An email pings into LDV’s email inbox from the Lib Dems’ director of election communications, Jonny Oates, stating categorically that Nick Clegg did not express a preference for dealing with the Tories over Labour.
Now it has been known, just occasionally, for Nick to speak a little faster than he thinks. But, as I posted here, yesterday Nick really was crystal clear about how he would approach the vexed question of a ‘hung Parliament’ – and still the media managed to distort his remarks! In rebutting today’s inaccurate press reports, all Jonny had had to do is reproduce the transcript of what Nick actually said:
In view of today’s press reports about a balanced parliament, I thought it would be useful to provide the text of what Nick said on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday. As you will see, these comments do not indicate any preference between the other two parties in the event of no party having an overall majority.
“I think it is an inevitable fact, it is just stating the obvious, the party which has got the strongest mandate from the British people will have the first right to seek to govern.
“I start from a very simple first principle – it is not Gordon Brown or David Cameron or Nick Clegg who are kingmakers in British politics – it’s the British people.
“So the votes of the British people are what should determine what happens afterwards.
“Whichever party have the strongest mandate from the British people, it seems to me obvious in a democracy they have the first right to seek to try and govern, either on their own or with others.”
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Derek Nimmo says "P... p... pick up a Penguin"
26 words
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Desperation hangs over the Tory leadership contest
The attitudes of Britain's ethnic minority population - The Week in Polls
Alex Salmond 1954-2024
Peter Martin
Michael BG
Mick Taylor
Nigel Quinton
68 Comments
I think Nick’s approach is the best one – we believe in fair votes, and seats in proportion to votes. So if more people vote for one party, but another wins more seats due to the vagueries of FPTP then we should support the principle of the mandate being expressed in terms of votes cast (not seats won).
Dangerous, dangerous comment. He should have shied away. He has reinforced the duality of the forthcoming election and floating voters will be more tempted to go red or blue.
Interesting point from Pavement Politico, I’d not thought of that. Even so, I think Nick’s approach has to be the best way. Whether we like it or not, a dual hung parliament is what people are discussing. And surely no-one can object if the methodology is to be available first to the party with the most votes.
(“Surely no-one can object”. Ha.)
In a balanced Parliament, Liberal Democrats should work with whoever will do the most to advance liberalism in Britain.
“In a balanced Parliament, …”
I must admit I’d completely forgotten we were meant to call it a “balanced” parliament.
> In a balanced Parliament, Liberal Democrats should work with whoever will do the most to advance liberalism in Britain. <
Absolutely… but it is not clear right now who that would be. Labour, who have taken on with enthusiasm the role of a quasi-fascist government, or the Conservatives with their thin veneer of small 'L' liberalism slapdashly applied to to surface of a wholly unreformed and unrepentant Tory party grass roots.
The right way is to have a strong Lib Dem manifesto which is not negotiable and stick to our principles.
As for the duality of the election, most voters when asked couldn't put a fag paper between nuLabour and the Tories. It is up to us to make sure that they understand the choice is between business as usual yet again or a real chance to give the two-party symbiotic relationship a damn good kick in the knackers.
I think Nick handled this as well as he could – placing power in the hands of the voters, not the party leaders.
It is important to remember that there are lost of scenarios in which no party has an overall majority but may be in a position to govern without talking to us at all.
The best thing we can do is concentrate our time and enegy on winning as many seats as possible rather than worrying about the endless possible seat permutations.
This is an excellent, excellent commenting tactic by Clegg.
He says something which can be interpreted by anyone who cares to give it a second thought in any which way they like and in so doing he refocusses attention on the underlying inequalities and injustices of the current system.
We are the only party to have any serious credibility for reforming the system, so the conclusion is obvious – continue to suffer the swings and roundabouts of public opinion under Labour and Conservatives, or vote for the only party which listens, represents and is consistent in speaking up for reform!
It really doesn’t matter which party is the nominal winner of any election or who resides in Downing Street – what matters is that the policies of the government benefit the nation.
I agree that this is as good an answer as you can find. But we should also say that more Lib Dem votes means more Lib Dem MPs and more Lib Dem policies whichever party forms a government – for precisely the reasons PP suggests above.
But what does “the strongest mandate from the British people” mean?
If it means highest vote share then it’s as near impossible as makes no odds for a Labour lead in the vote share to translate into a hung Parliament.
