Two interesting snippets from today’s commentary …
Growing hostility within Labour to a coalition with the Lib Dems (FT)
Points out that senior Labour figures have been queuing up to denounce any prospect of a progressive alliance between their party and the Lib Dems: Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, Diane Abbott and Tom Harris have all argued it would be unworkable. The FT’s Jim Pickard notes:
I’m equally incredulous about the attempts to cobble together up to seven parties (including the Greens’ single MP) to hold off the Tories at any cost. Not least because one pro-coalition cabinet minister told me at 5am on Friday that the game was up: “The arithmetic just isn’t going to work,” that person told me in the sleep-deprived early hours. … The “progressive coalition” – even if the Lib Dems decided to play ball – will be terribly hard to sell to Labour MPs; let alone the country.
Game on for a Lib Dem-Tory coalition (Gary Gibbon, Channel 4)
Keeping his ear close to the ground, Gary Gibbon reckons that Labour’s negotiating team are only half-heartedly engaging, and that Lib Dem MPs are relcutantly coming to the conclusion that a Lib-Con coalition is the only viable option:
Danny Alexander told MPs that the Labour negotiating team (or more precisely one half of it – the two Eds, Miliband and Balls) were not giving off good vibes. The whole body language of the Labour parliamentary party was bad. Ministers were knackered and most had already disengaged from their jobs. These opening addresses changed the mood music from the afternoon meeting.
A key early speech was from Vince Cable. He has been remarkably silent since the talks began. Last night he began, like most contributors to the debate, with a “heart beats on the left, I never thought I’d be saying this” sort of approach. Then he acknowledged the arguments of the leadership.
Later speakers included David Heath who pointed out how the overlap with the Conservatives on areas like civil liberties wouldn’t have been there in earlier years.
A key mover in the debate was the sense that Labour might talk about voting reform but they would not have the parliamentary strength or the internal discipline in the Labour party to deliver it.
The Lib Dem MPs’ debate – it finished at 0030 – heard that the Tory AV referendum would be “soon” and before the next election. In theory, assuming a victory for the AV cause, the last election could be the last to be held under the pure first past the post system. Fixed term parliaments would become law. The tax threshold could go up in phases.
I spoke to one of those Lib MPs who is agonising over the whole deal and he sounded still wary, nervous and uncomfortable. But he acknowledged that it would be coalition not an arms-length deal, the earlier meeting saw off “confidence and supply” and that his party was probably moving towards it some time today. The MPs would need to give it 75 per cent support, then the federal executive, a bunch of “difficult buggers” one MP said, would have to give it the same.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
63 Comments
For Clegg to secure a historic concession from the Tories (in the form of a referendum on AV) only for the party to dig its heels in based purely on tribal hatred would be about the worst possible outcome for the Lib Dems, both in party terms and in terms of the long-term national interest (PR and coalition government would be thoroughly besmirched).
Sadly I fear this is what will now happen.
“Growing”? Really? Two?
How about going to Westminister and polling the Labour MPs and also the Conservative MPs?
Either way this is HISTORIC…. if we get AV or (hopefully) STV proportional representation it will mean we’ll no longer have rotten boroughs and really engage the public
At least you’ve got a referendum on AV whatever happens. I seriously thought Clegg would go with the Tories without any real concessions- the noises they were making about having to “tackle the deficit” as their main priority didn’t sound at all good.
Even if it falls through, this brief attention on a Rainbow Alliance (Red, Yellow, Tartan, Plaid, Green… and purple, I suppose) has given the Libs an upper hand over the Tories in their backroom discussions, which is good.
A referendum on AV is far from ideal. It’s not a fair system – and fairness is supposed to be the reason why the Lib Dems want electoral reform. In many circumstances it is even less proportional than FPTP. It’s very questionable whether a referendum would result in a “Yes” vote. I’m not sure I’d vote for it myself!
Aye, but it’s a crack in the wall isn’t it? From “nothing” to “okay, this.”
Why would the Tories be willing to offer a referendum on AV but not PR? From what I can gather, they lose more by AV than PR so…?
Nick Clegg makes his feelings very clear on the matter in this very prescient clip:
I have one major concern over a deal with the Tories; namely, that once Cameron is in No 10 a minority government might seem more attractive than the coalition and they might renege on everything and cause the coalition to collapse.
Can anyone tell me what guarantees there may or may not be that would stop that? How sure can we be that they would deliver their promises?
Also, even if a referendum was won, do we have any guarantee that they would act on it to make reform law before the next election?
But the question that you in the LibDems need to answer is: Do you really want to be responsible for handing the keys of #10 to Dave? (And what about all the people who used to vote for you ‘to keep the Tories out’?)
