Labour MP Tom Harris, bless him, is clearly feeling a little bit insecure, as the Lib Dems enjoy a successful conference with a spring in their step and the full glare of the media spotlight. Tom’s blog is a good, fun read – but like his Tory equivalent Iain Dale, he has a bit of a tribal blind spot when it comes to the Lib Dems.
Here’s what Tom has to say about Lib Dem shadow schools secretary David Laws declining to take the media bait asking whether the party would back Labour or the Tories in the event of a hung parliament:
David Laws, the LibDem MP, said on Any Questions on Friday that any such decision would not be taken until after polling day. Thank you, David. Thank you for confirming what I’ve been saying for years about the undemocratic nature, not only of the LibDems but of their most precious policy – proportional representation.
It’s entirely consistent of Laws to say that the public will not be consulted before the LibDems make a decision. That’s the essence of PR: let the little people have their vote, then ignore what they say and start bartering away the very policies they voted for behind closed doors and without reference to them.
There’s some bizarre and twisted logic contained within Tom’s rant-ette, so let’s try and unpick it. First, Tom states “the public will not be consulted”, which is an odd way of talking about a general election result. After all, it won’t be the Lib Dems’ decision if we end up with a hung parliament: it will be the consequence of the way the public has voted.
What Tom prefers, in fact, is for the public to have a vote, and then for Labour to ignore it. In 2005, almost two-thirds of the voting public (and almost three-quarters of the electorate) did not vote for Labour. The result? Labour formed a government with a majority of 67 seats over all other parties.
As for “bartering away the very policies they voted for”, what could be clearer than Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems saying at this stage that the party will stand by its four key policies in any negotiations which might prove necessary of the public declines to give any of the three parties a clear-cut victory?
And Nick is quite right to refuse to indulge mischief-making Labour/Tory MPs (and the media) asking him to define the undefinable of what precisely constitutes the “strongest mandate” which will give either party the right to seek to govern alone, or with the Lib Dems.
As Nick has made clear, a ‘photo finish’ is highly unlikely: almost certainly there will be a clear-cut winner (at least in first-past-the-post terms). More importantly, the general election campaign hasn’t even started yet. Given how the political narrative has transformed in the past two months, who’s to say it won’t change again in the coming two months? Who knows what will be thrown up by the leaders’ debates, for example?
It would be remarkably daft of Nick, or any Lib Dem, at this stage to try and second-guess the electorate, or ignore the fact that how things look on May 7th will be very different to how they seem on 14th March. Remarkable daftness is, of course, just what Tom Harris and Iain Dale are hoping for. Nick, wisely, is not going to give them what they want.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Big swing to Lib Dems in South Oxfordshire
West End Christmas Afternoon Concert tomorrow #dundeewestend
Raking in the cash
Could the wilderness years be over for Coventry Rugby?
John Rogers meets the dinosaurs of Crystal Palace Park
eFocus on NE16 no. 190
Graham Jeffs
Jenny Barnes
John Reed
David Garlick
33 Comments
It is extraordinary how educated and seemingly rational people can become so illogical when talking about the Lib Dems. I do think Tom’s post has been the most bizarre things I’ve read this weekend – though Fraser Nelson in the Guardian and Peter Oborne in the Mail are close contenders.
That these people are not outraged by Nick expressing a preference for one side has to mean Nick’s weekend was a success. They know Nick is handling this situation very well – and they are incredibly frustrated by it.
My comment to Tom
_______________________
There won’t be a coalition govt. that much is clear… Listening to Clegg it sounds like he will allow the party with the most seats to form a minority govt. if they are willing to sign up to the four key party pledges.
I know to a member of the Labour party this may come as quite a shock, but we Lib Dems actually have a say in what we do, it’s called democracy and we kind of like it (a bit more than either of the other two parties)… I can tell you one thing I will not stand by and allow my party to side with the horribly illiberal Labour party nor the horribly vacuous Tories, so no I can’t see a formal siding with either Labour or the Conservatives and I believe that you know this in your heart, you’re just playing on peoples worst fears for your own political gain and it is pathetic.
Could this be the same Tom Harris who comes out with a score of 86, making him pretty darned authoritarian? You can bet our life that if he had been in the Commons for the two votes he missed, he would be 100% authoritarian.
I think that both Tories and Labour are pretty darned terrified of the Lib Dems. Where we stand is pretty clear and so is our record of calling the big issues correctly.
“There won’t be a coalition govt. that much is clear… Listening to Clegg it sounds like he will allow the party with the most seats to form a minority govt. if they are willing to sign up to the four key party pledges.”
