Lib Dem party president Baroness Ros Scott today emailed members with the following message to keep everyone updated on the progress of talks:
Dear Friend,
On Saturday we had a very positive discussion. The Parliamentary Party, Shadow Cabinet and the Federal Executive have fully endorsed the position set out by Nick Clegg.
We will continue to put the national interest first and play a constructive role in providing the stable and good government people deserve.
We have heard what the Labour Party and Gordon Brown are saying but in line with the position Nick Clegg outlined yesterday we are continuing discussions with the Conservative Party as the party with the most seats and votes.
We want to complete this process as soon as possible but people will recognise that it is also important to get these decisions right in the long term national interest.
Yours,
Ros
Baroness Ros Scott
President of the Liberal Democrats
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Remembering Liz Truss and her dogs that barked at drones
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
24 Comments
To you, Nick & the Liberal Democrat Party leadership,
Our political system seems designed to confuse and alienate. I have struggled to explain this election to my daughter and her friends who voted for the first time (for the Liberal Democrats) and now feel it was a waste of time.
They have asked me how a system could be so unfair, how their votes could mean less than others and how I tolerate this as a legacy. I in turn have had this conversation with my mother.
I have no idea what is best and am relying on you to fix this. There are many choices of electoral system and I want you to take your time, review them all and consider ‘we the people’ – and not rush for market reasons or media concerns.
My granddaughter is just 5 years old and says ‘Is Nick Clegg the boss now?’ …not sure how to answer her? At this stage I can smother her with fairytales… but in 13 years, she will want answers in the same way my daughter now does. Please give me something sane, positive and honest to tell her.
Namaste,
Tina Louise
The National Interest is a very movable feast though. Most liberals would say that ELECTORAL reform was an essential part of ensuring the long-term national interest. It is certainly a major priority for the millions of people who voted Lib Dem and put Nick, Ros and the rest of their colleagues in a position to negotiate with anyone.
The Tories have already conceded the need for many POLITICAL reforms during the campaign. Recall elections and even Lords Reform should not be in question. We already agree on them. PR MUST be a non-negotiable and Nick must be willing to take the long view and, if necessary, make Cameron form a minority government and investigate the possibility of forming an alternative progressive government under a new Labour leader at a later date.
Labour and Lib Dems between them hold 315 seats to the Tories’ 307. We could rely on 321 votes without even tapping up Plaid or the SNP. This is all contingent on Labour under a new leader being willing and able to change course on a number of issues – but it IS possible and PR CAN be acheived. Nick just needs to hold his nerve.
It is too soon to decide whether your votes were wasted. Let’s see what the actual result is first. Ros Scott’s message is disappointingly non-committal, but all that really tells us is that there is still everything to play for in the negotiations: neither side has conceded any ground, and no agreements have been reached, so she is unwilling to tip their hand.
Incidentally, note that the majority condition is 323 (not 326 as reported by the BBC). You have to account for the 5 seats which Sinn Fein won but will be leaving empty.
I wrote back to Ros
Dear Nick (or electronic mailing device)
I can see that you have little option other than to talk to Cameron. However I cannot see that you can advance the cause of fairness by aligning with an antedeluvian , authoritarian , dishonest bunch like the Tories. Please don’t spend too much time in the same room as them. Don’t lead the electorate up the garden path. Make the red lines clear and if you can’t get solid promises then make that clear and end the deal making quickly
· They want to abolish the Human Rights Act and they have joined in the propaganda fest which has taken the very few odd cases which have arisen and used them to tar the whole cause of Human Rights. Churchill would have been disgusted. The European Convention on Human Rights is one of the great European projects and we should go nowhere near a nihilistic , Little Englander party which wants to damage the cause
· They are vehemently anti European to the point where they are in bed with some seriously horrible people in Europe. How can we sleep on the adjacent couch?