Also these: When immediate Tory cuts and dismantlement of parts of the welfare state take place and the economy and society start to tank, how are your electoral prospects going to look?
And are you really willing to give up on the prospect of full PR?
I hope that you reject this offer, and keep the progressive alliance idea alive. For believe you me, if you go in with Dave and George, you are going to need PR, real PR. Because your vote will shrink so fast that AV won’t help you.
The Tories will NEVER give us a referendum on AV. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.
If David Heath really imagines the Tories believe in civil liberties he, too, is deluded. The Tories are even more committed to the control agenda than Labour. Cameron is a marionette of North American billionaires and military-industrial complex, who slotted him into the leadership through the mechanism of Frank Luntz.. What was the dispute with David Davis all about? Davis realised what was going on, and chose to warn us about it by fighting that byelection.
These old Labour dinosaurs are opting for extinction. Don’t breathe life back into them by doing a deal with the Tories. If a deal with Labour is not possible, walk away from both.
How is a referendum on Av a concession? Who wants AV? It is not a proportional system and can entrench a dominant party. Personally I think even FPTP is better than AV. Now a referendum on STV would be worth a coaliton with the Tories for…
“Why would the Tories be willing to offer a referendum on AV but not PR? From what I can gather, they lose more by AV than PR so…?”
I don’t really think that’s the case. My impression is that AV would favour Labour somewhat if there were no decisive lead, but that – crucially – old-fashioned single-party majority government would otherwise remain the norm. In contrast, under STV, we wouldn’t have had a single-party government in the last 50 years.
Rupert – Going by these recent talks we have shown to have a “moderating” influence on each other, I’d much rather see a stable, mutually cooperative and moderating coalition than a potentially hugely unstable, and untampered minority government.
Perhaps Rupert Read can tell us how the welfare state would survive the deindustrialisation his party believes in.
Hold on – for days, Labour bloggers and tweeters, and their MPs no doubt, criticised the Liberals for considering a coalition that would let the Tories back in.
So the Lib Dems want to make a coalition with Labour work.
And now Labour bloggers, tweeters and supporters and MPs are saying nope, we don’t want it.
Do you want the Tories back or not? Do you want a minority Tory government?
Rupert – Also, even Labour aren’t really behind this alliance idea, whereas at least until yesterday, the Conservatives have been very positive and willing to work together. What we’re hearing on the news is that there is a feeling that the Labour deal is not thought through properly and the only solid deal for us and the country is the proposed Lib/Con coalition.
The Labour backbenchers may think they are being clever in digging their heels in against PR and a coalition, but in reality if they go into opposition they are consigning themselves to losing power in England forever.
If the Tories take power, they will gerrymander the seat boundaries to exclude Labour and the Lib Dems forever. They will also split the union, with Scotland detaching itself from the UK in disgust at a Conservative administration.
Is that what Labour backbenchers really want?
If the Tories cannot satisfy the Lib Dems that the threat of their gerrymandering has been completely removed a “progressive alliance” may be the only option to achieve electoral reform.
@Andrea Gill
The Conservatives might seem keener than Labour, but that is just because they are better at presentation. In reality they have no intention whatsoever of honouring any deal.
Don’t forget that Cameron is a “professional” PR man. Brown is not.
a deal with the party that said it would go for further UN backing before going into the Bush/Cheney war? trust them?
will an agreement with Labour at this point be any more than a wafty, wind-blown piece of paper – little more valid than Chamberlain’s?
Minority governments don’t tend to last!
PR as in public relations (obviously)!
“But the question that you in the LibDems need to answer is: Do you really want to be responsible for handing the keys of #10 to Dave? (And what about all the people who used to vote for you ‘to keep the Tories out’?)”
Actually, I think that is a big virtue of exploring the possibility of a Lib/Lab coalition – whatever the short-term accusations of double-dealing. It seems fairly clear that enough of the Labour party would actually prefer to go into opposition to prevent it from happening. Given that, David Cameron must inevitably become prime minister, but the responsibility won’t lie with the Lib Dems.
But I think it’s worth considering whether the party would end up in a more powerful position if it offered a minimal “supply and confidence” deal to the Tories, rather than negotiating some kind of joint program with the Tories.
Also whether the Tories would necessarily come out of a second election with an overall majority, as a lot of people seem to be assuming. Once it becomes clear what they wish to do, I think they will have problems with that option.
AV does have one advantage over FPTP, which is that it abolishes tactical voting. (And from a Conservative perspective it will not lose them many seats, and may help in their defence against UKIP taking enough votes to let other parties in, as happened in Wells this time.)
