Sensible or suicide? Intelligent or insane? I am, of course, referring to this morning’s Telegraph story which states that Nick Clegg would tacitly support the Tories if they end up as the largest single party at the next general election, but lack a majority. (Although, interestingly, many LDV readers expect the Tories to secure enough MPs to gain a working majority at the next election, according to our current poll.)
The Telegraph story states:
In consultations with senior members of the party, he said he was prepared to take the necessary steps that would enable the Tories to form a minority administration.
Mr Clegg ruled out taking a Cabinet seat in a Conservative government in return for his support and instead would provide Mr Cameron with “supply and confidence” – meaning he would promise to back a Conservative Budget and would side with the Tories in any votes of confidence. As a result, Mr Cameron would be free to accept the post of Prime Minister from the Queen on the day after the next general election, even if he failed to win an outright majority.
In return, the Liberal Democrats would reserve the right to vet Mr Cameron’s first Queen’s Speech – the publication of his legislative programme for his first year in office. Mr Clegg would have an effective veto over the Tories’ domestic policy proposals as he could withdraw the support of his MPs and order them to vote with the Labour opposition on measures with which he disagreed.
The first question we need to ask is, is the story true? I’ve not seen any furious rebuttals from the party yet, so we might reckon that there’s at least enough fact in it to be plausible. Secondly, the Telegraph frames the question solely in the context of the Tories – but I would imagine the same deal would be offered to Gordon Brown (or whoever leads the Government into the next election) if Labour were to be returned as the single largest party.
Assuming this is the case, this new strategy strikes me as some rather neat triangulation on behalf of the party leadership – and something which could well be used to the party’s advantage in the forthcoming election campaign, whenever it might be.
First, by pledging to work with the party which ends up as the single largest group in the House of Commons, the Lib Dems would demonstrate they are respecting the will of the people.
Secondly, it creates equi-distance between the Tories and Labour based on the judgement of the public. Nor will the party be seen as evasive for never answering the inevitable “Who would you back?” question which obsesses journalists (not least because they know we hate it, and because they know the more often it’s asked the less likely a Hung Parliament is to occur).
And, thirdly, it allows the party to campaign as a radical but moderating influence. If there is a minority Labour administration, the Lib Dems will be in a position to pledge an end to unfair tax increases like Gordon Brown’s 10p tax-con, and to the abuse of individual civil liberties. If there is a minority Tory administration, the Lib Dems can pledge there will be no return to slashing funding of health and education, or harsh crackdowns on asylum-seekers.
And with the Lib Dems in a pivotal position of influence, we will have a much larger platform from which to campaign for those causes dear to party hearts, such as the environment, greater devolution and international affairs.
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
Gwyn Williams
Alex Macfie
Toby Keynes
Peter Davies
William Wallace
114 Comments
How did the party come to break what is an excellent story for next week- or the weekend – thsi week and in the Telegraph of all places? Assuming it has some basis that is.
Diversity: I suspect that the party didn’t especially break this as such. This might be a case of good old fashioned political reporting from someone with their ear to the ground, as it were. One can tell this, because the Telegraph story uses phrases like “Nick Clegg says…” and “The Telegraph understands…”, rather than “Nick Clegg said in an interview with the Telegraph…” or “The Liberal Democrats have announced…”.
As for Stephen’s reaction: Absolutely right, I suspect. This strikes me as a tactical move, based on the supposition that there is almost no possibility of a Labour government at the next election; it is therefore a play for centre-left votes on the grounds that a Tory government which we have the power to stop from passing any legislation we don’t like is better than an unfettered Tory government.
Bold move, FPD-status here we come?
This is leadership.
It seems the obvious line for us considering the outcome of the local elections where we are making NOC councils work much better by forcing cooperation upon the largest local party.
It also is a policy which is binding under those circumstances, as the alternative is for Labour and the Conservatives to copy our lead, or for one or other to admit defeat as a junior partner of the other.
Finally, a sensible position on the possibility of a hung parliament. Now the leadership needs to make sure that everyone in the party understands the policy thoroughly so it can be explained easily, quickly and clearly.
Blimey, I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness. Still, to borrow the writer’s words, this is suicidal insanity which, if carried through, would consign us to oblivion.
Also, Clegg didn’t suggest equidistance between Tories and Labour. He said we wouldn’t support a Labour government. Instead we’re going to roll over and give all our voters to nice Mr Cameron.
Wit and Wizz, I meant the FDP, the traditional coalition maker in German politics which never goes above that of junior partner (even with PR) because they are seen to be so in bed with the other two parties. Is this the Lib Dem destiny?
Surely we should be concentrating our fire on Labour because they’re so flagrantly illiberal, and have also been the incumbents for eternity. I am sceptical about working with Camoron because, even if he and his followers were liberal, there might still not be a majority in parliament given all the morlocks on the Tory backbenches. It would be best to support them on some occasions and oppose them on others, sort of holding a gun to their heads. Make them drop all the shyte they’ve been spouting 🙂
We need clarification. Saying we will support a party in government through confidence and supply, and not join a coalition, was the right answer. Saying it is likely we will work with the party with the most seats is also sensible. However, that is not yet clear from the article. It suggests we would only work with the Tories. We need clarification. The ‘what you do in hung parliament’ question is one of the most important questions a Lib Derm leader will face.
More explicit than before, but what is new here? We won’t support a coalition with either party but we will allow a minority administration to exist giving support only where it is due.
And this is about as far from “rolling over” as you can get.
Oh, and while I wouldn’t want the Lib Dems to emulate the FDP’s status as a minor party, I admire them. As a socially and economically liberal party which supports a constructive welfare state (ie. one which serves the original purpose of the welfare state, rather than locking them in benefit traps) they are truly Asquithian.
We should be at pains to work with liberals in other countries and to always stress our liberal heritage & future.
Hang on there, this is the Torygraph talking…
With the proviso that this only applies if and when the Tories are the largest party and Labour have clearly been evicted from the house, it’s an excellent approach – but I wonder about the source of this story (given that it contains no quotes or verifiable facts).
It seems like an odd story to be put about by our side just when we’re trying to talk about tax and the environment and such – it also seems an odd story to come from the Tories as it rather steals their “vote Lib dem and get Labour” bit and admitting that your party might not get a majority or might need reeling in from swivel-eyed lunacy seems weird too.
Are we about to be subject to a big red “They’ll let the Tories in” ambush?
Ben, it’s hard to say there’s anything red which is big at the moment – unless it’s a lie or a collapse.
