The recent election must have been a major disappointment to the Liberal Democrats – but that doesn’t matter because they have the ‘whip-hand’ in government formation. The party has ‘walk-away value’.
If they don’t like a deal with the Conservatives they have other options (Labour & LibDems, with SDLP and Alliance brings you to 320). The Tories on the other hand don’t really have other palatable options other than a minority administration, which Cameron has already indicated he doesn’t prefer. This makes the Lib Dems (despite their size) much stronger than any other party. This is akin to the position the Irish Labour party found itself in 1992, where Dick Spring could choose between the two larger parties both desperate for power.
But government is a difficult place for a party, particularly a small party. Parties in government (big and small) usually suffer electoral knocks from governing. Small parties are especially vulnerable. They tend to be more ideological and so the compromise of government is harder to take for them than for the larger, more pragmatic broad-church parties. And partly because of their size, small parties are continually closer to extinction and so a small percentage point drop can be a large percentage drop.
But this isn’t always the case; some parties in government (big and small) achieve electoral gains from government.
If we look at what differs between the ones who do well and the ones who do badly we can identify one major feature. The ones who achieve some major and clear policy achievement that has an immediate impact on voters and especially their own supporters can survive and even thrive.
A good example is from here in Ireland. The Progressive Democrats, once a sister party of the Liberal Democrats, had tax reform (read tax cuts) as the main plank of their political agenda. This had a huge impact on people and crucially the party managed to be associated in the public mind with this policy. By contrast in the party’s 2002-07 coalition with Fianna Fáil, the PDs didn’t have any clear, achievable policy priorities that it could push. Or at least it failed to achieve these, in part because, whereas in 1997 the PDs were crucial to the stability of the government, from 2002 Ahern could have conceivably governed without them.
The best case scenario for the Lib Dems might be to stay out of government and be free to oppose on any issue it chose to, but get electoral reform. But this is unlikely to be achieved. And even if they stay out of government in the form of a ‘supply-and-support’ pact, the Lib Dems will be associated with the government, and could still suffer.
They should go for full coalition – something Cameron is clearly offering. This would be more stable and ensure that the Lib Dems actually get into the policy making process. Remember constitutionally the cabinet makes the decisions, and if you are not there, you’ll find it hard to shape policy.
If I were Nick Clegg and had a relatively free hand within my party and trusted David Cameron I would consider these points:
-
1. Insist on at least five seats in cabinet. You need these numbers to have a useful input to cabinet discussions and influence on policies beyond those portfolios you hold.
2. Make sure you take a light workload portfolio (even minister without portfolio). But don’t look for symbolism like becoming Deputy Prime Minister. It’s just a title, you will have all the power of a deputy prime minister. There’s no need to rub it in the Tories faces by saying so. And don’t go to the Foreign Office – you’d be out of the country too often.
3. Try to get as many Tories with similar policy priorities into the right place in cabinet. Push for Ken Clarke in the Treasury (he’s politically close on most issues) and Cameron might be relieved of having someone to blame for not appointing the unconvincing George Osborne.
4. Be clear what your policy priorities are and get written commitments on these. You don’t need a very long document. Many coalitions work well with just a few points of principle set out explicitly. The more important factor is the working relationship between the party leaders, but if there are red-line issues then get them on paper. Lots of coalition governments have 30,000-word documents, but very often these are just PR documents that confuse aspiration for policy and slogans for ideology. In the current situation and quick government is more important.
5. Don’t push for policies that cannot be delivered. So accept a guaranteed referendum on Alternative Vote. It’s more likely to pass and in fact will benefit the Lib Dems more than you think (it is STV with single seats).
6. Be aware of Cameron’s needs. If you push them on issues you know will be very hard to deliver it will upset the relationship between the leaders and increase tension between the parties. Make compromises that aren’t really compromises. Allowing that there are no major shifts in power to Europe is not really a compromise (most pro-Europeans probably think it’s more important to get the current system working rather than try to push for new powers) but it will allow Cameron to claim he’s extracted a major concession. But the LibDems can, if they are in government, change the rhetoric the Tories use about Europe.
7. Conversely make sure there is some degree of tension in government and that there are clear policy areas that you are getting your way. Make sure these are policies that affect voters’ lives – so the tax exemption of the first £10,000 seems like a good one.