It could also mean the largest number of seats.
There is a long history of leaders statements on hung parliaments and similar positioning. Certainly the years of “Paddy’s Project” we were told time and again that press reports were inaccurate, made up and mischeif making. It turned out that they were a good deal more accurate than the leader’s public statements.
Of course, if Labour get most votes they’ll have most seats – and either a majority or very close to it.
Thus for a Lab/LD coalition, the Tories would need most votes. And Clegg has just appeared to rule that out.
Good news, but the Cable wing will hate it.
Dangerous, dangerous comment.
Not at all, he’s got this rubbish out of the way nice and early.
“Whichever party have the strongest mandate from the British people, it seems to me obvious in a democracy they have the first right to seek to try and govern, either on their own or with others.”
Note the phase “first right to seek”. He didn’t say that the Liberal Democrats would autoamtically join a government with the largest party.
What if a plurality of the public vote for one party, but it becomes clear that most libdem voters would prefer the other (I have a feeling that this happened 19 1974), surely we shouldn’t support the party with the greatest “mandate” in that event.
Iain Dale is linking to this post as “LibDem Voice accuses Nick Clegg of engaging mouth before brain”.
just the consequences of the obsession with the political centre ground in this country
Declarations of intent even when they seek to be neutral are dangerous because they threaten to affect the decisions of people who vote tactically in FPP elections.
In Feb ’74 we polled 19.3% of the vote and won 14 seats.
In May 2005 we polled 22.1% and won 62 seats.
Sacrifice the years of careful development of tactical voting and even an increased vote share could see the number of seats won plummet.
Tread carefully for we tread on the prospects of our campaigners.
“Declarations of intent even when they seek to be neutral are dangerous because they threaten to affect the decisions of people who vote tactically in FPP elections.”
Also, anything that can be represented as an intention to keep the government in office if it wins most seats, will have the effect of driving soft Tories in Lib Dem-held seats back into the Conservative camp.
So after speaking to both parties Nick finds out that the party with the lease number of votes offers him the best deal, with seats in the Cabinet, and will put in a number of Lib Dem polices, does he say thanks but I am going with the party that offers him no seats in a Cabinet, and will not accept any of his polices?
He must go with the party that offers his party the best deal.
“He must go with the party that offers his party the best deal.”
Manifestly NO. He must do what he believes is right for the country, otherwise he, and we, will rightly be punished at the subsequent election.
Manifestly NO. He must do what he believes is right for the country, otherwise he, and we, will rightly be punished at the subsequent election.
Well I would think that the party that agreed with him the most would be right for the country?
“Surely no-one can object if the methodology is to be available first to the party with the most votes.”
Let’s ban dishonest argument, shall we?
I read Geoffrey Payne arguing that a Tory coalition would be anathema, I read Tabman arguing that a Labour coalition would be anathema. I don’t agree with either view, because I think that once we declare there is only one partner we could deal with, we destroy our chances of getting a reasonable deal with that partner. But at least both of these posters are making an honest argument in an honest way.
To argue that in a hung parliament we “must” support the party with the most votes is simply an underhand way of arguing that we must support the Tories, come what may. Let’s hear no more of this deceitful and manipulative argument. It is no way to carry on a sensible discussion within our party.
What’s dishonest about it David? Giving the party with the most votes the first chance at forming a government has been my own personal view for over twenty years. It was when it looked like that might mean Labour. It was when it looked like that might mean the Tories. It would still be that if it looked like it might mean UKIP. What’s dishonest about having a democratic principle and sticking with it as the levels of support for different parties come and go?
It now means the Tories. To suggest that in a hypothetical situation you might stick with the same logic and thereby favour Labour is simply irrelevant. Nobody can know whether that is true or merely a piece of sophistry. To stick to it now means that you are happy to advocate that our only potential partners in the next parliament should be the Tories. Are you?
“Giving the party with the most votes the first chance at forming a government has been my own personal view for over twenty years.”
That wasn’t what Nick said though…..
David,
doesn’t that conclusion presuppose the outcome of the election (which recent polls suggest is far from cut and dried and why we’re having this discussion in the first place)?
And apart from the question of which party will be the largest overall in parliament being still open at this point in time, the exact scale and balance of the make-up in the commons will have a lot to do with how any negotiations play out.
