Clegg’s Choice: End The Lib Dems Forever, Or Not?
by John Walker on May.08, 2010, under The Rest
Nick Clegg’s got one heck of a decision to make.
He’s not just deciding which party gets to be in power in the UK. He’s deciding the fate of the Liberal Democrat party.
He’s got three choices, which I couldn’t outline better than Stu Campbell has here: side with Cameron, side with Brown, or side with no one and allow a Conservative minority government.
It’s the first of these three decisions that’s currently being scrutinised by Clegg and his advisors, weighing up whatever Cameron may have offered him in their private talks. Should he align his party with the Conservatives, guaranteeing a clear majority, and most likely securing some powerful positions in government for Lib Dem members? It must be tempting for anyone in politics, to be that close to power. But Clegg’s got a Liberal Democrat membership to convince – 75% of them – before he could make that commitment. Oh, and the small matter of giving up proportional representation (PR). Oh again, and giving up the future of the Lib Dem party forever.
Liberal Democrat voters do not have an enormous amount in common with Tory voters. Tory voters, if we may generalise appropriately, are anti-immigration, pro-low taxes for the rich, anti-Europe. Lib Dem voters are pro-immigration, pro-taxing the rich, pro-Europe. Those are some fairly hefty opposites, amongst many others. The Lib Dems, despite being a centre-left (ish) party, are the closest the UK has to voting for a major party that tiptoes close to socialism.
You can split the Lib Dem vote roughly into two groups. You’ve got loyal LD voters who always vote for the party. And you’ve got those new voters (despite their losing five seats on Thursday, the Lib Dems did indeed increase their vote – once again bringing us back to the importance of PR for the party) who switched previous allegiances in response to either disillusionment with the current two parties, or intrigue after the party’s increased profile via the televised debates. With the latter group are all the first-time voters who saw them as a party that represents younger people.
If Clegg opts for a Tory pact, then the first group – the loyals – are absolutely betrayed. Lifetime LD voters (me included) will have had their vote for the Liberal Democrats scrubbed out, their X re-drawn in the box for the Tories, entirely against their will. Voting for the Conservatives goes against every fibre of my being – they are the most despicable of the parties, their extreme right-wing policies worn with pride. (Sure, they’ve tried to hide some behind Cameron’s shiny face for the last few months, but they’re always there.) When I went to the voting booth on Thursday, I went with the aim to keep the Lib Dems in in Bath, and to keep the Conservatives out. So did 26,651 other people. If Clegg did this, then why would any loyal Liberal Democrat ever vote for them again?
The second group, the first-timers, will have had a message given to them very clearly: voting for Lib Dems is meaningless. Their policies, their campaign, wasn’t only up for compromise, but complete abandonment. Why do that again? Why not vote for one of the two parties that actually gets into power yourself?
So Clegg betrays a vast amount of his electorate. That’s the first step in ending the Liberal Democrats forever. The second is abandoning any hope of PR.
In the late 1990s/early 2000s the Conservatives were all but done. Major’s epic defeat in 1997, followed by Hague’s equally astonishing failure in 2001, saw them in tatters, many predicting they could never recover. Under Ian Duncan Smith they were a laughing stock, frequently falling into third place in polls, leaving a vast open space for the Liberal Democrats to step into. Charles Kennedy, then the leader, responded to this opportunity by hiding behind a table until it went away. Presumably with some whisky. It was horrific to watch. Here was this extraordinary opportunity to make themselves known as the alternative vote to a Labour party whose popularity was about to crumble, and they did nothing whatsoever. Instead they kept quiet until the Tories put the familiar vampiric face of Michael Howard in charge, and pulled the party back together. Phew, eh? Now they could hide in third place just how they liked it.
They’re in a whole new crazy version of that place right now. Here, for the first time in an unimaginably long time, they have a chance to get the British electoral system completely revolutionised. The two-party con-trick that’s been running for the last century would be over, the carefully plotted fixing of the system to ensure either Lab or Con are in power could be demolished. With proportional representation in place, the Liberal Democrats could, in one or two elections time, be in a position to actually win. (To get an idea of how corrupt it currently is, LD received 79% of the number of votes Labour did, but won 22% of the number of seats – it’s absolutely impossible for them to get into power.) Without it, they never, ever will. Opportunities to put PR in place come up, well, almost never. It’s happening right now. Siding with the Conservatives will ensure it definitely doesn’t happen.
There are rumours floating that the Conservatives would offer a referendum on electoral reform as a carrot to lure the Lib Dems into the coalition. But then out comes the stick, as they pummelled them to death. Such a referendum would be a trick. It would have, say, five options. One of these would be the current first-past-the-post system that the Tories need to keep, and they’d invest vast sums into campaigning for this. The other four would be variants on the system the Lib Dems would like, various forms of proportional representation, each with benefits and weaknesses. The idea being, any of those four would be good for the Lib Dems, and thus the vote would be split between the four, diluted down four ways so it couldn’t possibly beat the first. It would be a deliberate obfuscation of the vote to ensure that the status quo gets kept, in what they could claim was a decision made by the British people. Any offer of electoral reform from the Conservatives would be the classic evil genie wish granting, turning it back on the wisher in the cruellest way possible.
