I went to Fabian meeting in Birmingham last night and the feeling there was one of annoyance with the Labour old guard that even if the numbers had added up the 'anti PR and anti Mandelson brigade' of Hoey, Abbot, Reid, Blunkett, Harris et al who put individual interest ahead of any chance of a progressive alliance.
Maybe I misunderstand you Thommo but are you seriously suggesting that the Lab-Lib talks collapsed because of Kate Hoey, John Reid and David Blunkett? I know there is scope for spin but the Lib Dems' account of the talks is scathing over the intransigence on a varierty of policies by Ed Balls, who seemingly described himself as the "Protector of the Manifesto" (despite the fact that it appealed to less than 20% of those eligible to vote).
I went to Fabian meeting in Birmingham last night and the feeling there was one of annoyance with the Labour old guard that even if the numbers had added up the 'anti PR and anti Mandelson brigade' of Hoey, Abbot, Reid, Blunkett, Harris et al who put individual interest ahead of any chance of a progressive alliance.
Maybe I misunderstand you Thommo but are you seriously suggesting that the Lab-Lib talks collapsed because of Kate Hoey, John Reid and David Blunkett? I know there is scope for spin but the Lib Dems' account of the talsk is scathing over the intransigence on a varierty of policies by Ed Balls, who seemingly described himself as the "Protector of the Manifesto" (despite the fact that it appealed to less than 20% of those eligible to vote).
There is a lot of spin and bullshit being put around about why the Lib-Lab talks failed and fingers being pointed unfairly at certain people.
Fact is that a Lab-Lib alliance, although desirable for keeping Cameron and his Andy Fordham lookalike missus out of Number 10, would have been on very shaky ground because it would have needed the Welsh, Scots and NI nationalists support and the price for that would have been impossible to pay politically.
I thought that John Reid got it exactly right yesterday in saying that the numbers just were not there and that the political price at the next election just would not be worth paying as Labour would be punished for hanging on after losing an election.
As for this current government, coalition deals always end up badly for the minority partner because they get squeezed from both ends come election time and that is going to be a huge problem for Clegg going forward.
Deals on paper are all very well but there are going to be some tough choices made in the next few months and you can bet your bollocks that the Tories will be putting a huge bucket of shit on Clegg if he tries to back away from them.
If there is going to be some deficit cutting then that means that schools, hospitals, public sector jobs will have to be cut, I bet you a pound to a penny that Cameron will insist on Clegg fronting up to announce the bad news alongside him.
I give it 12-18 months at most before the Lib-Dems cut their losses and pull out once their poll numbers go into single-digits.
When the next election is called the vast majority of punters won't remember all the details of the politicking that took place over the formulation of the coalition they will just remember that it was Clegg who put Cameron into Downing Street and he will get punished for it.
With the numbers in place, which they were not here, a Lib-Lab pact would work pretty well given the outlooks of both parties are very similar (the Libs are to the left of Labour on many issues) but a Tory-Lib coalition just seems doomed because of their policy differences.
You are essentially asking the Red Meat Tories to govern like sandal-wearing Liberals for the next four years - that is just not going to be possible in the real world.
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]
I thought that John Reid got it exactly right yesterday in saying that the numbers just were not there and that the political price at the next election just would not be worth paying as Labour would be punished for hanging on after losing an election.
Totally agree but then why did Mandy, Balls et al have the meetings with the Lib Dems? Would have been much better (and Brown would IMHO truly deserve the praise that has been heaped upon him) if they had recognised that rather than go thru a charade.
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite] As for this current government, coalition deals always end up badly for the minority partner because they get squeezed from both ends come election time and that is going to be a huge problem for Clegg going forward........
I give it 12-18 months at most before the Lib-Dems cut their losses and pull out once their poll numbers go into single-digits.
When the next election is called the vast majority of punters won't remember all the details of the politicking that took place over the formulation of the coalition they will just remember that it was Clegg who put Cameron into Downing Street and he will get punished for it.
With the numbers in place, which they were not here, a Lib-Lab pact would work pretty well given the outlooks of both parties are very similar (the Libs are to the left of Labour on many issues) but a Tory-Lib coalition just seems doomed because of their policy differences.
You are essentially asking the Red Meat Tories to govern like sandal-wearing Liberals for the next four years - that is just not going to be possible in the real world.
I went to Fabian meeting in Birmingham last night and the feeling there was one of annoyance with the Labour old guard that even if the numbers had added up the 'anti PR and anti Mandelson brigade' of Hoey, Abbot, Reid, Blunkett, Harris et al who put individual interest ahead of any chance of a progressive alliance.
