Exit, stage left
Bubble — By Alex Still on May 13, 2010 7:00 am
End of an era: Gordon Brown leaves Downing Street with his family after paying tribute to them
WELL, there we go. David Cameron is Prime Minister and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have formed a coalition government.
You might suppose the anticipated mood within Labour ranks is one of dread and horror, mixed with bitter disappointment. In a sense that is true. We lost the election, and have had to hand the initiative to our political opponents as they try to form a government. Meanwhile, Facebook groups have been set up to argue that a Tory-Lib coalition will ‘ConDem’ us all, after many friends who are also Labour party members had argued for the creation of a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition right to the end.
However, many of these calls have probably given little serious considerations to the longer-term consequences, as well as shorter-term practicalities, of a Lab-Lib deal. The Tories were quick to dismiss this suggestion as a last-gasp attempt to form a ‘coalition of the defeated’ (something that they didn’t call their shabby attempts to set up a ‘rainbow coalition’ after the last Assembly elections) and point out that they ‘won’ this election. While they did indeed end up with the most seats and votes, claiming victory is stretching things a bit. However, credit to them for their performance and the swing that they achieved. The Tories are also right in saying that a Lab-Lib deal would have lacked serious credibility.
First of all, it wasn’t realistic for short-term practical reasons. It’s well documented that the numbers just wouldn’t add up, leaving a Lab-Lib coalition to count on the support of the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru (both of whom had disastrous election nights in their own right), as well as the votes of Northern Ireland’s SDLP and Alliance, the one Green and one independent. Such a ragtag and potentially erratic coalition could have fallen apart at any moment over a particular issue, and have been worryingly similar to the pork-barrel politics of the United States, with concessions and perks thrown north and west aimed at satisfying minor parties with a disproportionately large say in how the country was run.
Secondly, it didn’t add up for more medium-term electoral reasons. If such a Lab-Lib deal had been struck – with the formal or ad-hoc support of minor parties – its instability would have most likely led to another General Election within a couple of years at the very most. The public perception of a stitch-up, along with the difficult decisions required to tackle the deficit, would mean that Labour could have been severely punished at the polls – ushering in a Tory government with a much bigger majority.
Thirdly, such a deal could have had much more worrying, longer-term consequences. The Tories won the largest number of seats and votes in England. If a Lab-Lib deal, relying on the votes of the ‘Celtic fringe’ had been seen (rightly or wrongly) to be forcing Tory-voting England to bear the brunt of public spending cuts, this could have allowed the Tories to portray themselves as the defenders of Little England. The Tories re-positioning of themselves as the default English nationalist party could have had disastrous consequences for the unity of the United Kingdom – indeed, Oxford historian and regular Guardian columnist Timothy Garton Ash argued that unleashing the tidal wave of English nationalism could be the “nuclear bomb” in the Tories’ political arsenal.
So there we go: three reasons why a Lab-Lib deal was a dead duck all along. Several Labour heavyweights, including former Cabinet ministers David Blunkett and John Reid, came out against the deal, although both of these men added that part of their opposition was based on their hostility to electoral reform. I profoundly disagree with this part of their objection – reform of the voting system and fixed-term parliaments are two absolutely necessary changes that need to be made to our increasingly discredited political system. A referendum on the alternative vote is a step in the right direction; the attempts of senior politicians on both sides of the fence to dismiss voting reform as a precursor to instability were both sedulous and disingenuous.
The outcome of the last few days’ events leaves us with several questions to answer. Where does it leave us in terms of electoral form? Where does it leave the Labour party and its leadership, both immediately and, strategically, in the longer-term? Most interestingly, what are the indications for next year’s National Assembly elections? Jeff Jones wrote in the Western Mail recently that while a Lab-Lib deal in Westminster was never realistic, Labour will need to be on its guard in several Assembly seats next year – perhaps the first true test of Carwyn Jones’ party leadership. I agree with Jeff on this – next year will bring a new set of challenges. For now, however, this is perhaps best explored in a future article.
We’ll watch with interest how this coalition government pans out. How will it compare with our experience here in Wales? Westminster has a much more confrontational style of politics and the commitment to a fixed-term parliament in this sense may raise some eyebrows. But for now, we are where we are. Labour has the chance to reinvigorate itself in opposition (something that is, perhaps, badly needed) and elect a new leader, ready to position ourselves as an effective and progressive challenger to the current government.
In the meantime, the proposed electoral form has the potential to change British politics forever. Labour has done the right thing for the time being. But now the hard work starts.
Tags: 2010 General Election, electoral reform, Welsh Labour, Welsh Liberal Democrats
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
20 Comments
What I found fascinating yesterday was how quickly and how easily the battle lines were drawn in the Siambr during plenary, with One Wales on one side and the parties in the Westminster coalition (while, of course, providing the opposition in the Bay) on the other.