Clegg can take Cameron’s deal and presumably get himself a position in the cabinet. He can get political power. And then, by the next election, the Tories can ditch them and carry on as it has always been. Clegg can choose Cameron. He can choose to betray his voting core, disillusion any new voters, and completely abandon any hope of his party ever getting into power. He can choose to return the Liberal Democrats to the position the Liberals took in the 50s and 60s, gaining perhaps two or three seats in the Commons. Or he could maybe choose something else.
PS. Stu points out this comment on his site which gives some precedence for my soothsaying:
“I honestly can’t believe Nick Clegg is still even thinking about a Lib-Con pact. Your analysis is absolutely correct, RevStu.
This situation reminds me of what happened in Australia 12 years ago. An unpopular right-wing government wanted to bring in an unpopular VAT. The Australian Democrats party had the balance of power. The Democrats were almost indistinguishable from the Lib Dems, both in policy and support – they were mainly voted for by centre left voters who thought Labour was corrupt or not in favour of civil liberties.Anyway, the slightly right-of-the-party leader of the Democrats did a deal with the Liberals (extracting almost zero concessions) because she felt that the Liberals had a right to govern. Sound familiar?
With the benefit of 12 years we can see how it turned out for the Democrats. From having 10.8% of the vote in 1996, and the balance of power, at the last election in 2007 they got 1.3% and basically don’t exist any more.
I predict a similar scenario for the Lib Dems (complete with multiple changes of leader) if there’s a Con-Lib government.”
May 8th, 2010 on 16:20
Out of curiosity – what alternative electoral system do you want?
May 8th, 2010 on 16:23
If he sides with Brown, the only PM to be unelected twice, then he’d lose my vote for sure. The Labour government have ruined the economy and civil liberties, and Lib-con agree on these matters.
Your analysis of the Tories on the key points you picked out is wrong and based on a very narrow view. Nick Clegg and his ‘shadow cabinet’ will have more say with the Tories than with a Labour cabinet that have shown time and again that they ignore the advice of their own advisors and the electorate. A Lib-Lab coalition would not only leave Clegg with no power, it wouldn’t even have enough strength to out-vote the Tories anyway.
So if he doesn’t side with the Conservatives NONE of his policies will get through.
May 8th, 2010 on 16:29
Fashigady – Mimic the Scottish system. Vote for your local MP, and vote for the party you want to be in power.
May 8th, 2010 on 16:33
Richard – I haven’t got the energy to get into a discussion over how you can possibly blame Labour for the economy, or at least believe it wouldn’t be the same/worse under a Tory government that has historically supported the situation that led to the collapse. But ignoring that, nothing you’ve said has any bearing on the points I’m making. Siding with the Conservatives would guarantee the end of the Liberal Democrats. Siding with Labour, no matter how much you may dislike them, would allow electoral reform, and thus even in the worst circumstances the Lib Dems would end up with three times as many seats in the Commons.
Your being all grumpytrousers with Labour doesn’t make my post incorrect in any way.
May 8th, 2010 on 16:35
Richard: your comments are wildly naive and appear to bear no relation to the situation as it stands.
1. You think the Tories would have behaved differently with regard to the economy? Regulated big business more? Taxed the rich more diligently?
2. Labour can’t AFFORD to ignore the Lib Dems in coalition, because the minute they do they’re out of office.
3. The proposed coalition featuring not only the Lib Dems and Labour but also the nationalists (who have already affirmed their willingness to support it) WOULD have a majority – albeit a wafer-slim one.
4. The purpose of that coalition would be to pass the PR referendum bill. If and when the electorate vote for PR, it’d be necessary to have an election, and that election would return a result which meant that NEITHER Labour or the Tories could ever ride roughshod over everyone else again in the manner you object to.
May 8th, 2010 on 16:37
The Scottish system of PR, incidentally (and also the one which elects the Welsh Assembly and the London mayor) is the Additional Member System. It’s very good.
May 8th, 2010 on 16:47
I find Richard’s suggestion that the Tories are some how that party of civil liberties astonishing.
But, on John’s main post, it is possible that a referendum on electoral reform could itself be conducted using AV, which would solve the problem of there being multiple options. The fact is that a Lib/Con coalition would have a majority to force the changes through, particularly given that Labour would now look absolute hypocrites if they didn’t back it, meaning a few Tory rebels wouldn’t be problem. A Lib/Lab pact, on the other hand, still wouldn’t be able to form a majority, and the Tories would oppose reform wholesale. I can totally see why Clegg is talking to Cameron.