8. Quietly drop policies that weren’t that popular. The policies on immigration and Trident were sensible, but were unpopular with voters who were fed idiotic lines from other political leasers and the press. Despite the good arguments in favour of them, just forget about those policies.
Finally, the party will be getting a lot of attention; don’t look like you are enjoying it too much! Serious statesman plays better than wheeler-dealer.
* Eoin O’Malley is a lecturer in political science in the School of Law and Government, DCU.
‘The Independent View’ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Nonconformistradical
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
49 Comments
You forgot one.
9. Be associated with the Conservative party and, no matter how irrational the mindset of voters may be, get crushed at the next FPTP election because all tactical voters (and many Lib Dem core voters) will believe that a Lib Dem vote is a vote for the Tories. Attempts to sway this mindset with evidence of good policies we have passed will be overridden by strong emotional hatred of anything Tory by large swathes of the electorate.
10. Spend the rest of the party’s existance in distant 3rd-place obscurity.
The poll has convinced me. If a majority of members support talking to the Conservatives, I’ll never vote or leaflet for the Lib Dems again. Incidently, none of the members I’ve spoken to agree with supporting the Tories. I simply don’t trust your poll.
@Jez
Don’t be a lugworm, head and a*se firmly embedded in the sand. This is our best chance in many, many decades. We will use it to the benefit of the people, and they will thank us for it.
@Neil
Grow up, this is the future, talking and getting the best deal for your people. It sounds to me like you’re not a Liberal Democrat at heart, just a fair-weather friend.
I find it very difficult to believe that true Lib Dem supporters want a coalition with the Tories. Surely, the fundamental ideological differences make it an abhorrent suggestion. I can certainly say that as a first time Lib Dem voter (I previously voted once for Labour in 1997 and then abstained in subsequent elections in protest at the lack of ‘real’ democratic choice) I will certainly not be voting for them again if Clegg gets into bed with Cameron.
The poll was not on ‘supporting the Tories’, it was on ‘supporting talking to the Tories, given that Clegg said he would’. Talking to the Conservatives, negotiating with the Conservatives, is _not the same_ as ‘siding with’ or ‘getting into bed with’ or ‘becoming’ the Conservatives.
We should support Nick Clegg talking to _everyone_, because that’s what you _do_ when you are a party in a PR system which delivers no majority for government.
Let’s call another election and have Labour and the Lib Dems run together on a combined manifesto for constitutional and economic reform if Labour are serious about it.
If we ally with Labour, we condem ourselves to destruction at the next election.
The coalition will be unstable, it will fall within 1-2 years, it will be treated with contempt by the markets, and in the rural areas we will loose seats, as no voting reform will be in place at thre election.
I do not trust the Labour parties sudden conversion to PR and there are enough die hards in the ranks to vote against any proposal in parliament.
We will get shafted.
Excellent article.
you are all so blind
nick clegg is being spun by mandelson and campbell
diane abbot and john reid are right.
this would destroy both the labour paty and us!!
this also makes pr look terrible
look at all the parties squabbling for goodness sake!!
So the Lib Dems will sell out to be part of an anti-english rainbow alliance which will impose deep cuts on the majority of the electorate whilst protecting the Celtic fringe, give us a 2nd unelected PM decided by the Unite union, gives us Brown squatting at number 10 for another 4 months and a coalition of the losers and unstable government.
All apparently in the ‘national interest’ !!
Labour will take down the Lib Dems by association, don’t do it Nick.
I was a swing voter and come across this site whilst looking for information and gossip in whats going to happen with this sorry mess that has been created.
I did vote for the Tories on the basis of the policies they had for disabled children which was something very close to me as i have a disabled son.
I am bemused by all of this yet i understand your parties concerns.
But my issue is that it seems like the LIB DEMS are using dirty tactics to force through there own agenda and are not putting the country first,
Yes i understand all your arguments and i understand the other parties too and yes there does need to be a review into the election system but i think not one policy in terms of reform really does it for me why complicate it more for the average voter?
Why not look at a system that makes it easier than it is now?
Make the general election a simple no seat vote and make it you vote for a party only and thats all so the most votes across the country gets the prize so to speak.
Local style elections can decide local MP’s for areas.