Thanks, ‘thechristophe’, I got the reference but didn’t see that you were similarly negative.
Anyway, the cover’s been blown off the story by Paul Walter on ‘liberal burblings’. Its another Tory lie to add to the pile.
“let’s all fly a kite,”
While we’re on the subject, anyone who comes out with shyte like “Vote Clegg, Get Brown” or “They’ll let the Tories in” should be brutally slain. What absolute small-minded, cynical, two-dimensional scum.
I suggest “Vote Cameron, get ConservativeHome” as a campaign slogan. Show some of the threads on that site to floating voters. We’d be weighing the middle-class, professional votes if they knew the old hag that Camoron’s makeover hides.
People who voted for Blair, and might now vote for Camoron, in a vain quest for someone who actually is liberal. Now they can vote for a true liberal.
Good God I hope this isn’t true. The fact is the vast majority of the Tory party are still the illiberal, Thatcherite, nasties that have been around since time began. Its also debatable the extent to which Cameron is simply playing the nice guy cards to pick up votes, there are no policy commitments etc tying him to a more liberal cause, just good PR skills. Certainly with the likes of David Davis on the front bench, and ‘rising stars’ such as Nadine Dorries I don’t see how Clegg could possibly consider supporting them. You only have to look at Iain Dale’s site, or any one of the other right wing blogs to see where the Tory core vote wants to push the party once they’ve gained power, and once the public sees this then I reckon it will all end in tears- we should steer well clear of it!
I’m with the suicidal insanity crowd, I’m afraid, though more because of the communications angle than because of the disadvantages of the Tories.
I don’t disregard what Joe says, that nothing much has *actually* changed. The point is how this will be sold, and indeed has been sold in the Torygraph. You have to read half the article to understand that Clegg is making a very small and highly theoretical set of concessions, and most Tories simply won’t bother.
We were better off with the not- interested strategy. It created an enigma which would have paid dividends come the election in terms of extra publicity. And neither the Labs nor the Cons liked it one bit and that was what was great about it. When we’re upsetting them, it means we’re doing something right. I thought Nick was fully subscribed to that.
The first thing I thought when I saw this was that it was an outright leak, never mind the “ear to the ground” stuff. I still think it might well be.
Not happy. I *really* need a cigarette now.
I would hope that the deal would work both ways – i.e. if Labour were the largest party (increasingly unlikely, I admit), we would offer them the same terms. It would be truly outrageous if we actually propped up a minority Tory administration that actually came second behind Labour (not that I think Clegg would be that foolish for one second).
Not sure where the FDP reference came from. This isn’t a proposal for coalition negotiations – quite the opposite. Similarly, this would enable us to pick and choose what Tory legislation to support. We would be free to reject the illiberal crap while holding them to their promise to scrap ID cards.
How long a Cameron administration could maintain such strict discipline before his own backbenchers started chomping at the bit, remains to be seen. I’d give it 12 months. Of course then there is nothing to stop him from calling a General Election. In any hung parliament situation we will have choppy waters to navigate.
Oh hooray! I’ve only just read Paul Walter. My lungs are saved! 😀
Just remember it’s a two horse race around here.
Labour are out of the race and many Labour voters lend their support to the Liberal Democrats to ensure that the Tories are…… er … in power?
@Jiggles – are you saying that if Labour get beaten in terms of seats, we should prop up a discredited Labour Govt? Let’s say that and be completely wiped out at the next General election!
@Cheltenham Robin, the largest party is the largest party – whichever one it is we should let them form a Government. We can then “keep the b*stards honest” by voting on an issue by issue basis.
The whole “wont say” argument wasn’t sustainable; it enabled Lab/Con to paint us a opportunists and either closet Tories or closet socialists as appropriate. It just plays into the “there are only really two parties” narrative that they want to push.
*If* David Cameron has the largest party but no majority, we’ll let him form a Government but then use our votes to stop his excess. *If* Gordon Brown has the largest party but no majority, we’ll do the same. We’ll be aiming to win as many seats as we can.
Yes, same here in Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks. The Tories have almost obliterated us on the Borough Council here, and are very different in hue to the metropolitan Cameronistas just an hour by train or 30 miles away…
Grammar Police:
I’m saying that we should most certainly not be assisting in the Tory smoke screen of ‘we are now a liberal party’- which is exactly what we would be doing by getting into bed with them- the ‘Some of my best friends are liberal’ argument.
Of course I don’t think we should be propping up a minority Labour government- I was simply highlighting my point that the Tories are still by and large an illiberal bunch by pointing out that while the Labour leadership may be in a horrendous state, their back benches still contain a few genuinely liberal individuals.
The Telegraph article did hav ethe words %if they are the largest party”
Providing our policy is support for whoever is the largest part-subject to agreed programme I am fine with it.It is better than the we wont say faafing around which just makes us look stupid.And in nthe likely event of ahung aprliament pushes our policies into the limlelight come the GE.
The only thing that might upset suchan approach is if Labour win the most seats witha lower share of the votes than the Tories but hey thats FPTP! and then one of our key programmes would be to get rid of it.
Interesting that Mr Salmond has committed SNP to no coalitions but work with largest party on an agreed
programme.
RogerHeape
I’m sorry but the article is quite clear. It says Mr Clegg will not support a minority Labour administration. He’s made his choice and for those of us in the Labour Party in seats you won of us last time he could not have made a better one.
You are now the party of hunting, the party of lesbian bashing, the anti-abortion party, the party of Scots bashing, the party of European treaty trashing.
And that’s only for starters.
Not too late to change your minds, but I suspect you all knew this is where Mr Clegg was coming from and that is why the vote was so close.
My gut feeling is that alot of what Stephen says is right…having said that I think the reservations that people are expressing about the Conservative Party as a whole are right to hold as the voting record of the Party (as opposed to the Cameron clique) shows….it’s also right and fair to assume that if Labour were in the position they should be offered the same kind of deal..
…having said that..is it not fair to say that we would inevitably be tainted by the other party whichever one we put in power??
I am amused by shallow negative characterisations of the Labour poster above, though it does raise an important point.
What would Labour do in the case of a hung parliament where they were the third largest party (as is currently an outside, but distinct and growing, possibility)? Abandon ship?
I have a confession to make. On the whole, I really like my fellow Lib Dems. However, the one time they can be a real pain in the a**e is when the subject of a coalition or even tacitly supporting one of the other two parties comes up. Listen boys and girls if you want PR you get coalitions or tacit agreements after almost every election, so either come to terms with this type of real politics or stop advocating a system of representation which would make it inevitable.