What I don’t understand is why Labour appear to have dismissed out of hand the suggestion of an alliance with the SNP, given that they effectively need one to stand any chance of being involved in government.
May 8th, 2010 on 16:58
I totally agree with you, John. It’s very unlikely that Cameron would go far enough on Proportional Representation. If Clegg is smart (and I think he is) he’ll stay away.
But on the outside chance that the Tories DO risk a referendum, I suspect the Liberals will have a say in how it’s framed. They’ll probably prefer a question like the one they proposed for the European Union — in or out, keep the system or change it. That would be the best case scenario, if an incredibly unlikely one…
May 8th, 2010 on 17:04
James: to be absolutely fair to Richard, compared to New Labour the Tories ARE the party of civil liberties. That’s saying very, very little indeed, but it’s true.
“What I don’t understand is why Labour appear to have dismissed out of hand the suggestion of an alliance with the SNP”
Because Labour in Scotland – who I’d bet my bottom dollar were the source of the BBC’s unattributed comment – are absolute cretins, the dregs of the party not deemed fit for “real” Parliament, and blinded by poisonous hatred of the SNP to a degree that you simply wouldn’t believe unless you followed Scottish politics.
That’s the level of brainless stupidity it takes to reject a party without whom you cannot mathematically achieve a majority. Fortunately less moronic Labour ministers like Peter Hain take less retarded positions on the subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/wales/8667397.stm
May 8th, 2010 on 17:28
As the good reverand said, it’s all realtive on civil liberties.
Let me just ask you this:
Which party relaxed the regulations that would have neutered the effect of the banking crisis?
Which party sold the country’s gold reserves when Gold prices were extremely low?
Which party ran the country at an overall loss even during the boom years?
And you want them back in charge of the economy? Brown and Darling are thick as thieves, they wouldn’t let Cable near any decisions.
A change to PR would require a new election as soon as it’s agreed, meaning the end of the Lib-Con aliance anyway and paving the way for the Liberals to get the seats they deserve.
May 8th, 2010 on 17:34
Spot on.
If I get a Tory government because of it, this first time lib demn voter will also be a last time lib dem voter.
Sod the Tories, when labour offer PR Clegg should bite their hand off. Work out if Brown needs to go or not (I’m not really all that bothered, I can’t see anyone I’d prefer, but if lib dem decide they want rid of him then so be it), and get busy being a stable, politically left, government that the voters actually want.
May 8th, 2010 on 18:16
As ignorant as I am about these things, (and as someone with no strong affiliation with any party) I’d let a Tory minority government rule and fail(as I suspect any minority is bound to). Then follow up with a vote of no confidence in a year or so, make sure everyone knows how badly the tories have done and watch LB and Labour support rise?
Of course thats a pretty big risk… and I’m probably wrong anyway, but thats just how I see things.
May 8th, 2010 on 18:19
I wish to retract 2 of my previous statements. Firstly that a lib-lab alaince wouldn’t have enough seats to out-vote the tories and their alliance partners. The SNP have now come out and said that they and Plaid would join a lib-lab alliance, earlier that had said they wouldn’t. So at least now Clegg foes have a choice, it’s still not one I want him to make.
Secondly that if he did form an alliance with Labour I wouldn’t vote for Liberal Democrats again. This was reactionary, silly and fairly petty. I’ll vote for whomever I think will do the best job whenever the next election comes around. That’s sort of the point isn’t it?
May 8th, 2010 on 18:33
Richard, please explain what the City-Loving Tories would have done differently to see off a crisis caused by the the implementation of Tory monetarist policies?
And the ‘unelected’ bit, which Tories like you keep going on about, is dripping with irony for two reasons:
1) John Major was similarly ‘unelected’ and the Tories had no problem with this; because
2) in the UK constitution, we do *not* elect our Prime Minister. Ever. Indeed, the Prime Minister need not be an elected official at all (many old Tory PMs were not). Gordon Brown does happen to be an elected official.
This is all an irony, because the same Tories who go on about how wonderful our Constitutional Monarchy is then slip into such republican (with a small r) presidential rhetoric when it suits them.
But actually, I imagine you’re just parroting what Rupert’s shoved into your brain, and haven’t actually analysed the trope to any degree.
May 8th, 2010 on 18:46
Richard:
“Which party relaxed the regulations that would have neutered the effect of the banking crisis?”
The Tories, under Nigel Lawson.
“Which party sold the country’s gold reserves when Gold prices were extremely low?”
The Tories, under Norman Lamont.
“Which party ran the country at an overall loss even during the boom years?”
Every party since the war.
“And you want them back in charge of the economy? Brown and Darling are thick as thieves, they wouldn’t let Cable near any decisions.”
Cable isn’t Jesus. Brown and Darling’s biggest crimes were in following too faithful Tory monetarist policies, I agree.