· They can’t and won’t deliver PR. Even the promise is worthless ; it is likely to end in tears with us getting the blame
I could go on ; but I think that if you do go into a coalition with this lot I’ll check out from the party. I think I’d do that if you got into bed with the corrupt and authoritarian Labour Party without the delivery of electoral reform. I mean delivery. In a referendum we will be up against the Ashcroft millions , the money from the unions and the lying vicious UK press. We would lose. The issue of PR is one of basic fairness ; no referendum is needed.
I am increasingly worried by Nick and the Executive putting so much store by the argument of reducto ad mandate. It is a logically flawed position because, if you follow it to its conclusion it says that, in a coalition situation the kingmaker (whoever that may be) must always side with the largest party. That is quite obviously wrong. A “coalition of losers” is a perfectly logical and valid position if they share enough ideology.
I do however agree that, as the party with the most votes, the Conservatives should be given first refusal. I just hope that the continuing discussion is a sign that they are exhausting every possible option and not a sign that they are placing too much store in the size of the Conservative vote.
If the we enter a super-coalition with all of the other parties against the Tory party, there will be some rough headlines and some ruffled feathers, but that will be nothing to the damage a deal with the Conservatives that does not deliver electoral reform will do.
As for worries about the economy, it strikes me that a recovery is more likely under Gordon Brown with Lib Dem support than under David Cameron, we just differ too much with the Conservatives on those areas of policy. Nor do they look like delivering the most stable government, despite their share of the seats. They already seem to be falling apart.
Perhaps if Nick can keep these talks going another 48 hours, the Tories will collapse and it will look like their fault it fell apart. That would be a good outcome 🙂 Wishful thinking though, I guess.
‘National interest’ = euphemism for ‘sell-out’. The national interest would not be harmed by us refusing to cooperate with the Tories if they do not give us PR. Those who believe the economy would collapse and investors run scared are out of touch with reality and buying into the horror-stories of the right-wing press. Talk of ‘national interest’ is language the Tories are using to try and compel the Lib Dems to behave as they wish. It seems very likely the outcome now will be nothing more than a wish-wash ‘committee’ at best. In return for poodle-like obsequious support. I don’t care if we have cabinet jobs or not. That is utterly irrelevant for our long-term prospects. You fail to deliver PR on this occasion, and we will not have another chance for who knows how long. Worst case scenario – form a short-term coalition with Labour and allies to deal with the economy then call another general election under a new PR system.
No long term govt could possibly be formed with a Con-Lib Dem mix – too ideologically different for that. Let the Cons in, either by allowing them them to form a minority govt on their own, or through a partnership (whatever that may be) with us, and we will be finished as a party. Nick Clegg must NOT give the key to no. 10 to the Cons, they haven’t earnt that right. Ellie’s comments are spot on. We have a valid option of CHOOSING to enter into a Lib-Lab (+ others) coalition, which in my view, is the right thing to do. Stop pussyfooting about with the wrong party and start getting on what you know is the best option available for everyone. Does Nick Clegg want to go down in history as the man who destroyed the Lib Dem party and condemned British society to years of misery and an advancement of nasty right wing social policy?? He will become one of the most hated men in British history.
There’s an element of growing up about this… realizing that with influence comes responsibility, although many are still at the stage of a teenager locking themselves in their room and not taking criticism from the adults.
Maybe this will be a realignment of British politics, as the left-wing of the Party migrate to Labour and the right-wing migrate to the Tories: both of which, like any large Party, are a coalition of smaller Parties. It’s certainly going to be a problem carrying on selling the previous image of the Party.
Oh for goodness’ sake!
What no-one on this thread seems to realise, is that we are seing the beginning of a new grouping. Its instructive that those screaming the most about the current talks are the Conservative right and the Lib Dem/Labour left.
I think we should put our trust in our leaders and let them get on and negotiate. The time for putting the toys out of the pram is when you know what the outcomeof these negotiations is.