The Labour poster does raise a serious point in that the Conservative Party is still a vast reservoir of prejudice though after their antics in Crewe it is hard for Labour to take the moral high ground on this….
Sorry Labour Member – the article says “he has decided that the public would not forgive him if he propped up a Labour administration that they had voted to throw out.”
That to me sounds like there would be no propping up Labour if they were the *smaller* party . . .
@Martin, Grammar Police
My point is not that we should always refuse to make coalitions. Of course coalitions must happen in politics if the electorate demonstrate by implication that it’s what they want.
My point was we should make no commitments either way until we know who will win/get a majority in the next GE. Because the electorate *have not yet spoken*. Now, at the moment obviously it looks like the Tories will have a majority, but it would be a brave political better who staked their salary on it when it’s still two years away.
Anything else, as the remainder of this “yeah-but-no-but” thread demonstrates only too well, is utterly pointless *and* undemocratic and shouldn’t be touched with a bargepole.
I don’t understand your logic re: two party system, Grammar. Surely refusing to fall in behind one of the main two is acting *against* the two party consensus.
Also don’t see the point of trying to defuse that wretched “opportunistic” tag. Let’s face it, they’ll call us nasty names whatever we do. And by plumping for one side we would only be exchanging the uncertainty of “are they closet Tories/socialists?” for a certainty one way or the other. It’s bowing to their terms of argument to make our decision on that basis. Heads they win, tails we lose.
Withal, I’m glad it’s kite-flying bollocks (if you see what I mean), and I hope we revert to our original stance of no-thank-you with the caveat that we would be (should be) prepared to work with a majority government if the conditions are right, because it would obviously be what the electorate wanted us to do.
Alix, although I agree with you that our stance should be no-thank-you I think it is important to point out that the electorate cannot vote, by implication or otherwise, for coalition government unless there is a pre-election agreement between parties as there was in Germany. The electorate is composed of individuals with one vote, and each individual casts that vote for a candidate of one party for a myriad of different reasons, but there is no calculus which allows an individual to vote for a coalition.
Alix, I thought coalitions were negotiated this way – how can they be organised in any other way?
And Nick’s not arguing for a coalition he’s saying he would back the Tories over Labour in the event of a hung parliament…
I went to a talk last week by Mark Oaten about his book on Coalition government. I must admit to not having read it yet, but his conclusion seemed to be that coalitions were to be avoided if at all possible, and he certainly left his audience of Liberal Democrat activists questioning our commitment to PR (pace Martin Land above). I remember the immediate yawning gulf that opened up between the activists and the parliamentary party in February 1974 when it seemed as though Jeremy Thorpe might do a deal to keep Ted Heath in power. The comments in response to this story show the inevitability of activist disillusion in the event of a post election deal being struck with another party. Should we be questioning our commitment to PR, or at least any version of it short of STV in multi-member constituencies? I don’t know.
NO,NO,NO,NO,NO, in the name of God, NO, NO,NO,NO!
This story if it has any credience what so ever is insanity and it will take us over the cliff.
1. This is the narritive that the media wants for us. Our only function is a by line in a hung parliament story. We are putting our head in the noose.
2. how on earth can we offer confidence and supply to anyone without knowing what they are offering.
3. in a FPTP system we rely so heavily on third party squeeze that saying anywhere, at any time that we will put the other lot in in any circumstances is a recipe for tactical unwind.
4. Hung parliaments are self preventing prophecy. the more media talks about them the less likely they are to happen.
5. how in the name of god can we pretend to be equidistant after 13 years of a Labour government?
6. this just begs the next hhypothetcial question. by largest party do we mean seats or votes? what if a smaller party gets another coalition party that makes it larger than the other ? If you start answering these hypotheticals then there IS ALWAYS another.
7. why the hell has this surfaced this week of all weeks when we are trying to pevent third party squueze in C and N ?
This sort of thing should be slapped down, denied and a retraction form the Telegraph demaned. If its true we are walking off a cliff.
NO NO NO !
Sorry, Jo, I should have made my terms clearer – I’m using “coalition” in the loosest possible way, to mean any agreement between parties which involves a greater or lesser amount of consistently organised voting, in a hung parliament situation or otherwise. And I agree with your first bit, that’s kind of what I’m getting at – there is no other way to organise “a coalition”, hence there being very little point in trying to organise it in either direction now.
And by saying the electorate vote “by implication” for a coalition, I simply mean that the vote shares will reflect the fact that there is no overall majority but that a substantial number of people want one of two parties to govern. So no, I take your point that it’s not a vote for a coalition in the sense of a certain known agreement with defined terms. But a vote that gives no party an overall majority has still got to be considered a vote for *something* – it’s not that the electorate have deliberately plumped for “no government”, which in practical terms is what they’ve got with a hung parliament. There’s very few things that *something* can be other than a coalition of some kind.
With the caveat that we don’t know whether the report is accurate, Clegg seems to have made a decision here that his predecessors have scrupulously avoided making – much more wisely, I think.
If we go into a general election with the polls indicating that the Tories are ahead, then in Labour-Lib Dem marginals, Labour can quite fairly tell the electorate that the Lib Dems are committed to supporting a Tory government – with disastrous consequences for us.
Perhaps the calculation is that soft Tories will be more likely to support us in Conservative-Lib Dem marginals. But, on the other hand, the motivation of our activists to go out and fight the Tories will surely be pretty close to zero. On top of that, I’m inclined to think that unless we differentiate ourselves more clearly from the Conservatives than we are doing now, many of the voters will revert to the habits of a lifetime and vote for the real thing rather than the pale orange imitation.
Chris Phillips
It would be brilliant if we actually came out and said we’d probably agree to supply and confidence for the largest party if it wasn’t us (let’s face it, the current “ooooh we couldn’t possibly say” isn’t exactly a winning political position – it neither diffuses the question nor wins us any support).
As I see it there are three positions if we are the smallest party in a hung parliament – (a) supply and confidence for largest party, whoever it is; (b) formal agreement with Con or Lab; (c ) force a new election that hopefully doesn’t result in a hung parliament.
Ultimately, I think (a) is the only position we could adopt that wouldn’t lead to a complete rout at the following election.
And we’re not plumping for one side.