[/quote]
Maybe I misunderstand you Thommo but are you seriously suggesting that the Lab-Lib talks collapsed because of Kate Hoey, John Reid and David Blunkett? I know there is scope for spin but the Lib Dems' account of the talks is scathing over the intransigence on a varierty of policies by Ed Balls, who seemingly described himself as the "Protector of the Manifesto" (despite the fact that it appealed to less than 20% of those eligible to vote).[/quote]
Im not inferring that they were the ones that forced the talks to collapse, my point is that they all came out very early against any form of 'progressive alliance' and called for Labour to regroup in opposition. Meaning those who entered negotiations did so without any particular commitment as the old guard made it clear that they would vote down any talk of a Lib Lab alliance at the NEC. Im not a Labour member but honourary member of Fabian society following a piece of research I did for them a while back and occasionally attend their meetings in Birmingham. My original post was a fair representation of their feelings.
(For my sins)I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and having chatted with a friend on the federal executive who voted at the meeting last night, she told me that the negotiating team said that Labour wouldnt give way on anything, stopped short of saying that Balls was any 'protector of the manifesto', but talks fell down on labours insistance on continuation of ID cards, failure to commit to pupil premium and any real commitment to substantive political reform (when i asked her if political reform meant electoral reform she said this question wasnt answered)
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]
I thought that John Reid got it exactly right yesterday in saying that the numbers just were not there and that the political price at the next election just would not be worth paying as Labour would be punished for hanging on after losing an election.
Totally agree but then why did Mandy, Balls et al have the meetings with the Lib Dems? Would have been much better (and Brown would IMHO truly deserve the praise that has been heaped upon him) if they had recognised that rather than go thru a charade.
The Lib-Lab talks only started at the weekend once it emerged that the Con-Lib talks were in trouble, the sitting government could hardly refuse to enter talks if a possible deal was on the table however remote the chances of success.
The truth is that neither the Labour or Liberals really wanted a progressive alliance on the numbers that they had to work with, if they had another 20 seats then it would have been achievable but not with the numbers they had.
I have Labour friends who are angry at the Labour politicians who scuppered the chance of a coalition keeping the Tories out. They say that the practicalities of putting together such a "progressive" coalition are irrelevant. All that matters was that it was possible, and principles are more important than politics. They had the chance to protect the poorest in society from the cuts that have to be made, but instead they've allowed the Tories take over for the sake of political gain. They've sold out the poorest people in the country just so that they could get back into government soon, and that's not what men of principles do.
Not my opinion, but the opinion expressed to me by Labour-supporting friends.
[cite]Posted By: Thommo[/cite]
(For my sins)I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and having chatted with a friend on the federal executive who voted at the meeting last night, she told me that the negotiating team said that Labour wouldnt give way on anything, stopped short of saying that Balls was any 'protector of the manifesto', but talks fell down on labours insistance on continuation of ID cards, failure to commit to pupil premium and any real commitment to substantive political reform (when i asked her if political reform meant electoral reform she said this question wasnt answered)
Interesting Thommo.
Begs the question, who will the electorate ultimately recognise as the "progressives"? I have never thought it synonymous with or the preserve of the left and some of Labour's big cheeses seem to be proving that.
Labour are understandably 'angry' because they have lost the election.
Had they survived by an alliance with the Libs,SNP,Plaid Cymru,Green and anyone else they could drag in. They would then have been railroaded into imposing the greatest cuts upon England. 'Cause sure as hell if they suggested Scots should burdon some cuts. The SNP would have been out in a flash.
England voted Conservative........overwhelmingley.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]I have Labour friends who are angry at the Labour politicians who scuppered the chance of a coalition keeping the Tories out. They say that the practicalities of putting together such a "progressive" coalition are irrelevant. All that matters was that it was possible, and principles are more important than politics. They had the chance to protect the poorest in society from the cuts that have to be made, but instead they've allowed the Tories take over for the sake of political gain. They've sold out the poorest people in the country just so that they could get back into government soon, and that's not what men of principles do.
Not my opinion, but the opinion expressed to me by Labour-supporting friends.
It's wishful thinking on their part though, I'm afraid.
Labour's time was up - although it took time for a few of the big beasts of the party to accept it - and hanging on with a Lib-Lab deal would have stunk the house out something rotten - especially when they had to do sweetheart deals with the Nationalists.
I am Labour through and through and despise the Tories but the numbers were not there for Labour and in a democracy the other side has to have their turn at the wheel eventually.
you keep saying that but it is still not true! Only 40% of voters in England voted Conservative, 60% of voters voted something else.
