And, apparently, Labour enters talks with the Lib Dems. Telling that his resignation takes effect only on the election of a new leader, and not immediately. Presumably, no caretaker was forthcoming. So much for Alan Johnson having no ambition.
by Harry on May 10, 2010
And, apparently, Labour enters talks with the Lib Dems. Telling that his resignation takes effect only on the election of a new leader, and not immediately. Presumably, no caretaker was forthcoming. So much for Alan Johnson having no ambition.
{ 85 comments }
Tim Wilkinson 05.10.10 at 5:05 pm
I think Clegg dragged it out a bit longer than he needed to really. Worth it to see the Tories taken for a ride, though. And to witness BBC hacks’ bafflement at having to abandon the smug little consensus they’d built around Tory soundbites ‘the maths don’t add up’ and ‘Conservatives got the most seats’.
Wow, Greens in government! – or near enough, anyway.
Walt 05.10.10 at 5:16 pm
Is it really plausible that the Lib Dems and Labour can put together a coalition? How many different parties/individuals do they have to round up?
Salazar 05.10.10 at 5:18 pm
@Tim: It’s not just the BBC, though. Even Guardian commentators believed Cameron would end up with the prize. Notice all the comments about “losers’ coalition” and the like.
James Conran 05.10.10 at 5:25 pm
I think the only plausible alternative to a Liberal/Tory deal (and I still think that’s very likely) would be a Labour-Lib Dem minority government.
That would have 315 seats. Add 3 SDLP (Labour’s sister party in NI, take the Labour whip anyway), 1 Alliance (Lib Dem sister party in NI), 1 Lady Sylvia Hermon (Independent, left the Ulster Unionists in opposition to their alliance with Tories), 1 Green. That gets you to 321. Then you have 6 SNP and 3 Plaid Cymru, obviously closer to Labour than Tory and you’re up to 330.
As I understand it 323 is a bare majority given that there are 5 abstentionist MPs (Sinn Fein).
Harry 05.10.10 at 5:31 pm
The problem is managing all those groups. Presumably the Green, the Alliance, and PD aren’t enthused about having an election anytime soon, but presumably Lady Sylvia Hernon doesn’t care. PD and SNP (and DUP, if they are willing to enter, who knows) can destabilise the coalition very easily simply by seeming to be a bit too demanding (DUP may be ok with English voters, because it appears that they are going to go for money for a region that people think needs it) but SNP and PD are not at all popular with many English voters, nor with many of the Welsh or Scots voters who backed the LibDems and Labour. (Go into Labour strongholds in Wales and tell people you’re a PD supporter, and see where it gets you).
Stuart 05.10.10 at 5:36 pm
I’m not sure the Lib Dems can afford to ally with the Conservatives really, unless they were guaranteed major electoral reform, as they would lose at least half their votes next time. I had generally assumed it was either going to be Lib/Lab + others, or Conservative minority, although the discussions going on as long as they had made me start to become less confident I was right as it doesn’t seem like there isn’t much common ground between Lib and Con.
Walt – They need a handful of the nationalists, I think it is either the UDP, or PC+SNP (all of them might increase stability against a few defections, but each is likely to come at some cost politically/financially).
Walt 05.10.10 at 5:40 pm
How do confidence motions work in the UK? Are they only triggered after certain kinds of legislation, or can anyone call one at any time? Could the SNP (for example) bring down the government at their discretion?
Walt 05.10.10 at 5:49 pm
I tried Googling the answer to my own question, and was surprised by the parallels between a potential Lib/Lab alliance this time around, and the Callaghan years. If things turn sour again in Europe thanks to Greece, I can see how juggling a coalition against a backdrop of economic crisis could make Brown’s replacement look ineffectual, and put the Tories in an even better position.
Murr 05.10.10 at 6:18 pm
I can see how juggling a coalition against a backdrop of economic crisis could make Brown’s replacement look ineffectual, and put the Tories in an even better position.
PR will take care of that.
ConfusedAmerican 05.10.10 at 6:19 pm
One of Plaid Cymru’s main aims is to gain UN membership for Wales.
How delightfully obsolete!
nick s 05.10.10 at 6:51 pm
My money’s still on a Tory minority government emerging that dares the combined opposition parties to vote it down on confidence and supply.
