It’s two months since I wrote a post here on Lib Dem Voice with the self-explanatory title: 5 reasons Nick Clegg should rule out a coalition now. It’s interesting in the light of the last 24 hours to re-visit my reason number one: “A coalition is a non-starter, so let’s just rule it out now”.
So what’s changed?
The electorate have spoken
Well, the most obvious issue is the election result itself. The voters have spoken, and been quite clear that they don’t trust any one of the parties to govern the country alone. That in itself should give any political party pause for thought.
We have had to listen
The second factor is the Lib Dem result: it was disappointing (as in their own ways were also the Tories’ and Labour’s results). Although we gained more votes than at any time since the Alliance, for the first time since 1992 the Lib Dems lost seats. Quite clearly the party was squeezed. A second election following closely on from last week’s would almost have certainly seen a further squeeze in the Lib Dem vote.
After the glorious possibilities of ‘Cleggmania’, the party would have been once again consigned to the sidelines of politics, able only to give a running commentary on what was going wrong. Again, that prospect is enough to give any political party pause for thought.
The only choice you have when there is no choice is the right one
The third factor is that this really was a no-win situation for Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems, as I explained here on Saturday. Whichever way the party turned, we were going to provoke outrage from some quarters. All of us knew this, and in a curious way it’s proved almost liberating. If you know that there’s no solution that’s going to be universally popular it allows you to focus fully on what you think is the right and responsible thing to do.
Make no mistake: Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are taking the riskiest, most courageous, decision of our political lives. It’s not such a big deal for the Tories: a coalition government doesn’t threaten their future. The Lib Dems are putting everything on the line for the sake of stable government and a real liberal influence in the years ahead. It could blow up in our faces. Or it could be the making of the party.
What more could have been done?
The fourth and final factor is this: the Lib Dem negotiating team has clearly done a quite amazing job. Of course they won’t have won every concession the party would have wanted. But given the hand they were dealt by the election results, it is hard to see how the Lib Dems could possibly have extracted more from this deal. That doesn’t mean this isn’t still a scary venture; but at least we have the reassurance of knowing that the party leadership has not just rolled over at the sniff of power.
And here’s the ‘maybe’ …
So does that mean I was wrong to argue the Lib Dems should have ruled out a coalition before the election? In my defence, I think the party was buffetted off course during the election campaign by the media obsession with a hung parliament. We almost certainly lost MPs as a result of being unable to focus attention on our four key election themes of fairness. We were in part squeezed by wavering voters ultimately deciding to pick Labour or Tory for fear of not knowing what we would do in the event of a balanced parliament.
But – and it’s a big but – had we ruled out a coalition, today would not have been possible. We would not be seeing a cabinet formed with a Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister, nor seeing Lib Dem policies enacted, and the prospect of some electoral and constitutional reform.
Will that be enough to make Britain a better, more liberal, country? Will that be enough to enable the Lib Dems to pick ourselves up from our disappointing election result last week? None of us knows. Yet. It’s going to be a bumpy, but potentially thrilling, ride.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
North London's expanse
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Big brother state
Jago Hazzard rides on London's cable car and no one else does
Roland
Paul Reynolds
Jonathan Brown
Simon R
Peter Martin
67 Comments
If this deal had happened on Monday, I’d have been very unhappy, and unsure what to do. After Labour made any possibility of a deal with them impossible, this was the best option. Arguing with Labour supporters this morning, they’re defending Labours choice to do what’s best for itself, rather than the country, while blaming us for Labours negotiation team.
It’s going to be a very interesting time.
Your essay it too black and white, plus you’re ont fairly holding the party accountable for some eff’s up which you should.
I wouldn’t even know where to start but I do know this, I was out canvassing in the cold for hours until nearly 10pm about 2.5 hrs away from home, in a crucial seat that we had but could loose (we ended up loosing it), there was barely anyone there helping out or supporting the area.
I found this odd as this was a constituency that had a lib dem MP and thought there would be more ‘fight’ to keep it but there wasn’t..at all. It felt like this may as well have been a paper seat.
Maybe I expect to much but the seat shouldn’t have been lost. That’s all I am saying.
The Lib Dem campaign was never that great and really took off too late. It was no surprise to me that people took to Clegg, I’ve been saying this for ages but when they took to him, this also was too light and felt too risky if you’ve never voted Lib Dem.
What should have been done? We should have a long, long time ago worked our arse off to get more Clegg awareness, esp in the Social Media realm which isn’t owned by Murdoch but is full of-in particular Twitter-influential bloggers and ex Nu Labs.
When Cleggmania was at its highest, we should have then started blitzing direct mail type areas/houses etc with more actuall policy info about what we do, what we stand for,plus our experienced MP’s like Cable.
Labservatives was a genius concept but again, this was far too late in the game and therefore could not truly go viral in a big way.
People keep on peddling this ‘how the people voted’? Is it? What the people who got turned away? The people who know nothing about our policies? The people who think the Tories no know bankers? Who?
The media manipulates. Government manipulates. Parties manipulate.
