The Liberal Democrats are planning to rule out forming a coalition government with either the Conservatives or Labour if Nick Clegg holds the balance of power in a hung parliament after the general election. … senior Lib Dems are making clear that Clegg has no interest in taking cabinet posts and would focus instead on winning support for four key Lib Dem demands.
Clegg would be prepared to throw a lifeline to the Conservatives or Labour by allowing either party to pass a Queen’s speech if the aspiring government makes concessions in the four areas, described as the Lib Dem “shopping list”:
• Investing extra funds in education through a pupil premium for disadvantaged children.
• Tax reform, taking 4 million out of tax and raising taxes on the rich by requiring capital gains and income to be taxed at the same rate.
• Rebalancing of the economy to put less emphasis on centralised banking and more on a new greener economy.
• Political reforms, including changes to the voting system and a democratically elected Lords, that go further than proposed by Labour.Clegg would give the minority government a chance to deliver and would not expect his demands to be met in full by the time of the Queen’s speech, the first major parliamentary test of a new administration. “People expect stable government,” one aide said. “It is right to assume that if one party has a mandate it should have a crack at governing. If no party has a majority, then people will need to talk to each other.”
An ally says of the “shopping list”: “You can wield influence without being in government. You could even negotiate a programme for government through a Queen’s speech with 40 to 50% of your ideas taken up, or negotiate on individual bills.” Clegg is opposed to forming a coalition because aides and senior MPs argue it would be highly dangerous for the Liberal Democrats to become minority partners in a coalition government on the grounds that the majority party could manipulate the timing of the next election to suit it. The Lib Dems have long campaigned for fixed terms at Westminster to deprive the prime minister of the initiative on election timing.
This seems sensible to me. LDV’s survey of party members last week showed majority support for the Lib Dems cooperating with either Labour or Tories so long as at least some of the party’s manfesto promises were met.
Moreover, specifying four areas where the party would expect to see progress focuses any talk of hung parliament squarely on Lib Dem priorities – the media will have to start asking Gordon Brown and David Cameron if they would be prepared to adopt Lib Dem policies in order to stay in government if they fail to win a majority.
It’s feasible to imagine either Labour or the Tories being prepared to move towards the Lib Dem position on points 1-3 as listed by the Guardian. Point 4 – the urgent need for electoral reform – would appear to rule out the Tories from benefiting from Lib Dem support, so opposed is David Cameron to any change to the status quo. Yet the Guardian also makes clear the party’s antipathy to Labour – ‘One MP said: “We don’t want to be tied to a rotting corpse.”‘
What do LDV readers think of the announcement? Discuss …
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems beat Labour in a Liverpool by-election for first time since 1997
Little Wonders #dundeewestend
Will Labour kill off the landmark climate and nature bill?
Lib Dems will continue to back 50 per cent cap on faith-based admissions to schools
William Wallace
Slamdac
John Marriott
Steve Trevethan
Nick Hopkinson
33 Comments
This is no different to what we said ages ago. It’s just being re-iterated because large sections of the media are deliberately ignoring it in order to be able to claim Lab-Lib or Con-Lib “deals”.
I don’t think there’s much here that’s new but it’s excellent to see it published and reemphasised
The idea of forming a coalition with the Tories i find repellent. The danger of a right-of-centre coalition is that the party will end up like the German FDP.
On the other hand, Labour must abandon the Murdoch agenda if they wanto to do a deal with us. That will depend on their next leader, it is hard to imagine working with a Gordan Brown government.
So not having a coalition seems a good solution, but is it?
We are in a terrible financial crises. So how is anyone to know what the economic policy of the government is goinng to be from one day to the next without there being a coalition?
We should get the balance right. If we make it clear that we might not form a coalition government, then that strengthens our negotiating position. But if we make it seem impossible to form a coalition government, that could make us look irresponsible.
Brilliant; pleased to see this being put on record.
The shopping list looks reasonably even-handed, which is a relief. However, we can expect both Labour and the Tories to treat it with studied ignoral, to offer us next to nothing, and to challenge us to dare walking away and taking the responsibility for leaving the country without a stable government.
Geoffrey Payne is right. If we rule out a coalition in advance, both the Tories and Labour will campaign on the slogan that a Lib Dem vote is a vote for irresponsibility, weak government and financial disaster. That will cost us votes.
Drop those words “rule out”, Nick. Make it clear that any minority government facing a financial crisis will be supported unequivocally to tackle that crisis.
This is an excellent move. It both shuts down a negative line of questioning against us and draws attention to our distinctive policies. A win-win outcome.
It’s a slight development of what Clegg’s said before… nothing surprising here. He’s being more precise and detailed about it, which is good.
As someone fighting a key battleground contest against Labour and deeply opposed to the fake Tories, I can only say: GOOD!
Can someone tell me exactly what is meant by the third one, namely:
“Rebalancing of the economy to put less emphasis on centralised banking and more on a new greener economy.”