While recent Canadian history suggests that having the opposition holding the trigger to a dissolution isn’t as simple or advantageous as it might seem, I think that the smart political choice is to give the Tories just enough time in power to screw up while negotiating a semi-formal opposition arrangement on a broad anti-Tory platform. There are lots of seats in a rough line from Liverpool to the Humber that could flip back from the Tories on a very small swing, but that requires a political climate where the Tories are in charge. You also have huge West Lothian issues, which the Tory press (and Nick Robinson) will no doubt present as a Celtic coup, even if the Tories’ legitimacy in England doesn’t stretch that far north of the M62.
All that said, Brown was going to fall on his sword sooner or later, so better to have it as part of the deal-making equation than come afterwards.
Tim Wilkinson 05.10.10 at 6:51 pm
The thing about destabilising the coalition is that the tiny parties (btw Salmond said he’s up for it, along with Plaid, days ago) would squander a rare chance to have any influence in Westminster at all. They could expect to be rather unpopular, too, if they risk letting the Tories get in at Westminster after all. If they can channel their demands into leftish measures that benefit the whole UK, rather than nakedly selfish concerns, everyone’s happy.
Walt: but then your point will be in everyone’s minds, and there is much less variation across the parties now than there was then within the Labour party. I also suspect the plan will be to get PR in if possible, and only then call the election. In fact Brown could almost somehow use that as a dogwhistle in the referendum – vote for PR (or whatever) now; get rid of Brown straight away.
Salazar: indeed; it’s just that I was listening to R4 at the time, and Beeb interviewers had constantly been coming out with this stuff so very dismissively. The whole lot of em went for the soundbites (those thast weren’t generating them) It’s that weird and often self-fulfilling kind of bootstrapping PR analysis that goes: the public will go for this hype – therefore it’s virtually true, therefore treat it as true – it’s true! (Not quite as mad as the way they used to admiringly – and apparently quite unselfconsciously – comment on how brilliantly Blair manipulated the media – i.e. them.)
Thoth 05.10.10 at 6:58 pm
A pragmatic solution for the crisis of the present juncture……….V2s
Tim Wilkinson 05.10.10 at 7:00 pm
nick s – the Tories can’t form a government unless they get a no confidence motion or Brown concedes.
Tim Wilkinson 05.10.10 at 7:07 pm
I also suspect the plan will be to get PR in if possible, and only then call the election was a bit confused. I was thinking of somehow making the leadership election (appear to be) dependent on a ‘yes’ vote. Can’t really see how that would work though.
alex 05.10.10 at 7:19 pm
Labour are currently offering AV upfront, and a referendum on ‘true’ PR. If Clegg bites, and they can ram the Bill through, we might never have to tolerate another FPTP election again…. Meanwhile, however, there will always remain the question of what the dreaded bond market will think once they’ve got over being drunk with the bliss of Eurozone bailout bonanza…
David Shor 05.10.10 at 7:23 pm
If all the left-leaning parties join (SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens, the social democrats and the alliance MP from Northern Ireland, Labour, and the LibDems), their majority has the nice mathematical property that none of the minor parties could derail the coalition by unilaterally defecting.
Because of this, parties would only be able to have a credible “threat” if they could get some of the other parties to sign on. The regional parties should be able to agree on some devolution measures, but the potential for porl is somewhat limited.
[Shameless plug, I went over the math in more detail at my blog, StochasticDemocracy.com ]
nick s 05.10.10 at 7:27 pm
Tim Wilkinson: yeah, I still don’t think there’s going to be a rainbow coalition, which likely means that Cameron gets to kiss hands and offer a Queen’s Speech.
Diane Abbott’s piece tonight for the Graun on the consequences of a deal makes it clear that the left wing of the PLP isn’t going to be comfortable with it: you don’t invoke 1931 lightly. The election results also give the left somewhat more influence than a week ago, because the Labour vote held up in constituencies like Abbot’s: I doubt that’s enough to block a deal if it goes to a PLP vote, but it’s enough to create the conditions for a post-deal schism, and you don’t need too many Labour MPs to abandon the whip for the rainbow to vanish.
Hague’s just announced the offer of a referendum on AV as an apparent final offer to the LDs; Labour has apparently suggested that AV can be put in place through legislation (as a ‘modification’ to the existing system) with a referendum on AV+ to follow. I think that’s a recipe for political blowback.
chris y 05.10.10 at 7:29 pm
If Labour are offering AV up front, while the Tories are merely offering a referendum on AV, it seems like a no brainer, but I suspect there will be a fair few die hard FPTP supporters on the Labour benches who won’t be easy to whip. What do they mean by ‘true’ PR anyway? STV? LV? AM?