How can anyone say with a straight face that people have voted when half of them don’t have a clue and voted in a non transparent and flawed system is beyond me.
What I see? Power hungry Libs excited by the scraps they have been given but this is politics and it was never about the people.
We can’t be unhappy with a deal that’s put us in cabinet for the first time in 65 years and Lib Dem policies being put into action in almost every department – after our total seats went down. And to not do a deal and see the more extreme wing of the Tories start throwing their weight around would be disasterous for the country.
But there is a challenge – to make sure that we’re not seen as a gentle wing of the Tory party but a robust , distinct and radical coalition partner. Its not a Tory governement. Its a Tory-Liberal Democrat government. and we need to get credit for the good things we do – and not get the blame for any dodgy Tory policies foisted upon the nation.
@ Rich
You know, Labour were also in a really no win situation.
The front benchers wanted to get rid of Brown for a very long, long time but whenever they tried, it fell really badly with the backbenchers who still see Brown as that socialist genius from Scotland who cares about the people. The backbenchers and the members are the heartbeat of that party.
The really messed around with them when they brought Tony Blair and his Nu Lab cronies which steered them to the right.
So what is the best way to guarantee back all that support and the many who didn’t vote because you went to the right? Become the opposition.
Being the opposition takes them back to being the party against the establishment-rightwing-and it’s where the Left have always thrived.
I didn’t vote.Why? I am disalusioned with the politicians of thiis country.
The election and all that followed had me transfixed, for the first time ever.
I was a young parent in the Thatcher years and remember well how much she broke the society of this country.Making everybody out for themselves.
The labour Blair/Brown years have achieved what I believe are some good things,Miniumum wage and child credits being two things.Being working class I should vote labour but I also remember the debt this country is always in after a Labour government.
Today I really hope this country can be put on a path to mending itself with the Liberals help.
I would have voted Lib Dem but always felt it was a wasted vote previously so I abstained. I hope your party can in someways dilute the Conservatives and make the UK a fairer place to live.
I will be looking forward to the future with some hope and should there be another election you guys have my vote from now on.
I am a mother and gradma and want the UK to be a better place for my children and grandchildren to inherit, yes I know there has to be deep cuts and it will hurt but if you succed you lay the foundations for a stronger country again with a fairer society.
Face the future. I am now.
Stephen, remind me not to take betting tips off you…
A sunshine day for Liberals to rejoice and reflect on having some power. Well done to all my fellow party members for putting the country first,whilst getting the best deal available for our party.
I feel liberated today and am delighted.
Some of those vile labour people(you know the ones) have really shown them selves up over the last few days as the nasty tribal bunch that inwardly I have always felt they are.
I agree with Nick.
And winning elections.
Getting your excuses in early, I see. Even better, here’s Sunny Hundal – who previously called on “Brown people” to vote Tory – coming out against the ConLib pact after calling on everyone to vote LibDem. Or Labour if the alternative were the Tories. So that was clear.
ttp://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/11/why-lefties-should-worry-about-the-con-dem-nation/
Completely out of his depth.
The Comment is Free site is in meltdown. Can you imagine any post which criticizes Government policy? It’ll be filled with comments “But you supported the LibDems!”.
most disappointed that according to david cameron, the lib dems are to support the consevatives welfare reform agenda in full.
the consevatives intend to retest all those in receipt of ib using a harsh new test, this was supposed to start happening under labour in oct of this year using the controversial “work capability assessment”, which has been condemned by the “social security advisory committee”, “the cab” and a collision of charties representing the sick and disabled.
all those who have questioned the “work capability assessment” have called for an independant review of the “work capability assessment” and the “employment and support allowance” as an whole.
the test has found those suffering with cancer, parkinson, me, ms, mental illness and other dilibating conditions as “fit to work”.
the wednesday before the election the lib dem spokesman for the dwp stated that, ” the lib dems would not make it compolsory for sick and disabled to take part in workfare schemes”.
the consevatives plan to make workfare compulsory, which is unjust and unfair for the sick and disabled.
the welfare system for the sick and disabled is unfair and harsh, the lib dems must call for an independant review of the system before current ib claimants are retested.
@ Alec
What do you think of this article?
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/its-time-for-left-liberals-to-join-labour
He has a point but we’ll wait and see because people hate change they may just ‘stick it out’ with the Lib Dems, esp those who’ve been with the party for decades.
Lol Cleggster is the new John Prescott!
So much power Nick!!
It’s like littleboys in their army/stamp collection club. Cute!
I’ve been a lib dem for ten years, a local executive member, and have spent the last two months volunteering almost full time. Donating hundreds of hours of my time, I’ve helped to keep this, and the neighbouring two seats safe.
During the negotiations I’ve alternated between fear, and hope, and anger at Labour not just for their record of refusing to listen and compromise, but for showing no interest at all for trying to work out a progressive alliance. We knew it wouldn’t really fly, but it was helping us to mitigate the Tory program.