“A change to PR would require a new election as soon as it’s agreed, meaning the end of the Lib-Con aliance anyway and paving the way for the Liberals to get the seats they deserve.”
They don’t deserve anything. This is politics, not mummy giving out sweeties to her favourite. It’s what they can get. And if they think they can get any form of PR under the Tories, then they are dangerously stupid.
May 8th, 2010 on 18:50
“The SNP have now come out and said that they and Plaid would join a lib-lab alliance, earlier that had said they wouldn’t.”
Technically neither of those statements are correct. Their position is that they’d be prepared to support a “progressive” government on an issue-by-issue basis provided its policies were in the interests of the Scottish people (which in their opinion PR is). Alex Salmond very explicitly said tonight on Newsnight that the SNP would not enter a formal coalition with any of the London parties.
I don’t know where you read that they wouldn’t support a Lib-Lab agreement, I’m not aware of them having made such a statement.
May 8th, 2010 on 19:10
A number of things need to be mentioned here:
I’m not a tory. I voted lib dem in their #1 target seat against the Tories.
I can’t remember the last time I watched/read anything owned by Murdoch. Actually I watched a little fox when I was in America during their elections, just to laugh at how biased it was.
I wasn’t aware Norman Lamont was the Tories shadow chancellor, maybe I missed that appointment.
Gordon Brown wasn’t even elected by his own party.
You are correct that Cable isn’t a con-man/magician from 2000 years ago, how astute of you.
So Nick Mailer thinks that the disproportion between the number of votes the Lib Dems got vs the number of seats they got was/is fair?
And apologies to the reverend on my misuse of the word alliance, I meant what you said but got the words muddled.
May 8th, 2010 on 19:23
On the subject of Scotland it is safe to say that should the Lib Dems side with the Torries then they can say goodbye to their 11 seats here. There is a reason the SNP have not entered into a formal coalition with the Torries in Scotland, even though they seek their support on many issues, and that is because they are electoral poison. As for “blinded by poisonous hatred of the SNP” that is quite understandable considering they want an independant Scotland, a prospect that to many would seem more inviting than a Torry run UK. If a Lib-Con government is formed then by the next election there is a high chance of an even more powerful SNP voting block in Westminster inching Scotland ever closer to the fiery doom of independance.
May 8th, 2010 on 19:24
“So Nick Mailer thinks that the disproportion between the number of votes the Lib Dems got vs the number of seats they got was/is fair?”
It depends how you define “fair”. They were unable to get a sufficiently high proportion of votes in the constituencies they needed to get these votes. From the view of a constituency-based democracy, this is very pure and very fair: they just weren’t popular enough in enough places. But if you then think of it in a republican “voting-for-the-president” mindset, it appears unfair.
We have become increasingly less likely to care about the specifics of our local constituency, and more about the country as a whole, and thus, our changing perspective leads us to feel this is “unfair”.
But, strictly, it’s not absolutely unfair, any more than PR is absolutely fair. Most PR systems allow small parties, who get the minority of the vote, to have an “unfair” influence in coalitions and so on. Thus, “unfairness” is like a lump in a waterbed. Press it down in one location and it pops up in another.
May 8th, 2010 on 19:37
Nick you make a terribly good point there. I voted lib dem even tho our local candidate is not actually that great (the Tory was marginally better locally) and I *love* you analagy.
May 8th, 2010 on 21:21
It seems to me there’s actually 3 groups who vote LibDem:
1 Those who support LibDem because of the policies.
2 Those who vote against the Tories (where Labour’s not credible – like Bath).
3 Those who vote against Labour (where the Tories aren’t credible – like Bermondsey).
I suspect you underestimate group (3).
BTW On fairness – you might want to look at this: http://tiny.cc/9zck6 from last week’s New Scientist.
May 8th, 2010 on 21:24
Thank you Richard. I don’t think the problem is so much with the voting sytem, as the Parliament itself. The problem is, we’re voting for someone who must simultaneously worry about our bin collection and declaring war. It’s mildly ridiculous, if you think about it. Perhaps local representation should be completely extricated from high national policy, and there be two separate votes.
May 8th, 2010 on 21:55
Whilst I agree with much of what you say, there’s one thing that I overlooked before the election and that’s Nick Clegg saying he’d give first dibs to the party that got the most votes. That was almost certainly going to be the Tories. So we can’t say we’ve been let down by him, rather he’s laid put his principles and stuck by them.
On a more scary note, PR would give a bigger voice to the far right groups, who despite getting less votes than feared, got more than the greens – and less seats.
How would the northern Irish parties, and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists do under PR? I did a quick check and Plaid Cymru got less than fifty per cent of the vote in each of the seats they won.
May 8th, 2010 on 23:12
Firstly let me say that I am a lifelong Lib Dem voter and current party member. I’m also a big fan of John’s writing, podcasting etc.
