A luxury Labour must strive to avoid
Bubble — By Anthony Hunt on May 10, 2010 11:00 am
The opposition benches look comfortable for Labour, but the price is too high
NO SERIOUS analysis of Thursday night’s results, however partisan, could claim it was a good night for Labour. But, all things considered, it could have been a good deal worse.
The inability of the Tories to get a majority was an abject failure for David Cameron. Along with every overexcited commentator during 2009, the Tories were expecting “their 1997″ – a landslide victory in which the only uncertainties would be the size of the majority, and how long a period of Conservative Government would be inaugurated.
The global recession had bequeathed the Government a difficult position, and the majority of newspapers fawned over their supposed Government-elect, presenting Gordon Brown as the cause of all wrong with the world and David Cameron as the anointed saviour.
But last Thursday was no 1997. However some commentators try to manufacture outrage at Gordon Brown remaining in Downing Street, the voters delivered no clear mandate for Conservative governance. Millions of voters saw beyond the Tory bias of the press and past the hype about Nick Clegg . The easy, false answers offered by parochial or populist independents were rejected, from Llanhilleth to Luton. And most satisfyingly of all, the hateful, fascist scapegoating of the BNP was comprehensively sent packing.
It was also interesting how in many marginal seats, despite the crisis of confidence in politicians over the past year, incumbency was still a big factor. A good MP is still worth a lot of votes, as proved decisive in seats like Ynys Mon, and almost in Cardiff North, a seat the Conservatives had been expecting to win by thousands of votes rather than a hundred or two.
Nick Clegg now finds himself in a strange situation. Instead of the enlarged Parliamentary Party that he may have been expecting to be greeting, he has to come to terms with electoral failure at the same time as having to decide which way to turn.
The Prime Minister was right to say on Friday that Tories and LibDems are entitled to speak first. But so far, David Cameron appears to have offered them half of very little – the “all party committee of inquiry” on voting reform smacks of very long grass, and the list of things he rattled off on Friday were united in being variants of Tory policies. Surely Nick Clegg will demand far more than that, especially if there is the prospect of a far more ideologically attractive deal from Labour?
The trouble is that Clegg’s instincts are to lean towards the Tories. But much of his party, and most of his voters, disagree. Progressive, centre-left LibDem voters would rightly feel betrayed if the LibDems propped up a Tory Government. I was a candidate in Ludlow in the General Election, where the LibDems were asking Labour voters to vote tactically to “stop the Tories”. Oh the irony. Meanwhile, across the border in Wales, in seats like Newport East, the LibDems were portraying themselves as the true inheritors of the progressive mantle. When, during the campaign I suggested that a vote for the LibDems would let the Tories in the back door as they had failed to rule out a post election deal, I was tutted at and called mischievous.
What, then, should Labour try to do now? While the LibDems and Tories talk, we should remind the LibDems of some of the areas where we could do business. Reform of the tax system to make it more redistributive. Putting environmental sustainability at the heart of Government. Reform of our voting system – not just a fob in that direction. Building a fairer future and tackling the deficit whilst ensuring that we don’t cut too deep, too soon and damage the recovery or our public services. Schools and hospitals properly funded and providing a first class service for all. A positive future for Britain at the heart of Europe. Are these really areas in which the LibDems find more common ground with the Conservatives?
I know the maths is more difficult and the decision to ally themselves with Labour is not an easy one, but the LibDems have a chance to build a progressive alliance, not an unholy one to prop up Tory cuts. The decision is theirs, but don’t expect us to hold back in Wales if they turn to the dark side.
Some argue compellingly that what Labour needs now is a period of renewal in opposition, giving us the chance to sort out the leadership question and regroup to challenge the Conservatives. This is tempting, but a Tory Government making cuts, harming our recovery, threatening jobs and damaging our public services is not something that the Labour Party should ever step away from preventing if it has the chance. Opposition is a luxury for politicians, but a terrible burden for the most vulnerable people who rely on us.
Tags: 2010 General Election, Conservatives, David Cameron, Labour, Nick Clegg, Welsh Liberal Democrats
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
20 Comments
Sorry Anthony the maths and the present economic climate just don’t add up. There’s only two possible results from last Thursday. A minority Tory government which will probably call an election sooner rather than later; or some sort of formal agreement for a set period between the Tories and Liberal Democrats centred around reducing the deficit. A key task for the next government is to reduce the public defict and in the real world reassure the money markets. Given the failure of all parties to discuss the issue of public expenditure cuts, whoever runs the UK in the next few years is in for a difficult time.
It would be a disaster for the long term interests of the Labour party to try to stay in power when clearly in the eyes of the public the party has lost the election. It couldn’t even be sure of getting all its MPs to vote for a cuts package let alone keep on board the fringe parties required for a majority. We are looking at a rerun of the 1929-31 scenario but this time over a period of months as the money markets lose confidence in the ability of such a shaky coalition to reduce the budget deficit. It’s fantasy politics I’m afraid.