We’re just saying, *if* the Tories are the largest party, we won’t prop up Labour. Similarly we won’t go into coalition (in its specific sense) with the Tories. We’re just saying that’s what we’d do *if* that’s what happened.
In any event, just how true is it!
Chris, please think about what options we would have in a hung parliament. And please also think about what supply and confidence means – it means that there is a Government, but that we can combine with (Labour) to stop it doing certain things – and to make it do other things.
All that has been said today is that we wouldn’t prop up a Labour party that no longer had the most MPs.
If we all think *that* is the right position, then our two options would be to (a) force another election that gives one party a majority – and let’s not fool ourselves, *we’d* suffer in such an election, or (b) allow a minority Conservative administration to form, and then make sure we didn’t let it do bad things to the country.
If even *we* can’t understand this then what chance have voters – we might as well just give up now, as our Lab/Con opponents have won already, let’s just give up and pretend that two party politics is normal.
Yawn…rilly rilly boring
There’s something ironic about Jo actually taking the time to read the comments and bother to post that.
So, we’d supply a party with confidence that in this scenario (be it Labour or Conservative) that maybe the largest party but still hadn’t won enough of the electorate round to form a government?? Any ‘supply and confidence’ should be totally conditional…..
Largest party would have more of a claim to form a Government than anyone else! Again all I say is what option would we realistically have? We say “we’ll support you, largest party, in confidence votes and on the budget but only if you do X, Y and Z.”
They say “no”. What do we do? Force another election that then results in us getting completely squeezed as both other parties sensibly play the “only Lab or Con will form the Government – don’t waste your vote on the Lib Dems”.
Grammar Police
It’s not so much a question of what we should do in a hung parliament, it’s more a question of how damaging it is to make this kind of declaration in advance.
We are always going to be in a difficult situation when this kind of question is asked, but the view that’s always been taken before is that the least worst option is to avoid anything that could be interpreted as an endorsement of either of the other parties.
I think that is obviously correct, and while I can believe “consultations with senior members” might have resulted in private backing for this policy, I find it extremely difficult to believe that “senior members” could have taken leave of their senses so far as to endorse a public declaration of this kind.
Still, let’s hope it’s all a media invention.
Chris Phillips
It was in the Telegraph, for goodness sake!
“Mischief-making” is probably the politest description.
While we waste our time discussing it seriously, the Telegraph’s readers will read the first few paragraphs and decide they might as well vote with their instincts, the rest of the press will only report the first paragraph and disaffected Labour supporters will conclude that we are in bed with the Tories. There is NO up-side in this for us.
I personally think better to get our rational and justifiable basis for what we’d do (without favouring any party) out into the open now, rather than allow the election campaign itself to be dominated by this issue.
The largest party would indeed make that claim and there would be some justification to it…but should that mean we provide a carte blanche to them to govern on us?? Definatly not…
If they refuse then us force another election…its better than being tainted by association with a program that isnt ours…
Then our choice, Darrell, is get wiped out at an election we’ve forced, or allow a Government in, where we can block and change its programme – unless of course, Lab/Con gang up on us – which is the ideal situation :o)
You know what a sure way to be wiped out at an election is?? To stand for election on a platform and support a government while it rains all over it….the people who voted for you first time out never trust you again and neither does anybody else…tainted by association…
And, of course, if this claim were confirmed, and “clarified” by saying the same thing would apply if Labour were the largest party in a hung parliament, the consequences would be just as bad, or more probably worse.
In that case, if we went into a general election with the other two parties both in contention (remembering that Labour could very easily end up as the largest party on a smaller vote than the Tories – which would become the ultimate nightmare scenario for us!), then the Tories would be saying we’d “keep Labour in power” in Conservative-Lib Dem marginals, and Labour would be saying we’d “put the Tories into government” the opposite in Labour-Lib Dem marginals. A perfect storm.
Let’s hope this is authoritatively denied as soon as possible.
Chris Phillips
Or we could just say that we would judge things on the day and make our descisions based on what is best towards furthering the implementation of our platform…both Labour and the Tories should have the opportunity to make that pitch in this hypothetical scenario…but the key thing is they would be pitching to us not the other way around….
Sorry Grammar Police, I agree with Jo, although I think she could have been a bit more detailed in the way she explained herself.
Going back all the way through British parliamentary history the ‘coalition question’ has always been used to split potential third party forces, which is the essence of oppositional politics and why votes are called divisions.
Frankly the same game is being played against us at the most opportune time for the likely beneficiaries by the most likely beneficiaries.
The only way to negate the influence of this tactic is for our leadership to rise above it by setting an example demonstrating our belief in equality and principled anti-prejudice. We need our leading lights to come out and positively state that the circumstances will dictate our strategy irrespective of who we may face at the time because we are capable of laying aside our narrow interests in the wider public good – because what is good for one is good for all.
The ‘supply and confidence’ line needs to be explained in excruciating detail and repeated ad nauseum for sufficient lengths of time until it is familiar parlance across the board and until both of our opponents are tacit in their acceptance of the principles behind it, being as they may also one day be faced with the same dilemma.
The recent local elections have shown us capable of making exactly this choice with both Labour and the Conservatives in different parts of the country – so it is nothing new.
A national statement of intent will inevitably play differently in different parts of the country according to the situation there, but it is up to us to challenge the status quo and create the new political paradigm.
By showing we can be successful in answering this question we will have demonstrated our capacity to lead on issues of government without falling back on to well-trod and comfortable positions – by proving we are capable of remaining unified in the face of the unknown we will have proved we are capable of governing the country.
Liberal Democrats QED!
In other words, we need to be successful in making our case. Doing so successfully will be the reason to vote for us – it might be a perfect storm, but by harnessing the power of the wind we will put an unstoppable force in our sails.
“We need our leading lights to come out and positively state that the circumstances will dictate our strategy irrespective of who we may face at the time because we are capable of laying aside our narrow interests in the wider public good – because what is good for one is good for all.”
I’m sorry, but you, Chris and Darrell are just arguing that we should do what we’ve done in the last few elections – surely you can see that the answer you’re suggesting doesn’t bury the question as it’s not an answer; what it does is makes it the issue people think of when they think about us – not our policies, or principles.
Darrell, I don’t really understand your last post – to actually have some influence on running the country without being in formal coalition with Lab/Con would be a way to get wiped out?
Well, we might all as well give up now.
GP, then we need to change the terms of the debate and create the link between this issue and our principles and our policies.
We need to show how the connections work. We don’t want people to take in on faith or in hope that we won’t be worse than the other lot – we want positive votes.