That said, I do find much of this analysis to be really rather naive and hypocritical. You say that LD voters will have had their X scrubbed and recast fir the Tories against their will. If the LDs enter a cooalition with Labour to get guaranteed PR, how is this not exactly the same? Besides, any informed person who voted LD knowing that the odds were on a hung parliament must have done so knowing a LIb-Con alliance was at least a possibility.
If LD supporters would not accept a Lib-Con alliance under any circumstances, what does that make the party other than a feeble offshoot of Labour? You can claim to be bisexual as much as you want but if you don’t jump into bed with a woman every once in a while your really just gay.
Anyway, important as PR is, it has to be achieved at an acceptable cost. The country still needs governing and we’re still up shit creek. If in a year’s time we have a fair voting system but the country is bankrupt, can we consider that a success? I’m not suggesting that would be the likely outcome of any possible result but pretending this decision can be made based on one policy alone is crazy. Doing so would be unforgivably selfish.
All that said, I still don’t believe that a Lib-Con alliance is the right thing for either the party or the country. But I can at least accept that there is a case to be argued without being blinkered by tribalism. Our beloved PR would make hung parliaments much more likely in the future. We all have to prove that we can understand, accept and debate all the complex issues involved this time. If not, what prospect is there of a PR referendum passing and the country tolerating this situation on a regular basis?
May 8th, 2010 on 23:13
I’m not sure why Nick Clegg made that straitjacket of a commitment for himself in the first place.
May 8th, 2010 on 23:19
Blisset:
“You say that LD voters will have had their X scrubbed and recast fir the Tories against their will. If the LDs enter a cooalition with Labour to get guaranteed PR, how is this not exactly the same?”
The Labour Party and the Liberal Party have a natural and very old affinity. Look up the Lib Lab pacts, which have been going on since the 19th Century (using the pre-partyfied Labour movement).
They are both left-of-centre, progressive parties. The Conservative Party is not. The clue’s in the name.
If the Labour Party were truly radical, then yes, a coalition would lead to an 1848 revolution, but in reality, there’s very little to separate the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party today.
“Besides, any informed person who voted LD knowing that the odds were on a hung parliament must have done so knowing a LIb-Con alliance was at least a possibility.”
And would have thought “in such a circumstance, they’ll probably do a deal with Labour and get PR”. Almost none would think “in such a circumstance, they’ll be Cameron’s bitches”. Hence the difference.
“You can claim to be bisexual as much as you want but if you don’t jump into bed with a woman every once in a while your really just gay.”
That’s offensive. The “your” for “you’re”, that is. And a bizarre analogy, to say the least.
“If in a year’s time we have a fair voting system but the country is bankrupt, can we consider that a success?”
Yes. The final collapse of sham capitalism and a fair voting system will be an *amazing* opportunity.
May 9th, 2010 on 00:12
Thanks for the rather patronising history lesson Nick but you’ve missed the point entirely. John is arguing that there is a risk that by voting LD he’ll end up getting a Government he didn’t want. Isn’t this exactly the argument that every opponent of PR and hung parliaments has been making every time this issue has been debated? Ironic no?
In both your first and second points you imply that the LDs are nothing more than a different flavour of Labour. I wholeheartedly disagree and would hope that most LDs would also. Yes we may view Labour as the lesser of two evils in most cases but if I’d wanted a Labour Government I’d have voted for it. What I do thing you comments are indicative of is a condescending view many Labour supporters have of the LDs. They seem to think we’re like the slightly wacky cousin who goes off on ill-conceived but can always be relied upon to turn up at weddings and funerals. After all, it’s family isn’t it?
Well personally I’m not prepared to see my support of the entire left wing family taken for granted. It’s a terrible negotiator who let’s a counterparty know that he’ll never make a deal with his competitor. My analogy may be slightly unsophisticated but it is entirely valid. If the LDs only ever side with Labour, why bother pretending to be a discreet body? Why not just become the UKs left wing equivalent of the Christian Right, a powerful faction within the wider collective?
As for you last point, apologies in advance for the lazy cliche but that’s the kind of argument that only a champagne socialist could defend. Millions of people would suffer terribly for your opportunity. Society is not a Lego set that you can allow to collapse so you can try out a new design instead.
May 9th, 2010 on 05:01
“Society is not a Lego set that you can allow to collapse so you can try out a new design instead.”
History indicates otherwise.
I can’t contribute much to the specifics of this thread, being American… but I can rant a bit. Local politics works well here in my experience, but national politics is stupendously infuriating. You’re always faced with a choice between a centrist Democrat and a centrist Republican who are more alike than not, but people get too caught up in soundbite issues to appreciate this. You see stirrings of revolt in the popularity of the Green and Independent parties in some areas, but on the national scale they might as well not exist.
I think the presidential election harms more than it helps in terms of functional democracy given the degree to which it polarizes the public and distracts them from more meaningful votes (like those for Senators, who actually make & change our laws).