I urge you all not to do a dirty deal with Brown as he is rotten to the core,please show that you are the real party of change and select the winning party in terms of most votes which is of course the Tory party.
I would be delighted to have a Lib Con pact and hopefully you can blend some of your ideas together to make a perfect goverment which is much better than what we have had over the past 13 years.
We cant be in a position where we have another unelected PM from Labour as it will make us worse than the congo and if you people really believe in reform help shape it and do the right thing and then you will really increase your voting base across the Uk as the honourable party that sticks to its word.
PLEASE DONT DO A DIRTY DEAL AS THIS IS TO IMPORTANT
Really clear, sensible and reasoned article.
Reinforces the conclusion I had already come to.
It seems that too many Lib Dem supporters if given a blue Ferrari as a birthday present would refuse to accept because it wasn’t red.
They need to get real. After 90 years in the wilderness someone is offering you power and glory in a strong Lib/Con government and people are thinking twice about it. If you dont have power or influence what is the point of being a politician. Perhaps Lib dems just enjoy going on protest rallies !!
My heart says do a deal with Labour, but my head says get the best deal you can out of the Tories. The experience of the Greens in Germany demonstrates that if you really want to influence events you have at times to swallow hard. As an essentially left wing party the German Greens “natural” allies have always been the Social Democrats, but that did not prevent them entering into an alliance with the right wing Christian Democrats in Hamburg when the arithmetic demonstrated that this was the only realistic option of running the city. (For those not familiar with German politics Hamburg has essentially the same law making powers as the Scottish Parliament.) Liberal Democrats, and their supporters, have to recognise that under any system of PR they will have to make hard choices again and again in future. And the future begins now!
I voted for Lib Dem for a hung Par. because nick said he would support the winner on votes?
He also said that he would runt an open and fair election. So why has there been secret meetings with labour before giving the tories a chance. I see only one futere – vote tories or others.
the only solution is a Lib Dem outright victory under FPTP and then implementing STV.
meanwhile back on earth, we’ve had an election which has given us a result similar to PR and we have to deal with it.
if going with the Tories or Labour means losing half the party then maybe we’re not a viable entity anyway. But for those of us that joined a party rather than a think-tank to play a part in government for the greater good, we have to make a choice; a viable.
so what will be will be!
Great article and I agree wholeheartedly.
Im afraid I totally disagree with the idea of forming a coalition with the Tory Party. The very name “conservative” defines them – unwilling to move forward, to be democratic, wanting to maintain the Status Quo. The Tories are the last remnants of a supposed “governing class”, who assume they have the right to power – but no more. Mr Clegg should bargain hard for the very best he can get on PR – and the Labour Party is offering the only viable option. Looking at the next election undertaken within the AV system, the Lib Dems can expect 70 – 90 seats. This, along with a projected 30 for smaller parties, means that the Tories or the Labour Party must win around 325 of the remaning approx. 550 seats – highly unlikely. Mr Clegg can then force through regional STV in the UK, in one fell swoop bringing the UK into the 21st century, enhancing our democracy and permanently ending 2-party politics in the UK, which can only be to the good
I find most of the ideas in the lead article to perhaps have been written by a closet Tory, it does not read or feel like the words of a Liberal Democrat. The suggested 5 seats in Cabinet is toothless compared to instant PR in the UK – it is certainly contrary to Lib Dem policy ! Not once does the author suggest anything other than pandering to the Tories wishes, and advances several arguments which are spurious and effete.
Blue ferrari?
Most LibDems would refuse to accept because it’s a pointless status symbol to compensate for unresolved boyhood inadequacies 😉
Excellent article – this is some of the best and most sensible advice I’ve yet heard. Getting the positive message across about any policy we get through will be a challenge for our media team, though – one which I hope they will rise to, but PR is an area we need to sharpen up in (public relations that is, not voting reform, where we’re more than qualified!).
Gordon Brown’s resignation certainly makes things more interesting, and I’m glad to see the Tories giving ground on an AV referendum as a result. But I do worry about the instability that will go with a rainbow alliance, especially with Labour backbenchers being forced to vote themselves out of a safe seat by backing AV.
If we decide on Lab-Lib-nat and then it falls apart after 6 months without having achieved either AV or an STV referendum bill, we’ll be crucified in the ensuing general election and the Tories will be in power for ages – this time unfettered by any liberal restraints we put on them and probably with a much more reactionary leader having ditched Cameron.
