Libdem peer’s parting shot
Departing Libdem peer reveals damaging results
ALIBERAL Democrat peer has accused his party of losing its “roots, principles and values” as he dramatically resigned following an attempted coup against Nick Clegg.
Lord Oakeshott, the party’s former Treasury spokesman, left a trail of destruction in his wake as he appeared to implicate his long-standing friend and political ally Business Secretary Vince Cable in the plot.
He also released a privately commissioned poll showing another senior LibDem, Danny Alexander, is in danger of losing his seat at the next General Election, and then went on to accuse the party of offering cash for peerages. The row follows disastrous showings for the LibDems in last week’s European Parliament and English local elections.
Last night Mr Cable, who is in China on business, insisted he had “absolutely no knowledge” of the poll in Mr Alexander’s Highlands constituency or another one in Mr Clegg’s seat of Sheffield Hallam. But he did admit he had known about some of the secret polls ordered by Lord Oakeshott in key LibDem areas.
DANNY Alexander risks losing his seat at the next General Election, according to a secret poll commissioned by one of his own party’s peers and released in an attempt to force Nick Clegg to resign as Liberal Democrat leader.
In a day of high drama for the LibDems, the peer, Lord Oakeshott, also appeared to implicate his close friend Vince Cable in a plot to oust Mr Clegg.
And he accused the party of corruption by offering places in the House of Lords in return for donations in a statement announcing his shock resignation.
Sources close to the LibDem leader last night insisted they did not think Mr Cable was involved in the attempted coup.
But the Business Secretary was later forced to go on television to deny he had known about Lord Oakeshott’s actions.
The row came amid increasing pressure on Mr Clegg.
The local LibDem party in Cambridge has announced plans for an emergency meeting on his position. If enough local groups follow suit, they can potentially trigger a leadership election.
Critics of Mr Clegg believe that while this route is unlikely to be successful, the “drip, drip” effect could convince him to quit.
A close ally of Mr Clegg, LibDem peer Baroness Williams, revealed earlier this week that he had considered standing down in the wake of last week’s local and European elections but had been persuaded to stay on.
Yesterday, in a series of parting shots that appeared designed to destabilise the party leadership, Lord Oakeshott hit out at the “disastrous” Mr Clegg.
Just hours earlier the peer had been told he faced disciplinary action after it emerged he secretly commissioned and published four other polls on key LibDem seats.
In his resignation statement, he warned the party the lesson of last week’s council and European elections was “crystal clear” that it had to change its leader.
He praised those trying to force a leadership election, saying: “I have tried to give them the evidence they need to make the change. “I pray that they win, and that the right man, or preferably woman, is now elected to save the party.”
He added that “my efforts to expose and end cash for peerages in all parties, including our own, and help get the Lords elected, have failed.” He said he had told Mr Cable of the polls weeks ago, but said he was sorry to have “upset and embarrassed” the veteran LibDem.
The poll in Mr Alexander’s political backyard of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey puts him in third place behind the SNP and Labour.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury received the backing of 16% of constituents, compared with the SNP on 32% and Labour on 25%, according to the ICM poll.
Mr Alexander took the seat in 2010 election with 40% of the vote, compared to 18% for the SNP.
A spokesman for Mr Alexander attacked the poll, saying it did not bear scrutiny. He criticised the sample size and the fact those who took part were asked a question that did not mention either Mr Alexander’s name or the name of the constituency.
“Recent research has shown that LibDem MPs receive an 11-point lift in such polls when people are specifically asked to think about their own constituency and their MP,” he added.
SNP MP Angus Robertson, who holds the neighbouring Moray seat, said: “The European election results gave us an idea of how badly the Liberal Democrats are doing as they were swept off the electoral map of Scotland, but for their senior cheerleader in the Tory-led No campaign to be relegated to third place is another humiliation.
“The LibDems are tearing themselves apart and this poll will make Danny Alexander wince as support in his own constituency evaporates, with only a slightly higher vote than the Tories in fourth place.”
HERE was much heat generated by yesterday’s competing claims on the costs and benefits of Scottish independence, but precious little light.
Both sides claimed their preferred option would leave Scots better off and sought to undermine the assertions of their rivals. According to First Minister Alex Salmond, everyone would be richer by £1,000 a year in the event of a Yes vote. Not so, according to Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Independence would make Scots worse off while staying in the Union would provide a UK dividend of £1,400 per person per year.
They cannot both be right and, indeed, both reports are based on projections and assumptions that might be proved untrue in time. Neither side knows precisely what the economic conditions will be on the point of independence and in the first years of a new state.
Even so, there are some issues that are emerging as crucial economic measures in the debate. The first is the set-up costs of a state and the Treasury suffered some self-inflicted damage by claiming the cost of a new state could be as high as £2.7bn. Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economics said his research, which formed the basis of the claim, had been manipulated to make the costs look many times larger.
It was a bad mistake by the Treasury but, equally, the error cannot hide an important fact: setting up a new state will be expensive and the Nationalists have still to come up with their estimate. They should do so promptly and explain how the figure has been calculated.
The second central issue is oil revenues. These form a pillar of the Scottish Government’s positive projections. New technologies have opened up reserves that were previously unreachable and the Scottish Government’s forecasts are more generous than the Treasury’s. But the general picture is one of decline in the medium term.
The Scottish Government says it would establish an oil fund which, had it been started in the 1970s, could make a substantial contribution to the economy at present. Whether such a fund has the same potential if started now, when there is much less oil and gas to exploit, is open to question.
The third important battleground is the potential fiscal deficit: the difference between spending and tax income. The Treasury says that, over the past 15 years and assuming a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, Scotland’s fiscal balance has averaged minus 3.8 per cent but the question is whether a change in policy in an independent country could reverse this. The Scottish Government says the population will grow through immigration. More people means more tax income. But spending is just as likely to increase because of Scotland’s ageing population and whether the population could be made to grow sufficiently to compensate is uncertain.
There are many other factors at play that increase the uncertainty, such as the proportion of shared assets Scotland would be entitled to and share of debt it would take on. These and other factors could be resolved only in negotiations between the UK and Scottish governments after a Yes vote. But both sides must do all they can to bring clarity to the debate before then, for one simple reason: the referendum will be won or lost not just on emotional grounds but on economic ones too.