Consider an optimistic scenario for the LibDems where we return record numbers of MPs while remaining the third party, or one where we become the second party according to the popular vote – this would change the framework considerably and indicate a very different public mandate.
Either option is possible, so there’s all to play for between now and then.
My own personal condition for a hung parliament is to offer support conditional on a reduced term of two or three years – which would force each and every party to propose clear and distinctive manifestos and offer a real choice next time round.
This would be likely to create a sustained positive and engaged debate on many pressing issues that are currently avoided by the establishment because they are percieved to be the cause of divisiveness (eg the European question, the constitution and the monarchy). It would flush out a range of barely concealed agendas and enable a sense of resolution to set the tone for a new generation.
I think a defined period where the big issues are addressed would reinvigorate the public interest in politics because we would know the decisions will matter and we would each have to make the most of the opportunity to make our individual voices heard.
David: I’m not suggesting a hypothetical, I’m telling you the facts of what I’ve consistently believed. Up to you if you want to go round wondering whether you think I’m lying (though personally I’d rather have some evidence to hand before thinking the same of you, but hey – that’s your choice).
Mark Pack
Posted 24th November 2009 at 11:59 pm | Permalink
What’s dishonest about it David? Giving the party with the most votes the first chance at forming a government has been my own personal view for over twenty years. It was when it looked like that might mean Labour. It was when it looked like that might mean the Tories. It would still be that if it looked like it might mean UKIP. What’s dishonest about having a democratic principle and sticking with it as the levels of support for different parties come and go?
Mark every one to their own view, but to go into a meeting and letting the others know that they have won before you talk to them I feel is wrong. In a card school you never show your hand to the rest of the table, and in this case you would gain more by keeping your cards close to your chest. I think Nick was wrong to answer this question, as it leaves him weaker when he comes to talk to the party with the most votes.
Mark Pack
Posted 25th November 2009 at 8:25 am | Permalink
David: I’m not suggesting a hypothetical, I’m telling you the facts of what I’ve consistently believed. Up to you if you want to go round wondering whether you think I’m lying (though personally I’d rather have some evidence to hand before thinking the same of you, but hey – that’s your choice).
Mark I am not sure what you are on about here? I never posted that you were lying?
Mark
I think you read the David Allen posting when you relied to David.
David, when you say “I think Nick was wrong to answer this question, as it leaves him weaker when he comes to talk to the party with the most votes.” I think you are right. [It makes me wonder what an “International Trade Negotiator” does for a living or whether, when Nick practiced that profession, those across the table from him used to rub their hands when they saw him coming.]
Mark, I am sure you are right in thinking that there is something special about gaining the highest number of votes across the country, but, I also think that you will appreciate the danger that ,if such a notion is in the minds of the British public as they go vote in a close run election, it will make them much less likely to vote tactically.
Another reason for the Leader not to have started that hare running.
Maximizing the number of seats we win is THE priority and that means maintaining the attractiveness not only of voting for us directly but also tactically.
Feb ’74: Liberal Vote 20% number of seats won 14
Careless and ill-thought through talk costs seats.
Bill
I agree that this kind of statement tends to weaken the party’s negotiating position in a hung parliament, but when he answered that question I’m sure what was uppermost in Nick Clegg’s mind was the pre-election campaign, not any post-election negotiations.
The danger is that if the question were simply evaded, party spokesmen might end up being questioned repeatedly about it during the campaign, and have to evade it over and over again. Another danger is that the other parties would make capital out of any uncertainty, with scare stories along the lines of “The LIb Dems would keep Labour in power/put the Tories in power”.
In a way, I thought “we would prefer to deal with the party with most votes” might perhaps have been the “least worst” option, because it would at least scotch the line about keeping Labour in power, which is potentially the most damaging. But to give an ambiguous reply – which is what Clegg seems to have done – has much the same disadvantages as evading the question completely.
Herbert, I think the golden rule is ‘don’t go there’ keep talking about our campaigns and make sure we talk Focus not FT.
“Andrew/Jeremy/John/Nick/Adam (delete as required) We want to clean up Westminster, we want to clean up the City. We want politicians people can trust and we want bankers and financiers that serve the public not themselves. We want jobs and justice and a planet we can pass on to our grandchildren. We’ll put these popular policies to the people of this country. And we shall campaign for those policies before, during and after the election regardless of the result; because these radical reforms are right for Britain.”