I set myself a key test: where would the lib stand on the timing of cuts? The economy is the most important thing, and cuts this year endangers the recovery. I’m supportive of the negotiations, and pleased that the Tory government will not govern unchecked, but for me that’s the crucial sell-out, and judging by the faces of the lib Dem MPs, for them too. I would far rather have seen us take no cabinet seats at all, but sacrifice them to do something really good for the people of this country.
To hear about the change to the no confidence rules is a slap in the face. It’s undemocratic and its contrary to everything that I was a lib dem to achieve. So I’ll be resigning my party membership at tomorrow’s emergency local meeting. I wish them the best. I continue to hope that lib dem policies will be achieved.
I hate Labour, I hate Ed Balls and the dogmatism and the secrecy and the sense of entitlement and the illiberilism and the wars.
I’m going to absolutely hate the moment when I rejoin the Labour party and it’s going to be tomorrow.
If politicians have to choose between their values and power, they go for power and leave values behind……5 cabinet posts for a party, who has never been in power means alot…. I think lib-dem have lost this great opportunity of complete electoral reform to achieve short term goals…..I will not vote for Lib-dem in future….
Great piece Stephen.
I was similarly strongly in favour of ruling coalition out two months ago. I didn’t imagine a five year deal with another party was possible. The parliamentary arithmetic that came out of the GE makes things excruciatingly difficult and Labour’s tribalism and irresponsibility goes well beyond anything I had anticipated.
Rich, You have really hit the nail on the head: “Labour made any possibility of [doing a] deal with them impossible”. They were given their chance but chose to do what they perceived as in the best interests of their party. Perhaps they were too exhausted and wounded to do anything else. I think it is fair to say that their collective heart hasn’t been in political reform. Many leading Labour figures have/are coming out with depressingly familiar messages: ‘If you are not for us you are against us’, and politics means, can only mean, ‘Winner takes all’.
The electorate – IF the coalition can be made to work for its full term, a big if I know – may reward us for the unprecedented risks we have taken. We have put our party on the line by putting the national interest first.
Of course, we do have to DELIVER on our promise of political reform over the full five year term…and find an agreed way through a period of enormous turmoil in the country’s public finances and its economy.
I cannot imagine any Liberal Democrat underestimating how difficult that is going to be.
You are deluding yourself with ‘group think’ and self justification. As a neutral (ie non party member therefore not concerned in party self interest) who has voted Lib Dem consistently for the last 15 years I’m utterly utterly appalled and I can tell you that friends and colleagues feel the same way. You’ve stolen our progressive votes and you won’t be forgiven. If the Lib Dems think that you don’t get a huge portion of your votes on the basis of anti-Tory tactical voting then you are deluded. What the floating voters will remember is that you’ve propped up a Tory govt.
Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that this was the only option available. We could have had a minority Tory govt that would be forced to call another election election. You hide behind ‘national interest’ and ‘stable government’ justifications because you are too scared to acknowledge that this would be an electoral disaster for you as people would desert you in droves to keep out the Tories. The Lib dems are merely apeing the Tories by putting self interest first. The public will remember taht it was you who facilitated this when Osbourne slashes public spending. So it turns out that all those I dismissed in the campaign were right – vote Clegg, get osbourne.
“I set myself a key test: where would the lib stand on the timing of cuts? The economy is the most important thing, and cuts this year endangers the recovery.”
This is nonsense – How does cutting FCO meetings brainstorming about the pope opening a condom machine or health dept surveys about whether Hitler was cool endanger the recovery?
I don’t think I’ve ever been as proud of my party as in the last couple of days. Over the weekend, I was convinced a coalition was the best option, but equally certain the party would never allow it. I’m sorry I doubted everyone.
At the moment, I feel enormously excited. This is what Lib Dems, and Liberals and Social Democrats before them, have always wanted. Government where politicians who disagree with each other are forced to compromise, and in so doing, forced to re-examine their own prejudices, and maybe admit they were wrong.
Of course, within a month, there will be terrible decisions that have to be made. This isn’t 1997, with a blooming economy and money to spare. The electorate will give us a very brief honeymoon, and then the hurricane will descend. We’ll have friends and strangers telling us they’ve always voted for us, but never again. We’ll have resignations from the party, some acrimonious. We’ll see our poll rating plummet.
But, I think, having agreed the coalition at a special conference and at a party membership ballot, the party will hold its nerve.
Will there be blue skies and calm waters beyond the storm? I don’t know. But I’m convinced this was our only option.
And what makes me happiest of all. Even if we suffer badly at the next election, and with hindsight it begins to seem a tactical mistake. What we are doing is both in the national interest, and in the interests of the wider international economy.
Rantersparadise,
I, too, worked in a “paper” seat – you could hadly move for the stuff!
Stephen,
I am in a bit of a dilemma. Here am I, who hates the Tory Party’s guts with a burning passion, finding myself in a position where I am required to support a Tory-led government.
What do I do?
While I am more than happy to support Liberal Democrat ministers in this Frankenstein creation, I have spent my adult life being extremely rude about Tories and I am not going to stop doing that now.