May 9th, 2010 on 08:11
“Thanks for the rather patronising history lesson Nick but you’ve missed the point entirely”.
Again, what is it with you people. It’s the exact opposite of patronising.
“John is arguing that there is a risk that by voting LD he’ll end up getting a Government he didn’t want.”
No. He’s arguing specifically that most people who vote for the LD were explicitly not voting for the Tories in an election where the Tories were the “obvious” choice. By explicitly rejecting the Tories, and knowing that a hung parliament was a likelihood, most LDs implicitly realised that a LibLab pact, bringing in PR, was not only a possible outcome, but the best possible outcome.
“Isn’t this exactly the argument that every opponent of PR and hung parliaments has been making every time this issue has been debated? Ironic no?”
Yes. It happens to be why I don’t like simplistic PR.
“In both your first and second points you imply that the LDs are nothing more than a different flavour of Labour. I wholeheartedly disagree and would hope that most LDs would also.”
Then you and most LDs are sentimental and tribal. If you actually analyse the interests, policies and philosophies of the modern LibDem and Labour parties, you will find less than a cigarette paper between them. Also, arguments that LibDems in power are less corrupt or opportunistic are also rejected by anyone who’s experienced the LibDems in local government.
“Yes we may view Labour as the lesser of two evils in most cases but if I’d wanted a Labour Government I’d have voted for it.”
Not in this election. Don’t be naive.
“What I do thing you comments are indicative of is a condescending view many Labour supporters have of the LDs.”
And rightly so. The LDs have been stagnant for a couple of decades and the Liberals almost died completely before then. They have a confused and uncomfortable inheritance – not quite Whigs, not quite Gladstonian Liberals. Not quite anything. They are a third party for a reason. That Labour emulated their confusion and gained power is an irony, but not the point here.
“They seem to think we’re like the slightly wacky cousin who goes off on ill-conceived but can always be relied upon to turn up at weddings and funerals. After all, it’s family isn’t it?”
Yes. And perhaps unintentionally you show quite a touching picture there.
“Well personally I’m not prepared to see my support of the entire left wing family taken for granted. It’s a terrible negotiator who let’s a counterparty know that he’ll never make a deal with his competitor.”
No it isn’t. It’s a principled one. I know that the LibDems have no specific principles (see above).
“My analogy may be slightly unsophisticated but it is entirely valid.”
Bizarre is not equal to valid.
“If the LDs only ever side with Labour, why bother pretending to be a discreet body? Why not just become the UKs left wing equivalent of the Christian Right, a powerful faction within the wider collective?”
Good question. Not doing this kept the Tories in power for decades.
“As for you last point, apologies in advance for the lazy cliche but that’s the kind of argument that only a champagne socialist could defend. Millions of people would suffer terribly for your opportunity. Society is not a Lego set that you can allow to collapse so you can try out a new design instead.”
Society is a Lego set. Only in collapse and turmoil can creative rebuilding happen. Hence America, for example.
If you think that the current military-industrial complex, based on cheap hydrocarbons, is sustainable, then you are deluded. You’re arguing about how many rubber bands we’re going to use to try and keep the collapsing tower of Lego up for a few years more.
May 9th, 2010 on 08:53
“John is arguing that there is a risk that by voting LD he’ll end up getting a Government he didn’t want.”
No. John is arguing that if the LD side with the Tories, then it will cause the destruction of the Lib Dems forever. One of the causes of this will be their voters having had their vote completely reversed. And as Nick says, a LD vote ending up with Labour is hardly the same as a LD vote ending up with Tory. But again, that’s not my main point. My main point is that it will destroy the Lib Dems.
“if I’d wanted a Labour Government I’d have voted for it.”
So what were you voting for, then? Because you must have known you weren’t going to get a Lib Dem government by voting for Lib Dem. Exactly what on earth were you voting for?
May 9th, 2010 on 09:04
I actually think society should be more like a lego set, and it has been in the past. Most changes have happened when the lego set has collapsed more then trying to build on the existent one. So yes lets collapse it.
May 9th, 2010 on 13:05
“In both your first and second points you imply that the LDs are nothing more than a different flavour of Labour. I wholeheartedly disagree and would hope that most LDs would also.”
Actually, that assessment is fairly correct. Current Lib Dem policies by and large resemble nothing so much as they do a slightly more moderate Old Labour.
May 9th, 2010 on 14:49
Every Lib Dem voter should have known Clegg might do a deal with the Conservatives – Clegg said he’d support the party with the largest number of seats and/or votes before the election, so don’t complain now. Anyway, Clegg seems to realise that dealing with the economic emergency is far more important than having PR at this time, which is right and in the national interest right now.
May 9th, 2010 on 15:20
“Anyway, Clegg seems to realise that dealing with the economic emergency is far more important than having PR at this time, which is right and in the national interest right now.”
