Blue sun, orange sky... something is not right

[steepholm]

So, should I never vote Lib Dem again because they threw in their lot with the Tories? Or never vote Labour again because they threw their toys out of the pram and chose opposition rather than a progressive coalition?

I'm rapidly ceasing to care, and wishing I'd stuck to my first best instincts and voted Green.

(Either way, I don't really share the disgust that many seem to feel at the sight of the various minority parties - i.e. all of them - negotiating their way to some kind of settlement behind closed doors. What else were they supposed to do?)

Comments

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I felt a brief spasm of disgust, yesterday afternoon, at the way Nick Clegg was playing the field- but, really, as you say, what else was he supposed to do? And he's won himself a cabinet seat and the chance that at least some of his party's policies will be implemented- which is more than any third party politician has achieved in my lifetime- so all power to his elbow!

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Quite. What was strange, though, was the sight of all three parties essentially conspiring to put David Cameron in number 10. That I didn't expect!

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

I don't think the depiction of Labour as having thrown their toys out of the pram is quite fair! Some of the party members, doubtless, but you're allowing all the minority parties (which includes Labour, presumably?) a 'what else were they to do?' get-out clause about negotiating in their own interests. I think Labour would have been setting themselves up to achieve absolutely nothing, while taking all the flak for their inability to achieve anything, had they gone much further than GB's announcement that he'd be resigning in order to tempt the Lib Dems into coalition. Not that I've much time for New Labour either, as you know, but I think there was a degree of wisdom in the choice you've outlined above, rather than it's having been purely childish 'Nyah, nyah, you can't make me!'

But that five-year term now being thrown around? Now that's scary.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I should have been clear that by 'Labour' here I meant the party as a whole, rather than its leadership, which as far as I know was negotiating in good faith. But it became obvious yesterday that between stirrers like John Reid and David Blunkett, Scottish Labour MPs who would 'rather bite their own arm off than work with the SNP' (to quote the BBC correspondent), and a swathe of nervous backbenchers who wanted someone else to take the blame for the economic pain to come, the party as a whole preferred to skulk into opposition rather than take up the challenge. That's why the leadership couldn't close the deal - or so, at least, seems to be the story that's emerging ( which may turn out to be quite wrong).

Of course, if the Labour party sees it as not being in its interests to govern, then that's fine, but they can't really expect me to vote for it on that basis!

Quite agree about the five-year term. Four years was what was being talked about before, surely?

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

Of course, if the Labour party sees it as not being in its interests to govern, then that's fine, but they can't really expect me to vote for it on that basis!

If you and all the other people like you HAD voted for them, they wouldn't have been in the position of needing a less-than-stable coalition, squeaking through on rather low numbers! Your question was whether you should never vote for them in the future, because they'd thrown their toys out of the pram etc.

And I still think it's unfair, because the party didn't see it as not being in their interests to govern before getting this pretty awful election result, and presumably plan to regroup and come back in stronger position next election. It's probably too much to hope for that stronger position being a real Labour one, but who knows.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

If you and all the other people like you HAD voted for them, they wouldn't have been in the position of needing a less-than-stable coalition, squeaking through on rather low numbers!

It's always pesky when people don't vote the way you want them to, I guess. But from what you're saying it seems it's only reasonable to expect Labour to want to govern in the optimal circumstances, i.e. where their 30-40% or so of the vote results in a parliamentary majority. I disagree. If they were serious about not wanting a Tory government they had it in their power to prevent it. Of course a coalition with the LibDems and others would have been difficult, but it would have represented far more than 50% of the votes cast, and would have been perfectly legitimate, whatever the Murdoch press had to say. That they chose to let the Tories in makes them at least as culpable as the Lib Dems, in my view. Indeed, given that choice I don't see what else the Lib Dems could have done other than to throw in their lot with Cameron or force an immediate second election (which really wouldn't have been in the public interest).

All this is, of course, on the assumption that the stories about the Labour Party rebelling against the idea of coalition really is true, but I've heard nothing today to suggest otherwise.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I haven't been able to find detail on the five-year term. I take it that this is a pledge by Cameron not to throw the Lib Dems overboard in hopes of finding a snap election majority?

What did interest me about the Labour negotiations was the post-fallout comment by Adonis, not somebody I'd have thought had a strong animus against the Lib Dems, accusing them of not having negotiated in good faith.

[brownnicky.livejournal.com]

I would have loved a progressive alliance but I think it would have lacked legitimacy with the English tory voters and would have been seen as an alliance of losers, clinging to power by the Tory press. Most worryingly I don't think it did have the numbers to be effective. I suspect that those objecting also did not want all that blood on their hands and feared that when it all went tits up they would never get elected again.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I can see the point about the numbers, which were indeed somewhat precarious - but I don't buy the 'alliance of losers' idea. The fact is that everybody lost in this election: even the Tories got only a bit more than a third of the vote. So an alliance of losers was inevitable: it was simply a case of which losers.

[brownnicky.livejournal.com]

You're preaching to the converted here but I really don't think that was how it was generally perceived and I think MPs thinking about their long term future were very aware of that.