I thought debate was the winner yesterday. Let’s hope it continues in this lively way. We all know that the Llywydd will prevent it becoming too much like the Commons.
So on the minus side
1.For the next five years we’ll have a Tory led coalition implementing Tory cuts which according to Labour will disproportionally effect the the poorer ( and soon to be poorer) in society.
Also due to the Tories equalising constituency sizes and reducing the number of MPs (expected to affect Wales and Scotland to a greater extent relative to England ) their prospects of staying in power in 2015 look better.
On the plus side
1. The Labour party gets a chance to refresh its self.
2. The Labour party doesn’t get the blame for the cure to the financial mess it resided over.
3. Because the government of the UK reflects the choice of the electorate of England rather than the electorate of the whole of the UK the electorate of England doesn’t get all stroppy. Which is important because without it’s MPs from Scotland and Wales would Labour ever be able to get a UK majority
“Labour has done the right thing” ( for Labour)
Alex makes some very valid points in relation to the potential problems with a coalition in such a democratically backward Parliament like Westminster. However, this does not explain away the absolute hypocrisy of Labour making their main campaign theme ‘Vote Labour to keep out the Tories’, only to walk away from this opportunity when it got a bit messy. It also does not explain why many in Labour were very keen for a ‘progressive coalition’ and did not have the issues that others had within the party.
In fairness again to Alex, at least he is prepared to admit that Labour scuppered the deal and why they did it, when others are trying to paint the picture that the Lib Dems pulled out of any deal. I am afraid that I tend to share CapM’s veiwpoint that the collapse of the only alternative to the Tory/Lib Dem coalition was Labour putting the party first and not the people who voted for them, many doing so under the belief that Labour would do all in their power to stop the Tories being in Government.
“this does not explain away the absolute hypocrisy of Labour making their main campaign theme ‘Vote Labour to keep out the Tories’, only to walk away from this opportunity when it got a bit messy.”
Isn’t it time those peddling this rather absurd claim gave it a rest, if only for the sake of their own credibility? Labour let the Tories in not by “walking away” from any post-election negotiations, but by failing to win enough seats to either remain in office by itself or as part of a majority coalition. There is only one reason why the Lab-Lib coalition never got off the ground: 258 + 57 does not equal 326.
The idea of a stable six party coalition, in which the future of the government depends on Lady Sylvia Hermon, or which assumes unanimity among Labour’s backbenchers on the question of very extensive electoral reform, is utter pie-in-the-sky – and everyone who stops to think about it for more than a few seconds knows that.
Adam Higgitt
Totally correct, it’s more important to look at why labour did not do better, for me the reason I did not vote labour was simple, if this was a Labour party then sadly my days of voting labour are over.
The battle to out do each other on the welfare platform was a disgrace. labour I will do it with one million, Tory I will do it with 1.5 million, labour I will do it with 2 million and kill the rest.
It was bad enough when Blair stated that we were scroungers and work shy.
I left labour after 48 years after an accident at work, it took me thirteen years to get compensation, and I gave up.
Robert
I do not blame you. Justice delayed is justice denied. When that justice also involves one’s livelihood, it is justice disgraced.
The opposition to significant electoral reform in the ranks of Labour’s MPs suggests that 326 was never the magic number.
Was it 336 or 346 how many more seats would a Lib Dem Labour coalition have had to secure before it was enough to prevent Labour reactionaries scuppering or preventing a coalition and handing another opportunity to the Tories to win in a new election.
CapM
One doesn’t have to form a value judgment about those Labour MPs opposed to electoral reform (though, for the record, I disagree with them) to acknowledge that their presence and likely determination to defy their party’s whip made the prospect of a deal that could stick even more remote. But, like the question of whether it would be right in principle for a losing party to continue in office, it was strictly secondary to the fact that Labour and the Lib Dems together do not command a majority – in any vote.
A minority coalition would have been a ridiculous idea, and the notion that the government could have relied on votes from the minor parties is even more daft.
Just a little kicker to the discussion below, and for the first time for me I can now say that “I agree with Nick”:
“The parliamentary arithmetic made a Lib-Lab coalition unworkable, and it would have been regarded as illegitimate by the British people.”
(See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/nick-clegg-coalition-aims-are-liberal for the full article)
Peter Hain didn’t think so. So why doesn’t someone from Labour criticise him for ‘peddling a rather absurd claim?’ It was also not helped by the Labour MPs in Scotland who made it quite clear that even if the SNP and Plaid had given them a working majority (obviously with the Libs), they would have done everything to block it.
