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