Repeat ad nauseum.
Mark,
I’m not suggesting that you are lying. I am sure that both you and I have long believed in electoral reform to ensure that the party with most votes gains most seats. However, back in the real world with an unreformed system, there has always been a pro-Labour bias (due to migration out of towns and the boundary commission settlement always drifting out of date), though it has rarely been as large as it is now. No doubt you favoured giving Labour the first shot at forming a government in 1997, when they got the most votes plus a landslide in seats. However, if in the real world you always wanted power linked to votes, then you will always have tended to give the Tories more favour than you would have done, had you wanted power linked to seats.
I don’t know, historically, whether that is how you would have acted. For most of our history, it would have been a perfectly tenable point of view. It would in a sense have meant a consistently pro-Tory (as opoposed to pro-Labour) leaning, but, arguably that is justifiable if one believes in the primacy of the total popular vote.
But now we have a new situation. As Mike Smithson and others have repeatedly pointed out, the electoral bias is now so large that if Parliament is hung in terms of seats, it is almost inevitable that the Tories will be leading Labour in the popular vote. So, a declaration that we would support the winner of the popular vote would be tantamount to a declaration that we are not equidistant, but are firm and committed allies of the Tory Party in any hung parliament situation.
You haven’t yet answered my question, which was: Are you happy to advocate that we should make such a declaration?
It seems to me that for a number of posters here, a clarion call to support the winner on votes is a covert and dishonest way of expressing support for the Tories over Labour. Perhaps, for others like yourself, a similarly unconditional support for the Tories emerges as an unintended by-product of a reasoning process based on theoretical principle. But if it does, then, surely you should be prepared to confront the practical consequences of your principles. You should either say “Yes, I am happy to accept that my principles bind me to becoming an unconditional ally of the Tories when choosing whether they or Labour should form the next government”, or else you should say “Oh sh*t, it is important that our party can declare itself equidistant, or at least should have some freedom of choice, and so I shall have to change those principles of mine.”
(And yes Hywel, fortunately Nick did not actually say that most votes = first choice! However, as David-without-my-surname and Bill have commented, it is what a lot of people think he meant, and it’s no way to play a card game!)
David: that’s right. I was responding to the other David; sorry for any confusion!
David,
you’re doing exactly what Clegg warns against – that is second guessing the will of the people.
We want reform of the laws, but we abide by the laws as they currently stand. As they currently stand the right to form a government goes to the party which can control a majority in the House of Commons.
So Clegg was merely repeating what will happen, rather than expressing what he’d like to see happen.
Confusing the two is a favorite ploy of the enemies of liberalism because it creates an irrelevant debate of ‘what ifs’, and washes over all the ‘what nows’. It reduces politics to personality and damages any scrutiny of policy.
So don’t get sucked into speculation – make your preference clear and explain your reasons. If you do this then you can have confidence that the final outcome will reflect the balance of opinion – you can be sure that doing the opposite will cause confusion, give potential grounds for fear and be a destabilising factor going forward.
Everyone here wants to maximise LibDem success because we believe we present the best way forward.
“As they currently stand the right to form a government goes to the party which can control a majority in the House of Commons.
So Clegg was merely repeating what will happen, rather than expressing what he’d like to see happen.”
You appear to have overlooked one small detail: Nick Clegg was being asked about a situation in which no party had a majority in the House of Commons.
Herbert,
the principle at stake is implicit in the statement.
The way things currently stand seats is what matters.
If this is not matched by the popular vote then this creates a case for reform, which must be taken into consideration.
I’d also draw a line between the meaning of a ‘majority’ and an ‘overall majority’. In a multi-party system the former equates with a ‘plurality’.
So you think Nick Clegg meant seats rather than votes?
I’m puzzled, because on another thread you said it was a clever thing to say, because it was sufficiently ambiguous that everyone could read into it what they wanted to.
But, after all, maybe that’s just what you’re doing.
Hi Herbert,
I’m not sure what your comments are trying to achieve.
It is overly simplistic to ask what he ‘meant’, as this draws no distinction between what he would like to achieve and what he thinks is achievable in the given scenario.
So I actually think Clegg made a statement of fact, not opinion – which in my opinion is a good thing because it avoids confusion about procedure. Your puzzlement clearly stems from a desire for an unambiguous statement about utopian ideals and outcomes.
