Labour doesn't need the Lib Dems, it needs a majority

Now that we have reached the halfway point of this parliament, commentators and politicians alike have begun discussing the next election in earnest; a popular topic for many on the left has been the possibility of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2015. Polly Toynbee is particularly fond of this idea, and having written on the topic at the end of August has restated her support for such an allegiance in the Guardian’s Comment is free. 

Toynbee accuses those in the Labour Party who object to such an eventuality as mere tribalists, “swearing vengeance” and “spitting expletives”, assuming that objections to a Labour-Lib Dem coalition must be based only on “cynical electoral self-interest”. Yet the evidence of the past two and a half years indicates that the idea of a progressive coalition between the Liberal Democrats and Labour is illusory: Clegg’s party, as long as it is Clegg’s party, remains ideologically incompatible with the Labour Party. The Orange Book wing which dominates the leadership of the party is a far more natural ally to the Conservative Party: it is no surprise that Danny Alexander, Ed Davey, Steve Webb and Clegg himself were the favoured candidates in a recent survey of Conservative MPs to identify trustworthy Lib Dem Ministers. No doubt David Laws would also be listed amongst those names were it not for his regrettable expenses hiccough. Polly Toynbee does acknowledge this as a problem for a potential coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, yet she speaks of “[relegating the] Clegg Orange Bookers” as if dismantling the leadership of the party would be a fairly simple political move. Whispers that Ed Davey might be eyeing the leadership of the party following Clegg’s seemingly inevitable demise suggest that it may not be so simple after all. Yet even if the Orange Bookers were deposed, the problem of the rest of the party remains, which, almost in its entirety, “supported the formation of the coalition and then repeatedly rolled over and had their tummies tickled by the Tories on the economy, higher education – and perhaps most grievously of all, the NHS.” (Mark Ferguson, labourlist) Not only are there ideological incompatibilities between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat front bench, but there are also deep issues of trust following the actions of the majority of the parliamentary party in coalition.

“Can Labour win? Extraordinarily, that looks not just possible but likely,” admits Polly Toynbee, so why should the Labour Party invest in the prospect of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats? Labour should be buoyed by the numerical make-up of Parliament and the unpopularity of the coalition government and make confident steps over the next two years to turn disaffection with the governing parties into genuine popularity for the Labour Party. Bafflingly, Peter Hain argued in his memoirs, published in paperback in August, that Labour would struggle to win a majority in 2015 and should prepare for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. This is not the attitude that should be taken by prominent figures in the party, and it is disheartening to see: Labour’s unquestionable (and at present attainable) aim should be to win a majority in 2015.

Moreover, the likely fate of the Liberal Democrats in the 2015 general election provides another sticking point where a coalition is concerned, one which Polly Toynbee seems to forget. It seems inevitable at this point that the Liberal Democrats will receive a drubbing in the election: current polling suggests that they may come out of it having lost as many as 20 of their 57 seats. The message if such an eventuality occurred would be clear, namely that the actions of the Liberal Democrats in government were immensely unpopular. For all her wistfulness about the prospect of a leftist coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems, Toynbee seems to ignore the fact that bringing the Liberal Democrats back into government after 2015 is likely to be an immensely unpopular, even undemocratic, decision: it would be out of the question to bring a party into government following a resounding rejection by the electorate. Not to mention the fact that the party will most likely find themselves in something of a quandary after the 2015 election, having suffered for five years in coalition and suffered for one very long night at the hands of the electorate. Removing the Orange Bookers before the election will soften this impact somewhat, but if Nick Clegg leads the party into the election then the fallout will be enormous, and what is left of the party after 2015 will not be fit to govern.

The Labour Party should leave channels with the Lib Dems open in the interest of plurality. But such channels should be limited (think the occasional text to Vince Cable) rather than open, and Labour should not be focussing their preparation on governing with the Liberal Democrats after the general election (though to neglect that eventuality entirely would, of course, be irresponsible).  Polly Toynbee seems to believe that the Labour party needs the Liberal Democrats in order to be a worthy progressive social democratic party, arguing that the last Labour era would have “[been better] in coalition with the Lib Dems”: “no Iraq, no civil liberties abuses, less defence spending, no soaring jail numbers, stronger climate change action, and bolder Europeanism.” Yet the Labour Party of 2012 is not the same Labour Party that governed from 1997 to 2010. Ed Miliband won the leadership election on a platform of change, and the party’s period in opposition has so far been encouragingly self-reflexive, and as the policy review gathers momentum the Labour Party only stands to grow more. The Liberal Democrats are at present a politically and morally bankrupt force, and Labour does not need them. Labour can learn the lessons of the New Labour government without the input of a party which, given its conduct in the last two and a half years of government, is in no position to be giving political lessons.

Matthew Case

Incompetance, sexism, classism and corruption: it is time the public demanded more from our ministers

Following Andrew Mitchell’s appalling comments last week, the latest in a long line of ministerial cock-ups from this coalition, I ask why are these ministers not being sacked?

As one of his local constituents, and having had the pleasure of meeting him, I can say with a degree of authority that Andrew Mitchell is not a pleasant person. The Chief Whip’s comments to an unlucky policeman last week therefore came as no surprise to me. What was surprising however is that he is still in a job. We may argue about what exactly he said, but there is no denying that Mitchell effectively broke the law by abusing a policeman, and could have certainly been arrested. Furthermore, the classist tone of his comments, labelling the policeman a ‘pleb’ were not only offensive and unacceptable, they revealed what lies beneath the ‘all in this together’ veneer of the Tory Party. Such a slip will have no doubt infuriated Number 10. However, despite outrage from the public, the Police Federation, the opposition, and I’m sure, from David Cameron, Andrew Mitchell appears to have weathered the storm and remains in a job.