One last thought – for those raging against giving up idealogical purity, why did you come into politics? Politics is the art of the possible and the practical, and that means compromises have to be made. Sitting in permanent opposition feeling smug about not compromising is a pointless exercise.
I really hope we don’t end up backing the Conservatives.
We ran our campaign on fairness. Fairness in all aspects of society. The Conservatives don’t have a shred of Fairness in any of their policies.
I can understand why we would not want to join with Labour, but in no way should we join the Conservatives. We, and the country in the long-run, would be better off leaving them to it by not joining with anyone. Let the Tories have their minority government and let’s see how quickly the public lose all confidence in them.
YOU’RE TALKING RUBBISH ! WHICH PART OF ‘ YES TO PR ‘ FROM LABOUR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ???
Mr Brown has offered PR on a plate. Mr Cameron has set his face against it. ( A Committee to report indeed ! ).
Plus there are quite a few Labour ministers and parliamentarians who are longstanding supporters of PR so even if for Brown it is a deathbed conversion his colleagues are still more likely to prove trustworthy on the issue than is a Party which ( as it is perfectly entitled to do ) strongly opposes PR.
What happened to Clegg’s BRAIN during the campaign ? If you believe in PR as the fairer system what is the logical or moral theory underpinning the idea that the minority party with most votes / seats has some kind of ‘right’ to form a Government ?
The only Party with such a ‘right’ would be one with 50% plus 1 – and no such Party exists.
What is more important is that a substantial majority of the electorate did indeed vote for Parties which support PR ( or a referendum on such as in Labour’s case). And that majority can be easily put together in terms of seats in the Commons as well as votes.
Surely that voting majority has its own right to expect that the Parties they voted for will now get together at least for as long as necessary to at last change the vilely unfair voting system ? Everything else can wait a year or so. We need the version of PR which allows voters to not only vote for a Party but also prioritize in order of preference the candidates on that Party’s List.
Meanwhile as to the economy Alistair Darling and Vince Cable share far more than either does with the repulsive publicschoolboy Osbourne.
The real problem is that Cleggy shot off his mouth a few times too often during the campaign and now he’s afraid of looking inconsistent if he goes into alliance with Mr Brown.
Well, having come a poor third, despite this time getting a good hearing, he’ll just have to eat a bit of humble pie : the idea that just because he has a personal dislike of Brown because of some slight or other, real or imagined, he will construct great theories to obstruct the obvious : a temporary alliance of Lib and Lab in Government to get PR through – is just repellant.
He disguised the privileged, entitlement, publicschoolboy arrogance quite well at first but half way through the campaign it showed through – maybe that had a lot to do with the falling back in the vote. Maybe that’s what he and Cameron have in common after all : Born into privilege; the best education money can buy; and stuffed with a sense of entitlement for breakfast lunch and dinner; never had to work to put bread on the table in a real job outside the fairyland of politics – where do the similarities stop ?
Yes Brown ‘lost’ the election – but only on the same basis that Cameron lost it, as did Clegg – none of them came close to 50°/° plus one.
Now it all seems to come down to Mr Brown lacking the oleaginous soft-soaping capabilities of fellow publicschoolboy Cameron. I’m no great supporter in principle of Brown – I think he has got a lot wrong in terms of wasting public money ( though I did not notice LibDems or Cons objecting at the time ).
But I do think that whatever else you can say about him he impresses as a politician guided by what he believes ( sometimes erroneously ) as being for the overall public good. Cameron impresses as someone guided by what will get him and his worthless cronies into power for its own sake. ( Well luckily it hasn’t worked unless Clegg turns out to be his saviour.)
Until this week I had thought Clegg came into the first category and had more on that account to share with Brown.
It’s now clear I was mistaken.
Before this weekend I had some faint hopes for British politics. Now the disillusion is total. And it comes from the Party I thought was the most idealistic.
