Two days after the general election, and it looks as if the Tories and LibDems may be coming closer to a deal on a new government. But that’s certainly not what should be happening. Although there are clearly lots of differences between Labour and the LibDems, the fact is that the stated policy positions (and more importantly, the views of many of their supporters) are much closer to Labour than the Tories. So a Lab-LibDem coalition would certainly make a lot of political sense.
I know that such an outcome would be hard for many supporters and more particularly MPs of both parties to accept. I’ve certainly no reason to be friendly to the LibDems, having been the subject of a particularly vicious and negative campaign by the LibDems in my constituency. But MPs and parties have to look to the wider interests of the country, not just their own personal interests. And the fact is that while it might be interesting to watch the LibDems tear themselves to pieces over a deal with the Tories, I am sure that what most Labour AND LibDem voters would prefer would indeed be a ‘progressive coalition’, as opposed to one led by David Cameron.
And the numbers in the Commons actually add up more favourably to achieve that than might seem the case at first sight. Of the 650 seats in the Commons, you can take away the 5 Sinn Fein MPs who do not take their seats. That means a governing coalition would require 323 for an effective majority. Labour and LibDems together have 315. Add to that the 3 SDLP MPs and 1 Alliance MP, who have links with Labour and LibDems respectively, and that makes 319 to the Tories’ 307 (if they hold the one constituency where the election has been postponed). It’s hard to see the SNP and PC – or the Green MP or Sylvia Hermon (the independent Unionist who left her party because she opposed their links to the Tories) – swinging their 11 votes behind the Tories, even if the DUP were to do so, which is by no means certain.
So there is a possibility of a Lab-LibDem coalition governing. I’m glad that Gordon Brown has recognised this and offered legislation on electoral reform. I certainly welcome that – and I hope that the LibDem leadership does not turn down an historic and perhaps never to be repeated opportunity to bring about a fairer voter system. If they do, they will be betraying not only their supporters but many others who would like to see real reforms of our outmoded political system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This certainly feels like the best scenario for many Labour AND Liberal Democrat supporters - and floating voters who don't want to see the Tories get back in.
Of the people I've spoken to (face to face, on Facebook and Twitter) there's no appetite for a Tory government, but then in Scotland, when would we ever voluntarily seek one again - let alone actively pursue one.
We do need to respect that the majority of MPs in England are Conservative. Governing of their non-devolved issues does rest with them.
52% of the UK's population voted for the 2 main parties of the left or centre left (let alone the nationalist parties that mostly seem to be left of centre) and that in itself forms a majority. Sadly these figures don't mean anything in our constitution and first past the post still bears the weight of the rule of law.
We have to live within that law and see what the consequences are. If we were to live by the same hope that brought Obama to power, we might be able to look forward to victory for the vulnerable and the tolerant in the future.
The best we will get now is a Liberal Democrat 'check' on the balance of a moderating Tory government.
In principle I completely agree - this Lib/Lab + friends pact is what I would like to see happen, absolutely. But it strikes me as problematic.
How would/should Labour address the issue that Nick Clegg (foolishly I feel) made it clear he wasn't prepared to work with a Labour party led by Gordon Brown? What if a stated price of a Lib/Lab coalition was his resignation?
While I don't personally agree with the media spin that Brown is what's wrong with Labour, it does seem like public sentiment regarding a Lib/Lab coalition would be somewhat driven by this issue given how heavily they're influenced by the right-wing print media. The Four Horsemen of the Torypocalypse are going to come down like a tonne of nasty little blue bricks on a Lib/Lab pact of any kind but it's going to be worse still if Brown is still leader. Will he be able to stand down if it's the only way to see Labour become part of the new government?
Another question: Don't you worry about being held hostage by the SNP and CP? I'll admit that I probably find the prospect of the SNP holding more rather than less sway in Westminster to be preferable to a leading party with 1 seat in the whole country, but that being said it seems like a recipe for some pretty uncomfortable negociation, not to mention the looming spectre of the West Lothian question.