Don’t underestimate the ability of the Tory right to bring this edifice crashing down.
55% for a vote of no confidence?
Outrageous. Thanks Nick.
Ranter, I don’t need to read that article; but will do, even though I’m banned from LibCon (hehe).
He’s like a weathervane in a hurricane!
Middle-class riots! Reports of bruschetta vans set alight in Islington, balsamic vinegar bottles being used as weapons, and blood-red wine flowing in the streets!
Stop blaming the Labour Party. The TWO POSH BOYS plus the ‘Orange’ dems had this agreement in principle long ago. Dont drink the Koolaid from the media who are projecting am impression that everyone is happy about this pact; to protect Caeron and the Tories. You have lost a significant sector of the progressive vote.
The negotiating teams from the Labour Party said very clearly that during the meetings with the Lib-Dems, it was very clear that Nick clegg was going with the Tories and were using the meetings with Labour to give the impression that they would consider a progressive pact, and hopefully appease their grassrots. They had no intension of doing so.
Progressives must vote from hereonin, not to keep the Tories out but to keep the Two faced-Dems out.
STOP SWALLOWING THE KOOLAID.
Hywel
‘How does cutting FCO meetings brainstorming about the pope opening a condom machine or health dept surveys about whether Hitler was cool endanger the recovery?’
Try cutting 500,000 public sector jobs over the next five years. You don’t think that will affect the slow and painful return of confidence?
You sound like a Tory already.
Muxloe (ir is it Kirby?),
You contradict yourself. First you say we should prop up Labour to keep the Tories out (even though the Labour Party itself won’t allow this). Then you say we won’t risk another election because the Tories would win an overall majority. Are you not conceding that the only way to stop that happening is what Nick Clegg has chosen to do?
Jenny Foreigner,
So you are quite happy to be smeared with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
Hywel
“This is nonsense”
I don’t remember you saying that when Vince Cable and the rest of the party were putting forward precisely that argument during the election campaign!
“We are at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”
Labour can only blame themselves for their electoral loss. In the Thatcher years they were too controlled by ideologues to muster enough populist support against the Tories, and once they became centrist under Blair they gave in to corruption and, to put it mildly, incompetence.
By contrast the Tories have been out of power for 13 years and the current generation might talk the talk but who knows whether they’ll walk the walk? That’s why I give them the benefit of the doubt – especially now that the Lib Dems are there to keep them (hopefully) honest and moderate.
But while the people of Britain might be somewhat confused (all three parties are annoyed by the outcome of the election and the creation of the coalition) the only real judgement you can make should be based upon outcomes: will the nation be a better place in 5 years time?
We also need to remember that the financial pit that Labour has placed government finances will require some hard decisions. Many left wing supporters cannot even fathom cutting back on welfare just because a bunch of glorified accountants say it is necessary. But if the people of Britain wanted higher taxes instead of spending cuts then a) why didn’t Labour propose it as a serious part of their policy, b) why didn’t Labour even try to solve the fiscal problem say, ten years ago, and c) why didn’t the people of Britain vote for the Labour party if that’s what they wanted?
Paying down government debt is essential for maintaining a generous welfare state in the future. If no action is taken on government debt then Britain will go the way of Greece. Hard decisions must be made, Labour didn’t have the testicular fortitude to address them, and the voters of Britain have delivered the only reasonable electoral outcome. All Clegg and Cameron did was to take the opportunity presented to them.
Sesenco, how do you feel about having been willing to leave Iraqis to another 30 years of Baathism?
Where is the evidence that many hundreds of thousands have died, never mind killed by British forces?
Why are you advocating a pact with a Party which supported the invasion?
Where is Tony Blair at risk of arrest?
You are making this up.
Isn’t it undemocratic for a Prime Minister to call an election based entirely on partisan political considerations, considering only what timing will be best for his (or her) party — either calling an election early in order to capitalize on a very temporary wave of popularity, or (as in the case of this last election) dragging the matter out to the last minute? A fixed parliament term, whether three or four or five years, but in any case one which takes the timing of elections out of the control of the majority (or plurality) party is far better than the current system.
Sesenco
Jenny Foreigner,
So you are quite happy to be smeared with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
No, I am not. Which is why I marched and marched and campaigned against the war and then went and worked in a voluntary humanitarian post in Iraq itself. I have seen the ravages of the war in a way that you never will, I’ve heard the children screaming in the hospitals, and seen men crying because everything they have has been left behind and it has been three years since they managed to contact one of their children and the people starving in the camps in the north of Syria, so don’t you throw that one at me.
The Labour party’s hands are covered in blood. Your new allies too, or did you forget that?
The change to a 55% threshhold for a vote of confidence is just the kind of thinking that took us into the war in the first place. I thought better of the Lib Dems, and now with a choice of disengaging totally from politics, of giving up, or of trying to reform labour from within, I’m going to make a positive decision and I’m going to work for a strong opposition.
