories of looking to “inflict unnecessary pain“

Conservative and Lib Dem ministers are exacerbating the coalition rift emerging from the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

By Anoosh Chakelian

A fresh coalition rift emerged last week when George Osborne made his Autumn Statement. When he was outlining his economic plan of cuts to come, which made it clear the Tories’ plan for austerity beyond fixing the deficit, the Lib Dems looked to distance themselves from such harsh financial decisions.

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg didn’t attend the statement, the Business Secretary Vince Cable openly derided the Tories’ plans as unattainable and “brutal”. However, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, loyally did the media rounds and was willing to discuss the Treasury’s new policies.

But now even Alexander, described by some insiders to have “gone native” in the Treasury, has attacked his coalition partner’s economic plans as looking to “inflict unneccessary pain” on the country. In an article for the Daily Telegraph, Alexander accuses the Conservatives of wanting austerity to last forever. He claims that the Conservatives wanting to further shrink the state is, “an ideological demand, not an economic necessity”, and accuses the party of panicking ahead of the election:

Who would have thought that of the two parties that formed the Coalition, it would be the Tories who would be blown off course? A mix of unfunded tax promises, harsh spending plans, and pandering to Ukip may be born of pre-election panic, but it is not economically credible.

In turn, David Cameron has written in an email to Tory MPs that the Lib Dems are “all over the place” on cutting the deficit, and that the Autumn Statement plans are “distinctly” Conservative, rather than a truly joint coalition effort. 

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. A weekly newsletter helping you fit together the pieces of the global economic slowdown. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

This skirmish comes after Clegg told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show over the weekend that the Tories are “kidding themselves” about balancing the books:

I just think the Conservatives are kidding themselves and seeking to kid British voters if they are claiming that it is possible to balance the books, deliver unfunded tax cuts, shrink the state and support public services in the way that everybody wants.

Content from our partners
How to create a responsible form of “buy now, pay later”
“Unions are helping improve conditions for drivers like me”
Transport is the core of levelling up

As I wrote about Clegg and Cable’s initial attitude to the Autumn Statement last week, this is foolish behaviour from the Lib Dems. Their “differentiation” technique of trying to distance themselves from Tory policies won’t get them particularly far now, considering their consistently woeful polling just five months until the general election. What is more important is that they show themselves to be a vital coalition partner, in preparation for the highly likely prospect of future alliances. They hardly seem indispensable as a coalition partner if they decry the policies they were supposed to be a key part in formulating.