David Hall-Matthews, chair of the Social Liberal Forum, outlines four reasons why Nick Clegg needs to radically change his approach to Labour.
David Hall-Matthews is the chair of the Social Liberal Forum
Last week’s war of words between Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband over the abortive Yes2AV launch was self-destructive and unseemly. What were they thinking? With both men’s reputations dependent on a Yes vote, they cannot afford to let the campaign degenerate into a series of spats.
But while Mr Miliband must accept his share of responsibility for such childishness, Mr Clegg has been indulging in silly games like this for months. Every speech he makes is full of invective about Labour – to listen to Mr Clegg, you would think Labour were no different to the bad old days of Militant.
Of course it is true that Labour’s failure to fully accept responsibility for the economic mess is lamentable. The sight of a former city-slicker-turned-financial-deregulator like Ed Balls now claiming to espouse leftist economic views is hard to take.
On a human level, it is also understandable why Mr Clegg may not be inclined to let Labour off the hook, given the disgraceful way Labour MPs treat him during Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions. But that’s politics.
There are four pressing reasons why Mr Clegg needs to radically change his approach to Labour:
1) The pluralist politics Mr Clegg espouses only makes sense if mutual respect extends in all directions. Every time he makes a speech that portrays politics as a choice between “us” (the coalition) and “them” (Labour), it seems as though we have reverted to two-party tribalism.
The Lib Dems have always claimed to represent a meaningful alternative; it is time they started talking about that again.
2) Mr Clegg will never win any debate with David Cameron while the negotiations between the two assume the Conservatives have 80% of the votes in government, rather than 45% of the votes in parliament. Working together, the Lib Dems and Labour can defeat the Tories on a number of issues. What is more, on a great many issues – particularly health – public opinion is firmly with us.
If Mr Clegg wants to make a difference and not be remembered as the prime minister’s poodle, he needs to go into cabinet discussions from a position of strength, and that will be helped by warmer Labour relations.
3) Even the biggest Lib Dem supporters of a strategic Liberal-Conservative alliance would still want to win more concessions. The Lib Dems will be best placed to achieve what they want in the next government if they are able to do business with both sides. So Labour needs to be a potential ally.
4) On a tactical level, a change in tack from Mr Clegg would expose Labour’s divisions. For many Labour politicians, Miliband Jr stole the leadership election last year and they are remarkably happy to let their displeasure be known; Labour commentators such as John Rentoul and Dan Hodges are visceral in their dislike of the man – to a quite remarkable extent given how little time he has had in post.
The Lib Dems should be taking advantage of this. Instead of tarring all Labour politicians with the same brush, Mr Clegg should be welcoming the changes that Miliband is attempting to make, and highlighting how he faces internal opposition. That would do two things: remind voters that the Liberal Democrats are still a liberal party, not merely an adjunct of the Conservatives, and expose Labour’s contradictions.
By showing Mr Miliband a bit of love, Mr Clegg can distinguish himself from the Conservatives and strengthen his negotiating position in cabinet. All it requires is for him to try a little subtle diplomacy and to develop a thicker skin.
36 Responses to “Clegg needs to radically change his approach to Labour”
Anon E Mouse
Mr.Sensible – Still waiting for your response regarding the Guardian and it’s tax avoidance scam.
Anyway which bit of what I said isn’t true? The fact is that Labour has left this country in economic ruin and the shadow chancellor and party leader simply won’t admit it.
We all know it’s true and they know we know but continue the denial and try to blame the bankers even though Gordon Brown, the worst chancellor and least popular Prime Minister in British history never got the books to balance since 2001. Listen to what Alistair Darling said Mr.Sensible or are you now saying he was wrong as well?
Because of financial incompetence and taking the electorate as fools has cost the Labour Party 5 million voters in the last three Parliaments and an overdraft of around £24million.
If Labour can’t be trusted to run their own affairs – which they clearly can’t – then why the hell should they be trusted (again) to run the countries?
Elections are won in Britain in ‘Middle England’ and in that respect Labour are doomed and until whichever idiots are running party policy start listening to ex supporters like myself and start accepting they screwed things up the party has no chance…
Ash
“Labour’s failure to fully accept responsibility for the economic mess is lamentable”
Their failure to accept *their share* of responsibility might be lamentable. But it’s hardly plausible that *none* of the responsibility for the economic mess lies with other governments or with private financial institutions. Exactly how powerless are we supposed to believe the banks, the US government etc are? It must strain the credulity even of Mr Mouse to believe that the UK government is/was in a position unilaterally to dictate the course of the world economy.
Anon E Mouse
Ash – If you read what I said I mentioned ONLY the deficit since 2001.
Watch the film ‘Inside Job’ which is a fantastic, almost documentary like, telling of the collapse of the world economy via the banking system.
I’m not an economist Ash but I know that if the last government couldn’t balance the books during 2007 and actually believed that they had ended ‘Boom and Bust’ then clearly they are fiscally incompetent…
Ash
Anon
“If you read what I said I mentioned ONLY the deficit since 2001.”
That’s kind of my point. You approvingly quoted the reference in the original post to “Labour’s failure to fully accept responsibility for the economic mess”, and claimed yourself that “Labour has left this country in economic ruin”. And you suggested that Labour’s attempt to blame the bankers was just a smokescreen. But the only thing you actually blame Labour for is running a modest 2-3% deficit from 2001 onwards, which plainly did not (all by itself) cause the economic situation we’re now in. Of course it suits the Tories to emphasise the role played by public-sector overspending and play down the role played by private-sector failure, but if you look at the whole global causal chain leading to our present situation, the idea that the former UK government should accept full responsibility for leaving us in “economic ruin” is bonkers. The most you could plausibly claim is that they’re responsible for the deficit being 2-3% higher in the UK than it is in countries where Gordon Brown wasn’t in charge.
Anon E Mouse
Ash – Which may be correct if it was not for Canada – not all countries are “in this together”.
Sticking to Tory fiscal policy meant that initially Labour were claiming they were going to pay the debt off but just kept changing the goalposts on the stupid economic cycle.
I don’t blame Labour for the total mess (although there has never been a Labour government that has left office with the economy better than the one they inherited – not one) but for Balls to say blah blah and not once propose a means of actually getting the deficit down is dishonest.
When oppositions just oppose it doesn’t matter how poor the popularity of the government they simply will not win elections – think Neil Kinnock and how unpopular Thatcher was and he still couldn’t win. (I met him once – we had a slight difference of opinion but he was still warm and friendly and should have won that election – Ed Miliband has none of that skill)
Labour needs to put it’s case and be damned because with the dire lead they have in the polls considering the cuts and the poor popularity (quite rightly imo) of their leader they do not have a cat in hells chance of governing this country anytime soon.
And irrespective of how one would describe “economic ruin” or as you say 2-3% deficit, if the party doesn’t actually make it’s case then it will never be taken seriously.