Labour lost particularly in England and should go into opposition. If, as after 1983, it starts to renew itself under a new Leader, who knows it could benefit from Mervyn King’s prediction and condemn the Tories once again to opposition for a generation.
If, on the other hand, we have a rerun of the nonsense that occurred between 1979 and 1983 Labour could be finished as a political player. How it pans out could depend on who is chosen to succeed Gordon Brown and how that contest is conducted. If the new Leader then adopts a really radical progressive approach suited to the changes that have occurred in British society in the past 30 years starting with a real commitment to reforming the electoral system then Labour’s time in opposition could even be quite short.
The maths are more than difficult, they are unworkable. To carry through government business any government needs a majority of at least 15 this would mean a deal with literally everyone.
I have heard allot of talk over the last few weeks about a progressive consensus and still find the phrase to be meaningless. It is parroted by people who a few months before could find no common ground with any of other “progressive” party yet now want to get into bed with all of them. Can I ask Anthony, did you support the two party coalition in Cardiff Bay? And if not why not?
I’m sorry I don’t want to see a Labour Government, and I voted Labour last week.
Labour has lost, the Conservatives won even if they didn’t win an overall Majority they still won the popular vote and the most seats.
I don’t sense a stable Government between Labour, Liberal Democrats, Plaid, the SNP, the SDLP the maths just don’t add up. Even with all those in bed the Majority is wafer thin, and would not be stable enough to last
The Conservatives and Lib Dem’s however could form a stable Government, and as much as it pains me David Cameron should be PM.
I would suggest to the Labour Party that you slink gracefully into opposition and get your house in order quickly with a new leader, the Labour vote may be strong in Wales and Scotland but I sense that the English would punish the Labour party if they try to retain power.
The fact is the voters did not give Labour a mandate either, they gave labour a bloody nose, they also did not fall for the hype which Clegg went for.
I think the people who vote did not accept the bull shit from any party. We know the next few years will be hard for the poorest and better for the rich, but in the end, saying that, Cameron is a Saviour.
What about Brown for god sake he once told us he had saved the world, pity his super powers did not see the mess coming in the first place.
In response to the comments above, which centre on the last paragraph of my argument, I’d emphasise that I’m not arguing in favour of staying in power at any cost – just that it is the duty of the Labour Party to at least examine all options that could prevent a Tory Government.
It may be that we have no choice, yes, but I’d feel very uneasy looking on at Tory cuts that damage our country in any case, let alone if we’d in a way let it happen rather than having no choice. That’s not Government at any price, but we’ve got a responsibility to the most vulnerable people in our society to at least look at what can be done, rather than choosing opposition as a point of principle in oredr to sort out internal affairs. That’s placing the national interest above our party interest, I guess.
On the issue Michael raises, I did have real reservations about the coalition in the Assembly, but that was based on the specific situation and who we were dealing with rather than the principle of a coalition per se. Events since have tempered my views though, and yes, you could argue that my point above about preventing Tory Government is an effective counter-argument to my view at the time.
Robert – not sure what point you’re making. My opening paragraph made it clear that I was not claiming victory or a glowing mandate for Labour, but the fact of the matter is that the Tories did not gain such a mandate themselves.
“The maths are more than difficult, they are unworkable. “
Precisely.
But is the maths really ‘unworkable’?
Labour + LibDems = 315
Tories = 306
3 SDLP, 6 SNP, 3 Plaid, 1 Green, 1 Alliance and 1 Ind Unionist are more likely to side with a progressive Government, so that equals a total of 330. In this scenario, only the 8 DUP MPs are more likely to side with the Conservatives, totalling 314.
So that’s tight, yes, spectacularly so – especially as a contrast with the big majorities for one side or another that we’ve got used to over the last three decades. But unworkable? I don’t think so, not if the Government and its whips operate sensibly and constructively, and in a spirit of compromise where necessary.
In other words, you can argue that this course of action is inadvisable for either party or both, but I don’t think it is impossible. Plus, and I shudder at saying this, I think David Steele had a point when he responded in an interview that the stability of any coalition is based on the stability of common values as well as the stability of numbers.
For my part, I don’t know if this will amount to anything, but some of the horrendously pompous mock outrage coming out of conservative commentators in the last few hours just makes me more determined to explore what might be possible. They simply can’t tolerate the thought that they blew their chance to get a majority and are taking this fury out by trying to spin that they won the election, which they clearly didn’t, and that the public gave them some kind of clear right to govern, which they clearly chose to give to no-one alone.
The voters spoke, and gave us a hung Parliament: so no-one has a moral right to govern and all three parties have the right to see who can form a Government. Either of the variants of Government proposed would have legitimacy – simple as that. What matters in the long run – and what any consideration of what you prefer should be based on – is the policies that they would produce.