Labour’s leader of the time also appeared to take it seriously, as he personally gave Civil Service advise to the SNP and Plaid, under the assumption that the alternative coalition was a goer. Describing something that happened only days ago when Labour has been contradictory on the issue in the media, is hardly with respect ‘tired’. The Lib Dem negotiators were not exactly subtle about the cool response they received when approaching Labour-despite any statements that Nick Clegg is now making.
It’s history now, but a lesson I believe for other parties as well as Labour, that many in the two big parties are still committed to a two party state. STV is still a long way away. I’m sorry to sound tired, but any criticism of Labour on this site appears to get that label, whatever is said.
Ian
You’ve misunderstood me. Labour opened negotiations with the Lib Dems with a view to forming a coalition. It was an extremely long shot from the get-go, as it was obvious from the outset that the numbers didn’t add up and that there would an issue of legitimacy. But some in Labour clearly felt it was worth a punt, anyway. It immediately became obvious it wasn’t a go-er. That wasn’t Labour “walking away”, it was Labour “waking up”. I urge you to do the same.
“I’m sorry to sound tired, but any criticism of Labour on this site appears to get that label, whatever is said.”
Now you merely sound petulant. If you accuse a rival political party of “absolute hypocrisy” there is a decent chance your views will be challenged. If the basis for that charge is risible, you be assured of such a challenge. I’m surprised that you somehow feel able to post very strong criticism of others and yet are so easily wounded when rebuked.
Adam,
I have no issue with criticism. It’s just that any time on the this site that I make any criticism of Labour, there is no tolerance of it. I was hardly nasty to the writer of the article and in fact felt he made some valid points. You give an opinion of how the approach to the possible coalition happened, but give no credence to any alternative viewpoint. The fact is that many people who voted Labour did so on the back of a plea from Labour to do so to keep the Tories out. It was a successful tactic that allowed you to hold onto many seats that otherwise you would have lost. Once the idea of a progessive coalition as an alternative to the Tories was floated (primarily by Labour), parties like Plaid were actively encouraged to go to London and speak to Civil Servants-by Labour. There had clearly been a problem with the Tories initial proposals to the Lib Dems, as their MPs had raised many concerns (as Simon Hughes confirmed). This led to Nick Clegg being in touch with Gordon Brown and people like Peter Hain were very vocal in their support for this alternative. He even went as far as claiming Plaid support, when they had made no statement on the issue
There was an immediate and negative reaction from many Labour voices; particularly Scottish MPs and senior figures and within hours, the proposal was dead. Now, I do not see why raising this issue in the context of the debate is seen as irrelevant. I fully accept that there were several issues of concern about the way any such party agreement could be managed, but of course, we never got close enough to find out. I can also understand why Labour may want a period in opposition in order to re-establish themselves, as this would give them an excellent opportunity to re-gain power in five years, from the current coalition. I sense that the problem here is that people such as yourself resent anyone from outside Labour commenting on them. If people such as Jeff Jones make sharp comments about Plaid, I note that you have fewer concerns (and before I am accused of being too hard on Jeff, I have a great deal respect for his views on Local Government).
I don’t think that is is me who needs to develop thicker skin, Adam.
Ian
Read through the many threads on this site. They are replete with criticism of Labour, some of which is valid and some of which is not – and most of which I pass no comment on whatsoever. I’ve taken issue twice with comments you have made because I believe them to lack validity. That’s not being intolerant, it’s entering into the debate.
Labour certainly campaigned on keeping the Tories out. But nothing it did post-election betrayed in any way that aim. The party simply failed to get enough seats to keep the Tories out, either by itself or with others. By all means, berate Labour (as indeed others have done on WalesHome.org) for losing support such that it lost, but let’s desist with this idea that it somehow let the Tories in by walking away from a Lib-Lab pact. There was no credible pact to walk away from.
Ian – you are right. Labour are now in renewal mode and a part of this is full spin mode to deny that the so called progressive alliance was on the cards. the reality is they fought on the election on a stop the Tories message – they had the opportunity to do it – (Cable was in direct dialogue with Gordon Brown all weekend, I got summoned to Westminster Tuesday morning as it was seriously game on) – and decided to go native in order to re-build from opposition.
With it went a once in a lifetime opportunity to realign UK politics fundamentally to the left of the spectrum on a programme of radical political, economic and social reform. The centrepiece would have been the adaptation of a STV system as it would have entrenched the new realignment and ensured that the Tories would never again form a majority Administration. It would also have dragged the UK Labour party away from its current centre right position to a more position more in tune with its traditional values. The added benefit for Wales of course would have been fair funding for the Welsh Government and the adaptation of a core macro economic policy less focused on the financial sector. The brighter elements in the Welsh Labour party such as Peter Hain saw the opportunity. Unfortunately the majority of the PLP chose narrow sectarianism and tribalism and opted for opposition.