The trouble is that it’s _not_ clear there won’t be a coalition government. If you remember, it was rumoured in the press a few weeks ago that such a policy was going to be announced, and then the story was officially rubbished.
And in his recent comments about early public spending cuts, he said he could not agree to them if “we were involved in government”. Something of a vague phrase, like most of what he says on this subject, but not one that makes me think he has relinquished the idea of Lib Dems round the Cabinet Table.
Frankly, whatever the strategy over the Lab/Con question, I think the benefits of a clear statement that there will be no formal coalition would far outweigh a small reduction in the room for manoeuvre (and the room for manoeuvre is still likely to be determined by the parliamentary arithmetic above all).
So if the people are to be consulted through an election, why won’t St Nick state now that he will support whichever party the public gives the largest number of seats to? Or the party which the public gives the largest number of votes to(if that’s a different party)?
Tom what would Labour do if they are the largest party without a majority? Would they go into coalition with the Tories? Would they try and do a deal with the Lib Dems? What Lib Dem policies would they take on?
Well. it’s not up to me, sadly, but my guess is that GB would do the same anyway – form a minority government and then call another election after a short period. And that’s exactly what Cameron would try to do in the same circumstances. The key as to whether Labour or the Tories could form such a government within a hung parliament would be the main opposition party’s calculation as to whether it wanted to force the other party into a coalition that would likely result in electoral reform, or whether they were willing to allow it to govern as a minority for a while.
@Tom Harris
Tom, I have more than enough respect for you to know that you know full well the answer to that. Quite simply, there are too many possible scenarios.
For example, let’s say the Tories win 38% of the vote and Labour 32%. Under our corrupt electoral system, Labour would still be the largest single party in terms of seats. But it would be perfectly clear to anyone except a dyed-in-the-wool first-past-the-poster like you that Labour don’t have the strongest mandate.
Take another example: the Tories poll 36%, Labour 34%. In that case, the Tories have won most votes – but so stupid is our electoral system that they will win only 255 seats. That would mean that even with the Lib Dems’ c.60+ seats there would be no majority for a LD-Con coalition. Labour certainly wouldn’t have the strongest mandate in that case – but the Tories wouldn’t have enough seats either.
And so on …
The electoral system you support produces so many bizarre permutations that it’s absolutely impossible at this stage to know what the “strongest mandate” will be at this stage. I’ll make a bet, though: it’ll be obvious by 7th May.
Oh for crying out loud! Is it so difficult to get an answer out of any LibDem, at any level of the party?!
OK, let’s accept, for the sake of argument, that the party which gets the largest number of votes doesn’t get the largest number of seats and therefore couldn’t form a majority even if the LibDems supported them in the Commons. So what? Shouldn’t the LibDem “principled” position be that they would not support the party that received the second largest number of votes, irrespective of the seats it had won? Isn’t that a logical position to take (and more importantly, from the LibDem traditional viewpoint, a more popular one)?
No-one seriously expects Clegg to say before polling day that he will support either of the main parties in the event of a hung parliament. But surely the electorate have a right to know the grounds on which any decision might be taken?
The ridiculous thing is that for decades the Liberals and later the Lib Dems have been pointing out quite rightly that a party even with around 42-3% of the popular vote doesn’t have a mandate to govern at all – and now we have all this guff about “strongest mandates”, with reference to popular votes in the mid-30s. It really is quite surreal.
Tom Harris on Sunday:
Tom Harris on Monday:
And you say it’s Lib Dems who have the problem with consistency? 🙂
Yes, they do: we will support any party which shares our four key campaign priorities, as set out by Nick yesterday.
@ Anthony – I don’t get it, where’s the contradiction?
Of course it’s not right that a party with 42% has a mandate to govern. But in eight weeks time the Lib Dems are going to have to deal with reality, not what we think should be reality.
Me on Sunday: “Refusing to come clean about which of the main parties the Liberals would support if they got the chance is the opposite of transparent and democratic.”
Me on Monday: “No-one seriously expects Clegg to say before polling day that he will support either of the main parties in the event of a hung parliament.”
And your point is? No-one seriously Clegg to say before polling day which of the main parties he will support in the event of a hung parliament, because to do so would be to exhibit a form of principle, leadership and honesty which is entirely inconsistent with being leader of the LibDems.
And your four key campaign priorities? So it’s four this time round, is it? Wasn’t it five or six last time? Or three? A nebulous and meaningless contraption whose sole aim is to get the LibDems to polling day without having to answer difficult questions.
Stephen
Where’s the contradiction? I’m not sure how I can explain it any more clearly.
(1) For years the party has been rightly saying that a party with less than 50% of the popular vote doesn’t have a mandate at all.