“not if the Government and its whips operate sensibly and constructively, and in a spirit of compromise where necessary.”
I admire your optimism Anthony. However those numbers would be tough enough if you were dealing with two parties but you are talking about separate agendas.
We are also talking about forcing through some pretty unpopular cuts.
MT: “I admire your optimism Anthony. However those numbers would be tough enough if you were dealing with two parties but you are talking about separate agendas. We are also talking about forcing through some pretty unpopular cuts.”
I do like a challenge!
Yes, it would be tough. But a politician’s job should be to make life easier for the people they serve, not easier for themselves.
Look, I’ll be honest, I’m deeply uncertain about all of this from Labour’s point of view. I can certainly see the political advantages of a period in opposition, although as said above, we cannot ignore our duty to do all in our power to prevent the perils of Conservative Government. But as with most arguments since Thursday, above all I’m suspicious of anyone who proclaims certainty when there is none, especially where there is a partisan motive at work.
Anthony,
I share your wish to avoid a Tory Government if possible, but the block to a rainbow government will not come from the Lib Dems or smaller parties. but from within Labour. The Scottish Labour MPs would rather jump off a cliff than work with the SNP and would quite happily allow the Tories into power under these circumstances.
I believe that there is a way to get all the so-called progressives to work together, but do not believe that Labour will accept it.
After 13 years of labour I think it’s time to sit back and say look you have a go, because another five years of a party which does not have mandate it does not have brown who people said was the man to lead it, he has now gone. And like it or not enough people voted Tory to allow it a mandate to go and try. Thatcher is gone she is nearly dead, like it or not Labour made a right balls dinner of the last 13 years.
It’s time to allow the Tories a chance of either making it better, or messing it up, either way it’s not labour choice and looking around for a bloody coalition using the hated SNP would be a fit of laughter in Scotland.
“I believe that there is a way to get all the so-called progressives to work together, but do not believe that Labour will accept it.”
I agree with Ian. The political tradition of Labour is centralism, when what is really needed is a Popular Front.
Illtyd Luke, Ian Titherington and all the other Plaid activists who keep parroting the line about progressives working together need to get real.
There is no “working together” between Plaid and any of the major parties in Westminster. There is only Plaid gaining concessions in exchange for a commitment to vote with the government.
Money is what Plaid want (plus the referendum). The idea that there can be any basis at all for joint working is a total red herring.
Plaid made it clear before the election that they would deal with the Tories on this basis. All that’s changed now is that the Tories don’t need them if they get the Lib Dems on board.
Finally, as Daran has pointed out on Wales Home, all this talk of progressive alliances is all about stopping people talking about Plaid’s terrible performance on Thursday.
Dai,
“Get real”, “There is only Plaid gaining concessions”, “Money is what Plaid want”. For God’s sake, leave it back on the election trail. This is a site for debate, not second-rate spin.
Of course, Plaid would have a working arrangement. If they receive concessions in return for voting, that is working together.
As to money, what Plaid wants is very clear. It wants Wales to be properly funded through the block grant in line with the recommendations made by the independent Holtham Commission. To dress all this up as a smash and grab is grasping.
As to Plaid’s performance, maybe someone higher up in the party than me would like to comment?
Look, it didn’t work out – but when the cuts come, when the most vulnerable people are affected and our communities undermined, at least we’ll not regret not straining every sinew to try to stop a Tory Government. Shame the LibDems chose to sell out to the Tories – something I will be reminding a lot of people.
Now we have to turn our efforts to consructive opposition, standing up for our communities, jobs and our public services. Life may have just got a bit easier for our politicians, but I fear it will get harder for our people.
It did not work out because folk like Blunkett and Reid were opposed to any deal with the Liberals.
With respect, I think the Cabinet and Labour’s negotiating team were genuine, and I believe put an offer to the Lib Dems that could have put in place a progressive Government. Blunkett and Reid hardly call the shots these days. But the Lib Dems chose another route – perhaps it just seemed like the easier option. That’s for them to justify now.
It didn’t work because the numbers were not there and leading Liberal Democrats had already decided to join the Tories. Next few years could be quite interesting as we see whether Cameron is the new Baldwin or whether the Tories have trapped the Liberal Democrats.
Sounds to me Anthony that your hatred of the Tories has blinded you to your general contempt for electorate, as well as a contempt for the wishes of Labour MPs. This what Dr Kim Howells said
“I tell you why it’s been rejected by most Labour MPs – because they know that they’re [the Liberal Democrats] a bunch of opportunistic toerags, who’ll say anything to anyone in order to get power.”
I have no reason to believe that he does not know that.
You confuse me there Mike.
I don’t hate Tories, I just fundamentally disagree with their political ideology.
And where on earth do I show a ‘general contempt for the electorate’? I certainly don’t have contempt for them or for our MPs – Kim’s statement was made after the LibDems made the decision to go in with the Tories, and should be seen in that light.