Is Sesenco going to respond? It really is the pits when someone rolls the hand-grenades back at you.
Jenny, to make it clear… my one about opponents of the invasion (of which I was one, although your commitment is stronger than 99.x% of other opponents) being culpable for continued Baathism is to show how stupid it is to accuse Labourites – never mind supporters – of culpability.
Alec,
“Why are you advocating a pact with a Party which supported the invasion?”
I am doing no such thing. YOU are making it up!
I see nothing about being in coalition with the tories that stops us slamming them for what they do wrong, and the areas of their policy that are bad. If you’re an MP, you’d have to be careful how you word stuff, but as members, we can say what we want. We’re liberals, and we tend to disagree with each other as it is. Why would we give the tories a pass?
Alec,
Tony Blair is at risk of arrest anywhere where there is an enterprising examining magistrate. France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden? Who knows?
As for the 30 years of Baathism cant, this will be the same Baathist regime that the Americans armed to the teeth to wage war on Iran? Anyway, I thought the justification for the war was WMD, not regime change.
As for the number dead (and still to die) . I think Blair himself admitted to 100,000, or some such enormous figure. The UN puts it much higher.
Indeed, Woeful.
I have a soft-spot for Anne Wiidcombe who,bonkers she may be, never pretends to be summat she’s not. Alan Duncan is cool as well. David Davis – say what you like about him (and I do) – pulled himself up from his bootstraps.
Heck, even John Redwood [1].
All eclipse Clegg.
[1] I wouldn’t go as far as Nadine Dorries.
A sad day when we see a 55% threshold for a successful vote of no confidence immediately put forward by this coalition. How can the Lib Dems agree to such a thing after all the talk of reforming politics?
I agree with Rich. I’m a councillor, and from what I can see there’s still things which I oppose and will continue to do so – Trident, the immigration cap, opposition to the Euro being just three – and I don’t intend to shut up about them if I’m asked. Unfortunately I can’t make the conference on Saturday but I’d really like to be there to ask those questions – are they going to expect people elected as Lib Dems to stick to the Westminster line, or will we be allowed to oppose those policies which weren’t in the manifesto?
If it’s the latter, then fine, I can live with that. If it’s the former, then it’s back to the soul-searching again.
Indeed – The Electorate has Spoken – But Who has Really Listened?
If Nick Clegg had been up front (instead of vaguely hinting) with Lib Dem voters that there was a realistic probability that he would form a coalition with a party that only shared 5% of Lib dem policies it is pretty obvious that Labour would have won this election.
I do also wonder how much credibility the electorate will view Lib Dem appeals for a fair electoral system when in reality your leader has manipulated the existing system to gain unproportionate power for your party in relation to their votes?
Sheesh, Sesenco, don’t you have any shame in spitting in Jenny’s face?
That’s not exactly the same as statutes and state-supported warrants. At least three of those countries better start issuing warrants against their own leaders for other conflicts.
Wrong.
Wrong.
You’re not doing very well at this, are you?
Everyone in Iraq is going to die. And many would have continued dying [early] had the invasion not taken place. But, you would have no involvement in that.
Clean hands, eh?
Not hundreds of thousands. Next, who killed most of them? Hint, it wasn’t Coalition forces.
Yeah, so?
Well of course you were wrong, and I said so at the time 🙂
The trouble with the don’t mention the war/coalition approcah was htta it meant other parties provided the narrative of what would happen. Once people have listend to a narrative, it is very hard to change their views. Points that disagree with it are ignored, points that re-inforce it accepted.
I have repeatly said the party falls too readily into the trap of talking about “putting Labour or Conservatives in”
and allowing interviers to ask who would you talk to, without pointing out the more important question – who would talk to us.
Another key point in the camapign was the Lib Dem topping the polls but the seat projections showing Labour winning the most saets. I didn’t see a single Lib Dem challenge either the seat projections or the lunacy of what this implied about the political system.
Many voters just didn’t understand it, and coped by accepting it as a fact of life, if you do vote lIb Dem, they won’t win.
JennyForeigner £6 billion cuts/savings call them what you will, with Government expenditure of over £600 billion a year it’s margin of error stuff. In fact, the £6 billion cuts are considerably less than would have got through under a minority or majority conservative government.
If Labour had introduced ANY measure of electoral reform in 13 yeras, we and they wouldn’t be in this situation.
If the Lib Dems had won the election we would have introduced STV and would have had to go into coaltion with someone !
Alec,
It’s easy enough to say “wrong”, much harder to say why I am wrong. You do the former, but not the latter. Poor show.
@ Sesenco
It’s not Labour with blood on their hands it’s Nu Lab. It’s Tony Blair.
We’re all a bright bunch here.
Have we forgotten that it’s the Conservatives that always pushed for war via imperialism and colonisation? The Labour party that formed during the 20th century was more about protectionism and the British working class.
It’s all got muddled and I much as I’m anti large states, I wish people would actually get their facts right about who is more war hungry in this country!
Nu Lab isn’t Labour. It is New Labour.