I agree – but the two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
Yes, because the people who voted for you did so for a reason not to see you prop up another party in power…and those people will feel betrayed along with the fact you will alientate a significant section of your activist base…this question will divide the membership too as has clearly been shown on this thread. Incidentally as I point out on my blog its also divisive for the Tories…though to my mind the Tories who would favour such a arrangement are a rump…
Your stratgey would cleave our vote and our party in two…and how is ‘vetting’ the Queens Speech wiedling any kind of serious influence…we might as well be Commons Select Committee….
Grammar Police wrote:
“I’m sorry, but you, Chris and Darrell are just arguing that we should do what we’ve done in the last few elections – surely you can see that the answer you’re suggesting doesn’t bury the question as it’s not an answer”
As I said, the question is always going to be a difficult one for a party in our situation. There’s no magic way of burying it.
But I think the combined wisdom of the party during the last few elections is actually correct. Better by far to avoid giving this kind of commitment, than to furnish our opponents with a weapon to beat us with.
But, as I said, let’s hope this is authoritatively denied.
Chris Phillips
@Grammar: “(let’s face it, the current “ooooh we couldn’t possibly say” isn’t exactly a winning political position – it neither diffuses the question nor wins us any support).”
I think this is where we are all fundamentally in disagreement with you (sorry!)
I just don’t accept that there *is* such a thing as a winning political strategy for us on this. The response you’re citing would be the response no matter what we did. We’re never, ever going to be given a break by the media on this. So the best thing to do is hold back so that if/when it actually comes to such a negotiation being mooted, we have given nothing away.
We wouldn’t be propping anyone up; we’d be allowing them to appoint ministers and pass a budget. People who had voted for us would actually see us wield real power, voting down measures we disagreed with – forcing the Government into other things that we wanted. At the moment our MPs walking through the lobbies is rather symbolic.
I vote Liberal Democrat because I believe Liberal Democrat politicians make legislation better. In a hung parliament, with a supply and confidence agreement with the largest party – they really could without just becoming an annex of either Labour or the Tories. Darrell – we’re never going to be able to form a majority Government with PR – so, we need to get used to this kind of thing. Better to do this now than allow the media to present us as back-room dealing opportunists because we won’t answer what they, and most people, perceive to be a straight question.
(I disagree with Chris, I think the party’s approach to this issue is nonsense – just look what happened in Scotland and Wales).
This thread is getting a bit silly, partly because a number of people don’t seem to understand (or choose not to understand, for whatever reason) what the difference between providing supply and confidence for the largest party and entering into a coalition.
Darrell seems to be particularly confused, calling for a “conditional” supply and confidence arrangement. How would that work exactly? Who would do the negotiating? What would we get out of it? What would we be offering in exchange? The whole point of S&C would be that we wouldn’t have to enter into any negotiations like this.
The whole point about S&C is that it means we get to retain our independence while ensuring the business of government gets to carry on. That isn’t a carte blanche for the governing party: we will be able to defeat them on any specific vote where we agree with Labour. In addition, we get to avoid any horse-trading which really will demoralise the activist and supporter base. It isn’t an easy option, but it is certainly not as bad as the others.
Grammar Police is correct, there are essentially three possibilities in a hung parliament scenario. No-one seems to be enthusiastic about either the coalition or slash and burn options. Anyone care to correct me here? Anyone?
There appears to be a tacit acceptance that S&C is the only way to go forward, only we mustn’t ever talk about it.
Face it, any hung parliament situation is going to be tough for the third party. Look at your history books. There is a possibility we might end up in a Canada 2006 situation where an attempt to squeeze the third party and resume two party politics backfires, but that won’t be an easy one to engineer.
Talk about a hung parliament is even trickier for us as a party than the hung parliament itself. As we’ve just seen in London, where it is clear the election will be close the third party will get squeezed. The bad news is, we can’t stop this from being discussed. Having a position of S&C is the best prospect, as far as I can see, of dampening speculation. It provides journalists with a straight answer to a straight question, which is the kiss of death for most political stories.
One thing I don’t accept is that Clegg’s apparent position is materially different from Kennedy’s. Kennedy was never pressured or subject to the same level of speculation on this issue to the same extreme on the basis that there was much less speculation about a hung parliament. My interpretation of his “no deals” stance was that, if push came to shove, we would go along with S&C.
Campbell’s position was different. It was clear that he was fluttering his eyelashes at Brown and would not contemplate propping up a Tory administration no matter what. If he was still leader, and still saying the sorts of things he was saying last year, we’d have plunged to much greater depths than the 11% we sank to last year.
Alix – there may be no winning political strategy for this, but there are better and worse ones.
I think our present position has been found wanting – because this question sticks in voters’ heads. No amount of effectively saying “wait and see” will change that. We don’t want the miniscule thought that voters give to the Lib Dems to be about that. We want them to think about what we stand for.
Burying our heads (rather like we will probably do with our electoral strategy in PR elections) will not get us anywhere.
because the people who voted for you did so for a reason not to see you prop up another party in power…and those people will feel betrayed along with the fact you will alientate a significant section of your activist base
Really? Do people actually vote Lib Dem in the expectation they will get a Lib Dem government? If not, surely they accept there must be some propping up of somebody at some point?
Surely the avoid the question approach is the single worst strategy? Isn’t this exactly what Paddick tried doing last month? How well did that work out, can anyone recall?
You cant hold a hostage to fortune like that…you cant say we’d pass any budget no matter what; you cant even say we would turn to a party and support them in a confidence motion no matter what. It’s just plain wrong. So we would be the wreckers then…voting things we didnt agree with down instead of forcing this government to pass some of our policy proposals.
Your position is a position of complete weakness I am afraid, it is not a strong position and it would lose us votes left right and centre…as well as split the party and perhaps fatally weaken its activist base.
Paddick was a different matter entirely…there is a world of difference between suggesting how your supporters should use a second preference vote to actually placing an entire party in political power.
I would say they vote Liberal Democrat because they broadly support the platform of our party and think it is the best one for the country…it should follow that they would want to see as much of that platform as was possible acted upon if we were in a position to force the issue…
James Graham – doesn’t the way you describe ‘supply and confidence’ mean exactly that the effect is an issue-by-issue ‘coalition’ where everything is conditional, exactly as Darrell envisages, not the unconditional surrender of traditional descriptions of ‘coalition’ under FPTP voting system?
So what’s the dispute?