I’d love to be proved wrong as I hate the idea of a deal with the Conservatives (not that Labour are so much better). I still think a deal with Cameron, uncomfortable as it would be, is the lesser of two evils. Especially since any new Labour PM will be “unelected” and may be seen to lack legitimacy. Yes, yes, I know we don’t elect the PM, but that’s what the media will say – over and over again – and we’ll get the blame for propping him/her up. And what if it ends up being Ed Balls?! As much as I hate the Tories, I think I’d even prefer Cameron to him. Hell, I’d probably even prefer Hague! (Well, ok, maybe not quite…) Not to mention that it would make a bit of a mockery of the “prime ministerial” debates if the new PM wasn’t even on the stage.
Still, I trust Nick’s judgment and will support whatever the final decision is.
You only have to listen to the likes of Diana Abbott to realise that Labour cannot deliver even the AV system; there just aren’t the votes in the new Commons to push this through when every Tory, out of party loyalty, will vote against it.
Not just Diane Abott, Graham, but John Reid and Tom Harris to name two others.
Some good news, though… Harriet Harman isn’t running for leader.
Excellent advice, Eoin. My only caveat is on point 7.
Firstly, it looks like the Tories are warming to the idea of raising the personal tax allowance anyway (it is, after all, the approach they plan to take with NI next year), so I don’t think there is necessarily disagreement on the principle here.
Secondly, while I think the £10K personal allowance is one of our best policies, I don’t think it can be implemented all in one go given the state of the public finances. (I don’t think all of the tax rises proposed to fund it are desirable or will bring in sufficient revenue, and anyway the overwhelming priority for using any new revenue has to be deficit reduction.)
However, it may be possible to go halfway towards this goal, say by raising the allowance to £8,000-8,500 initially, while stating a longer-term aim of raising it to the point where it corresponds with full-time minimum wage earnings when that becomes affordable.
Or we could simultaneously blunt the impact of Labour’s planned NI rise (as the Tories intend) and further our income tax policy by raising both starting thresholds substantially in real terms.
There are various options that would have much the same effect of lightening the tax burden on low-paid, and if the Tories agree with this aim then it should be possible to find an acceptable compromise.
I too think the article is excellent. We have now to make a difficult but essential decision. If the tory offer of a referendum on AV is real and if the other negotiations have been succesful we need to bite the bullet and go for it. The alternative is a nightmare even if we could cobble enough votes together.
Given the economic background, the country will not forgive us for procrastinating because the decision is “too difficult.” I understand the need to take care and time but what else is there to knoww that we don’t know now? It is time to put up.
Think this article is very helpful – good clear advice.
I think our team are doing a great job and have started to change politics. I never thought I would ever hear Tories offer the sort of concessions they are proposing now.
If we can do a deal we should. the Labour option doesn’t really exist – just too fragile and would fall apart at the first difficult decision as it relies on others to support. We’ll have to hold our noses and do a deal with the Toreis in the national interest.
How wide is that gap between the rich and the poor after 13 years of a socialist government ?? How have Labour tamed capitalism by borrowing billions from capitalists who can now hold the country to ransom ?
You seen the price of petrol ? Who did the scrapage scheme help, the low mortgage rates ?
Are you so sure that tax/child credits helped the poor or did they help usher in a new larger generation of single mothers and largely fatherless children whose fathers are driven away by the family courts, the csa etc ?
Exactly what did Labour do to attract hi tech industry, encourage science, design and the growth of emerging technologies ? We have dwindling numbers of call centres staffed with part time staff on tax credits instead…
Didn’t Labour con many by devaluing our world class qualifications, universities etc and encouraging 0000’s into doing expensive dead end, unneeded degrees and encourage boom in useless vocational qualifications ?
No answer to my question?.vote for tories or others, If Libs cannot talk to other parties then they are dead and gone. Second labour?. I have never voted tory before,but as a protest vote will do next time , I am out of work but will spend all my time door to door to see that people will see how you do not support them untill you need thier vote.
I voted for a hung parliament, I made a mistake
just an extra, I have been out of work for 14 months and not had any help , finantial, becauase i had a a pay off.