Bollocks it is. The economic crisis is essentially illusory, and can certainly wait a few weeks. Reforming the electoral system would be the most revolutionary thing to happen to British politics since Oliver Cromwell’s day, and we get the chance once a generation if we’re lucky.
May 9th, 2010 on 15:54
“the most revolutionary thing to happen to British politics since Oliver Cromwell’s day”
Ahem, 1832, and all subsequent acts?
Nick, you mentioned past Lib-Lab pacts, but isn’t the Liberal party of old a subtly different entity than the Liberal democrats of today? A key difference being that back then, Lib-lab meant Lib-Lab rather than Lab-Lib(its a different issue when the boot’s on the other foot). It seems odd that people describe the LD as an offshoot of labour when it’s fairer to say its the other way around.
Thinking about it, wouldn’t it be easier to vote for the man(your MP) rather than the party? PR becomes irrelevant ina sense and as long as you trust the individual you’ve voted for, you can assume he will make the right choice without the pressure of party lines.
May 9th, 2010 on 16:46
“Bollocks it is. The economic crisis is essentially illusory”
This shows unbelievable ignorance. The current sovereign debt crisis in Europe could quite easily lead to another global banking crisis. Even if this doesn’t happen, there could be a bond market crisis. If this happens borrowing costs for the UK gov would bankrupt it in short order. The global markets are more powerful than the UK Government (like it or not) so everything must be done to put a strong Government together and deal with the problems now.
May 9th, 2010 on 16:51
There could be a bond market crisis if some fucking pinhead trader wakes up with a bad hangover. Spending a few weeks revolutionising the electoral system instead of panicking about what the market’s going to randomly decide to do will make no difference to that.
May 9th, 2010 on 17:44
The market is a hyperactive toddler. We need to ignore it until it grows up.
May 9th, 2010 on 17:55
The markets tend to behave like pack animals, attacking in groups wherever they scent weakness. There’s money to be made by following the horde and tearing down stuff, leaving ordinary people to pick up the pieces. To worry about that is not to panic.
May 9th, 2010 on 17:59
No, Patrick. It suggests that the market should be kept away from all civilised countries until it learns to behave itself. It is not some a-prior God. It’s a group of people who’ve been allowed to get away with too much for too long. Civilisations have had to deal with far worse and have managed it. The markets are basically to be treated like fascist governments or terrorist organisations.
May 9th, 2010 on 18:10
“The market is a hyperactive toddler. We need to ignore it until it grows up.”
Oh fuck, we agree. I must be wrong.
May 9th, 2010 on 19:44
Nick – sorry, who are “you people”? Could you at least try to hide your contempt?
John – I totally understand that you are making a wider point about a Lib-Con deal risking the future of the party. It’s a point of view I agree with almost entirely. But denying that you are “arguing that there is a risk that by voting LD he’ll end up getting a Government he didn’t want” as I said is a bit silly. Paragraph 6 of you initial post is almost entirely dedicated to that point.
What I do think we have to do is credit Clegg and the other senior Lib Dems with a modicum of intelligence. Your analysis of the likely Tory tactics for killing any chance of PR is accurate but also quite self evident. I think it’s safe to assume that they’re not going to simply stumble into that enormous, neon signposted hole unawares.
Given that Clegg used to be a trade negotiator, one assumes that he’s well equipped to play a good game here. Negotiations are only ever a means to an end. I’ll wait to see what’s achieved before I condemn the tactics.
Stu – I agree that there are a great many parallels between LD and Labour. But there are many significant differences that warrant being an independent party. Thinking of ourselves as “a different flavour of Labour” does nothing more than show weakness and dependence. On that basis, what exactly would be the point of PR? With the LDs forever inextricably tied to Labour and UKIP likewise with Tory, all you have is a two party system dressed up to look like it offers greater choice. For me, PR is only worth having if there are truly independent alternatives to the two big parties. I believe the LDs can and should be that alternative.
Jambe/Xercies – I agree entirely that much change for the good can come from societal collapse and renewal. But I don’t think it’s the job of our elected representatives to hasten the collapse so they can have a crack at it. Nick apparently thinks that national bankruptcy would be a price worth paying for PR. It’s a shame Greece already has a form of PR as they could have nipped all this rioting in the bud with a quick referendum and everyone would’ve been happy, poverty or not.
May 9th, 2010 on 20:10
“I agree that there are a great many parallels between LD and Labour. But there are many significant differences that warrant being an independent party. Thinking of ourselves as “a different flavour of Labour” does nothing more than show weakness and dependence.”
The point is, the Labour party that the Lib Dems now resemble doesn’t exist any more. Old Labour and New Labour are *radically* different things, in many ways almost diametrically so.
May 9th, 2010 on 23:04
The sense I get is that they’ve found some kind of a middle ground between a confidence and supply arrangement and a full on coalition.