Nick Clegg and Lib Dem leadership are pro business Orange Bookers, i.e. closet Tories. Lib Dem members, supporters and voters are social and political, not free market, liberals. We voted to keep the Tories out, but Clegg is selling the electorate out! He lobbied for RBS vs banking regulation in between being an MEP and an MP after all!
The sheer hysteria from some leftist party members is astonishing. I dislike both the old parties as much as anyone, but the Tories won more seats with more votes so it is they that our leaders must deal with. Have a little faith in what we stand for and the people we have campaigned for so vigorously in the last few weeks, and if your natural home is a Labour party which has as little regard for civil liberties and people who aren’t bankers as you have for your membership cards then please don’t let us hold you back. I trust Nick, Chris, Vince and the others to take the best possible outcome to a difficult and lose-lose situation – a Lab-Lib coalition will not necessarily produce PR.
That’s not what Clegg’s been saying all along. He has always been very careful and explicit about this:
Since the Tories won the largest share in the election, he considers this to mean that he should negotiate with them first. Not back them, not concede to their demands, and not form a coalition with them. The “electoral mandate” is just for the Tories to have first refusal, not for them to have whatever they want.
He has also been very clear, all along, about this part: if they cannot reach a mutually acceptable arrangement, he’s going to be talking to Labour next. The “electoral mandate” issue is simply that coming first should allow the Tories to make the first decision: do they moderate their position to a point where it is acceptable to the Lib Dems, or do they maintain their position and give up on the government?
It is not fair to claim that the Tories could never act in a manner acceptable to liberals. To refuse to even give them the chance is nothing more than tribal prejudice. We have to at least see if they are willing to make the attempt. If Cameron is willing to go to bat for real electoral reform and all the other stuff that is important to the Lib Dems, then there’s little reason not to take him up on it. Nobody else gets to say whether they are willing to do this. That is wrong.
That doesn’t mean the Lib Dems have to back them if the Tories are not willing. They do not have a “right” to form a government. They just have a “right” to make an offer. Clegg is not obliged to accept it.
Con-Libdem will produce inheritance tax cuts and Trident II, not fairness nor PR. the rightwing LibDem leadership are now revealing their true blue colours, having deceived us the voters.
Labour said voting Lib Dem would split the progressive vote and allow Tories to be first past the post. Even though the Tories arent able to get past the post, Clegg wants to carry the Tories through. Cameron, Blair and Clegg are all Thatcher’s sons!
Democrat: How do you know that? Do you know what you are talking about? who knows what the “give and take” is all about until the details are revealed. You are just adding to meaningless speculation. In 1974, Thorpe went for two rounds of talks with the Prime Minister, who had just lost, because he had been invited…what on reflection, he should have done is go into that first meeting with a stronger hand having seen the leader (Wilson) who had won more votes and more seats first, which would have strengthened his hand enormously. This time round, Clegg has talked to the “moral winner” not the obvious loser, first. In that respect, he got that right.
We should sit back, keep stum, and await to see what is on the table. Where the give-and-take has come from, on all sides, before jumping to conclusions.
I cant see inheritance tax being a “cast iron gaurantee” and recalling that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was one of Cameron’s “cast iron gaurantee” – all things can change in the current climate.
rhys, Mr Brown isn’t in a position to offer PR to Lib Dems. First, Labour and Lib Dems don’t havet a majority in the HoC to push it through, and second, there have already been Labour backbench MPs who have criticised Mr Brown for offering PR to Lib Dems. If they rebel, there will be no PR even with the support of Nationalists and Northern Ireland parties.
That’s exactly the point : Cameron has reneged on so many ‘cast iron guarantees’ to even his own membership – what is the worth of any similar promise he make to Clegg about PR ??
Less than zero.
Whereas Labour are OFFERING PR ON A PLATE .
( Plus there’s far more agreement on the economy and in other areas – at least enough to have a one or two year pact just to get PR through ).