I should have regiserd a an immigrant.?
“I am out of work but will spend all my time door to door to see that people will see how you do not support them untill you need thier vote.”
Out of work? I think the Tories may have rather specific plans as to how you will be spending all your time, if they get into government …
No argueTony I will for the first ime support them against the others, if Nick goes with Labour
It is a bad day when a small number of votes can hold this country to ransom.
Mike Ozog – hang in there, it’s not over yet and good sense can still prevail. I think some maverick peers or erstwhile senior supporters in the top level of the party have put Nick in an impossible position, because they don’t get the new reality. It’s sad, but understandable. I had hoped that th only rationale had been to improve the Lib-D negotiating position with the Conservatives – which, maybe, it did. I’m seriously concerned now, having heard tht the MPs appear to be split. What can they be thinking. They should read Eoin’s article!
Great article Eoin.
Please see my first post (within the last hour) at https://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-cleggs-message-to-party-members-19435.html#comment-120177
I don’t want to double-post as it’s selfish in the extreme – so please open in a new window/tab
Thanks, Steve
Good article, I have three comments:
1) The comments here are starting to sound a bit shrill and petulant. I’m all for robust debate and I believe we wouldn’t be Lib Dems if we weren’t chewing over all the possibility as each twist happens, however, the press are following this site and reading our comments and it behooves us to show decorum. Otherwise, we risk weakening Nick’s bargaining power by appearing divided.
2) I am very VERY concerned by the prospect of a ConDemNation. I believe Nick should do whatever gives us our best chance of electoral reform (and yesterday’s survey suggests that 80% of us are agreed both that we need a deal on PR and that pursuing negotiations with the Tories is the best way to secure that), however, when you examine the motivations of each side, it is increasingly hard to believe Cameron will deliver what he says he will.
The Tories are motivated purely by power. They need us to get Cameron into No10, but once there, I think electoral reform will start to look increasingly unpalatable. They will have no motivation to make the coalition work or to deliver on their promises because to do so would be to risk losing absolute power for ever. They will have close enough to a majority to make a minority government look an attractive alternative and a vote of no confidence unlikely to succeed. Any popularity hit they take from collapse of the coalition would be primarily amongst people who would never vote for them anyway, and we would suffer just as much.
Labour, however, are motivated by survival. The writing is on the wall for FPTP and (some of them at least) can see that. They are starting to realize that, if they can’t prevent it happening, it might be better to be seen as part of the revolution than as a party that blocked it. It will certainly be a very long time before they recover enough to take on the Tories as equals again and, on our short human timescales, the individual MPs will not like that at all. They do not have enough seats to weather a vote of no confidence and so their motivation is very much aligned with ours in that we need a coalition to work. Not only is that coalition more likely to be stable, it is more likely to deliver actual reform. Cameron has only offered a referendum and Labour have actually promised legislation. As Eoin has suggested, that is the best way for a small party to come out of a coalition ok.
3) Should this be Nick’s theme tune?
I write as an ‘Orange Book’ Lib Dem.
The Tories must form the next administration, hopefully with implicit or tacit LD support. The alternative, a coalition of the defeated (which I think is how it is being positioned in the media ) will lock the LDs out of London, the South and Southwest and put the party back 25 years as we’ll then have to rebuild credibility.
Whilst it is all fine and dandy saying that ‘progressive’ parties got more votes at the election, I have more in common with the Tory Left than the SNP or Plaid and it is never sound policy to take sides in Northern Ireland – especially as the SDLP came a poor third behind the DUP and SF.
An arrangement with the Tory moderates will neuter the Tory Right (just read http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ to see the vitriol heading Cameron’s way). In addition if you want a view on how we could work with the moderate right, just read Phillip Blond’s “Red Tory”.
Like or loath the Tories they got a grater share of the popular vote than the other parties. This however gives us the (currently) once in a generation opportunity to work in coalition and take the initiative away from labour.
Having had 2+ year of one unelected PM if we go into partnership with labour and they appoint / elect a new leader then again they have no mandate. Now I know we have a parliamentary and not presidential system so it is the party not the man. But the electorate don’t understand the difference and we’d be seen to be supporting another unelected (and defeated) party.