Here’s what it sounds like the offer is on voting reform: http://tinyurl.com/39htrtu
It’d be interesting to see how many in the Labour party remained in favour of reform once a coalition was off the table.
Combine that with what sounds like a genuine attempt to lower taxes for the lowest paid, fairly similar views on schools, civil liberties policies which can’t possibly be *worse* that Labour’s, and this Lib Dem supporter isn’t feeling too betrayed.
May 10th, 2010 on 04:49
Oh, Britain’s economic problems are structural but not acute; there’s no reason to think that a hung Parliament will exacerbate or a coalition government will cure the global economic crisis for at least a few more weeks or even months. On the other hand, those same structural problems makes No. 10 a poisoned chalice for this go-round: who wants to be blamed for the inevitable austerity measures — especially when the PM will be vulnerable to any no-confidence vote?
Clegg’s in a bit of a bad spot, certainly: I find it hard to believe that either Lab or the Cons will be willing to slit their own throats by allowing a PR system (though I see Labour considerably more vulnerable under such a system, since the Lib Dems form a natural rival to Lab on the left, whereas the Tories’ only rivals on the right are the rather more marginal BNP and UKIP, which is the BNP for people who still want to be invited to dinner parties). As John points out, allying with Cameron is a nonstarter if the LDs want to keep their voters, but allying with Brown seems equally suicidal. On the other hand, if Clegg keeps his MPs out of the fight, he holds the whip hand over whatever minority government forms, able to send it tumbling with barely a shove. *That* is a significantly better position to be in: commit to nothing up front (probably giving up Cabinet positions, but in a Con government that’s a feature, not a fault), and force the powers-that-be to compromise with you to keep their positions (see: Netanyahu, Binyamin; ultrareligious and ultranationalists, coalition of). Hell, it’s almost like PR-style coalition building without the proportionality!
May 10th, 2010 on 10:02
@Blisset.
To be fair to Nick I belive the “you people” was partly referring to that mentalist on one of these comments threads who wittered on and on and on and on and on and then told Nick he was very rude when he was really only being a little rude.
If you are overly sensative don’t go on the internet!
More relevant to the article.
@stevea: maybe Clegg’s principles are a bit shit then?
Eh, I was going to reply to most of the comments here but I’m not sure I can add anything to what Nick and Stu have said.
Though I am slightly alarmed by the calls of some of the posters to tear down society and start anew…
May 10th, 2010 on 16:58
Mentalist? At least insult me sensibly man!
May 10th, 2010 on 17:21
Ah, whoops, excuse me, apparently there are other definitions of mentalist I wasn’t aware of. Well, then, carry on!
May 10th, 2010 on 17:32
While extolling the benefits of a ‘rainbow coalition’ for the LDs, RevStu’s blog also seems to imply that this would also be the most favourable option for the Tories.
I have my doubts as to whether this merry band of parties, under a lame-duck leader with a miniscule majority, can hold together for long enough to do anything much, never mind bring about fundamental electoral reform.
To anyone that sees a contest as necessarily having a winner as well as losers, this will look like the wrong outcome, and it will then be even easier for the Tories to portray AV as a coup by the Lib-Labs to seize power on a permanent basis. Losing a referendum would presumably fragment the coalition and trigger a Tory landslide, on the basis that both Labour and the LDs had put self interest ahead of the need for stable government at a critical time.
Perhaps the LDs are prepared to risk such annihilation for a shot at their holy grail, but it’s harder to see what’s in it for Labour, and I’m sure that’s how many of them will see it. That could make it virtually impossible to form the coalition in the first place.
May 10th, 2010 on 22:10
Hmmm… it appears that Labour are planning to sidestep the referendum pitfalls described above by introducing AV without a referendum. Cunning! I doubt they can deliver it, but it nevertheless highlights the interesting point that governments can in theory change the voting system to whatever they like — how have we avoided a dictatorship!?
May 11th, 2010 on 06:54
So in the debate the Tories propose an amendment to have a referendum…do reckon the “rainbow coalition” would actually be able to command a majority against one?
I must admit I’m conflicted – do I actually want the people I voted for to govern when the Governor of the Bank of England reckons whoever gets in will have to make such savage cuts they’ll be out of power for a generation?
Interesting times…
May 11th, 2010 on 07:46
James T: we have no written constitution – just unwritten gentlemen’s agreement traditions called ‘constitutional conventions’. And the fact we have the vote at all is merely an Act of Parliament – the Representation of the People Act. You know, just another Act like the Dangerous Dogs Act. To be repealed at the will of Parliament.
So, in a very real sense, all that protects us from totalitarianism and the purging of all democracy is nothing more than a sense that it wouldn’t be cricket!
May 11th, 2010 on 21:01
Well done Lib Dems, no one is proud of you.
May 11th, 2010 on 23:19
I’m proud of them.