I’d like to be schooled by somebody from a country with an established PR tradition, but it strikes me that all the establishment pearl clutching at the idea of the ‘losers’ forming a government is simply failure of imagination exacerbated by pro-FPTP prejudices. I seem to remember any number of such cases in many countries.
Barry 05.10.10 at 7:38 pm
“,,,but it strikes me that all the establishment pearl clutching at the idea of the ‘losers’ forming a government is simply failure of imagination exacerbated by pro-FPTP prejudices”
More likely it’s the establishment rooting for a hard-right government which could push through radical neo-Thatcher reforms during this crisis, and being pissy about the center-liber party not falling down dead on cue.
Barry 05.10.10 at 7:40 pm
Should be: ‘Center-liberal party’.
Tim Wilkinson 05.10.10 at 7:46 pm
all the establishment pearl clutching at the idea of the ‘losers’ forming a government is simply failure of imagination exacerbated by pro-FPTP prejudices
actually, anti-FPTP (it’s a misnomer). Which puts the Cons in a dilemma if they want to argue both against PR and against the legitimacy of the Progressive Alliance.
jim 05.10.10 at 7:46 pm
I suspect there will be a fair few die hard FPTP supporters on the Labour benches who won’t be easy to whip
George Galloway is not sitting in this Parliament. Withdrawal of the whip still matters. An MP who wilfully causes the government to fall will not lightly be forgiven. Especially if no election follows the fall, merely that a Conservative goes to kiss hands — with Liberal-Democratic support.
Tim Wilkinson 05.10.10 at 7:47 pm
But yes, what Barry said.
chris y 05.10.10 at 7:54 pm
Oh, certainly there’s a lot of hard right impatience involved, but a surprising amount of the noise is coming from the centre, most lately John Reid.
Tim Wilkinson 05.10.10 at 7:56 pm
Labour are currently offering AV upfront, and a referendum on ‘true’ PR
as they have been, publicly, since before Cameron made his first ‘big offer’ speech. But Clegg did say he’d give any party getting both the most seats and the most votes first chance…
praisegod barebones 05.10.10 at 8:01 pm
Chris y: I’m not Dutch, but I gather that they have PR with a rule that says the largest party in a coalition must be an election ‘winner’ – ie their share of the vote must have gone up.
While that sounds a reasonable rule to have, it’s not the rule we do have – nor one I’ve ever seen proposed for the UK before. So I’ll go with Barry’s take on it.
Tim Wilkinson 05.10.10 at 8:04 pm
a surprising amount of the noise is coming from the centre, most lately John Reid
He’s a charmer isn’t he. Any actual MPs with actual votes to withhold?
Tim Wilkinson 05.10.10 at 8:05 pm
How come that got modded? Too many posts too quick?
Meh 05.10.10 at 8:09 pm
Just to throw out my political naivety…
What stops a Lib/Lab coalition chugging on for a few months and then calling a snap election on a ‘progressive coalition’ ticket? Standard FPP rules (the last one) would seemingly guarantee an overwhelming majority for such a coalition. Choosing candidates would be an exciting political tussle, but it would be the last election without PR anyway; so why not?
Akshay 05.10.10 at 8:23 pm
The Dutch have no rule on forming coalitions: they have a party list system. The coalition needs a majority, that’s all. In general the largest party will get the initiative and nominate the prime minister. They will look for 1) the smallest and simplest possible coalition and 2) a coalition with election ‘winners’. This is all dictated by prudence, though, and no formal rule.
Coalition negotiations over here take months, the country just keeps spinning along, ruled conservatively by the former government until an all-encompassing coalition deal is hammered out. I have never noticed the bond market being bothered by this fact. Almost all actual politics takes place during the months of coalition negotiations. During the governing period, it’s just for show.
nick s 05.10.10 at 8:30 pm
What stops a Lib/Lab coalition chugging on for a few months and then calling a snap election on a ‘progressive coalition’ ticket?
There’s no guarantee that HMQ would grant a dissolution, especially if there’s a potential alternative government that could command the confidence of the Commons.
Whatever you think about Reid (and I don’t think much of him) his line that ‘there are always going to be other elections’ is probably going to have some resonance with those in the PLP who were never sold on the New Labour project to begin with, along with Mervyn Day’s reported comments on the electoral impact of addressing the economy.
nick s 05.10.10 at 8:49 pm
Add to the mix Tom Harris (Labour MP for Glasgow South):
The PLP is set to meet on Wednesday; by then, I think that we’ll have a sense of how large the committed non-juror contingent is, and it doesn’t have to be very large to make the rainbow coalition deal a non-starter.