(2) Now we have all this discussion about how strong the mandates of the other parties would be in various scenarios in which their popular votes would be somewhere in the mid 30s.
This isn’t just an academic point, because Nick Clegg has started to talk about the “moral right” of minority parties to try to form governments. I think it’s nonsense. A minority is a minority, and it doesn’t confer any mandate whatsoever to govern.
And in any case, I believe the constitutional position is that the sitting prime minister will have first crack of the whip.
Tom – Your are clear about the 4 LibDem priorities. Will a minority Labour Government accept them or not? I think we should know – before the election.
I’m not sure why Mr. Harris has such a problem with the use of a small number of promises in a condensed manifesto. After all, that is the essence of the Labour pledge cards, which have been used in the last three elections, two of which he was elected at.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+labours+election+pledge+cards/507807
And a perfectly good tactic it is too, for us and for democracy, and one which I’d be quite happy to admit we’d ripped off from Labour.
What you’ve got to realise is this: the other two parties hate us more than they hate each other. If you mention the Lib Dems on somewhere like UK Polling Report, you’ll get a tirade that goes something like this:
‘Bar charts! no policy whatsoever except for their INSANE EUROPHILIA!!!! Unprincipled! Hate the Constitution and want to destroy it and replace it!!?! Bar charts! Unprincipled dutbin. Bar charts! They should be EXTERMINATED, and Britain restored to the state of two-party government which is the NATURAL ORDER!!!’
Apart from the massive internal contradiction there (we’re either unprincipled bastards or crazed idealogues, but not both), there is the arrogant presumption that if one has any principles, they can be neatly reconciled in the two party system, and that anyone who chooses to work outside it is automatically unprincipled. I actually think that large sectors of the rank and file, particularly in the Tories, would prefer a Lab-Con coalition rather than working with us unprincipled careerists (and our eevul bar charts).
“Well. it’s not up to me, sadly, but my guess is that GB would do the same anyway – form a minority government and then call another election after a short period.” – looks like Tom doesn’t understand the system he defends so enthusiastically. Gordon doesn’t get a second bite of the cherry (GE as PM) if he loses his majority: if he goes to the palace to ask for a second dissolution within a short period asking for a dissolution, the Queen has to refuse, sack him and appoint someone else, (probably the leader of the Opposition). That PM would then be given a dissolution if he asked for one.
An example, if you don’t believe me. I didn’t have to look too hard!
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/manchesterwitherington
The partisan twaddle is from the Lib Dem commentator, by the way. That’s apparently all we’ve got to fill the void where our policies should be.
Ah, to prevent confusion that post by ‘Foregone Conclusion’ is by me. I have decided to give up the use of pseudonyms, since they are a little dishonest/confusing, but the LDV comments form hasn’t caught up.
fdp100: “Tom – Your are clear about the 4 LibDem priorities. Will a minority Labour Government accept them or not? I think we should know – before the election.”
I could not possibly care less about whatever the LibDems’ 4 principles are this month, same as I didn’t care last month. If, after the election, they wish to support Labour’s programme for government, fine.
But isn’t there a single LibDem out there who actually has a preference between a coalition with Labour verses one with the Tories? Not one of you even has an opinion on the matter? Seriously?
I probably have something for a preference for the Tories at the moment simply because they are serious about the fiscal problem, but frankly both are pretty unappertising.
While few Lib Dems are truly equidistant, there is a lot to be said for tactical equidistance because it gives us the strongest bargaining position for delivering our priorities – which are what our voters will have voted for, i.e.
1. Fair taxes 2. A fair start for children 3. Economic stability and renewal, reforming the banks, green jobs of the future 4. Reforming our broken political system
Tom, you’ve been told that your party’s support or opposition for these policies will make a difference to our attitude to your party. So until you clarify that support or opposition, how can you expect us to answer your question?
Tom, I’d rather we didn’t enter any formal coalition. We should support any party that is willing to give ground to some of our policies. I think Labour will be more open to negotiations, and if that means getting more liberal policies through, great.
Now then, who would you prefer to go into coalition with? Us, the Tories, the SNP? Given your clear desire for transparency, I’m sure you are chomping at the bit to tell us.
James King
“INSANE EUROPHILIA!!!!” is putting it a bit strongly, perhaps! But the problem is there. The EU and the Euro, together with the economy and Electoral Reform, would seem to make a Conservative / Lib Dem coalition, or a Conservative government with Lib Dem support, particularly difficult and unstable.
A Labour / Lib Dem coalition or a Labour government with Lib Dem support would seem from the outside to be likely to be much more stable, and would lead, it seems, to STVS / AV Electoral Reform. That is surely a prize worth voting for – whatever that may take in individual constituencies on this occasion.