Now is the time for pragmatism. We have proved we can work in coalition with Labour in Scotland; and we’ve proved we can work in coalition at a local authority level with the Tories. We need to act, and act now to secure a Tory / LD centrist coalition. A partnership of the willing and able rather than a ‘Rainbow’ partnership lead by a defeated and discredited labour party.
I echo Peter’s comments. There are drawbacks with either option, to be sure, by to me a deal with the Tories is the only realistic game in town, not least because of the parliamentary arithmetic.
It seems to me the problems with a ‘progressive alliance’ or ‘rainbow coalition’ include the following:
(a) It would be portrayed by the media as a coalition of the defeated. While it could claim democratic legitimacy on the basis of representing more than 50% of voters – as Paddy Ashdown argued on the Today programme this morning – it is clearly inferior to a coalition that would represent nearly 60% of voters and which would involve the parties that came first and third (rather than second and third) working together.
(b) It would (eventually) be led by someone who was not scrutinised as a potential prime minister by the British public during the election campaign, and did not take part in the much-hyped TV debates that the Lib Dems and others argued so enthused voters. I think we underestimate the public backlash against this at our peril.
In the meantime, for at least four months, it would be led by one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times who is regarded even by his own party as an electoral liability.
(c) It would be *inherently* unstable, barely scraping a majority and therefore relying on unprecedented party discipline from all the various factions. Even one or two malcontents would be enough to lead to the coalition being unable to command a Commons majority and therefore to the collapse of the government.
(d) The smaller minority parties would be likely to extract concessions, particularly on public spending, that would not be in the national interest and would enrage not just the Tory-supporting English majority, but all English voters. These exemptions from cuts could hardly be justified by the ‘fairness’ criterion that we made our prime selling point at the election and could ultimately threaten the Union.
(e) Crucially, the markets would have little confidence in such a rickety coalition. Partly this would be because of the knife-edge arithmetic, and partly because that in turn would make tough action on the deficit much less likely. While talk of a hung parliament in and of itself triggering a sterling and/or bond market crisis was scare-mongering, it must be a serious risk if this coalition goes ahead. Investors would demand a much higher rate of interest on government bonds to cover the increased risk, potentially derailing the recovery and exacerbating our fiscal problems due to spiralling debt service costs.
(f) Even the Lib Dems’ cherished goal of electoral form would be far from secure. I’m not quite clear what Labour’s offer on this is, but IF the idea is to push through AV without a referendum I think this will backfire on us. Firstly, it is unlikely to get through the Commons given the strong opposition of some Labour MPs, so might never see the light of day. But the attempt to force it through in this way will not reflect well on us and might taint the cause of electoral reform and kill any hopes of STV at birth. If the offer is simply a referendum on AV to begin with, then this has been matched by the Tories already.
(g) It’s becoming clear that many in the Labour party are uncomfortable about cobbling together a ‘ragtag and bobtail’ coalition in this way and think they might do better to regroup in opposition, do some fresh thinking and hope to stage a recovery under a new leader. If even a handful of Labour MPs feel strongly on this, the coalition will be unviable.
(h) It’s not clear to me why we should find a deal with Labour more congenial in any case. Its record in government hardly instils confidence that tax cuts for the low-paid, education reform, civil liberties or localism are close to its heart. I for one cannot see why we would make more natural bedfellows with such an authoritarian, statist party and, even though I hope (for its own sake) Labour takes a more pluralistic and progressive turn under a new leader, it could equally turn to the left and pursue a self-indulgent policy agenda that doesn’t make a serious attempt to tackle the deficit, penalises wealth creation and centralises power.
I recognise that some Lib Dem members find any deal with the Tories hard to swallow – and I share some of those misgivings, and wish they were able to offer a referendum on STV and not just AV – but I really think the party needs to bite the bullet.
A rainbow collection is likley to mean more money going from England to N Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Those in
industrial parts of England may not be too happy. A Rainbow Colaition is likely to cause a greater push for an English Parliament.
Manufacturing has declined more under Labour than the Tories under Thatcher. The idea that Labour is going to create the high -tech industrial economy we need is unlikley. Labour will continue to take money from England to keep white collar workers employed by the state In Scotalnd , Wales and N Ireland and a large part of the populace dependent upon welfare. Glasgow has been run by Labour for decades and look at the poverty in parts.