So: the Lib Dems have the offer of an AV referendum from the Tories without cross-party Tory support for the vote, or an AV bill from Labour with no guarantee of cross-party Labour support for the vote.
Robin Green 05.10.10 at 8:54 pm
Surely the monarch refusing to grant a dissolution would be an interference with the political process of the highest order, and would inflame Republican sentiments. Not clever at all.
I wouldn’t put it past Brian though.
NomadUK 05.10.10 at 9:04 pm
It’s unlikely in the extreme that HM would refuse to grant the dissolution if the Government survived the votes on the Queen’s Speech and, certainly, the first Budget. But it’s not at all certain that she would grant a dissolution prior to that, as it would appear be a case of a political party attempting to circumvent the will of the electorate. It’s quite possible — perhaps probable — that she would ask the Opposition to form a government in that event; there is precedent for it.
Harry 05.10.10 at 9:10 pm
Who the hell is Brian?
I think that the Tories are much more leery of electoral reform than Labour because it is vividly clear to them what the consequences for their party would be — very bad. Not just never a majority again, but perhaps complete dissipation (mass defections to nice LibDems and nasty UKIP, and even a few to quirky Greens). Labour, by contrast, seems not to understand that the consequences would be just as bad, partly because most of the parts of the coalition believe that it is really “their” party, so most don’t see the others as likely defectors. Dianne Abbott’s piece has a hint of that about it: she doesn’t seem ready to go, and doesn’t seem to think that the Blairites are ready to go either. If serious PR happens, Labour will split apart and quicker, in my opinion, than most of them seem to think.
praisegod barebones 05.10.10 at 9:11 pm
Ashkay
I’d been going by this (in particular what it says at 7.4)
http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/rules.html
– which, now I come to think of it, I suspect that chris y probably knew of before.
It struck me as a pretty comprehensive take on Dutch politics. You seem to have a slightly different take on things though (or perhaps a difference of emphasis). What’s he got wrong?
Matt Heath 05.10.10 at 9:24 pm
How would there be? A Con/Nat deal, with the Tories protecting Scotland and Wales from the worst of the cuts and SNP and PC votes putting through Tory laws affecting only England? That sounds far too embarrassing for all involved.
ajay 05.10.10 at 9:33 pm
Harry: why abbreviate Plaid Cymru to PD?
Chris E 05.10.10 at 9:37 pm
Whilst on the one hand it might seem that the possibility of two partners could strengthen the LDs ability to bargain, on the other the only person likely to be seen as a ditherer should this phase stretch out is Clegg. So it’s not too far fetched to to think of scenarios where Labour/Tories progressively low-ball each other as time goes by.
That said, with the swingeing cuts we are likely to see over the next 2 years, it’s not too far fetched to imagine a really unpopular government facing an election in 2-3 years time. In which case the Liberal vote could be eviscerated – if they are seen as participating in the spending cull.
In some ways; it might be more attractive to see a Tory government immediately, to stop them being running on a ‘law and order and stability’ ticket in a couple of years time. Though this could destroy the Lib Dems anyway (as it’ll be harder to see them as ‘progressive’). I wonder if not getting PR in this scenario might lead to a two party state – but I imagine Welsh/Scottish questions would put paid to that – unless we get full devolved as a side effect.
jim 05.10.10 at 9:47 pm
If cuts are gong to be made over the next year or two, then you want to be part of the governing coalition that makes those cuts. If you are making them, then it is the bad guys (from your point of view) who will suffer. The alternative, if the other party makes them, is that it is your friends and constituents who suffer the brunt of the cuts.
Reid and Harris, I think, are missing this essential point. If they, by inaction or distaste for their coalition partners, let the Tories make the cuts, the cuts will be made so as to most affect the North and the periphery. Harris is afraid that AV will cost him his seat? If his constituents realize he let the Tories in to devastate Glasgow, he’ll be lucky to leave the city in one piece.
To govern is to choose. To seek to govern is to seek to choose. To refuse to choose is to refuse to govern. Cowardice leads to defeat.
Akshay 05.10.10 at 9:52 pm
pb@35:
The link you post seems comprehensive and accurate. We agree that coalition formation is not governed by formal rules, but there are some informal customs. I call following these customs “prudence”, Quirksmode calls breaking them “supremely bad taste”. So, no disagreement, some difference in emphasis.