Incidentally I have put forward a way to deal with this issue….one that doesnt favour either Conservaties or Labour….it is what Stephen calls triangulation in his other article…you cant ignore the fact that if our party declares too strongly in favour of one or the other you are going to lose votes, activists and whatever else…my experience of the Lib Dems is that there are some who would be more naturally sympathetic to the Conservatives, some to Labour….and it is the same with our voters…if the leadership plays its hand too soon ie, before an election then you are going to alientate the side you go against…..
You cant hold a hostage to fortune like that…you cant say we’d pass any budget no matter what;
The commitment is only to pass the budget, not amend it. If Labour agree with every word the Tories say (this assumes a minority Tory government), they won’t need our support. Otherwise the budget will be subject to scrutiny and amendment – whatever Labour and the Lib Dems could agree with.
you cant even say we would turn to a party and support them in a confidence motion no matter what.
Maybe so, but you don’t need to negotiate what you will or won’t support in advance. And you should be very mindful that the alternative is a general election which we might well be ill-prepared for.
Paddick was a different matter entirely…there is a world of difference between suggesting how your supporters should use a second preference vote to actually placing an entire party in political power.
Difference? Yes. World of difference? Absolutely not.
It boils down to the same thing – which side are you on. The only crucial difference is that at least Paddick could argue, with a declining level of credibility, that he was campaigning to win outright. In a general election we won’t have that luxury. Clegg refusing to answer the question could actually end up being worse for us than Paddick declining to do so – it would be a very positive reason not to vote Lib Dem. He would effectively be saying a vote for the Lib Dems would be a leap in the dark.
My grammar is getting awful. Clearly it is time for bed.
Indeed.
All controversial issues provide an opportunity for leaders to assert their ability, though they also run the risk of causing collapse if unity isn’t maintained.
The ‘coalition question’ is controversial because it is the defining tactical issue for our party as we attempt to make the transition from 3rd party to challenger and contender.
We cannot play safe because the stakes are too high and we will not have another opportunity to stake out our own territory for another generation, by which time we will have to repeat the whole rigmarole of this internal discussion.
James Graham wrote:
“One thing I don’t accept is that Clegg’s apparent position is materially different from Kennedy’s. Kennedy was never pressured or subject to the same level of speculation on this issue to the same extreme on the basis that there was much less speculation about a hung parliament. My interpretation of his “no deals” stance was that, if push came to shove, we would go along with S&C.”
If you can quote me any statement by Charles Kennedy that he would support whichever party won more seats in parliament, fair enough. But I want to see the actual words he used, properly sourced. Frankly, I think Charles Kennedy was (and is) a hell of a lot more canny than that.
And when you say “Kennedy was never pressured or subject to the same level of speculation on this issue to the same extreme on the basis that there was much less speculation about a hung parliament”, I think this requires some justification, considering that the Conservative lead in recent opinion polls is 20-26 points!
Chris Phillips
Oranjepan – if I’m honest, I’m not sure exactly where the dispute lies in this thread. 🙂
But my understanding of S&C is that we essentially prop up the government (I accept that, yes, there may come a point where this is clearly unsustainable), while retaining total independence on legislative matters. They get control of the train, but Parliament retains control of what shape the track gets put in.
James Graham wrote:
“Clegg refusing to answer the question could actually end up being worse for us than Paddick declining to do so – it would be a very positive reason not to vote Lib Dem. He would effectively be saying a vote for the Lib Dems would be a leap in the dark.”
But – unless you can supply evidence to the contrary – that is the strategy that every previous Liberal and Liberal Democrat leader has followed.
Perhaps you think that Nick Clegg’s political judgment is superior to that of Charles Kennedy, Paddy Ashdown, David Steel … ?
As I keep saying, I don’t want to have to make that decision, because I hope this report is inaccurate.
Chris Phillips
Me too, but I think the course of this discussion has served to enlighten and clarify our stance.
Though there may be some niggles remaining I think we are increasingly resolved in what we need to do – speaking of which I recieved my Henley by-election invite today…
I am not proposing a leap in the dark. What I am saying is we should say ‘this is who we are, this is what we will fight for and we will work in the best way that takes that forward’. An unconditional commitment to a Conservative budget would be wrong until we have seen that budget as would an unconditional commitment to either Party’s program which is not our own.
People elect Liberal Democrats to fight for a Liberal Democrat program not vote through a Conservative budget or Labour one for that matter. This approach is the only one that can stop serious division opening up within the party and within our vote.
If you are saying we should commit to one of the other two parties now then put simply what is the point, we should all either go and join Cameron or Brown depending on where our sympathies lie. If Clegg plumps too far for either party put simply the Liberal Democrats will be electorally slaughtered….
As for negotiating…what are we negotiating…we are negotiating on a hypothetical future. Oranjepan is right about what I am suggesting…the area of disagreement is that if you are saying concretly Clegg should name which party will be supplied with confidence now…
cgp – it’s not a question of the political judgement of our leader of the moment, but a question of judgement of the popular sentiment.
There is a clear difference between the party under Nick Clegg which is nothing to do with him – it is to do with the elevated circumstance we find ourselves in.
Chris, you are being absolutely absurd on at least two counts.
Firstly, of course I’m not going to find you “chapter and verse” on something that Kennedy did not say, and was not under any particular pressure to clarify. That’s the whole point.
Secondly, the Tories never had anything like the sort of lead they have now prior to 2005. They may have eked above Labour in one or two polls as I recall but at no point did they look anything like as electable as they did now.
Kennedy had one other advantage: the Tories were running such a hard-right campaign in 2005 that no journalist seriously considered a Tory-LD coalition to be at all likely. Thus there was even less speculation.
I repeat what I said above: Kennedy was never under anything like the pressure to clarify his position that Clegg is now.
UPDATE: Actually I can give you Chapter and Verse. Just spotted this:
It is entirely clear from that quote that Kennedy intended to offer Labour supply and confidence in the event of a hung Parliament in 2005, on the assumption that the Tories were unlikely to become the largest party.
Game, set and match. 🙂
Now this IS silly – Ashdown was as pro-Labour as you can get and never made a secret of it. He abandoned equidistance prior to 1997 and attempted to negotiate merger talks between the two parties.
Steel was also not equidistant. He propped up the Callaghan administration.
The only one of those three who could claim to be equidistant was Kennedy, and even that was doubtful when it came down to it as the Tories during his tenure was so rightwing.
“Though there may be some niggles remaining I think we are increasingly resolved in what we need to do.”