Now compare the UK with Asia and it’s thirst to obtain a technical education. Labour has had 13 years to create the type of technical education obtained in Germany, upon which it’s manufacturing might depends.
Most of the UK’s high tech economy , excluding finance is in the Midlands and S England. Labour has failed in creating the conditions for developing a high tech economy in the areas hich it dominates. Britain needs to rebalence the economy and create high value manufacturing in former industrial parts f the UK but employing more -technical white collar workers on the government pay roll will just wastes money.
Sadly, it looks ever more likely that we won’t see AV introduced via a Lib-Lab pact; I’ve just begun to notice how many Labour MP’s wouldn’t countenance it. How sad that is. It looks like the Tories (a simple maj of the voters must make the result binding) referendum is the best we can get. Aargh…Labour MPs: too many of them are still too rigid by nature! The Tories have us over a barrell, I’m afraid.
Like them or not, but the Tories got most votes, not just seats. There was also an obvious vote swing in their favour. They should be let to try to govern – and it is now perfectly possible for the Lib Dems to strongly influence what the Tory Government does and doesn’t do. If the association is not too close, there should not be much damage to Lib Dems, while much can be achieved.
Again, AV is not PR, but it is very different from the current system – it is almost equivalent to a run-off without a second vote.
The Lib dems are politically closer to the Labour party, but for a government to be made up of the parties that came second, third, forth, fifth etc is morally wrong and weak. Also I undrestand that the Lib Dems have been passionate about PR for many years and see this as prehaps the only opportunity of actually getting it, however if Nick Cegg really wants to put the interests of the nation first then he must realise that the number one concern is the economic crissis and not PR. Therefore PR must not be a must for LIB Dems in the negotiations.
Nick Cegg can’t win, if he goes in with the Tories most of his party won’t be happy and if he doesn’t get PR they will be even less happy and if he goes in with Labour a huge percentage of the electorate will think it a disgrace, not to mention the media. To all you Lib Dems, PR is NOT the number one concern to the average voter, in fact I doubt it even ranks in the top five issues on the public’s mind.
AV is not ideal – but I think it will favour strong local candidates of all parties, I happen to think that Libdems have more of these than the others do.
People will get used to AV – like they have got used to voting tactically under FPTP.
Libdem+Tories – not ideal but has to be done ,
I could live with that for a few years while Labour rethink what they are for.
Certainly better than opposition for another 80 years!
This has to be the end of the Liberal Democrats as an independant party looking after the interests of the people who voted for them. The top officials may have got what they want but I and I suspect we (their supporters) have got what we definately don’t want. Good bye Lib Dems
This coalition will give the Lib Dems more power and therefore more opportunities to help people than the’ve had in decades. It’s far from perfect, but is the most democratic and responsible option out of all the options that were available.
I was talking to a friend this evening who echoed my views about the way the Lib Dems bang on about PR. Basicaly people are far more concerned about our service men and women dying in Afganistan, the economy, the NHS, law and order, imigration, education etc. so please Lib Dems get real.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I put forward my feelings as someone who has normally been a Liberal/Libdem voter for over 40 years and was actually a member of the Young Libs in the 1960s.
Not only will I never vote Lib/Dem again but eternity is too short a period for me to forgive you for what you have done. I can hardly bring myself to believe that the Liberal Party has deliberately and knowingly put a Right Wing Tory Party into power.
I suspect that the Lib/Dems may very well NEVER recover from this decision and will be back with 6 MPs within 10 years.
Surely if we had a system of PR we would regularly have the situation where the Lib Dems would need to form alliances with other parties including the Tories. The Lib Dems could not choose to ignore the Toories for ideological reasons and thereby showing contempt for the electorate and democracy.
Why did the Liberal Democrats roll over on their committment to oppose new nuclear power stations? Our MPs will not oppose the national Policy Statement on Nuclear and its adoption will not be regarded as an issue of confidence.
How many votes did you get as a result of your principled and continuous oppostion to “nuclear madness”? Mine for one! The only major voice in the party in favour of nuclear power, Lembit Opik, lost his seat. What does Simon Hughes think? He must be livid! Is this the new democracy?
Added to this, the party have failed to get a referendum on a proportional voting system, such as STV or AVplus. I will never forgive the Lib Dems for such a blatant sell out.