Control of the house is decided by seats, which is a reflection of votes.
The two could correspond better, but that is a premise for entering discussions, not a factor which we can preemptively assume will determine their outcome. To make such an assumption negates the value of any discussions, and gives an inference that political debate is worthless – which I strongly dispute. It may or may not be a factor, but it is up to us to make the point stick to win the argument.
“I’m not sure what your comments are trying to achieve.”
When I asked whether you thought Clegg meant seats rather than votes, strangely enough what I was trying to achieve was that you would say “Yes” or “No”.
Herbert,
Clegg’s own words are as clear as day on their own, so asking me what I think they mean is a bit ridiculous.
Perhaps you’d care to read the quotes quickly? No? let me copy and paste them for you.
“it is an inevitable fact, it is just stating the obvious, the party which has got the strongest mandate from the British people will have the first right to seek to govern… the votes of the British people are what should determine what happens afterwards.”
From what I can see there is no space for interpretation or confusion there: he is not stating what he thinks should happen, he is stating what the established procedure is and what will happen. There are no ifs or buts about it – the largest party in the Commons will have first dibs on forming a government, just as happens in any event.
No party has won a majority in the popular vote since Baldwin in 1931 and the last time the largest party didn’t win the popular vote was in 1951, so there is ample precedent to determine the course of action and it would running up against a brick wall to dispute it.
What this doesn’t do is indicate the course of any negotiations.
The big question would be whether a situation where there was no overall majority in the commons would create a groundswell of opinion for electoral reform and therefore how strongly Clegg should demand it.
Paging Mark Pack, paging Mark Pack. You’ve clearly seen my posting of 25th November 2009 at 1:28 pm, since you posted next (and replied to David-with-no-surname). But you still haven’t answered my question.
You do pretty well when it comes to making rude remarks (your post of 25th November 2009 at 8:25 am), but you don’t seem so keen to tackle my analysis of the baleful consequences of your stance.
“it is an inevitable fact, it is just stating the obvious, the party which has got the strongest mandate from the British
people will have the first right to seek to govern”
This is just piffle – what happens in a hung parliament is not inevitable, not obvious and their is no written consititution to determine what is menat by strongest mandate.
Historically the Queen appoints a Primeminister and they can stay until they resign, either when they wish or more usally when they no longer comand support of the house of commons.
In the event of Labour getting less seats and votes than the Conseravtives, yet Labour securing backing of the Nationalists, and therfore perhaps more MPs than the Conservatives, who is to say who has the greater mandate?
Oranjepan
Somehow you seem to have missed the whole point of the discussion.
Here it is in a nutshell. Andrew Marr asked Nick Clegg if, in the event of a hung parliament, he would consider it right to back the party with “the biggest number of seats, or votes, or what?” Clegg replied by talking about the party with the “strongest mandate”.
What we are discussing is what that means, as a reply to Marr’s question? Some people think that by “the party with the strongest mandate” he meant the party with the biggest number of seats. Some people think he meant the party with the biggest number of votes.
What I was asking you was whether you thought he meant the part with the biggest number of seats, or the party with the biggest number of votes.
There. If you still can’t understand the question, I don’t see what more I can do.
We could be looking at this next June?
Prime Minister – David Cameron Deputy Prime Minister – Nick Clegg
Chancellor of the Exchequer – Vince Cable Home Secretary – George Osborne
Foreign Secretary – William Hague Education Secretary – Chris Huhne
Health Secretary – Chris Grayling
Herbert, Oranjepan,
I’m afraid you two are really rather fun to watch. Since Herbert loves black and white logic, while Oranjepan is a past master of the muddy shades of brown and grey, your minds seem fated not to meet!
Normally my own leaning tends toward the black and white. But on this topic, I like it muddy, I’m all in favour of what Mouse calls “piffle”. We simply need to keep all our options open, both to maximise our influence, and to avoid alienating either rightward-leaning or leftward-leaning supporters. If Nick has to talk piffle to preserve that position, well then Nick, just keep on piffling!
David: I’ve explained why I disagree with you. You’re asking the same core point in different guises, so I didn’t reply because I’ve not got anything to add to what I’ve already said.