This is a common trend in this government. Minister after minister has cocked up, faced intense media pressure, yet remained where they are. Admittedly, there have been a few exceptions such as Liam Fox, Chris Huhne and David Laws. However, the Liam Fox and Adam Werritty affair exposed the kind of sleaze, nepotism and corruption that no minister could survive. Similarly, the suspicion that Huhne lied over his speeding points and the impending court case would have forced anyone out. And finally, David Laws’ demotion due to his fraudulent expenses was only short lived.

Others like Theresa May, however, have weathered considerable pressure to resign.  Her incompetence in the border agency pilot scheme affair and her fumbling over the deportation of Abu Hamza demonstrated serious shortcomings, which appear to have been overlooked. Similar ineptitude was demonstrated back in July 2010 when Michael Gove was forced to apologise to both the Commons and council leaders due to errors on the Building Schools for the Future programme list. He too, remained in his position. Finally, one can almost feel sorry for Andrew Lansley and the torrid time his NHS reforms have endured. Constant U-turns and a rolling out of ‘listening’ exercises decimated both his initial policy and confidence in him, yet, until the recent reshuffle, he remained in his role.  

Such policy failures have also been accompanied by buffoonish comments, which too have been overlooked. Whatever is said, it seems that a rushed apology and claims that they were misunderstood is enough to save a minister’s skin. The most notable of these slip-ups saw Ken Clarke declare to Victoria Derbyshire on BBC Radio 5 Live that there are different categories of rape which are not all as serious as each other. There were also the remarkable comments from Vince Cable who ‘declared war’ on Rupert Murdoch. Although we may agree with his sentiment, it was certainly not appropriate for the business secretary to display such tribalism. He showed a clear disregard for the impartiality he was expected to demonstrate in his quasi-judicial role regarding the BSkyB bid. Admittedly he was stripped of all his powers regarding media policy, but he remained in his cabinet position nevertheless.

The man that replaced him in the BSkyB deliberations, however, demonstrated the worst behaviour of any minister in this government still in a job. Jeremy Hunt and the undeniable sleaze that surrounded him, his advisor Adam Smith (who was actually forced to quit), and their contact with James Murdoch was a sickening episode which made Vince Cable look impartial! Again however, Jeremy Hunt remained in his job.

So why have the coalition’s ministers escaped the chop on so many occasions? One can suggest a series of explanations. Firstly, there is a worrying lack of talent on the Conservative and Lib Dem backbenches, a dearth of people that could step into the ministerial breach. The fact that Ken Clarke was brought back in the first place suggests this, along with the failure of some new Tory faces like Baroness Warsi. Secondly, one could put it down to a weak PM, an interpretation I’m sure all of us in the Labour Party would suggest, and one supported by Cameron’s persistent failure to control his own backbenchers. Thirdly however, these ministerial great escapes are also down to a weak opposition. For example, Gove’s errors over the BFfS programme were made during the Labour Leadership campaign so the preoccupied opposition struggled to place him under substantial pressure. Ed Miliband also made concerted attempts to put pressure on Ken Clarke, and Jeremy Hunt, demanding that both of them resign, but to no avail.

Perhaps an even more worrying explanation however is that the country just doesn’t care. Ministers can stay in their jobs whatever the mistake made, as the public have become so disenchanted with party politics that their votes will not change either way. As “politicians are all the same”, the public simply believe that the replacement will not be much better. If this is the reason then there are several fundamental issues that need solving to increase public trust in politicians, and re-engage the public in electoral politics or change our system to allow other, growingly popular forms of political action to be recognised, like protests.

More fundamental, general causes for the greater durability of ministers like this appear more plausible, as the decline in individual ministerial responsibility is not new. It is a trend that has gathered pace over previous decades. Ministerial great escapes were rare in early post-war British politics. For example, in 1954 the Agriculture minister Thomas Duggle resigned over the mistakes of his civil servants. Later, in 1967, then Chancellor James Callaghan resigned after the pound was devalued. However, for the same policy failure in the 1990’s Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont was not forced to resign over Black Wednesday. Labour, in government and opposition in recent years also appeared more lenient. Ed Balls as Education secretary in the last government passed the buck on the failed marking of SATS, and over the appalling treatment of Baby P. To give just another example whilst we have been in opposition, Diane Abbott was also lucky to stay in her job after her foolish comments over how white people like to “Divide and Rule”.

Therefore, although the coalition’s ministers appear to have been particularly lucky, individual ministerial responsibility has been declining for decades. The cause of this therefore is likely to be a long term shift in the type of character’s in politics and public expectations of politicians (although one could certainly suggest that some of the more specific reasons suggested have contributed in this government). This long term decline in standards and expectations needs to be halted. There needs to be a far firmer set of boundaries that ministers must adhere to and that we can all understand. These would remove the current grey areas which allow a minister like Andrew Mitchell or Jeremy Hunt to escape an impending demotion. In short, as a general public we need to halt ministerial complacency and expect a far higher standard of behaviour and competence from those in charge.

Joe Collin