Whether the Conservative offer is good or not depends on what they are offering for the elected Lords and for local government: if they offer STV for both then I would be very happy to accept, as we would suddenly have a revamped reviewing chamber with no one-party majority possible, and an end to one-party local authorities that deprive their residents of the chance to change the people in charge.
@ Robert C – in a full coalition they couldn’t just break a deal, surely?
@Robert C: In reality they [the Tories] have no intention whatsoever of honouring any deal.
Since they don’t have a majority we can force them to honour their deal. That’s the point of coalition politics!
@ Niklas – also, AV keeps the local link. Anything too far removed might just be too much of a change.
I may be a Labour Party member but I think everyone has to set aside their own preferences and think of the national interest. And the national interest is a stable government with a Parliamentary majority, which cannot be formed in the new Parliament from any variant of a coalition between Labour, Liberal Democrats and the minor parties. The only stable government that can be formed in the new Parliament is based on Conservatives and Liberal Democrats working together, and it is up to the Liberal Democrats to negotiate the most comfortable deal they can which would allow it to be formed.
I have never ever bothered to visit your website but such is my anger at the behaviour of Nick Clegg that I felt it necessary to comment to you. After promising a “new politics” this is the worst of the old politics – nasty, tawdry deals behind closed doors and takes no account of the national interest. The UK economy is in a parlous state and the response from Clegg and team is to drag things out in order to get a deal on a voting system. The LibDems have just demonstrated why they should never be let near the levers of power and I hope that both Brown and Cameron kick Clegg into touch.
But I think it’s worth considering whether the party would end up in a more powerful position if it offered a minimal “supply and confidence” deal to the Tories, rather than negotiating some kind of joint program with the Tories.
Two problems with that arrangement:
1) David Cameron can call an election whenever he likes, and we will be bound to be squeezed brutally in any early election.
2) Labour will paint us as Tory lapdogs whatever we do – from the narrowest confidence and supply agreement to seats in Cabinet. So we might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb and go for full coalition, where we could take the credit for tax reform, political reform and the pupil premium (and whatever else we get).
And in answer to Rupert Read, David Cameron as Prime Minister without a Conservative majority is a very different animal from David Cameron as Prime Minister with a Conservative majority. So by successfully defending many Con-Lib Dem marginals we have “kept out” a Tory-only government. Cameron will be unable to force through anything divisive, and there are not enough Tories to win a free vote on re-legalising foxhunting (now that Lembit is unseated very few Lib Dem MPs would be likely to vote for that) or a vote clamping down on embryological research (unless aided by the more socially conservative elements of Labour).
The key to a deal with anyone is early legislation for a fixed term Parliament, otherwise the prime minister will just shaft the junior coalition partner by calling an election whenever he thought he could win one.
Chris Lancashire,
Take a step back please and look again. Clegg is not really dragging it out. It has only been a few days. The signs are that a deal will be closed today. It is better to spend a few days sorting out an agreement before the new parliament than to try and negotiate after the deal is signed.
The very fact that the negotiations are happening behind closed doors means that you cannot know if the deals are “tawdry” or “take no account of the national interest”. These are just your personal prejudices. In fact I suggest that the national interest is the foremost principle underpinning the negotiations. Let us see what the final agreement is before condemning it.
>> Do you want the Tories back or not?
Not really, but they were voted in.
>> Do you want a minority Tory government?
Yes. It’s bound to fail.
YouGov have conducted an opinion poll on behalf of The Sun. There were two questions. First was which which government do you want. The same question was put on Friday. The results were (today / Friday)
Labour – Lib Dem 39% / 32%
Conservative – Lib Dem 33% / 33%
Conservative minority – 20% / 18%
Additionally, the survey asked if the respondents preferred PR or FPTP.
PR – 47% / 48%
FPTP – 38% / 39%
Also, ICM asked last week on preferences of PR or FPTP
PR – 62%
FPTP – 13%
>> The very fact that the negotiations are happening behind closed doors means that you cannot know if the deals are “tawdry” or “take no account of the national interest”.
Oh, that’s weak stuff. The LibDems, so we’ve been told, have pushed for transparency and participation in the Parliamentary process… because closed-door deals were seen as tawdry. Which they often were.
“Two problems with that arrangement:
David Cameron can call an election whenever he likes, and we will be bound to be squeezed brutally in any early election.”
That’s why I addressed that point in the next sentence of my comment!
I’m not convinced it’s necessarily the case.
But even if it is, when it comes down to it, I would rather see the party opposing what the Tories are going to do, than collaborating in it – even if by collaborating they can modify it a bit.