By the way, I think you’ll find that far from me doing “pretty well when it comes to making rude remarks”, if you think the polite and calm comment of mine you mention really counts as me being rude, I must be pretty awful at this being rude business 🙂
Fair enough Mark, since you don’t want to add to what you have said, I will have to take it that your answer to my question is the “default” option which I offered you.
That is: You are happy to accept that your commitment to “giving the party with the most votes the first chance at forming a government” means, in practice, that we should be firm and committed allies of the Tory Party, in any realistic hung parliament position that may arise following the next General Election.
You may be happy with that, but I’m not!
Poll
In the event of Nick Clegg not forming a government after the next election, who do you *least want* to be Prime Minister in a year’s time?
Gordon Brown 212 of all votes
David Cameron 321 of all votes
Total Votes: 533
Seems the party is split on this David Allen. I expect the ones that would go with Brown are from the old Lib Party (David Steel), while the one for Cameron were from from the old SDP (David Owen) .
So if Nick has to side up with Labour or the Tory party I can see a split coming in the Lib Dems.
It could be best to sit on the side,and let Brown or Cameron get on with it.
David
What puzzles me is that Oranjepan has already said “The way things currently stand seats is what matters.” That seemed clear enough for the world’s biggest fan of monochrome, but for some reason he seems incapable of saying “Yes” to the proposition “So you think he meant seats, not votes?” But it may just be that amateur politicians find it just as difficult as professionals to give a straight answer to a direct question.
Anyhow, I’m afraid the problem with obfuscation as a strategy for dealing with this question is that it wouldn’t survive five minutes in an interview with Jeremy Paxman or someone like that. And it’s just not an option to limit access to the party leader exclusively to “Mumsnet” during an election campaign.
Herbert
It must be seats, as that what you require to win the election.
It is interesting that the Right wing of the Tory party think Cameron is too Liberal, while the Left wing of the Liberal party feel Nick is too right wing. So could if Brown won the election be after this election be a parting of the ways, with UKIP taking the right wing of the Tory party with it, and a new centre party of Cameron and Clegg ?
We live in interesting times.
“It must be seats, as that what you require to win the election.”
But we’re talking about a situation in which no party “wins” the election in that sense.
There’s no “must” about it, or most of the press wouldn’t have got the impression he was talking about votes, not seats. And that’s probably because Nick Clegg’s answer to the question of whether he would think it right to back the party with “the biggest number of seats, or votes, or what?” included the words “So the votes of the British people are what should determine what happens afterwards”.
There’s no “must” about it, or most of the press wouldn’t have got the impression he was talking about votes, not seats.
From The Press Ass
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091122/tuk-clegg-will-back-strongest-party-6323e80.html
They think it is seats?
Herbert,
Obfuscation does indeed have its limits as a strategy. However, it is only one of several ways to keep our options open. Another way of doing it (the monochrome way!) would of course be to admit openly that this is what we are doing.
Nick could say something like “Look, Jeremy, we’ll decide when we get there who we think has got the strongest mandate. It could be decided on whatever basis we think fit. Just to take an awkward example, if party X were to sneak a narrow winning margin by dint of turning semi-racist in the last week of the campaign, we might tell the nation that we think party Y got the strongest moral mandate. So – you’ll just have to wait and see what happens.”
Now, that sort of response would certainly have the merits of honesty and directness. However, it is a cruel unfair world out there. You can bet that all our opponents, and probably Paxman as well, would dive in with sneering comments. “What, we all have to wait for your godlike decision, Lord Snooty, do we? Who the heck do you think you are? You’re just evading the question. You really want to jump into bed with party Z, but you don’t dare admit it, do you, you horrible evasive little third rate politicians?”
Sometimes, I fear, we do all need to take the Oranjepan masterclass in using a lot of words but not giving away any real meaning!
Time to respond – I admit I do enjoy stirring up a debate, but I prefer to reach the muddy banks of the river than just flounder in their waters.
The Marr question (who is assumed to be sympathetic to our cause) was an opportunity to put this to bed, but it seems the issue is a bit more convoluted than could be dredged up in a simple statement.
The first problem with saying straightforwardly that seats is what matters is that it undermines the case for electoral reform, so Clegg used the term ‘mandate’ in a clear reference to the current state of affairs, which we are committed to change.
The second problem is raised by Mouse, who points out that ‘the largest numbers of seats’ in a multi-party system can itself be the cause of confusion because it can refer either to a single party or bloc.