Harry 05.10.10 at 10:06 pm
ajay — no idea. I guess its because in my head they are just “Plaid” and I remove the inside letters. Odd.
lemmy caution 05.10.10 at 10:08 pm
my first search for av was unsuccessful:
http://www.google.com/search?q=av+england&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Apparently, it means alternative voting:
http://puzzledcat.blogspot.com/2010/05/labour-offers-libdems-bird-in-hand-and.html
KCinDC 05.10.10 at 10:11 pm
And apparently “alternative voting” means the system I’m familiar with under the name “instant-runoff voting”.
KCinDC 05.10.10 at 10:15 pm
Hmm, I’m not seeing the difference between STV and AV in that link, lemmy, unless the STV version is assuming multimember districts of some sort. STV with single-member districts reduces to IRV.
Phil 05.10.10 at 10:28 pm
Dianne Abbott’s piece has a hint of that about it: she doesn’t seem ready to go, and doesn’t seem to think that the Blairites are ready to go either. If serious PR happens, Labour will split apart and quicker, in my opinion, than most of them seem to think.
Second sentence doesn’t follow from first. The Blairites want to stay Labour, the Labour Left also want to stay Labour; so do the Brownites, the Old Labour right and anyone else I’ve forgotten. I don’t think this would change very much under PR; they’d continue to fight inside the tent.
Harry 05.10.10 at 10:34 pm
I agree that the second doesn’t follow from the first. The first just illustrates the thesis that Labour doesn’t understand the risks of PR (as does your response, which I find quite surprising, coming from you). The second is just a flat statement — it depends on the form that PR takes, but although everyone in Labour thinks they are true Labour, as soon as PR takes effect they will discover that they have other real options. I just don’t think the tribalism is sustainable.
nick s 05.10.10 at 10:44 pm
How would there be?
“Events, my dear boy, events.”
If they, by inaction or distaste for their coalition partners, let the Tories make the cuts, the cuts will be made so as to most affect the North and the periphery.
But it’s hard for the Tories to do that without putting its electoral beach-head along the M62 in danger. There are a lot of newly-elected Tories with tiny majorities in the commuter suburbs of large cities along the Pennines, and you’d have to be a fiscal neurosurgeon to wield the knife in a way that hits Blackburn and not Darwen, Halifax and Huddersfield but not Calder Valley or Colne Valley, Nottingham and not Broxtowe or Sherwood. The time-honoured Tory strategy of screwing over the north-east remains an option, but there’s only so much blood you can get out of that stone.
In that context, it’s a legitimate political strategy to think that for those who’d voted for Labour since 1997 but went to the Tories in 2010, a taste of the medicine they voted for might be sufficient to win them back.
mollymooly 05.10.10 at 10:51 pm
I suspect many voters are genuinely confused and angry about the backroom deals and the third party’s apparent control of the process. If PR is presented as a system that does this every election rather than every 30 years then it fails the devil-you-know test.
roac 05.10.10 at 10:52 pm
Someone should put up a sticky post (can y’all do that?) at the top of the thread, with a glossary of acronyms. For the benefit of the c0lonials.
PHB 05.10.10 at 10:53 pm
@NomadUK
It all depends on the circumstances. If Cameron defeats the government on a confidence vote a few months after a general election the monarch almost certainly should not dissolve parliament on the request of the defeated PM.
That is in part what the civil service process is designed to avoid, giving Brown first chance to form a government means that Cameron only gets a chance after Brown has admitted that he cannot govern.
The prospects for a Lib-Lab coalition really do not look very good to me. So many moving parts. Easy enough to work with the SDLP and Alliance, the greens also have a big interest in PR. But the Scots Nats and Plaid are much harder to please. On the other hand, the Scots Nats may be content just to deny the Tories the chance of government.
jim 05.10.10 at 10:58 pm
although everyone in Labour thinks they are true Labour, as soon as PR takes effect they will discover that they have other real options
Back when I was in University, my radical friends would tell each other that Labour was the only mass party of the working class. If they wanted to bring socialism to Britain, there was no use joining one of 27 Trot splinter groups, the only reasonable strategy was to infiltrate and eventually steer the Labour party (which is where Militant came from). All the other groups within the party have the same idea. The New Labour faction has most recently managed to steer it, but the other groups have not yet given up hope. There’s no reason for them to believe, even in a PR environment, that they will do better as a separate party. The fate of the Social Democrats is an Awful Warning.
It will take the example of some other more or less Left party succeeding under PR to create a breakup of the existing Labour coalition. Maybe the Greens will be that success. But until that happens, the Labour factions will keep tight hold of nurse.
Chris E 05.10.10 at 11:12 pm
That all depends on whether you think that two years of Tory government now is preferable to four years of Tory government later, or not.