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/clegg-close-to-cocking-it-up/
Clegg’s star is fading. He promised the Tories first bite and then he started double dealing. He needs to do the deal with the Tories now!
Reluctantly I have come to the conclusion that a Labour – Lib-Dem coalition is just not possible. The mathematics are not there as well as the feeling that the Labour party want to go into opposition, lick their wounds and re-group under a new leader.
We have now to accept we have got as much as we can on electoral reform. Looking for any more is nonsense and will make us look like some kind of special interest group rather than a serious political party looking at the m
national interest.
I am concerned that if this goes on much longer it will look more and more that we have been underhand. Not because we negotiate with both sides, that’s fine, but because we appear to have negotiated openly with the tories and secretly with Labour. That I don’t understand and am uncomfortable with. To ensure trust can be restored we need to make a decision one way or another asap. If we flunk it now, we will be laughted at.
Tom King
For Clegg to secure a historic concession from the Tories (in the form of a referendum on AV)
Don’t talk crap. AV is a piddly variation on the current system which is hardly worth bothering with. It’s an insult to us if the Tories offer it as some major concession. Anyone who can’t see that is playing the Tories’ line.
Are the Libs really going to prop up a government full of war criminals?
Chris lancashire
I hope that both Brown and Cameron kick Clegg into touch
I take that as a vote for a Conservative-Labour coalition.
David Boothroyd, thank you for your reasoned comment as a Labour Party member. What you say is so simple and fundamental that I fail to see how anyone who is not a blinkered/obsessive anti-tory could not agree. I have been a Lib/Libdem member/supporter for all my adult years( I am now 58) and regard myself as truly equidistant between the other two parties. After 13 tears of a Labour administration, with the arithmetic as it now is and with the offer of a refendum on AV plus agreement on a whole range of other issues from the tories, a formal coalition with them for a fixed term of (say) 4 years is to me a no-brainer. With a fair wind we will emerge at the end with kudos and be immeasurably more electable in our own right. Flirting with Labour now is madness, both for ourselves and the country – your party needs togo away and lick its wounds and regroup in readiness for the next election – in 2014!
Who wants AV? I do. Sure, I might prefer FPTP, but a voting system which renders void most of the main parties’ campaign messages (“Vote Lib Dem get Tory / Labour” and “It’s a Two Horse Race”) would be a drastic change to democracy and encourage more positive campaigning about actual policy, which can only work in our favour.
Who wants AV? I do. Sure, I might prefer other systems, but they’re not on offer. A voting system which renders void most of the main parties’ campaign messages (“Vote Lib Dem get Tory / Labour” and “It’s a Two Horse Race”) would be a drastic change to democracy and encourage more positive campaigning about actual policy, which can only work in our favour.
Does anyone seriously believe the ‘promise’ of a referendum for AV?
On any kind of voting reform for that matter?
It seems to me that the LibDems are being lined up against the wall, I say step away and let them get on with it…
DBIV – Mr Boothroyd – I salute you sir.
Thank the maker for a shaft of light to penetrate the copious fog being belched from various quarters….
VFR Mark,
I believe that if the Conservatives promise a referendum on AV as part of the terms of a coalition, they’ll deliver it. It is up to the Lib Dem members of the cabinet to make sure they do. The only way out I can see is if David Cameron calls an early election before the AV referendum is called. I fear for his electoral success if he does.
The Lib Dem team is meeting again with the Conservatives. Given their statements with regard to a final offer, I’d say this afternoon’s meeting is a clarification of detail prior to acceptance. If a decision to go with the Tories in the event of a break down in talks with Labour was not reached last night, Nick Clegg will again have to consult with his MPs and their National Executive. I expect to see an agreement today.
Get this. The BBC are now reporting that Labour failed to give ground on CIVIL LIBERTIES in the LibLab talks.
“Anthony Aloysius St
Posted 11th May 2010 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
A referendum on AV is far from ideal. It’s not a fair system – and fairness is supposed to be the reason why the Lib Dems want electoral reform. In many circumstances it is even less proportional than FPTP. It’s very questionable whether a referendum would result in a “Yes” vote. I’m not sure I’d vote for it myself!”
Define fair..
There has been so much comment here that I had almost forgotten the original question. I am apolitical, I want a stable government, and I relish the idea of a Liberal/Conservative coalition whereby each party softens the approach of the other, and ideally the best aspects of each come to the fore, and the excesses and unworkables shrink to the background. Isn’t trust a strange thing. I wouldn’t trust the Labour party to keep their word, they are too power hungry, but contributors to the discussion seem to have a similar view of the Conservatives. We need to let it all work out.