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

Yup, I agree about the general perception - and all the financial commentators talked about how the markets generally strengthened as soon as the Lib Dem Tory coalition was finalised, because it was seen as being much more stable than a Lib Lab one.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

you're allowing all the minority parties (which includes Labour, presumably?) a 'what else were they to do?' get-out clause about negotiating in their own interests

I should have picked up on this yesterday, but that's not what I'm arguing. I merely said they should be allowed to negotiate behind closed doors. As for whose interests they should be doing it in - well, I'm not so naive as to think that politicians can be expected to be totally selfless, but I did expect that they would be trying to arrange things so as to maximise the prospects of their being able to carry out their political programme. What I find hard to stomach is that the Labour Party appears to have sacrificed both power and their programme in favour of their own narrow interests as a parliamentary club. If so, I think that's a dereliction, if not a betrayal of those did vote for them and whose interests they purport to represent.

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

But you're only talking short-term, which is a very partial view of the matter, I think. If Labour had formed this extremely uneasy alliance of all the parties except the one that got the most seats/percentage of votes, they'd in all likelihood have limped along, without sufficient clout to get anything much done, and the Conservatives would have forced another election in a year or two. At that point the country would have been in much worse state and Labour would in all probability be out of the running for many years to come. I think they're culpable for many, many things, but not for choosing not to do anything to stay in power at all costs (to themselves and everyone else).

If so, I think that's a dereliction, if not a betrayal of those did vote for them and whose interests they purport to represent.

It may be - and no doubt some of the 29% of voters who voted Labour this time feel exactly that way. Some of them may also feel it was a timely tactical retreat, rather than a betrayal. On the other hand, were I a betting person, I'd lay good money that more of the people who voted Lib Dem feel the coalition with the Tories a betrayal. Just now, on BBC 4, Chris Huhne saying that if a new nuclear power station can be built without any public money, then yes, he will be the person who sets in train the building of new nuclear power station(s). So much for Lib Dem policies.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

We'll never know whether it would have limped along or not, I guess, but I don't see that as having been inevitable at all. Nor do I think five years is that short a term.

I'm sure many Lib Dems do feel betrayed - and I'm not exactly happy about the situation myself. But as I asked yesterday, what alternative was open to them given that Labour would not go into coalition? Given the choice between a completely Tory government and one that has been reined in a bit, I know which I'd go for.

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

I don't think five years is a short term at all - but I hadn't heard Labour was planning on imposing fixed term parliaments as soon as they got in. If they did, then I'm confused as to why so many people were talking about the Tories as opposition forcing another general election in a year or two.

We know for a fact about some Lib Dems feeling betrayed! If it really were the case that it was completely Labour's doing that no coalition could be agreed on between them, then I suppose the Lib Dems didn't have an alternative. But I'm not sure that is the case at all, and even if it were, there's all the rhetoric against Labour and particularly Gordon Brown that was coming from Nick Clegg during the campaign. fjm and I were discussing that on Saturday and she said then that she thought Clegg was setting up for coalition with Labour without Brown. As obviously did Brown himself.

But of course I'd prefer a slightly reined in Tory government than an un-reined in one too. Except there wasn't the possibility of a completely Tory government anyway, so that's not a real choice, and very much forgets the whole 'Vote Lib Dem to keep out the Tories' line...

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Whether Labour was going to imposed fixed term parliaments isn't relevant, though. The point is that they couldn't know that the incoming Tory government was going to call an election any sooner than that, and so were putting the country into Cameron's hands for potentially that long. (N reminded me that the next election may be on his 20th birthday!)

But really, a lot of this is guesswork on all sides. Could the Tories have led a minority government for more than a year? If they did call an early election, would they have got a majority? Would a Lab-Lib-Others coalition have held together? We'll never know - and anyone who thinks they do know is engaging in the rankest rodomontade.

As for Clegg setting himself up with the Tories - well, maybe he was, but again how can we be sure? It seems obvious (and quite defensible) that he would be talking to both the other parties, and playing them off against each other so as to get the best deal for his own. That's Negotiation 101. However, one side-effect is a general paranoia - evident last weekend on both the Tory and the Labour side.

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

Rankest rodomontade??

As for Clegg setting himself up with the Tories - well, maybe he was, but again how can we be sure?

Well, you're talking as if you were sure that the Labour party was the one that refused to play with the Lib Dems, which seems to me equally unsure! Unless you've decided you can completely dismiss the Labour people who said it didn't happen that way as untrustworthy, while the Lib Dems and Tories are to be trusted completely. And the point I was actually making was that Nick Clegg gave a pretty clear message immediately before the election that he was unwilling to work with Gordon Brown.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Sorry - couldn't resist the alliteration!

Well, you're talking as if you were sure that the Labour party was the one that refused to play with the Lib Dems, which seems to me equally unsure!

I agree it's unsure, and have said so several times. Viz:

"[that] at least, seems to be the story that's emerging ( which may turn out to be quite wrong)."

"All this is, of course, on the assumption that the stories about the Labour Party rebelling against the idea of coalition really is true"

"the Labour Party appears to have sacrificed both power and their programme in favour of their own narrow interests as a parliamentary club. If so, I think that's a dereliction" [emphasis added!]

Clegg did signal that before the election, and I think that was unwise. However, that can't have been the reason for the negotations breaking down, since GB had already resigned by that point.

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

Oh, and BTW - don't know if you caught it but this morning on Today Simon Hoggart was very amusing about how Clegg and Cameron yesterday were so lovey-dovey that if they'd turned up in a B&B, Chris Greyling would have refused to let them in.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

:-) That's very good!

[calimac.livejournal.com]

It may be salutary to remember the dramatic jump in the Green vote at the European elections of 1989. I've seen no reason not to believe this came from defecting Liberal Democrats, disgusted at the then-recent sight of the Alliance that had been founded for the purpose of inter-party cooperation having proved so singularly inept at cooperating with itself.