?
Would that mean a National Infrastructure Bank and Post Office stuff? Or some other stuff?
I’m delighted by this announcement. Obviously, the Tories and Nulab will ignore it, and the media will keep asking their dumb “so who d’you fancy, Gordie or Davina?” question; but this is a sensible, grown-up answer that our front bench should be able to stick to.
By the way, David:
You surely didn’t mean that! I don’t expect our party to offer “unequivocal” support to any Tory or Labour government.
@Alex, I think item 3 is meant to mean less of a dependence on the City as an engine for the economy, and instead shift towards green taxes and creating green jobs, like the plan to redevelop shipyards to build off shore wind power, announced a few days ago. The two don’t seem directly related, but that’s what I am interpreting.
I think the stance is a good one. A minority government in this country may be no bad thing, if it means that the government has to win consensus from the other parties. We can avoid fiascos like ID cards, the Iraq war and the Poll Tax.
The down side of that is that the Labour and Tories agree on a lot of illiberal, draconian policies that may get through. Although they would probably just oppose each other out of spite.
Another poorly thought out move from Clegg. What Labour and Tories would much prefer is the ability to run a minority Government. This hands that to them on a plate.
This is exactly the same lunatic policy that the Lib Dems have pursued in Scotland with disaterous effect. The latest poll putitng Lib Dems on 11% for Westminster voting in Scotland. Contrast that with rising suport for the Lib Dems when they were the minority partner in the Scottish Government, and the ponder that this new Clegg “strategy to nowhere” is based on the idea coalitions are always bad for minority parties.
(Many of our local Council groups know this isn’t true)
This is also the same policy the LIberals pursued for minority Labour Governments twice in the 1920’s, both followed by electoral wipeout.
The Tories are already rubbishing a hung parliament as meaning instabilty and Lib Dem dithering. Spot on if this is the Lib Dem view.
Cameron would love to do a small period of minority govt, followed by a dash to the polls.
I ws really hoping the Clegg could get a grip on this.
What would he ideally like to see happen in a hung Parliament ?
Firstly, he could stop wittering on about the party with the biggest mandate (does he not get the reason the Lib Dems support electoral reform, because no party with 35% of the vote on a 60% turnout has nany mandate to Govern ! he’s menat to be making the case for PR, not parroting the arguements of FPTP)
Secondly, he needs to have something to sell to people instead of the idea that the Lib Dems will bestow their blessings on individual messures
This seems just right to me, it deals with the cynical view that we are just another lot of politicians- desperate to get our feet under the table/ in the trough. Every time the coalition question is raised we can shift the discussion to our key policies.
The only drawback is that now we have ruled out coalition, we have to stick with that through the next parliament. If the crisis is so bad that coalition is vital, let Labour & the Tories form one & we will provide the responsible opposition. I cant think of a better way to prepare for the Election of 2014.
Having been critical of Clegg’s statements about hung parliaments in the past, I actually think this is the correct approach. Given that there’s no ideal answer to the question, I’m sure the advantages of ruling out a formal coalition far outweigh the disadvantages. It’s also important not to go to the other extreme and imply that unless there is agreement on everything the party wants, any minority government will be voted down, forcing a second election.
As for which party should be given the first crack of the whip, I think it would be better to avoid laying down any criteria for that in advance (such as “strongest mandate” and the like). But I do think it’s fair to point out that the electoral arithmetic makes it pretty likely that only one party will be in a position to form a viable minority government.
I also think this is the right approach. This point is very important: Clegg is opposed to forming a coalition because aides and senior MPs argue it would be highly dangerous for the Liberal Democrats to become minority partners in a coalition government on the grounds that the majority party could manipulate the timing of the next election to suit it.
That risk is very real – just look at the early history of the Irish Free State, when Fianna Fail would always call a snap election shortly after winning a plurality in the previous election in order to strengthen their position. Also, a coalition would bind us with cabinet collective responsibility into accepting some very illiberal policies.
There are coalitions all over the country at a lower level of governance: why should Westminster be any different. There are several areas where Lib Dems could work well with Tories: Heathrow expansion, ID cards and High Speed Rail come to mind. And why throw up the possibility of Vince Cable’s sitting in the Chancellor’s chair? (According to a poll, more Tories would prefer him to George Osbourne).
Lynne Featherstone’s comment is rather good! http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2010/02/guardian-decides-shape-of-future-government.htm
“We haven’t changed our position at all. The people, not the party leaders, are the kingmakers and it is completely pointless and wrong to try and predict the future until people have had their chance to vote.”
Whilst we may just be re-iterating, I agree 100% with the message and it needs repeating a lot!
I’ve got to admit, I’m a little disappointed not to see scrapping ID cards and the National Identity Register as a keynote policy in this list. I know that everybody has their own pet policies they would like to see adopted, but the NIR is a clear, active threat to our liberty (and public spending) which needs to be nipped in the bud before it grows further.