Thanks Colin,
I wish I could share your optimism but I just cannot shake the feeling that the libdems are being stitched up.
I think it would be better if they walked away, we have already stated that we want change to the voting system as you pointed out in the polls you referred to, so a ‘promise’ of a referendum Is null an void, but that’s just my opinion…
Labour MPs have clearly scuppered the once in a life time opportunity of a progressive front and want to be in opposition – so we need to get as much out of a coalition with the Tories as we can for the British people whose interests labour are putting second to their narrow party interests.
I never thought I would see the day when the Liberals would hand the keys to a Conservative government. I fear the party is being hoodwinked and the party is going to lose much support.
Will – Items on the table are the £10K tax threshold financed by cutting the marriage tax & inheritance tax cuts etc…
That plus a step towards voting reform and fixed term governments surely has GOT to do the trick.
I dont think that surprises anyone Alix.
The Lib-Dem/Conservative coalition is now the only show in town. It’s important for the sake of the country to make work.
The successful campaign has made me very proud to have voted Liberal Democrat, and many of my friends feel the same. However, we are in danger of losing the moral high ground. We are also in real danger of losing votes at any future election, since many people who voted for the party did so because of its progressive manifesto, a manifesto which is very different from the Conservative manifesto. Nick Clegg kept the moral high ground by indicating that the Conservatives do have the right to seek to form a government, and it would have been disastrous to fall in with Labour directly. However, there is also the morality of the Liberal Democrat vision. A vision which includes partnership working and a shift from the ‘old politics’. A coalition with the Conservatives only, and not a wider spectrum of parties, could well be seen by those who voted for the Liberal Democrat MPs as reneging on our vision of truly working together across party divides in parliament. If the public perceived this as a betrayal of vision, which many of them would do, it would be as damaging to reputation and future election chances as greedily jumping at Labour’s offer.
The priority facing this country is the economy, given the gravity and complexity of this problem, nothing less than national coalition is suitable. I urge support for Mr Clegg’s prime ministerial debate suggestion of a board of treasury leads ‘vice chancellors’ and a coaltion approach to the economic situation.
Over half of people who voted appear to have voted for manifestos which commit to supporting public sector jobs. Senseless job cuts in the public sector will leave us with a generation of people on benefits and drains to the public purse, which we cannot afford. We have strong proposals including capping public sector pay rather than mass redundancies. As far as possible, jobs must be protected to prevent social problems, and to support the consumer and business economies. Reductions in pay are one option for this.
In dealing with bank regulation and ensuring that we receive the requisite payback to help us with the budget deficit, can we trust the Conservatives to be fully rigorous? Again, focussing solely on public sector issues which are easier to talk about misses some of the fundamental strcutural problems, which the Liberal Democrats are concerned about.
Our proposals for fairer tax tackling disproportionate disincentives to enterprise and industry fo rthe majority of people in work and hoping to work. Again, by working in concert with the other two parties on the economy, we can hope to deliver both a more socially just taxation policy which Labour failed to do and to provide a capitalist incentive, which might be perceived as a more ‘right wing’ driver.
We must ensure that these approaches are reflected in a national coaltion on the economy, which includes all party represenation.
Given the outcome of the election, and the growing unease with our democracy Electoral Reform must be our second priority
I would urge the Liberal Democrats to press an immediate referedum in the Queen’s Speech to be brought forward in the next two months on voting reform.This election had demonstrated that the country wishes for the power of Parliament agaist one party government to be strengthened in the constitutional settlement.
We should implore Mr Clegg to campaign for immediate reform to the voting system, not empty promises. Promises for a referendum and an inquiry are insufficient.
Deprioritisation
The other policy areas must be de-prioritised mentioned in our manifesto should be deprioritised for the time being so that progress can be made effectively on the key areas. A suitable subject for a review, for instance, would be immigration, we could be willing to compromise on this in the medium term.
A deal with Labour was stress tested and the fractures showed.
The one thing we must now do is a deal. Either deal.
If we were to declare failure, after testing out both options, then we would be declaring to the nation that three-party politics and coalition building are not viable for our party. If we did that, the nation’s response to us would, of course, be deserved oblivion.
Labour have realised they’re sitting pretty, let a Con/Lib government form, watch them tear each other apart, and have a huge chunk of the Lib Dem voters next election.
Thomas, I very much doubt THEY will ‘tear each other apart’. My hunch is that there is every likelihood that Labour will tear itself apart. How well do you know Ed Balls and David Milliband? The most likely candidates for Labour’s leadership represent very different kinds of politics. Labour was given an opportunity to talk turkey about cooperation in parliament by the Liberal Democrats. It appears to have turned its back on those talks.