I am increasingly worried by all the “all or nothing” talk of how Nick Clegg must stick to his guns and get a committment on electoral reform (which I agree with). Sometimes, sticking to one’s principles rigidly could lead to intransigence. Should not one think about change in the broader sense? Is it right to miss the opportunity to work on fairer taxation or a more sustainable economy – which arguably will make a greater difference to people on a daily basis – because no one is willing to budge on electoral reform?
Perhaps if people can see what a coalition government resulting from a hung parliament actually can do, then it might strengthen the case for proportional representation down the line. Small steps.
But Labour IS WILLING TO BUDGE ON ELECTORAL REFORM
( And on other stuff )
Maybe I’m being naive here but I’m a Lib Dem Councillor in a true-blue rural ward and voted (and persuaded other to vote) Lib Dem for very specific principles. Okay I’m not always in total agreement with some of the party’s policies BUT for the most part I and others applaude our stance on key issues like social justice, fairer taxation (anyone for inheritance tax reduction folks?) Trident, Europe (ye gods just LOOK at who the Tories are aligned with), repeal of hunting (hurray) and on PR (oh please, do any of you really believe the tories will vote for Christmas (like turkeys)?)
I’m getting increasingly concerned by the numerous comments that we should just ‘trust the leadership’ – of course we do, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express our views and attempt to ensure the right decision is made. As one of an elected member group of several years standing I have on occasion NOT voiced my concerns only for things to go the wrong way – only for others to say afterwards they felt the same way but thought they were the only ones. So I say to all of you out there – have your say NOW before it’s too late and you’re left regretting.
I’m also getting fed up of hearing that ‘we must put the country first’ (usually accompanied by ‘trust the leadership’) – of course we should – and do. Why not extend to us the same ‘trust’ as you ask of us re. the leadership though? Accept that we ARE mature enough to form a view based on the LONG TERM future of this nation rather than expect us to make a judgement based on short term opportunism.
In my experience I feel that a ‘pact’ with the Tories will result in our being blamed for everything that goes wrong – whilst they take the credit for what works and blaming us for ‘unreasonabless’ and ‘flip-flopping’ when it inevitably falls apart.. Their ideology is diametrically opposed to ours yet they cite a few small areas where there is similarity, discarding the REAL policy conflicts they/we would rather push to one side in our desire to ‘do the right thing’. This is always the way of it regardless of who is involved – sorry folks, that’s just a fact of life – and wh do you think the electorate will blame? They will say we ‘supped with the devil’ and got out just desserts and I’d be hard pushed to disagree.
Can we please all just take a step back and look at this logically and with a ‘cold’ untroubled mind uncluttered by past annoyances? Let’s just look at what’s on the table in terms of the two other parties manifestos/policies and track records – if each of us (including the leadership and Executive members) take a few moments to REALLY reflect I’m sure we can come to the right decision not just for us but for the nation we serve and attempt to represent
Four of my family and myself changed to Lib Dems for the first time believing that Nick Clegg would stand agaist the Labour Party and the Tories it is with horror we find our votes have been manipulated to help the last party on this earth we would want to support. Clegg should stand against both Labour and the Tories and vote in Parliment on the merits of any Bill with honesty. This would gain respect and not put the party in an imposible position. Clegg would be destroyed by half the Lib Dem supporters for supporting the Tories in any form.
Can we please display some calm, optimism & loyalty? Those of us who can find nothing positive to say might be better sayin nothing.
as a long standing labour party member of 17 years( and a supporter of PR) i naturally find the idea of the libdems in coalition with the tories not a great one to say the least! however-the tories have the right to be heard first as the party with more votes than each of the other parties- but i do think that labour (inately at least) have more values in common with the libdems than the regressive, blinkered tories-who happen to be currently allied in europe with extreme right wing SS simpathisers! x this is an historic opportunity- a conditional libdem/labour coalition government that campaigns for full PR within 2 years followed by another national poll under that new system. this is REAL long lasting change that will be remembered for decades to come.