Furthermore, while I don't really know about PC the SNP have a history of being patronised and dismissed by the main parties as a whining minority interest group (which in fairness they are, but still) - having put them down for so long is putting them in a position to 'rub it in' really wise? Particularly given they're already delivering a rather gleeful line in "We won't form a coalition but we'll ally with you if you give us enough toys" with David Cairns dismissing them in kind - describing SNP/Labour talks as a 'fantasy' was perhaps not overly politic given that it could be reasonably argued that Labour are doing a fair bit of wishful upon a star themselves right now...
I'm not saying it isn't the best plan - it probably is. But it does seem like a can of worms. Better worms than snakes, I suppose!
As an aside, I never saw any negative campaigning from the Lib Dems in N&L. Indeed, I got no mail or propaganda of any kind from either Labour or Lib Dem until a 'letter from Nick' waiting for me on the doorstep on the day, having already voted on the way home from work. Negative campaigning from Lang would actually have discouraged me from voting for him, mind you.
Finally, the big issue for me: you haven't really talked about electoral reform here (I appreciate that that isn't actually what this post is about). You mentioned that you are a strong proponent of PR and I see you mention this further back on your blog also.
Labour as a party have yet to go this far - they've mentioned a referendum on AV, but as I mentioned to you in my email (and as you'll of course know) this isn't actually PR - the best that can be said of it is that it will tend to produce a result that fewer people hate - better than FPTP, but still disproportionate and hardly a ringing endorsment!
The Lib Dems of course say they want STV, but this to me smacks of haggling - asking for the moon on a stick when you'll probably settle for a really tasty lollipop.
So what form of PR would you personally like to see introduced UK-wide, given the opportunity? Some sort of mixed-member system? Full-blown STV? What do you think would strike the best balance between fairness and retaining a system simple enough that Britain's fickle, X-Factor-watching public will have the attention-span for it?
@Mark: congratulations on your reelection. I appreciate that you will try to use your influence to bring in some sort of electoral reform.
@morag: I would echo a lot of your points. I'd like to see a Lib/Lab pact, but I do wonder about the influence of the nationalists and the precise form of electoral reform.
I'm still swithering about what is the best form of electoral reform. I quite like STV, though my main reservation is that it leads to larger constiuencies. I feel that AV would be an improvement on what we have now.
Perhaps the answer would be to have a "rainbow coalition" who would focus on bringing in electoral reform quickly, and then call another election soon.
Also (again @morag) on the question of the LibDems campaign: if you could send me an SAE with a couple of quid's worth of stamps on it, I could send you the piles of LibDem literature we received.
I have to say that as an instinctive Liberal (I delivered Focus leaflets from the age of six) I was very disappointed with this batch of literature. It repeatedly suggested there was a need to elect a "champion" instead of the "tired Labour candidate" (I may paraphrase here). To illustrate the difference, this text was accompanied by a colour picture of the LibDem candidate looking bright and bushy-tailed and a black-and-white picture of Mark in a somewhat slumped pose.
The ratio of policy detail to page area in the leaflets was very low.
After the election result, I started to wonder if the reason for the apparent slump in the LibDem support was that people were fed up with the piles of LibDem literature. Though clearly not everyone has received the mountains we have.
Morag, I think David has answered some of your points. The situation is still moving - see my more recent post - but with regards to your comments about the SNP/PC, of course, none of this is going to be easy - and it's going to be a test of the maturity of every party and every MP how we behave and react.
As for my preferred form of PR, personally I would go for the system used for the Scottish Parliament - or the slightly different version of that proposed by the Jenkins commission ('av plus' to give it its technical term!)
Mark Lazarowicz: are you saying you would prefer AV+ to the Scots Parliament system, or would be happy with either?
Further to this thread, the Spurtle has published the views of Calum Cashley, the Edinburgh North and Leith SNP candidate, on the election. His views about about what the LibDems said about Mark are less measured than what Mark has said in this blog!
Post a Comment