‘The alternative to a reforming government is a regressive government’
Bubble — By Alun Davies AM on May 11, 2010 7:00 am
Lloyd George was the last Liberal leader to make a deal with the Conservatives - and he destroyed his party in the process
IT IS fair to say that Gordon Brown has not been the most popular Prime Minister. Historians will be kinder than leader-writers but there was a sense of inevitability when he stepped into Downing Street to make the statement that ends his term of office.
Whatever else is said about him, he is an honourable man who has been subjected to one of the most horrible, venomous and vitriolic campaigns of vilification from a right-wing press that has targeted him since before he took office. A large part of the unsuccessful Conservative election campaign was constructed as a personal attack upon him. They failed because such a campaign is not only distasteful, it is distinctly un-British.
The Tories are unhappy. They have the feel of Welsh football fans who have just witnessed a draw with Azerbaijan. They had expected to win outright and to be strutting across Whitehall or anywhere else that would entertain such behaviour. Instead they are being forced to throw crumbs to a party they regard as upstarts.
In resigning office, Gordon Brown has made a personal sacrifice that will help open up a new political landscape that was unlikely or impossible a couple of hours ago. It was clear after Mr Clegg was received in an unhappy silence by his parliamentary party that he did not have the support for a deal with the Tories. The parliamentary party recognised what Mr Clegg did not: that to conclude an arrangement with the Tories would have been an act of folly without parallel in recent history. The Lib Dems would be punished at the next election and every election for a generation. The people of Ystradgynlais have long memories.
There is now the prospect of political renewal and economic stability led by a progressive government which could usher in historic reforms to the whole fabric of British public life. Almost by accident, the Reform Parliament may have replaced the Rotten Parliament.
Any new government could command greater support in the Commons than a minority Conservative government but 315 seats is not a clear majority. However, it is probably sufficiently large to drive forward a radical agenda on both the economy and political reform. If the Nationalists wish to do what they did in 1979 and join the Tories in voting this government out of office then clearly they can do so and they will again pay the price at the ballot box.
And so the extraordinary events of this afternoon may lay the basis for real, lasting and sustainable change in the way that politics is done in the UK. A successful referendum on electoral reform and sensitive deficit reduction whilst protecting key public services and putting in place investment in economic growth which will help us maintain jobs and livelihoods for people in some of our most deprived communities will be an agenda that will have broad support across the whole UK.
The alternative to a reforming government is a regressive government. Mr Cameron let slip his real agenda during the campaign when he started to list those parts of the UK where he considered the public sector to be too large. He did not specify Wales but the message was clear. And it was heard by public service workers across the country.
There is also the easy seductive argument that the selfish self-interest of Welsh Labour is to sit back and allow the Tories, with Liberal support, to decimate the public sector and the economy and then to win easily those seats where the party was subject to an alarming scare last week.
The problem with this argument is that it forgets the interests of the people that most of us went into politics to serve. Well-fed newspaper columnists and well-paid political commentators may question Labour’s “right to govern” but the most vulnerable people in our communities will not. They understand what a Conservative Government means.
We have witnessed Mr John Reid re-appear in Westminster to wave his chains at any passing journalist, describing his nightmares to anyone stopping long enough to listen. At the same time Mr Adam Boulton of Sky seemed to be having some sort of seizure during an otherwise pedestrian interview with Alastair Campbell. Conservatives appear to be apoplectic in the way that only those who believe that they were born to rule can be. Meanwhile William Hague sighed heavily, brushed down his support for PR and came forward with another “final offer” and offered to travel “an extra mile.” We will see. I suspect that he may learn the same lesson that the gloomy Nick Bourne learnt in a public and unhappy way in 2007.
However, the price of failure will not be paid by them and their friends. It will be paid by some of the very poorest and most vulnerable people as benefits are cut and modest public service employees bear the brunt of the failure to reach political agreement. The damage that such a government could do to some of the very poorest parts of Wales is frightening. And that is more important than the scorn of dinner parties in the well-heeled salons of west London.
For me the prospect of a reforming government is too important to lose. A government free of Murdoch and his malignant influence. Mr Cameron and his wealthy friends will be enraged. After all, they paid for a right-wing government and they expected to get it. But our purpose must be to hold onto power to protect the powerless.