I see this as Labour going back to their roots now…..
@ JennyForeigner
Not sure joining Labour is right…yet. What we should be looking at is forming a genuine centre left party that is progressive. Not a Centre Right or Centre or Left but an actual Centre Left party.
We don’t have one. I’m desp to get involved with a proper centre left iniative that isn’t looking for you to become Labour members on the sly. You can’t change the Labour backbenchers who are just as authorative as the Tory back benchers.
@Sensco
Muxloe (ir is it Kirby?),
You contradict yourself. First you say we should prop up Labour to keep the Tories out (even though the Labour Party itself won’t allow this). Then you say we won’t risk another election because the Tories would win an overall majority. Are you not conceding that the only way to stop that happening is what Nick Clegg has chosen to do?
Muxloe replies ….
No, i haven’t contradicted myself, if you re-read my comments at no point do I say you should prop up Labour – in my opinion that would be illegitimate. The point I’m making is not about the ins and outs of the decision but rather the sense that many many people who have voted Lib Dem will feel conned and you will suffer for it. If the possibility of voting for a Tory govt by the back door had been more clearly articulated as a viable outcome (which people believed was too preposterous to be true) then I’m of the opinion that the electorate would have delivered a very different verdict. Every single person who I have spoken to today who voted Lib Dem tells me they wish they hadn’t. people want to believe that voting Lib Dem is a positive progressive vote but now with heavy hearts they will have to return to Labour.
As I said originally you should have let the Tories have a minority govt and be forced to call an early election; that way those people (and i count myself in this) who have been niave enough to think a vote for the Lib Dems was a viable anti-tory option can rethink their strategy. I maintain that this is an idea that scares the Lib Dems because you fear that progressives would be forced to see this as a two horse race; neither of which would be ridden by your jockeys. You miss read me to say this would lead to a Tory majority, as i believe that actually it would return the Labour Party because the Lib Dem vote would be decimated. A re-constituted, chastened and humble Labour party with a new leader would be far preferable to 4-5 years of Tory rule – however much it is tempered by the Lib Dems.
I’m just trying to give you insight into the feelings of your less tribal supporters. Remember when Blair and co though Iraq had weapons of mass destruction…it was because they only talked amongst themselves and reinforced each other’s justifications but failed to listen to well meaning alternative opinion – my heartfelt suggestion is that lib dems stop debating this internally and listen with open ears to what their erstwhile supporters think.
(p.s yes i have a Kirby Muxloe connection)
No, you’re wrong, Sesenco.
France, (West) Germany, Russia, China provided more support than America or Britain. It wasn’t CIA handbooks which Saddam used. Egypt provided more support than America and Britain combined.
Here is the Hansard report of the debate in March 2003. Please point to where ‘WMD’ are stipulated.
This is by-the-by. The Tories supported the invasion (as opposed to half of Labour opposing it). The man responsible led Labour to the 2005 GE success. By implication, you are convicting the Labour-voters then of culpability. Opponents of democracy and totalitarians down the ages have used its rhetoric only when it suited them, and then ignored/damned the electorate when they disagreed.
The most shameless remark from Clegg (so, understandably, it’s up against stiff competition) was when he said Labour had led the country into two wars. I don’t know for sure if he voted for Afghanistan, but I do know much of his Party did.
Correction, Muxloe. Blair never “thought” for one minute that Iraq had WMD. He knew perfectly well that it didn’t. It is because Cheney and his gang knew that Iraq didn’t have WMD that they did invade Iraq. By the same token, they will never invade North Korea.
Alec,
So you don’t deny that the USA helped arm Iraq during the 1980s, either by itself or through its surrogates, and that the US government actively encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran?
Good.
I agree with Stephen. Except:
Five years for a fixed term parliament is just too long. If you have a discredited government like John Major’s was, people need to see light at the end of the tunnel, the chance to vote again within a reasonable timescale. It is true that we have a five year maximum term now, but, because anything can always happen under the current system, there is not the same sense of being completely stuck for ever with a government we do not want to continue.
It will rebound against us and the Tories. When we are inevitably unpopular in the mid-term, Labour will say we have gerrymandered this five-year parliament to our own advantage. They will strike a chord with the voters.
I see that some oppose the 55% no-confidence threshold. But, look at that issue from the Tory point of view. If we have only a 50%+1 threshold, we don’t truly have a fixed term parliament at all. We have a parliament in which the Lib Dems are the party most likely to decide the date of the next election, by combining with Labour in a confidence vote whenever it suits them. That is too big a risk for us, realistically, to expect the Tories to take. Indeed, it would do us no good either to have the Tories perpetually worrying when we might decide to turn round and stab them in the back.
So we can’t oppose the 55% threshold, in my view. Fixed term must mean what it says. But it should not mean five years. A change to four years wouldn’t look like a massive betrayal of faith in the deal. It would probably end up being good for the Tories as well as ourselves. Can we just tweak this one item – please?
Seen this..