PHB 05.10.10 at 11:24 pm
@mollymooly
Arguments about reasons why other people are going to get upset are invariably wishful thinking. So far there have been no backroom deals for anyone to get upset about.
People are only going to get upset about the decisions made. And the people who claim to be upset about process are invariably the people who are upset about the decision and almost invariably because they could not defend their reasons.
People have been telling me about how so many people in the US are upset about how health care was ‘rammed through’. Nobody is upset about the process. The GOP are upset because their paymasters interests have been damaged. Some tea party activists are upset because their racist, anti-semitic leader Glenn Beck has told them to be upset and because their soon to be leader Sarah Palin lied to them about Death Panels.
Nobody is really upset about the process but they can’t give their real reasons for being upset because they either haven’t been told them (tea baggers) or can’t state them in public (bribe takers and racists).
jim 05.10.10 at 11:29 pm
If any party is going to find itself rendered by PR, it’s likely it will be the Liberal Democrats. The merger of the Social Democrats and the Liberals was mandated by FPTP: there was no hope that third and fourth parties could survive separately. Get rid of FPTP and the rationale for the merger disappears. As we saw in the reaction to the Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition talks, there’s still considerable daylight between the two factions. They haven’t been together very long. They have little record of remembered accomplishment to bind them. Given adequate PR (AV of itself probably isn’t enough), they’ll go their separate ways.
Stuart 05.10.10 at 11:33 pm
I suspect many voters are genuinely confused and angry about the backroom deals and the third party’s apparent control of the process. If PR is presented as a system that does this every election rather than every 30 years then it fails the devil-you-know test.
I never really got this argument, it seems to posit deals between two parties as “backroom”, implying presumably that all the deals that go on behind the scenes that decide each parties policies are somehow “pure”. In a FPTP system the major parties are a mess of vague alliances and convenient bedfellows all making deals and tradeoffs to get each groups particular policy-de-jeur implemented, this is hardly obscure political knowledge especially as the result of these deals is often the subject of much bitterness and backbiting (especially while the party is out of power) – the Tories on Europe being a canonical example.
Geoffrey 05.11.10 at 12:35 am
Just heard a report on NPR that the Tories are still attempting to woo the Liberal Democrats with a promise of making electoral reform a priority. Not sure how that would work, I suppose, considering the two major parties’ backbenchers would probably oppose it on principle (LibDems want proportional representation, it seems).
Anyway, thought I’d toss that out there. Any thoughts as to how successful such a Tory promise might be?
nick s 05.11.10 at 1:20 am
Any thoughts as to how successful such a Tory promise might be?
Hague’s announcement offering an AV referendum was accompanied by the proviso that individual Tories (and implicitly, the Tory press) would be free to campaign against it. Which they most certainly would.
Get rid of FPTP and the rationale for the merger disappears.
I was thinking about this when I quoted Macmillan; the stability of any rainbow coalition wouldn’t just depend upon the different parties working together, but on those parties’ internal discipline. We’re in volatile territory, and it’s hardly inconceivable that enough of the Orange Book LDs could splinter off to give the Tories an alternative working majority without a dissolution.
Phil 05.11.10 at 8:32 am
It will take the example of some other more or less Left party succeeding under PR to create a breakup of the existing Labour coalition. Maybe the Greens will be that success. But until that happens, the Labour factions will keep tight hold of nurse.
That’s my feeling as well – and this conclusion does follow from your first sentence, Harry! Example: Scotland, where the Parliament’s been elected under PR since 1998. The Scottish Socialist Party – partly made up of people who were expelled from, or at least made unwelcome in, the Labour Party – was founded the same year; apart from them, the nearest thing to a split from any major party has been Margo MacDonald’s one-woman split from the SNP. If the SSP had taken off, it might have peeled off leftish elements of Scottish Labour and the SNP. But I don’t see that PR alone has inherent fissiparous tendencies. (PR plus state funding of political parties, now…)
ejh 05.11.10 at 9:22 am
The fate of the Social Democrats is an Awful Warning
Or not
ejh 05.11.10 at 9:32 am
If cuts are gong to be made over the next year or two, then you want to be part of the governing coalition that makes those cuts. If you are making them, then it is the bad guys (from your point of view) who will suffer. The alternative, if the other party makes them, is that it is your friends and constituents who suffer the brunt of the cuts.
Why would anybody think this? The brunt of the cuts will fall on Labour supporters whoever makes them – and believe me, the Lib Dems will ensure that this is so, befcause the moment there’s any trouble they will start banging on about “trade union paymasters” in their charming way.