I will conclude with a word of warning to Mr Clegg. The last peacetime Liberal leader to actively seek out a coalition with the Conservatives was Lloyd George. He never held office again.
Tags: 2010 General Election, coalition, Conservatives, Gordon Brown, Welsh Labour, Welsh Liberal Democrats
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
14 Comments
Interesting article. The alternative Labour viewpoint is provided by David Blunkett at Comment is Free:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/11/gordon-brown-labour-leadership-lib-dems
The ending of the 10p tax band, the threat to end DLA, Disability living Allowance, which was beat, but brown still wanted to end the DLA for over sixty fives.
For me brown has been a walking talking disaster for Labour, Labour Wales well we have no jobs, the welfare reforms will see my benefits reduced to JSA, and the chance of me finding work still zero, but hell I can struggle along in the New Labour world of poverty.
New Labour/Tory: the differences are so small it can hardly be noticed, but the dreamers within new Labour still tell the same lies, New Labour is progressive and socialist, they have a different view then me on being progressive and socialist
All very interesting but how do you construct such a policy as a ‘sensitive deficit reduction whilst protecting key public services’? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.
Good, impassioned article Alun. To pursue your final paragraph a little further, let me quote what Jeff Jones wrote in reference to another post on this site, which adds a little more historical context.
Jeff wrote: “In the 1920s voters understood or were prepared to accept the manoeuvres of politicians in Parliament . Not many of them do in the 21st century. There is a thin line btween working for the national interest and self interest. Let’s also remember that the reaction of the voters to the events of 1923 /24 when the Tories with the largest number of seats and votes did not form a government was a thumping Tory majority and the destruction of the Liberals in the 1924 election. ”
The Lib Dems may be damned whatever they do, unless they play it very carefully.
One of the problems with this debate is that the economic context is being completely ignored for some reason. Look at Robert Peston’s blog today for a reality check as the markets start to get chittery about gilts. As Peston argues “They (the markets) know that if a Lib lab adminstration looks as as though it could be unwilling or unable to make the difficult decisions necessary to restore the health of the public finances, the fanfare for its inauguration would be a tumbling pound and a soaring cost of what the government had to borrow.” It will be interesting to see if Labour Mps sponsored by Unite, Unison and the GMB are prepared to support cuts which will see union members lose their jobs. Some people should start reading books such as Robert Skidelsky’s ‘Politicians and the Slump’ to see what happened between 1929 and 1931 when Macdonald’s government collapsd because it was not prepared to take the tough decisions required at the time.
The best summation of the argument for progressive Government I’ve seen. The pompous arrogance of the Tory papers this morning should make us ever more keen to explore all our options. That is our right and is what our supporters should expect us to do as a minimum. Boulton’s phrase in that extraordinary Sky ‘News’ interview about ‘going quietly’ is the reverse of what any responsible Labour Party should do in this situation.
I accept that if negotiations with other parties do not work out in a way that would form a Government that delivered progressive policies, we should go into opposition and fight from there – we should not stay in Government at any cost. But we have a duty to at least try – to ‘go quietly’ and usher in an era of Tory cuts that would harm our communities and their most vulnerable people would be a gross abdication of responsibility.
The dig at “the nationalists” (i.e. Welsh nationalists rather than British nationalists) is slightly pointless, but otherwise a great piece. I couldn’t agree more, Alun.
The purpose of an election is not to provide proportional representation but to elect a government.
If PR was in place the UK result would have been Con 234, Lab 188 and Lib Dem 149. The arrangement could be Lab/Lib Dem 337 and able to provide a majority government. If the present discussions go Lab/Lib Dem the vote will be 315, 11 short of a government. We wait with bated breath on the outcome.
If there is a Lab/Lib Dem government Scotland and Wales will then have the government they voted for. But not the English.
On a first past the post arrangement England voted Con 297, Lab 149 and Lib Demm 129 giving the Conservatives a clear majority. On a PR system the result would have been Con 211, Lab 149 and Lib Dem 129 allowing Lab/Lib Dem to form a government with 278 votes.
Given the figures it is entirely understandable why the LIb Dem want PR.
And seeing the closeness in England of Lab 149 and Lib Dem 129 and the increasing move to devolution/separation in the smaller nations why Lab has not been enarmoured of PR.
In the event of PR there is the real possibility that Lib Dem will pick up the votes that are obviously there and in a PR election we will see Lib Dem second above Lab particularly in England. Or…top the poll. We may well be at the cusp of a Lloyd George’s revival.
