So say “senior party strategists” to the Guardian today:
Nick Clegg would resist overtures from a new prime minister as strongly as he would the current one, senior Liberal Democrat figures have told the Guardian.
The Lib Dem leader believes Labour is finished regardless of who leads the party, and as one close aide put it: “The sort of discussions they [Labour] need to have can’t take place in government – they need to go into the wilderness to reflect where they stand.” The view damages the hopes of some on the centre-left who believe a change of prime minister would encourage the Lib Dems to pursue a working relationship with Labour, particularly if a deal on proportional representation was on the table.
As the article goes on to point out, yesterday’s PMQs (not covered here, sozza, family birthday) contribution from Clegg was the first explicit characterisation of a new political dividing line:
He [Gordon Brown] just doesn’t get it. His government is paralysed by indecision, crippled by infighting, exhausted after 12 long years. The country doesn’t have a government, it has a void. Labour is finished. The only choice now is between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Ready Teddy Go! The intrepid bears of Market Harborough
Let them eat cake
Will the right-wing media eat its own enfants terrible?
The search for alien life
News from Dundee Age Concern
Leekliberal
David Symonds
Peter Martin
Joe Bourke
Maureen Treadwell
17 Comments
Whilst I agree with this, in cities like Liverpool a deal with the Tories would be equally suicidal.
KALD – genuinely intrigues here. In places in the North where we’re the opposition to Labour, surely we must be picking up right-leaning voters as the “in lieu of the Tories” candidate. So why would a TOry deal be suicidal?
KALD – genuinely intrigued here. In places in the North where we’re the opposition to Labour, surely we must be picking up right-leaning voters as the “in lieu of the Tories” candidate. So why would a Tory deal be suicidal? I would have thought that would have been more of a problem in the SOuth.
Yes, but there’s no evidence that anyone on your side is even considering this, is there?
It seems to me that it’s mainly right-whingers who are promoting this meme so as to get economically liberal floating voters into the Tory fold.
If it did happen, I’d be upset. But I refuse to take the idea seriously.
Squiff, exactly. It’s not just being pushed by the right, however – it’s the left as well because they (for obvious reasons) want it to happen. But I’m happy nonetheless that Clegg is moving to scotch the idea before it gains ground. He’s right on the pulse at the moment.
In general the the thrust of this article is right however, our watchword in coalitions always has to be pragmatism. If we were offered something like a referendum on PR, which would represent a truly historical opportunity we would be blinkered to not at least be tempted.
“Resist” overtures? That kind of leaves the door open ajar doesn’t it?
I agree that any sort of cooperation with Labour would indeed be suicidal. Some, even in the classically liberal faction (orange bookers et al) would hold their nose and do it in the interests of PR.
I hold that the perpetual electoral cost of doing so is not worth it, even for the electoral reform.
While there is even a hint of it, while the door is not firmly slammed shut, there is a great swathe of essentially liberal voters who will never, EVER warm to the LDP, and a betrayal of the classical liberals in the party – 3rd place in perpetuity.
It’s bad enough that the head Pharisee at the Guardian is now supporting us (The Toynbee curse). The party leadership needs to can this idea in much stronger term, lest the Tories bury us with it.
I think this only applies to the present situation. If, after an election, Labour have the largest number of votes / seats but can’t form an overall majority, all bets are off.
Why all this talk about deals? If Labour have any sense (which ok, they probably don’t), they will install Johnson ASAP, and propose an AV+ referendum, for which they have a parliamentary majority. They don’t need a deal with us, so we shouldn’t offer them one.
It doesn’t matter whether we are “tempted” or not. If Labour are genuinely prepared to do it, they should do it now, off their own bat.
Wayne,
Id probably want PR and the full 100 day program before i’d do it. Changing our democracy in a permanent and lasting way is more important to me than what would be a temporary electoral set-back. In the long run we would be remembered more kindly for winning the sort of reforms politics in this country needs.
Dave,
Not necessarily because elements of the leftish Labour are hostile to PR though that seems to be changing. If you read Tom Harris’s blog then you can say a vein of opinion against PR so our support maybe neccessary given that the Conservatives would vote against.
Darrell,
Yes, that’s a possibility I suppose. But it still doesn’t imply this emotive word “deal”. If Labour bring forward a bill and there is a vote in parliament, would we vote against a PR referendum? I hope not!
Would that look like a “deal”? Well, the Tories would want to create that false impression. All we would have to do would be to make clear by our words and actions that it ain’t so.
I’m slightly confused by the “no deals with anyone, no way” tendency here – are you expecting to win a majority in parliament sometime soon?
It would be suicidal to prop up Brown now (and irrelevant while he has a majority), but the choices for the medium term are coalition or eternal opposition. Do you imagine our voters are too stupid to realise that we’re unlikely to govern alone?
@Malcolm Todd,
By only considering coalition, you make the presumption that the number of LD voters remains stagnant or within the current range. This need not be the case, but we need to change some perceptions about LDP.
There are a vast number from the more liberal elements of both Tory and Labour voters who fit rather neatly into one or another faction of LDP.
Talking to folks on the street, the LDP doesn’t have a problem of policy, it’s a problem of perception. Change the perception and the game changes altogether.
Not easy, but achievable over the medium term.
“it’s the left as well because they (for obvious reasons) want it to happen”
Not obvious to me, I can’t discern anything left-wing about this government & propping it up is a reactionary act in my view!
The Lib Dems may now have a window of opportunity. They might have a rare chance to topple Labour as the main party of opposition.
Unfortunately I doubt they have the wherewithal to do it. That was proved when they elected Nick Clegg instead of leaving Vince Cable in place.
There was nothing you could have done about David Penhaligan getting killed but that was another lost opportunity.
David, with you on Labour going for AV+ or STV – This would be the pragmatic thing to do. If they dont grasp the nettle of reform (because enough think sometime in the distant future they will get back under FPTP) then Cameron is likely to do his version of reform as part of a ‘popular mandate’.
The problem is DC will also reduce the number of MP’s – from Wales and Scotland. Entirely logical action with devolution.
Labour are then stuffed. At least with some form of PR they have a look-in.