Clegg's gambit

Nick Clegg told us fixed term parliaments would prevent the Prime Minister from scheduling elections according to political expediency. Is it purely coincidental that the next election will now take place in 2015, around the time the coalition's programme of cuts are due to be winding down?

The Liberal Democrats were in favour of a slower withdrawal of state support from the economy during the election campaign. Nick Clegg changed his mind around the time the coalition deal with the Tories was hammered out.

Current thinking is either that he was persuaded by the Conservatives' case once he saw the parlous state of the UK's finances (good), or that he is supporting the timetable as part of a negotiated deal with Cameron's team (bad).

But this was no mere compromise with the Tories. Clegg knows that any election before 2015 would be likely to decimate Liberal Democrat support. The economy will be in the doldrums due to a withdrawal of government support, and a hefty proportion of government debt will still be with us.

We are witnessing the spectacle of the Liberal Democrats supporting the most severe assault on the state in modern political history, not because they agree with the economics, but because it suits their electoral needs.

A journey to the right

Red Wedgie was on holiday when Tony Blair's memoirs were published last week, but did manage to catch the former PM's interview with Andrew Marr on BBC1.

Blair confirmed the suspicions of many on the left by condoning the economic strategy of the coalition, refusing to criticise Cameron's cuts, and by revealing a political ideology that has little to do with social democracy and everything to do with Thatcherism.

The only thing Blair had to say to his former campaigners, voters and defenders on the left was how we might think about adopting Thatcherite policies to get elected. Oh, and that he regretted Freedom of Information and the fox hunting ban.

So far, so smug. But the ex-PM gave the game away when he talked about New Labour.

Blair understands better than anyone that an entity like New Labour is destined for electoral success because it adopts the social and economic programme of the opposition. It simultaneously offers opposition voters an alternative to their natural party, while depriving its own grass roots of any viable electoral alternative.

The only problem, as Labour now appear to be realising, is that such an entity has no reason to exist other than to win elections.

The candidates for the Labour leadership are making all the right noises to appeal for party members' votes. Let's hope they genuinely understand that Labour is irrelevant unless it dedicates itself to dismantling social and economic inequality, and rebuilding society in a fairer way.