Excellent, excellent!
Er.
So…what did we decide again?
My outstanding niggle (and then I’m definitely, definitely switching the computer off) is that there is no point our chipping away at the supply and confidence issue (enlightening though it has been) and fashioning it into a thing of great beauty and complexity when every normal person in the world will talk about this issue in terms of “a coalition” and paint our role in it accordingly.
*If* this had been a real announcement, which it appears not to be, I suspect we would have been seen as selling ourselves far too short. Still, it has, as Orange Pan says, been interesting and useful. Let us see it as a drill.
Come on James you are being unfair in comparing us to our gang of forebears, Charles Kennedy was the first real LibDem and the first real LibDem leader – the party is to a certain extent in his image (down to his hair colour) – all the others had histories which coloured their preferences, while he forged his own.
We are a party in a proud historical tradition, but we are also a new force adapted to the new times and the only party capable of truly facing the challenges of transition deep into the new millemium.
Alix – I don’t think we did decide anything, but we are resolved more strongly to ensure we stick resolutely to the principles we’ve built up – so, no throwing the toys away, at least for me (I don’t fit into a pram anymore anyway).
Here ends the party propaganda netcast.
I think the fact this (Public) thread has reached 80 responses in 13 hours is a sign of how sensitive and potentially toxic this issue is for the party. particularly given that we are discussing a unsubstantiated-but-not-denied telegraph story. I fear there is trouble ahead over this issue but will post something more moe coherent in the morning.
You are either in opposition or in coalition. This strategy would only be effective if you could be sure of a continuous series of votes and debates in which the Lib Dems opposed the Tory government. Vetting the Queen’s Speech in advance would seem entirely the wrong tactic, unless you reserved the right to table a series of high profile amendments. Constructive opposition is fine, particularly after a period of inertia and malaise in government. But the party has to show what is distinctive about itself.
James Graham wrote:
“It is entirely clear from that quote that Kennedy intended to offer Labour supply and confidence in the event of a hung Parliament in 2005, on the assumption that the Tories were unlikely to become the largest party.”
Whatever he may or may not have intended, he clearly _said_ no such thing. What he said was that he _wouldn’t_ support Labour. He certainly did not say anything about the kind of deal alleged in the report we’re discussing.
And on the rest of it, you’re completely missing my point. I’m not talking about “equidistance”, and I’m not saying anything about what we should or shouldn’t do in the event of a hung parliament.
I’m saying it would be suicidal to declare publicly ahead of an election that you’d support one of the other parties in a hung parliament. Unless you can produce some evidence, I don’t believe Ashdown or Steel ever did that, whichever of the other parties they may have been closer to in terms of policy, and whatever may have been their undeclared inclinations.
Chris Phillips
Chris, you are having a giraffe:
1. It is quite clear from the quote I supplied you with above that while Kennedy would not consider a coalition with Labour, he did accept that a government would have to be formed. That means Supply and Confidence. By contrast he does not say that in the event of a hung parliament, we should have had another general election.
2. Not only did Ashdown explicitly endorse backing Labour in the case of a hung parliament in the run up to the 1997 General Election, but he forced a vote in the 1995 Autumn Conference to gain consent from the party to do so. There was a big argument. Lembit Opik, famously, spoke against it before becoming ultra pro-project. This is hardly secret information. In 1992, speculation about a possible Lib-Lab coalition was rife in the run up to polling day, something which Ashdown did little to dampen, and the result is largely blamed for the Tories managing to maintain their grip on office.
3. Steel may or may not have said anything in the run up to 1979 (even I’m not that old), but given the fact that in the run up to it he had brokered the Lib Lab Pact, he didn’t really need to. In 1983, he was banging on about “preparing for government” (and didn’t that work out well). In 1987, the Alliance were too busy self-destructing to discuss possible coalition arrangements.
I’m not arguing that Clegg should promise to back a Tory administration in the way that the obviously spun Telegraph story suggests. I am suggesting that to say the Lib Dems would offer Supply and Confidence to whichever party gains the plurality is better than pretending we can get away with not answering the question at all.
“I’m saying it would be suicidal to declare publicly ahead of an election that you’d support one of the other parties in a hung parliament.”
But no one has said this!!! Even if the Torygraph article is true, they’ve said we wouldn’t prop up a Labour party that was no longer the largest party in Parliament and that if the Tories were the largest party we’d support them in supply and confidence.
Please, please, please tell us how it’s better to refuse to say that this is what we’d do when it’s the best of the three options and probably what we’d end up doing (if you don’t think it’s the best of the three options, what is)?
On second thoughts let’s agree to disagree; we’re just going round in circles.
Alix – you have a point, but if we made it clear we’d allow the largest party to form a minority Government and use the influence to make it do liberal things (or stop it doing illiberal things) then I don’t see how that could be painted as supporting one party or another.
However, the refusal to say *anything* until the results then every normal person in the world will briefly think about this issue in terms of “opportunism” and paint our role in it accordingly.
James Graham wrote:
“Not only did Ashdown explicitly endorse backing Labour in the case of a hung parliament in the run up to the 1997 General Election, but he forced a vote in the 1995 Autumn Conference to gain consent from the party to do so.”
Well, whatever the perceptions of the party’s intentions in 1997, if you can find a public statement by Ashdown at all comparable with what’s alleged above – a declaration in advance of the election that we would commit ourselves to voting for Labour budgets and to supporting Labour in votes of no confidence, I’d be surprised. If you can, fair enough. But I’d be surprised.
Chris Phillips
Why would I need to bother when I have the Chard Speech?
Stop digging Chris.
James Graham
You seem to be one of those people who view Internet bulletin board discussions as a recreation, and set great store by “winning” the game. So I suspect it’s a waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with you.
But are you really claiming that the Chard Speech contains a declaration that we would formally support a minority Labour government in the event of a hung parliament?
Chris Phillips
Clearly you are in a better position than me to know that – I don’t use bulletin boards.
The problem is Chris, I can throw everything at you – Chard, the 1995 abandonment of equi-distance, the Cook-Maclennan Agreement, the clear understanding of 95% of the population that the Lib Dems would prop up Labour, the Ashdown Diaries which showed that Ashdown was not only in coalition talks but merger talks – and yet because I can’t find (can’t be bothered to be accurate) a specific quote to satisfy your narrow definition you think you can somehow claim to be right.
I’m not offering you the odd quote here or there – I’m presenting you with a mountain of evidence.