I’m really not surprised that this confusion causes some heated language, but I’d hope from better if we are to eventually work it to our advantage.
As someone who is too young to have been an SDP or Liberal member and probably wouldn’t have joined either if I had, I take an alternative view that the longshot of Clegg as PM in a hung Parliament is possible.
A risky strategy perhaps for the other parties to allow, but with a constitutional convention and a short parliament one which could be seen as a temporary solution.
Cameron couldn’t risk splitting his party (many of whom are wedded to FPTP) if electoral reform was the price, and Labour cannot be trusted having avoided it since 1997.
So consider an EU-style cabinet with Clegg as PM, Cameron at the Home Office and Brown returned to the Exchequer – at least in preparation for the introduction of a new voting system… it could be argued to suit all their purposes, by strengthening each leaders’ hand without overly damaging any of the parties – once it was agreed that electoral change has become inevitable there would be a growing momentum for a national government.
Oranjepan
Well, it seems to me that you think Clegg meant “seats”, but that there were reasons not to say so in so many words. Fair enough if that’s what you think, but we’ve seen the result – many commentators have interpreted it as “votes” and gone beyond that to suggest it implies a preference for an arrangement with the Tories.
I don’t think it’s an easy question to answer, but I don’t think what Clegg came up with is an answer that will work well in an election campaign. He seems to have gone for something simple but ambiguous, and ended up with everyone feeling free to interpret it as they please. I think it would be better if he could come up with something unambiguous but nuanced – preferably designed so that it won’t matter too much if some people miss the nuances.
Oranjepan
Posted 27th November 2009 at 1:31 am | Permalink
Time to respond – I admit I do enjoy stirring up a debate,
As someone who is too young to have been an SDP or Liberal member and probably wouldn’t have joined either if I had, I take an alternative view that the longshot of Clegg as PM in a hung Parliament is possible.
THERE IS NO CHANCE OF CLEGG BECOMING PM !!!!! Cameron would allow the Lib Dems to join Brown before aggreing to that.
I was around when the SDP started and was a early member, and at one stage with David Steel and the Liberal Party looked odds on to win the election. They didn’t because no one could see which David would be the leader.
This election will be the same, the voters will give their vote to the man they want to lead us, not what the parties are telling us what they will do.
In my view if Vince Cable was the leader then the Lib Dems they could have won this election, as in a number of polls he comes above all the party leaders.
aggreing sorry it should have been agreeing !!!
Interesting David. And this is no doubt why Clegg and Cable will be travelling the country together during the GE campaign – joined at the hip. Thank heavens there is no Spitting Image programme this time !
David,
I was thinking more of Clegg’s career mirroring Lloyd George’s, but in reverse… after all it’s not just about the leader, it’s mostly about the troops on the ground (as I hesitate to say the SDP discovered to its’ cost)!
Some very interesting local election votes just in from Conservative Home
Although the Liberal Democrats lost one seat to Labour they gained seats from us in St Austell & Newquay, Stratford-on-Avon and High Peak. I don’t know the local circumstances in these setbacks but we always have to remember that such is our current dominance in local government across England, in particular, that further gains are always going to be much tougher to secure now.
St Austell Bay, Cornwall (Truro & St Austell moving to St Austell & Newquay) a LD gain from CON. Con vote was 47% -12, Lab 5% -2, LD 48% +14.
Blackbrook, High Peak (High Peak) a LD gain from Con. Con vote was 39% -22, Lab 4% from nowhere, LD 57% +18
Stratford Alveston, Stratford-on-Avon (Stratford-on-Avon) a LD gain from Con. Con vote was 44% -5, Lab 6% from nowhere, LD 47% +8, Green 3% -2, UKIP did not stand losing 8%.
Halewood South, Knowsley (Knowsley South moving to Garston & Halewood) a Lab gain from LD. Con vote was 2% -3, Lab 46% +5, LD 37% -4, Ind 2% from nowhere, BNP 9% from nowhere, The United Socialist Party 4% -9.
Moreton West and Saughall Massie, Wirral (Wallasey) a Con hold. Con vote was 70% +10, Lab 19% -5, LD 4% -4, Ind 4% from nowhere, Green 3% -1, UKIP did not stand losing 3%.