It’s possible that Labour will be able to spread around the pain a little – Darling’s 50 per cent tax rate being an example. But basically, it will be a Labour government attacking Labour people and being harried for it from the right of their coalition (and by the financial markets and their friends in the media) every time they hesitate.
I’d rather we had a Labour PM than a Tory, and anything that annoys the Tories as much as this has can’t be entirely bad. But it’s not good, it’s bad as compared to even worse.
ejh 05.11.10 at 9:35 am
Oh, as nobody seems to have answered Harry’s question, Brian is Prince Charles, the usage deriving fromPrivate Eye.
Tim Wilkinson 05.11.10 at 10:48 am
Abbot’s piece is I think a combination of emotion at Brown’s departure and getting started on the leadership campaign. This situation is nothing like 1931, the impact of which on Labour (‘destroyed it for a generation’?) is overegged in any case.
Another thought: Lib Dems need Labour votes in any PR referendum; how well a Lib-Lab coalition appears to work from a Labour point of view will be quite an important consideration.
chris y 05.11.10 at 10:55 am
This situation is nothing like 1931, the impact of which on Labour (‘destroyed it for a generation’?) is overegged in any case.
On paper, Labour were back in government by 1941 and won a landslide 14 years after 1931, which is comparable with 1979/97 and better than 1951/64. However, there was a small hiccup in the international background in the early 1940s which makes any such speculation even more fruitless than usual. How would Labour have faired in a peacetime election in, say, 1942? Who knows or cares?
Harry 05.11.10 at 11:29 am
But Phil, although the Scottish PArliament is elected under PR, most of the parties involved in it (and all of the bvoters) also participate in national elections which even Scots understand are more important, and are conducted under FPTP.
We’ll see who’s right about this. Or not. Rather looking like not, at the moment…
ajay 05.11.10 at 12:16 pm
65: most of the parties, yes, but not most of the candidates. There are very few MSPs who are also MPs. So there’s no institutional barrier to (say) leftish Labour MSPs splitting off to form their own Scottish socialist party. Which has happened – but only on a very small scale, as Phil points out.
I don’t know how much of an advantage it is for an MSP having the national party machine behind you, vs. running a Scotland-only party. But given that the Scottish government is a Scotland-only party, it can’t be that bad.
What has probably happened is that the Scottish parties have tacked away from the policies of their English counterparts.
jim 05.11.10 at 12:46 pm
Rather looking like not, at the moment…
Yes. I think this is a case where all three parties’ BATNAs converge. The Conservatives want a Conservative government with some sort of support pact, but failing that, they’ll accept a Conservative minority government. Labour wants a Labour government to continue, but failing that, to go into opposition to a Conservative minority government without any other formal support is second best. The LDs want a coalition that will bring about some form of PR, but failing that, they’re unwilling to provide formal agreed support to a Conservative minority government.
So it’ll end up a Conservative minority government without a Confidence and Supply agreement.
chris 05.11.10 at 1:27 pm
@67: ISTM that the crucial question is whether Labour would rather go into opposition to avoid passing electoral reform. Isn’t Brown’s resignation kind of a large signal in that regard?
Harry 05.11.10 at 1:32 pm
ajay — the issue is whether you want to have a career beyond Holyrood, and whether you want to be involved in a policy coalition beyond Scotland. Put aside the SNP politicians and the socialists (who would like that but don’t have the option) and enough of the rest of the existing MSPs and aspiring MSPs want that. Furthermore, they need electoral machines, and remember that it is still the case that campaigning for a non-Labour Party candidate is formally grounds for expulsion from that party.
That said, if the UK parliament introduces some serious form of PR (not AV though) the pre-existence of PR in many other electoral bodies should speed up the process of party unravelling.
Ben Alpers 05.11.10 at 1:37 pm
The apparently deep hostility of Labour backbenchers to even the weak tea of their own manifesto’s version of electoral reform is pretty stunning.
And a number of Labour MPs seem to think that a Lib Dem-Tory coalition is good for Labour. It may deeply discredit the Lib Dems in the eyes of marginal Lib Dem-Labour voters. Whatever government takes over will need to make some very, very tough and unpopular choices. Some are making noises about Labour “renewing itself” in opposition. And next time Britain votes, Labour is counting on having a less dramatically unpopular leader (though nobody seems too excited about any of the actual candidates to replace Brown).