By the time of the next General Election, it’s estimated that around 70% of the population will have been coerced onto this vile compulsory database through passport applications and renewals, through designation of additional documents such as driving licenses, and through making NIR enrolment a condition of access to services. It needs to go, now, and IMHO is more important a priority for liberal-minded people than proportional representation.
10 out of 10!
Is this the first time the Lib Dems/ Alliance have dealt with the hung parliament question properly?
Paul, it seems a simple re-iteration of Nick’s speech from Federal Conference in Liverpool a couple of years ago. “Will I support a coalition with Labour? NO! Will I support a coalition with the Tories? NO!” – I don’t think he could be any more clearer than that!
It is a shame that he didn’t repeat that when asked about what the Lib Dems would do in a hung parliament recently then Dave. I would prefer it if the leadership paid a bit more attention to party democracy, but our key policies for 2010 relate to each other and help create a narrative and vision about what direction the Lib Dem want to take the country in. This is not like 2005, when our policies seemed like a shopping list of pledges to buy off key groups. The collective failure to deal with our corrupt peers in 2009 remains a disgrace, but so far 2010 is going very well.
“The Lib Dems insist they have not made up their mind about what they would do if the general election fails to give one party a majority in Parliament.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8515976.stm
What a shambles.
I think he has only come out now with this is that he thinks the “Vote Yellow get Brown” is starting to work, and that a number of Lib/Dems could switch to Cameron.
The poll on here was 60/40 to Brown, but there must be a good chance in some seats voters will switch just to ensure Brown does not win.
Having surprised myself once today by agreeing with [what was attributed to] Nick Clegg [by the Guardian], I’ve surprised myself again by agreeing with Stephen Tall’s comment on the schemozzle:
http://stephentall.org/2010/02/15/over-at-the-guardian%e2%80%99s-comment-is-free-%e2%80%a6-influence-you-can-believe-in/
Roger – there is one clear difference which is that in other parliaments, assemblies and councils the term is fixed. In Westminster it is up to the Prime minister to choose when to ‘go to the palace’. That means that the position of a junior coalition partner is weakened from the off.
Overall this is as good an answer to the hung parliament question that we are going to get. Well done Mr Clegg.
So who is right?
LONDON (Reuters) – The Liberal Democrats denied on Monday it had ruled out joining a coalition government if no single party won a parliamentary majority at this year’s election.
The possibility of Britain’s first “hung parliament” since 1974 has unsettled financial markets but Liberal Democrat deputy leader Vince Cable said it could be in the national interest “because it will force parties to work together in a way that single-party government won’t.”
..
“We’re not ruling out any option,” Cable said.
“We’re not ruling out any option,” Cable said.
Face palm.
“The people, not the party leaders, are the kingmakers ”
Utter nonsense – the mad electoral system is the Kingmaker – the people have very little influence on the outcome of the election.
So Parliament isn’t fixed term – how does not going into coalition solve that ? It doesn’t, it makes it worse, leaving a sensible reason for a mnority Government dashing to the polls to get a “strong mandate” to take “tough decisions”.
The way to get round it is to make a fixed general election date part of any coaltion deal.
Ruling out any coalition is absurd for a party which believes in proportional representation.
Jo Grimond marched hsi troops towards the sound of gunfire – Nick Clegg marches them off to the sound of silence.
But until we get proportional representation going into coalition is far more absurd. The only way you get stable coalition government is through fixed-term parliaments and electoral reform: til both are firmly on offer the party would be mad to risk throwing in its lots with Labour/Tories for just a few months with Vince as Chancellor.
The assumption on this thread has been that it’s a choice between the policy shopping list versus a coalition deal. I agree with most posters that the shopping list has many advantages. It shows us putting our principles ahead of juicy jobs in the Cabinet, and it demonstrates our even-handedness. The Achilles heel is the argument our opponents will use, that a hung parliament means weak government, uncertainty, and hence a possible collapse of confidence in the currency in these difficult times. We do need to find a convincing answer to that charge, or it will cost us dearly.
If we are ruling out a formal coalition – which we can do – then we must make it clear that we are not ruling out a period of stable government. We could, for example, declare that all the while we are judging a minority government in relation to its performance against our “shopping list”, we shall not vote to bring down that government for a reasonable length of time. I would suggest we give such a government a minimum of two years to prove its worth, unless it is obviously failing in some way, before we look at its achievements against our shopping list and decide whether to give the thumbs down and vote them out. Two years would mean a commitment to responsible stable government, and a credible answer to the “weak government ” charge.
The problem is that the leadership seems to have decided to carry on fudging and bluffing its way through this issue without enunciating any clear principle at all.
I think the party could come very badly unstuck if it tries to do that.
Anyone actually know the source of this Guardian story? As far as I can see its not come from any official announcement but is basically just speculation