Lib Dems must agree to publicly disagree

Nick Clegg should admit our economic differences with the Tories in public or the coalition will become rudderless
    • Jump to comments ()
David Cameron and Nick Clegg
'It is not tribal or anti-coalition to admit that the two coalition parties are divided on the overall direction of government.' Photograph: Getty

Pity the poor Liberal Democrat. Denounced by Labour politicians and supporters and accused of immorality by our own party leader for having the temerity of happening to believe that the economic policy in our own manifesto is still essentially correct, it can feel pretty lonely at times. Back in May when Nick Clegg and David Cameron promised us a bold era of untribal, undogmatic "new politics" this isn't, truth to tell, what I thought they had in mind.

Clegg's suggestion that it is "morally wrong" to pass a debt on from one generation to the next deserves some scrutiny. Of course, in an ideal world, we would want to avoid this, but we don't live in one. The UK finally paid off its last instalment of the Marshall Plan at the end of 2006. Far from feeling disgusted at my grandparents' generation for such irresponsibility, I think most people are pretty grateful they saddled us with it. Equally, if the choice amounts to living debt-free as one of the long-term unemployed or paying slightly higher taxes in return for a decent job training scheme, I suspect most young people would prefer the latter.

Talk of morality in economics seldom causes more light than heat. Deficit reduction, like spending, is neither moral nor immoral in and of itself; it is what you do with it that counts. Is it moral to foist cuts on people because of the irresponsibility of Labour's numerous disastrous PFI schemes? And if the key principle at stake is intergenerational justice, why are youth services being slashed while pensions are being increased?

Clegg has done a tremendous job of trying to put a gloss to it, but there is sadly no hiding from the fact that the government is currently set on an aggressive deficit reduction plan that is desperately lacking in vision. That the government is embarking on a programme of deep cuts is not in question; but nobody seems to be able to explain what it is all for. The coalition can't explain because, frankly, the coalition can't agree. That's why the government's "vision" has been dominated by empty flannel such as the "big society", which can somehow mean both liberalism and an aggressive full-frontal assault on the state at the same time.

Clegg's speech about social mobility last week was welcome, but it was largely notable for what was not in it. There was only one, very vague reference to welfare reform. Reforming benefits could both allow people to escape the poverty trap and save the taxpayer billions in the long run; sadly, doing so would almost certainly cost billions up front – something George Osborne appears to be finding hard to grasp.

Clegg had even less to say on housing. Despite alluding to a tax system that makes "fairer demands on unearned wealth" this amounted to little more than increasing capital gains tax and minimising tax avoidance. A proper debate on social mobility cannot duck the impact that the budget is likely to have on the poorest in society, yet thus far this new government has shied away from its statutory obligation to hold equality impact assessments on its policies. There is always a risk with talk of "social mobility" that the scope is too narrow and it quickly degenerates into a justification for inequality rather than as a means for tackling it. This must be resisted at all costs.

Ultimately, social mobility cannot be bought at the cost of increasing relative poverty – the greatest single cause of social immobility we have. We will be debating how the government should address this at the Lib Dem conference next month and I look forward to seeing how the Conservatives respond in kind.

It is not tribal or anti-coalition to admit that the two coalition parties are divided on the overall direction of government. If we don't debate this difference in public, the coalition will quickly become rudderless as it obsesses over the lowest common denominator and the electorate will respond with contempt. Clegg needs to find the confidence to articulate the differences and resist the temptation to restrict himself to areas where he agrees with Cameron. To prevent the coalition from collapsing from its own internal contradictions, both parties need to start being much more frank with the public and each other on where they disagree.

Latest posts

Today's best video

Today in pictures