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/12/exclusive-was-this-the-con-lib-agreement/
When Nick said on TV during the election that he would not prop up Gordon Brown if it came to a hung parliament, effectively he said no coalition with Labour, as it would be impossible to do business with an unknown Labour leader, like it or lump it, this is what Nick made clear…
Anyone with half a brain could understand this…
So when he asked for Talks with Labour, it was already decided that no deal would be possible with Labour, so Nick used these so called talks to put pressure on the Conservatives, which in all fairness it did. I think the Labour team understood this, I don’t think the Conservatives made that link.
So do not say it was Labour who failed to make a deal, it was obvious they could not because of what Nick had already said…
What I find interesting is that some think that a fixed term government is unbreakable, I can think of many ways to force a break… one question if after three years there has been no vote for AV, because the legislation is not in place or the referendum has not taken place because of blocking by some MPs… would that not break the deal? (and no I am not saying that will happen)
The scary thing is most of the press is going to back the Conservatives when they say it is unworkable (right wing press) gulp!!!
I do hope that everything works well, but I can see lots of pitfalls and do you know what, if it does cock up you can expect Labour to abstain in any confidence vote until it suits them otherwise…
Can you wonder why so many of Labour were saying the Lib/Con was the only option?
Labour had already been ruled out by what Nick said during the election… and they knew it.
@sesenco
you’ve just served to endorse the point that i was trying to make… if one tells oneself something often enough and only surround oneself with others of the same view you start to believe what deep down you knew was wrong in the first place… the Lib Dems are in danger of doing exactly the same thing here.
55%? what about a fair old fashioned majority? vested interests creeping in already!
“I see that some oppose the 55% no-confidence threshold. But, look at that issue from the Tory point of view. If we have only a 50%+1 threshold, we don’t truly have a fixed term parliament at all.”
Hmmm. This 55% threshold was described earlier – purportedly on the basis of a BBC report – as “the only way to remove the government between elections” by a no-confidence motion, in the context of a fixed-term parliament.
But looking at the text of the agreement, it turns out that it’s not that at all – it’s the threshold for a vote by MPs to dissolve parliament. In fact there is nothing in the agreement about no-confidence motions. So presumably the constitutional position would remain that if a prime minister lost a no-confidence motion he would have to resign. That’s a relief.
But I must say that this isn’t really a provision for fixed term parliaments, because 5 of the last 7 general elections have resulted in a government with more than 55% of the seats. So the prime minister would still have the power to dissolve parliament in most cases.
Les Moss,
What a load of old codswallop. Politicians can and do say anything during an election campaign. Is David Cameron bound by his injudicious comments about China? I hope not. Negotiations with Labour failed because key Labour figures refused to countenance an agreement. That is fact, written in 50 foot letters for all to see. The Labour spin on this is pathetic.
“This isn’t really a provision for fixed term parliaments, because 5 of the last 7 general elections have resulted in a government with more than 55% of the seats. So the prime minister would still have the power to dissolve parliament in most cases.”
Hmmmm! You’re right, AASt. It is a most peculiar provision. It prevents the current Tories with 47% of the seats from dissolving Parliament when they so choose. It allows the Tories to combine with the Lib Dems and dissolve parliament at will, since they have 56% of the seats between them. It prevents a LabLib rainbow group from dissolving parliament, since that adds up to 53%. It will quite probably allow many future prime ministers to dissolve Parliament at will, because majority party governments often have well over 55% of the seats as you point out. So, it seems to have a special relevance to this parliament, with the 55% figure neatly gerrymandered in between 53% and 56%.
In other words, it’s a complete dog’s breakfast. it will surely not survive proper scrutiny.
David, let’s hope the Other Place has their final revenge.
France and West Germany and the *USSR* were US surrogates? You’re constructing your own fantasies. You’re mad.
The bottom line is that even if your guff about Iraq were true, you are now in alliance with a Party which did nothing to oppose it.
I see you’ve left EGYPTout of your quote, Alec. If you have a long enough memory you will recall that in the 1980s, Egypt was the third largest recipient of US aid, and was the primary conduit of US foreign policy objectives in the Arab world. Try harder.
I see you’ve left EGYPT out of your quote, Alec. If you have a long enough memory you will recall that in the 1980s, Egypt was the third largest recipient of US aid, and was the primary conduit of US foreign policy objectives in the Arab world. Try harder.
As I read it, the 55% only applies to votes of confidence/no confidence in the house.
In other words, if 53% of MP’s vote no confidence then Cameron will not be obliged to offer his government’s resignation.
The reason for it is clear. The Conservatives have 47% of MP’s. The Lib Dems cannot bail, join up with everyone else and force an election.
Why would the US bother about doing so via a proxy when she happily supplied X and Y states elsewhere?
I didn’t forget about Egypt. She was irrelevent to my original statement. *Even* she supplied more than America and Britain *combined*. In other words, not much.
The bulk came from Russia and France and (West) Germany and China.
Egypt invaded Yemen – where there was the first use of [Soviet supplied] chemical weaponry since WWII – before she became an American “surrougate”. You’ve found your natural home in the reactionary right. You can’t imagine Arabs actually having independent thought or policies.