Clifton, Fylde (Fylde) a Con hold. Con vote was 35% -9, Lab 7% -7, LD 22% from nowhere, Ind 34% -8, Green 1% from nowhere.
Bushey Heath, Hertsmere (Hertsmere) a Con hold. Con vote was 75% +8, Lab 10% -12, LD 16% +5.
Northop, Flintshire (Delyn) an Ind hold. Con vote was 23% from nowhere, Lab 16% -15, LD 15% from nowhere, Ind 28% -41, 2nd Ind 18% from nowhere.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100018126/how-tories-handle-a-hung-parliament/
You need to look at the above link to read two links.
How Tories handle a hung Parliament
By Benedict Brogan Politics Last updated: November 27th, 2009
1 Comment Comment on this article
A BBC colleague has drawn my attention to this fascinating piece of history made available thanks to the Margaret Thatcher Foundation. It’s a memo prepared by Robert – now Lord – Armstrong on the secret coalition negotiations between Edward Heath and the Liberals after the February 1974 election.
The wider file was released by the National Archives in 2005, but the Armstrong memo was mysteriously missing. To its credit the Foundation used an FoI request to winkle it out. The background on the fall of Heath is worth studying before looking at the memo itself. Armstrong was Heath’s private secretary and linkman with Buckingham Palace.
There’s all sorts of telling details in it, including that Heath and his officials thought it would be dishonourable to seek to cling on if Labour was marginally the biggest party, Armstrong’s assessment of Labour’s economic weakness (v familiar), the unreliability of Unionists, how Jeremy Thorpe escaped journalists by dressing as a farmer and trekking across muddy fields, the importance of sherry, and what restaurants Mandarins use. It is also packed with tension. When it all failed, and Heath and Armstrong sat in the car taking them to Buckingham Palace so the Prime Minister could tender his resignation to the Queen, “there was so much, or nothing, left to say”. It’s an invaluable document for all those in CCHQ preparing for the worst.
Tags: Edward Heath, hung parliament, Margaret Thatcher Foundation, memo, Robert Armstrong
Top links to above
1974 March 1-4: Heath’s attempt to form a coalition with the Liberals
Following the General Election of February 1974, Prime Minister Edward Heath found himself deprived of his Parliamentary majority. The Conservatives won the largest share of the vote, but a handful of seats fewer than Labour. (Parliament was “hung”: no party held a majority.) A file (PREM 15/2069) tells the story of his attempt to remain in power by forming a coalition with the Liberal Party, led by Jeremy Thorpe.
It was the first time since the 1930s that a peacetime coalition government had been seriously discussed. Officials carefully recorded the outcome, although a key document – Robert Armstrong’s ‘chronicle’ of the whole episode – had strayed from the file released in January 2005. Following a Freedom of Information request from the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, the missing item was found in one of Harold Wilson’s files (PREM 16/231) and is now being released for the first time.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/E39D78DE7FBF4C7583FDFC8F7A029D42.pdf There are 21 pages here of the meetings between Heath an Thorpe about the offer from the Tory party to the Libs to join up with them.
David-with-no-surname,
You have made 14 postings on this thread, some of them quite interesting. But I do think it’s a pity that it was only on the 12th of these postings that you revealed that you are in fact a Tory!
You are not that bright are you !!! Below was a copy from Conservative Home, not what I wrote !!!
Some very interesting local election votes just in from Conservative Home
Although the Liberal Democrats lost one seat to Labour they gained seats from us in St Austell & Newquay, Stratford-on-Avon and High Peak. I don’t know the local circumstances in these setbacks but we always have to remember that such is our current dominance in local government across England, in particular, that further gains are always going to be much tougher to secure now.
David
Without quotation marks, it’s rather difficult to tell where your remarks start and the ones from Conservative Home begin!
True Herbert, but I was waiting for some one to read it as David Allen did !!!
Of the local election in Cornwall I though that was very intering, as these are seats in a General election they think they can win.
I was only joking when I said David Allen was not bright.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2009/11/liberal-democrats-gain-three-council-seats-from-the-conservatives.html
What of BRIAN HAW.. who the conservatives have declared they will
‘SWEEP AWAY ‘ from Parliament square?
One Trackback
[…] Lib Dem HQ: read what Nick said, not what the press reported! (67) by Stephen Tall 2. Lib Dem Voice publishes exclusive general election prediction (54) by Mark […]