And how much better for social stability at a difficult time of cuts and tax rises to have a government concerned for the single poor rather than one which would increase Inheritance Tax exemption to two million pounds for wealthy married couples!
I completely agree with you, Dane, about Tory unfairness in so many ways. As I say, I find both parties unappetising for different reasons, although if we can extract concessions I would be willing to see some sort of deal with either of them.
“who would you prefer to go into coalition with?”
None of the above. If Labour win an overall majority, we’ll govern alone. If Labour are the biggest party in a hung parliament, we’ll govern alone. If the Tories are the biggest party in a hung parliament, I expect they’ll govern alone (provided Labour isn’t stupid enough to threaten to bring them down in a vote of confidence and thus force them into a pact with you lot).
Anything else I can help you with?
Tom, that’s very useful. If Labour want to give the Tories confidence and supply that’s entirely their right. And vice versa. You won’t find much disagreement around here that you and the Tories have more in common with each other, than either do with us.
Tom Harris
Rather a cocky way of not being as helpful as all that, thank you! You say:
“If the Tories are the biggest party in a hung Parliament, I expect they’ll govern alone (provided Labour isn’t stupid enough to threaten to bring them down in a vote of confidence and thus force them into a pact with you lot).”
What would be wrong with saying:
“If Labour are the biggest party in a hung Paliament, I expect they’ll govern alone (provided the Tories aren’t stupid enough to threaten to bring them down in a vote of confidence and thus force them into a pact with you lot).” ?
You seem to see things only from your own party’s point of view – probably a natural way of thinking from a party that has undeservedly benefited from X Voting over the years. You will have to think again, particularly once you have introduced Preferential 1,2,3..Voting, to which your party is now committed.
Anyway, whatever you do, don’t let the Lib Dems, if you have a coalition with them, undo Gordon Brown’s good work of keeping us out of the Euro, which the Lib Dems would have joined! What a disaster that would have been! Currency flexibitily has saved us in the present crisis.
“You will have to think again, particularly once you have introduced Preferential 1,2,3..Voting, to which your party is now committed.”
No, we’re committed to holding a referendum on whether or not to introduce AV. But I am reliably informed that the party will not necessarily campaign for a Yes vote. I certainly won’t.
“I am reliably informed that the party will not necessarily campaign for a Yes vote.”
An interesting comment, since it must clearly have come as a piece of reassurance to restive Labour backbenchers from a minister of senior whip, and just goes to prove that the promise of a referendum on AV was simply yet another of Gordon Brown’s supposedly clever bits of politicking, either aimed at making the LibDems more sympathetic to the prospect of backing a minority Labour government, or at allowing the Tories to portray the LibDems as being more likely to support a minority Labour government.
Incidentally, the one option that would not sensibly be open to a prime minister of a minority Labour government would be to call a second election within a short space of time: it would be committing political suicide.
Tom Harris
Gordon Brown has said that he will campaign for a Yes vote. The rest of us must hope that this AV Referendum promise will not go the way of the Labour and Lib Dem EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty referendum promises. It is annoying to be cheated and treated as idiots by modern politicians.
It is interesting that you tell us that you will not campaign for a Yes vote yourself and that you are reliably informed that the Labour Party will not necessarily do so. I hope the party manifesto will make that clear to voters.
I guess it means that any kind of cooperation with the Lib Dems is less likely than it appeared at first sight. On the other hand, in order to keep X voting instead of Preferential Voting if Gordon Brown wins the election, you would presumably have to oust him before the promised referendum, which might be difficult for you..
James, the comments section of ukpollingreport is quite mild in comparison to that of politicalbetting, or the vote-2007 forum which used to be an excellent place for debate but is now a poisoned well thanks to a couple of Tories in particular. You’re quite right though about how many activists from Labour and the Tories can’t stand us.
Still, as Mohandas K. Gandhi is supposed to have put it, “first they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win”.
Coming a bit late to this….and clearly it is quite right that we should maintain a certain tactical equidistance. Tom’s efforts to force us off the fence clearly indicates it is the right place to be.
Indeed, the benefits of not making foolist committments is indicated by Tom’s post above in which he suggests that the Tories as largest party would govern alone “(provided that Labour is stupid enough to threaten to bring them down in a vote of confidence….)”. This seems utterly bizarre to me – is Tom really saying that if a minority Tory government proposed savage cuts for deficit reduction, the Labour party would just sit on its hands and let them do it? Can’t see it myself although it would be pretty interesting to see a minority Tory government being opposed by Lib Dems with Labour presumably abstaining……