Harry 05.11.10 at 1:42 pm
I think Ben’s right about what the Labour MPs are thinking, and I think they’re right to think it, too. AV is the best possible reform for Labour, and to have it happen without having to take responsibility for it is a good option. I also think that the right leader will be popular (this must be a Johnson/Miliband major fight, no? and both of them will be very palatable to the electorate).
Phil 05.11.10 at 1:59 pm
Harry – setting Labour and the Lib Dems aside, the SNP is a terrifically broad church, both on the left-right axis (or axes) and in degrees of commitment to independence. (Admittedly they do contest Westminster elections, but their centre of gravity isn’t down there – I think they’re likely to follow strategies which make sense in Holyrood and think about Westminster later.) They’ve had one split in twelve years of PR, amounting to one MSP.
My sense PR (without state funding of political parties) makes it easier to split if you really want to, but doesn’t alter the balance of opportunities & constraints that makes
people decide they really want to.
I also think Labour MPs opting for opposition – which really means opting for a Tory government – are being insanely irresponsible and sectarian. Mind you, it doesn’t help that I don’t agree with these particular Labour MPs on any of their ‘red-line’ issues (electoral reform? ID cards? civil liberties?)
Phil 05.11.10 at 2:00 pm
Er, my sense is that PR, etc.
Harry 05.11.10 at 2:07 pm
Well, we agree about the Labour MPs. I’m just saying they are behaving rationally (especially given their commitment to their key issues, on which, again, you and I agree). Too bad it means we shan’t find out which of us is right about PR…
Ben Alpers 05.11.10 at 2:59 pm
Labour is reportedly officially calling off talks with the Lib Dems. Bags are being loaded into cars on No. 10. Let’s hope that Clegg has gotten strong commitments from the Tories on electoral reform.
Tim Wilkinson 05.11.10 at 3:34 pm
What would the Lib Dem membership think of that? And where is Mandelson? I continue to harbour the (increasingly forlorn) hope that this is a stunt to make a Lib-Lab agreement look like a reluctant reaction to events – preferably the Lib Dem membership making it quite clear that most Lib Dems were voting against the Tories.
(& agree about those Labour MPs btw.)
nick s 05.11.10 at 3:37 pm
Let’s hope that Clegg has gotten strong commitments from the Tories on electoral reform.
Let’s assume that they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on, and that Cameron will be looking for an opportunity to dump the LDs and run to the polls on FPTP as soon as it’s politically feasible; that the Tories and Labour will arrange things so that the LDs become the scapegoats for every crappy decision; and that the Home Office will exorcise Clegg’s commitment to civil liberties.
Ben Alpers 05.11.10 at 3:44 pm
@ nick s
I fear you’re right about these things.
One of the most interesting dynamics watching the live BBC coverage of all this today is how, as more and more Labour MPs began to suggest that a Lib-Lab coalition was a bad idea, thus making a Lib Dem-Tory pact of some sort more or less inevitable, Tory spokespeople began to attacking Clegg for his indecision.
And while those Labour voices may have been individuals straying from the party line (and thus illustrating the impossibility of that party line), the Tories seem to be relentlessly on message.
And that message seems to be: since you have nowhere else to go now, Clegg, don’t expect quite so much from us anymore.
ejh 05.11.10 at 4:17 pm
that the Tories and Labour will arrange things so that the LDs become the scapegoats for every crappy decision
Well God forbid that the Lib Dems should join a coalition without having to take responsibility for its actions.
Tim Wilkinson 05.11.10 at 4:28 pm
If only a Lib-Con alliance could earn hatred without lots of people having to suffer.
Ben Alpers 05.11.10 at 4:48 pm
Simon Jenkins on the Beeb: “The Liberal Democrats have won very little from this, and now they’re trapped.”
Seems about right to me.
ejh 05.11.10 at 4:52 pm
I notice that my #79 seems to say the opposite of what I meant! My apologies.
I’ve not been following the Guardian liveblog but it’s quite interesting reading, catching up on it. Notable is the remarkable statement from “analysts at BNP Paribas” (12.50) and Polly Toynebee deciding, as ever, that whoever doesbn’t agree with her is a neanderthal. And that Labour opposite must just be about opposition to PR – but of course (1.53) it isn’t.
nick s 05.11.10 at 7:44 pm
And Brown’s decision to resign and send Cameron to No. 10 before the Con-LD deal was inked was Brown’s last bit of mischief. I approve.
Cindy 05.12.10 at 11:31 pm
I jumped on Wikipedia and read the article, but it was a lot like walking through pudding: slow going and afterward I felt kinda dirty.
Comments on this entry are closed.