Ryan, there never was and never will be a Rainbow Coalition. Even if there were, it does not mitigate the first action of Nick “open, accountable Government” Clegg to make damn sure he gets five years before his Party is anhilated, and he joins the Tories.
Alec-
I know there will be no rainbow coalition, and nor should there be. But a combined attempt to force out the Tories in 2 or 3 years if the polls are favorable is hardly unthinkable. The Conservatives have just blocked that possibility, that’s all.
Ryan,
Yes, I can see why the Tories could not let us force an election. But what about the 2015-2020 parliament, in which the Conglomerative party gains 40% of the seats while the Diberal Lemocrats gain 22%? Does someone have to push an amending bill through to change the figure from 55% to 61%, or something? When we’re writing a piece of constitutional law, don’t we need to write something that will last, and which doesn’t look as if it was written on the back of an envelope in a late night negotiation?
I think the threshold for dissolving a fixed term parliament before the end of the term should be infinity. That’s why it’s called fixed term!
“As I read it, the 55% only applies to votes of confidence/no confidence in the house.
In other words, if 53% of MP’s vote no confidence then Cameron will not be obliged to offer his government’s resignation.
The reason for it is clear. The Conservatives have 47% of MP’s. The Lib Dems cannot bail, join up with everyone else and force an election.”
According to the text that has been released, it applies to a vote for the dissolution of parliament, but there is no mention of no-confidence motions (contrary to a misleading report earlier).
So I think you are correct that the Tories would be in a position to block the early dissolution of parliament. But if Cameron lost the confidence of a majority of MPs he would still have to resign – which is surely as it should be.
Ryan, agreed, but it’s unlikely as it would involve the input from the Plaid and the SNP (evidence of why any “progressive alliance” which would have included nationalists makes the word meaningless). In Scotland, the SNP received fewer votes than the neo-Whigs, and only 20% more than the Tories: Salmond’s predictions of GE success (20 seats FFS!) were as scotch pie in the sky as Clegg’s.
They won’t risk it. Not even if the Barnett Formula is scraped (no wonder that Salmond was stammering about being able to work with the Tories).
“I think the threshold for dissolving a fixed term parliament before the end of the term should be infinity. That’s why it’s called fixed term!”
I think there has to be some way out in extreme circumstances in which everyone agrees that a fresh election would be beneficial. But two thirds seems to me a more reasonable figure than 55%.
AASt
Two thirds sounds better than 55%. But it still wouldn’t deal with a crisis where the Conglomerative leader had lost a vote of confidence and resigned, but the 40% of Conglomerative MPs who formed the lead partners in government refused to vote for a dissolution, because they knew they would get slaughtered at the next election.
One approach would be to say that fixed term means fixed, so, in the event of a government losing a confidence vote, the parties simply must find a way to realign and produce a viable replacement government without an election.
Whether a dissolution is allowed if they can’t manage this is a problematic issue. Allow it, and you may make it too easy to ride roughshod over the “fixed” term legislation. Prevent it, and you run the trisk of some horrible impasse. Perhaps this is one I can’t answer off the back of my own envelope!
I’m surprised at how ready people are to swallow the Labour line about the negotiations. The Lib Dem version is a different one. The truth is probably somewhere in between those two fables. Given that several Labour MP’s had allready come out against a coalition with the Lib Dems, that bird wasn’t gonna fly anyway.
One of the key words in this piece is ‘maybe’.
If some, all or most LD MPs want to get out of this deal or there is a stumbling bloc over a fundamental point of principle or in a response to unexpected events where the Tories take a stance we can’t possib;y accept (e.g. in response to a possible future Iran crisis?) the accepted constitutional position was MPs had the option to defeat any government in a vote of confidence.
We now propose that to do this will take 55% of MPs – just how many MPs is this and how many do LDs have? Do the arithmetic guys and ponder that some day in this coalition or the next or come the day when we may be in opposition in a narrowly balanced Parliament. I cannot see the justification for this proposal of a mixed term Parliament with an ‘enhanced’ majority needed to overturn it?
This is the recipe fo give any government the right to legislate in entirely its own interest – I’m not saying the present Parliament hankers after dictatorship but if any future one that did a, majority of elected MPs would be unable to do anything about it as long as they had 55% of the Commons and not 50%. Doesn’t seem very democratic to me?
Please don’t do it.
“… the accepted constitutional position was MPs had the option to defeat any government in a vote of confidence.
We now propose that to do this will take 55% of MPs …”
The 55% threshold is for dissolving parliament, not for a no-confidence motion. There is nothing in the agreement about no-confidence motions.
“I’m surprised at how ready people are to swallow the Labour line about the negotiations. The Lib Dem version is a different one.”
Surely the point is that whatever may or may not have been said in the negotiations, the possibility of a deal had already been well and truly killed by the public declarations of backbench MPs (and some prominent ex-MPs) that they wouldn’t accept it.