Anyone want to buy a peerage nomination?
Daran, I’m not only devious, I’m also a cynic.
We are now seeing a new form of political corruption.
We went rapidly from the ‘best interests of the nation’ to ‘What’s in it for me’.
How much/what will you GIVE for my Parliamentry seats?
£300,000,000 for three!
Len, I don’t take issue with your maths (mainly because I’m rubbish with numbers), but I do take issue with your conclusions, and particularly your last comment.
To suggest “What’s in it for me” is to imply that the MPs that need to be wooed will be given gifts for their own personal gratification – a loan of a yacht, a Rolex watch, cuddly toy…
Instead, they are negotiating according to their manifesto promises. I presume the last remark is aimed at Plaid Cymru. After all, it is the only party with three seats in this equation, and it is the only party that has campaigned for a reform of the Barnett formula.
The amount of money you mention, £300 million, does not come from Plaid’s calculations. It comes from the Holtham Commission, and it is the figure that this thorough and so-far-indisputed inquiry arrived at when it also concluded that Wales was disadvantaged by current block funding arrangements.
To suggest that there is some huge buy-off in the making is not only wide of the mark, it fails to take into account what meeting what we expect will be Plaid’ conditions will mean on a UK level. Both of the parties trying to form a Westminster coalition will find giving Wales what it deserves a lot more palatable than agreeing to electoral reform.
“A government which does not pretend it can cure all of our ills, but which enables people to equip themselves for a thriving, rapidly changing society…………….It is about giving people the wherewithal to make decisions for themselves – and people being ready to shoulder that responsibility.”
David Blunkett hits the nail on the head here. This is what the Labour Party is about, the empowerment of people in society, enabling those who aspire while not abandoning the most vulnerable. We lead when we show people that more often than not they themselves have the solutions to their problems, when they work in partnership in their community.
“If the Nationalists wish to do what they did in 1979 and join the Tories in voting this government out of office then clearly they can do so and they will again pay the price at the ballot box.”
Not sure if Alun, who I consider to be an old friend, is being disingenuous or ignorant. In 1979 while the SNP voted against the Callaghan Govt, the three Plaid MPs voted with Labour in the no confidence vote. This is an old Labour myth that is trotted out every so often either in the hope that no one remembers the events of 1979 or they actually believe the myth itself.
Regards
Well he’s using the term ‘Nationalists’ instead of SNP, so that people might think he means Plaid. Can’t take this article seriously because of that.
Duncan
In keeping with my tactic of provoking comment… 3 seats for £300m
Through it I draw attention to the fact that the statements from the party with 3 seats who say they are the party of Wales and that will use their seats/support for what is best for Wales, is an insular and shortsighted attitude. The first consideration should be what is best for all of the people. The best for Wales is a fiscally strong England. Wales is not going to solve its problems with short or medium term hand outs. We have a long term problem that needs a long term focus and serious effort to resolve.
To put it simply, it is worthwhile jobs. Most of the people who entered the sixth form with me live outside Wales, some in the USA. Most of my friends’ children who went onto higher education live in England. As a childhood acqaintance put it to me today, “Its where the good jobs are.” Wales is losing its educated population, not just in a single generation but in a series of generations. Without a place of work and an opportunity to develop entrepreneur businesses within Wales we will continue to decline economically.
Bartering three seats, even for an amount agreed as resonable, is not going to help us. I’d have much more confidence in the competence and ability of the set-up at Cardiff Bay if they paid as much attention to wealth creation as they do to levering hand-outs. In the eleven years of devolution the economic well-being of Wales has declined relative to other regions of the UK. The economic dividend of devolution to Wales has been a loss of 4% points. I’d be much more encouraged if the campaigning and bartering had been, “With our three seats we will ensure that Wales will increase its wealth making ability.”
The above by Len Gibbs seems to show an interesting logic.
The part of the Union that is Wales, based on comparable need to the other parts of the Union that make up England, is underfunded by £300 000 000.
His answer is that the part the Union that is Wales should pull it’s finger out and make up for the £300 000 000 shortfall with it’s own efforts.
Marvellous but the logic then follows that all the English regions combined take an approx £3 billion cut, do some finger pulling out and then all of us together share equally in the pain that’s coming.