The Chard Speech – five years before the 97 election and even before the rise of Blair – had Ashdown explicitly stating that Labour would need the Lib Dems to form a government but that the modernisers in Labour were finally beginning to take hold. By 1997 we had a formal pre-election pact in the form of Cook-Maclennan. No party leader in history has done more than Ashdown to trail the idea of forming a coalition with another political party. If he didn’t use that precise form of words pre-97, it is at best irrelevant, at worst an example of his rather unfortunate habit to dissemble and leave people in the dark. That habit proved to be very destructive towards the end of his tenure. Either way, no-one at the time was under any illusions.
Well, I’ve made it quite clear that I’m not talking about what we should or shouldn’t do in the event of a hung parliament. And that I’m not talking about the public perception of what we might be likely to do.
I am talking specifically about the folly of going into an election having made an explicit declaration that we will formally support one of the other parties.
Still, let’s hope this turns out not to be true.
Chris Phillips
You are either in opposition or in coalition if you do not have the capacity for imaginitive leadership and the ability to chart a course between the two and find a route to political and moral leadership.
Admittedly this is a difficult proposition fraught with dangers on all sides, but it is not impossible and nor is it less preferable than accepting an entrenched political system (as shown by the example of the FDP).
But that is no reason to be afraid, only an occasion to show the courage of your convictions.
We have always been bound together by a coherent set of aims because we represent an underlying unity of ideas – now we are no longer a party of protest we need to show we have the confidence to take it up to the next level.
Since no-one, not even the Torygraph, is suggesting that is true, I don’t think there is any danger of that happening.
James, dont be facetious re: bulletin board, you know full well what he means.
I’ve read the Chard speech, It’s doesnt really provide much in the way of saying “we will form a coalition with Labour to get rid of the Tories”, instead it says that Labour has to learn. It even states,
We all know about Cook-Maclennan but isn’t that with the benefit of hindsight and post-election evidence?
In Chard he also says,
Not asking us to go back to our constituencies and ‘prepare for coalition’.
@grammer police surely the point is that this story as it is far to skewed to the Tories and there has been no corrective issued
No, because Cook-Maclennan – in which we pledged to work with a Labour government on a joint cabinet committee even if Labour had a majority (which of course is precisely what we did) – was published before, er, the election. The abandonment of equidistance was two years before the election.
My reason for mentioning Chard was not to suggest it was an explicit endorsement of Labour but to demonstrate that throughout the 1992-1997 period, Ashdown was working on a sustained project of positioning the Lib Dems as Labour’s allies. He had his criticisms, to be sure. But Chard was critiquing a Smith-era Labour Party and even then he was making early signals of a future realignment of the left.
To suggest he spent the five years running up to the 1997 election not clearly indicating he would back a Labour government is fanciful and ludicrous.
To say that we are prepared to give ‘supply and confidence’ we must also be able to say that we are prepared to take it, were we in the same position.
That may not be the current reality, but we need to be clear about the rationale behind the principle to take the high ground on the issue.
Are we so desperate that we would do anything to get into government, or will we submit to the will of the people whatever the outcome of an election?
Would we refuse ‘supply and confidence’ from either of the other parties? Would Labour and Conservative refuse to give S&C and force a new election, or be forced to accept a grand coalition?
“Are we so desperate that we would do anything to get into government . . .”
We certainly look that way if we keep saying that we will decide what to do after the results.
@ grammer police
How is not saying anything until after the results a sign of desperation?
What if Labour were the largest party but had recieved fewer votes than the Tories?
Because our choices before the result are the same as our choices after the result. They’ll all be as unpalatable then as they are now. I don’t think there’s been anyone arguing that going into formal coalition with Lab/Con, or forcing new elections is better than supply & demand to largest party.
Refusing to say so now suggests that you believe formal coalition/cabinet positions with one or t’other is the best option – and what’s worse, that we don’t really care who with, as long as we’re in Government, that we are hedging our bets, which *looks* opportunist whether it is or not.
Er *supply & confidence*!!
Here’s a funny thing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/1580460/Lib-Dems-planned-coalition-pact-with-Tories.html
@grammer
But after an election we will have a much clearer idea what people want and where we can work with which party to push our agenda forward. ..
Well, there’s apparently no truth in the story anyway.
“Clearer idea of what people want”? Do you just mean “One party will be bigger than another”? If so, why do we need to wait before saying that. Unless of course, you don’t want to work with the largest party, but with one in particular, or neither. In which case, you should say that too.
The argument needs to be made forcefully that “supply and confidence” does not mean “cuddling up to the Tories” or “cuddling up to Labour”. It means we will not inflict another general election on the people when they’ve just endured one, and will keep to the principle that whichever party has the most seats has “won” the election and thus has a right to form a government. If no party has a majority, we will reserve the right to bring that government down if it proposes anything we believe does not have the support of the nation. We hope, of course, that should we emerge as the party with most seats, the other parties will behave likewise.
I do mean that we would know which party is the largest and as I have said elsewhere that would not be an eternal mandate to govern because they would have to still failed to win enough support to form an outright majority.
The first point to make is that this article was slanted towards the Tories and although Steven said it would apply to Labour too that was only an assumption not set out in stone. I think we should judge it on a) who the largest party is and b) who is willing to work with us to get some of our program acted on…with b being more important than a.
A brilliant article. It’s dispelled a few worries I’d been having lately about the Party nationally.
Whilst I certainly wouldn’t want the Tories to win the next general election (and my money is still on either a hung parliament or a one-figure Labour majority), I realise that it wouldn’t be a complete disaster for us; even if Nick did make the silly mistake of ‘over-supporting’ Cameron.
Roll on the Henley by-election, it might be a three-hour train journey from my beloved Manchester, but I still want to give the Tories a run for their money!
If the article is accurate I despair.
There is only one sensible line about a hung parliament – we will work with any party that does a-e (how about more power to voters (STV), reducing inequality, the environment, tax reform, making prison and courts work)
and yes we will take cabinet seats – for the first time since 1945, because we want to be at the heart of Government becasue we passionately wish to change they way this country is run. That is to say we use the debate as a chance to get our messgae accross.
If Clegg even thinks he is likely to get a chance to prop up a Tory Govt in the event of a hung parliament, he’s a pratt, Labour would abstain and the Lib Dem votes will be irrelevant. After basically 100 years out of power ther party still doesn’t get hung parliaments.
Oaten was of course very keen on coalition before his troubles!