Ignore the fact that Labour MPs were speaking out against the coalition while negotiations were going on
Ignore the fact that you know there were a significant number of Labour MPs who didn’t want a coalition anyway.
Ignore the fact that in the run up to the election Labour knew it would need to be in a coalitin to prevent the Tories getting into government.
Concentrate on the maths.
Or not.
Jonathan/CapM
I can only reiterate what I’ve already said. Labour had a tilt at seeing if it could put together some form of coalition, despite the very, very obvious difficulties at the outset (yes, CapM, the maths do matter rather a lot). Harsh reality intruded soon enough. Were Liberal hearts such as Cable’s up for a Labour deal? They probably were, but heartfelt intent can’t change the numbers. Was one of the reasons why it became so obvious so quickly that it was a non-starter the opposition of some Labour MPs to electoral reform? Yes, but that only makes the numbers worse. Was Labour assuming the need for a coalition to stay in power? Doubtless it was – but one where Lib+Lab=majority.
I can’t stop you ignoring this arithmetic. I probably can’t dissuade you from believing that a rainbow coalition wouldn’t have fallen apart before even the first part of the deal (the AV) came to fruition let alone the second, and much less all the really icky deficit reduction stuff. And I’m not sure I even want to stop the amusement involved in conjuring a picture of a Labour Party so single-mindely determined to be tribal/right-wing/anti-traditional values/sectarian etc etc that it set up talks in order to then collapse them out of some sort of perverse enjoyment. But I suspect most normal people will find the scenario you paint implausible.
For that reason I don’t suppose you keeping on with it will do Labour any harm, or Plaid any good.
I’m glad you’re amused but effectively you are laughing at your own joke, I’ve not said anything about Labour setting up talks then abandoning them “out of some sort of preverse enjoyment” .
You keep on insisting that it was a mathematical problem , straightforward and simple with Labour emerging shiny and clean ( we did our best but the maths beat us)
In reality as you have said some Labour MPs would have scuppered the coalition. You haven’t said what number of MPs in a LibDem coalition you think there would need to be for such a coalition to be safe from Labour MPs pulling the plug.
My point is that if we look beyond the post election maths or the final score so to speak, we see the commitment /lack of commitment the Labour team played with.
I’ve not said anything about Labour setting up talks then abandoning them “out of some sort of preverse enjoyment” .
My supposition, since nobody appears to have come up with a clear motive why Labour would agree to negotiations it had no intention of pursuing seriously.
“In reality as you have said some Labour MPs would have scuppered the coalition”
Not quite. I’ve said that the fact of resistance from some Labour MPs merely cemented the idea that the deal was a non-starter.
“My point is that if we look beyond the post election maths”
A bit like saying that if we look beyond the iceberg the Titanic had a cracking maiden voyage.
There may well have been a genuine attempt at a coalition by the Labour negotiation team but even if that were not the case/or became not the case the the clear reason of negotiating was to show people that they tried. The maths showed a majority of sorts was possible and so not entering into negotiations/holding them for a reasonable time would have been a big PR mistake. That’s a pretty simple clear reason isn’t it?
It wasn’t the minor parties or the Liberals that were the weak link, it was Labour’s reactionary MPs. As far as I’m aware no minor party or LibDem MPs were on TV slating the idea of a Lib Lab coalition whereas a number of Labour MPs did.
I think the Titanic analogy needs a little work.
In the the sports analogy. no-one is disputing what the the final score is but there are questions about Labour’s commitment and enthusism to play post election.
We’ll have to disagree. It’s clear to me that a perfectly defensible stance for Labour would have been to say “We lost. We must go.” In my view, it’s what Labour should have done rather than prolong things. They clearly figured having a tilt wouldn’t do any harm. But it did no good other than to make the Tories move on AV, either.
“It wasn’t the minor parties or the Liberals that were the weak link, it was Labour’s reactionary MPs. As far as I’m aware no minor party or LibDem MPs were on TV slating the idea of a Lib Lab coalition whereas a number of Labour MPs did.”
It’s interesting that you can deduce no possible ulterior motive in the Libs or minor parties, but have nothing but such accusations for Labour. I believe that’s what’s known as confirmation bias.
“I think the Titanic analogy needs a little work.”
You understood it well enough. But to extend your own not-exactly-erudite analogy, Labour found itself in a position where it could win the snooker frame, but only by snookering its opponent numerous times and stopping its opponent from potting anything. It did what most players do in such circumstances – concede.
That’s the end from me, by the way. We’ve both had our say. It’s unlikely we will agree and even less likely either of us will bring a new point to bear. Feel free to continue commenting, but know that I will not respond.
Best
Adam