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

[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!