However the 40% of votes meant that England elected a Tory majority with 56% of the seats - so if you want to say England elected an overwhelming Tory majority, then that is better (although even then some may question your understanding of the word "overhwelming").
[quote][cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Thommo[/cite] (For my sins)I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and having chatted with a friend on the federal executive who voted at the meeting last night, she told me that the negotiating team said that Labour wouldnt give way on anything, stopped short of saying that Balls was any 'protector of the manifesto', but talks fell down on labours insistance on continuation of ID cards, failure to commit to pupil premium and any real commitment to substantive political reform (when i asked her if political reform meant electoral reform she said this question wasnt answered)[/quote]
Interesting Thommo. Begs the question, who will the electorate ultimately recognise as the "progressives"? I have never thought it synonymous with or the preserve of the left and some of Labour's big cheeses seem to be proving that.[/quote]
Indeed Peanuts, progressive is a word bandied about loosely by those on the left, but defining what it means is needed before we can use it as a yardstick to measure against, Toynbee and the so called progressive movement systematically fails in defining what progressive is and ultimately she comes out looking like a 'left'field clueless demagogue.
It just doesnt equate that there is a dichotomy between Conservatism and progressivism, but perhaps there is between small c conservatism and progressivism.
Labour made significant inroads into both fairness and equality agendas (minimum wage, signing social chapter, equalities legislation (repeal section 28, Civil partnerships etc), but was far from progressive on democratic reform yes we have had devolution, yes end of heriditary peers, but failed regional project and wasted efforts of Jenkins commission coupled with systematic withdrawal of power away from local government and growth of Unitary councils mean the democratic movement has stalled.
you keep saying that but it is still not true! Only 40% of voters in England voted Conservative, 60% of voters voted something else.
However the 40% of votes meant that England elected a Tory majority with 56% of the seats - so if you want to say England[b aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]elected[/b]an overwhelming Tory majority, then that is better (although even then some may question your understanding of the word "overhwelming").
I used the word 'voted' in it's broadest sense. I accept your clarification but point out the numbers.
In England.
Con 297 seats
Lab 191
Lib 43
Green 1
That's 106 more than the nearest rival and 62 more than the combined oppposition.
I consider that overwhelming.
[cite]Posted By: Thommo[/cite]
.....Toynbee and the so called progressive movement systematically fails in defining what progressive is and ultimately she comes out looking like a 'left'field clueless demagogue.
It just doesnt equate that there is a dichotomy between Conservatism and progressivism, but perhaps there is between small c conservatism and progressivism.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]The one good thing to come out of this coalition is there are 3 or 4 million people who voted Lib Dem who will never vote for them again. There is now only one centre/left progressive party in the UK.
I don't agree, I know many people that voted Lib-Dem and have been supporters for years and they are over the moon that at long last there are some Lib-dems in government. For the first time ever there are Libs on the cabinet and for the first time ever the lib-dems votes have counted for something.
It has been agreed by Cameron and Clegg that they are to work together on all key issues to deliver the best possible outcome for the country the main one being the deficit. Cameron has also said throughout the negotiations that he will give NO ground on his views on Europe, Immigration or our countries defences, which is where the biggest differences are, these terms were unanimously agreed by the Lib-Dems, so I can see this working and fingers crossed it may actually be what this country needs.
The libs are CON-DEM'd - literally!
There are people who voted Lib Dem as an anti-Labour vote, and those people have reason to be pleased with this outcome. But those people won't have that motivation to vote Lib Dem next time.
There are people who voted Lib Dem as an anti-Tory vote, and those people will be pissed off to high hell with this outcome. Likewise, those people won't have that motivation to vote Lib Dem next time.
Imagine what a bi-election is going to be like? Will Cons & Libs stand against each other? If so, why? If not, then Labour will be the sole serious opposition vote.
And, of course, the Lib Dems will be the Murdock Press's whipping boys for anything & everything that goes wrong for the coalition.
There's already heavy dissent amongst the grass-roots card-holding Lib Dem membership, and that will grow if they see they've less infuence on Government than they are (unrealistically) hoping for. When negative polling starts coming out for the Lib Dems (for the above reasons), there will be calls for them to withdraw from the coalition.
I hope for the sake of the Country I'm wrong & this all works out well. But I sense that Labour are the mid/long-term winners here, and they well knew it when they wimped-out on talks for the LDs. They've slipped both their enemies the poison challace of forming a compromise goverment which will be seen to splinter & disunite in the face of unpopular decision making, while Labour will be back within weeks with a fresh-faced, popularist Blair #2 leader in David Milliband.
Completely diasagree with those on here who think a majority of LD voters are instinctively anti Tory. There's a huge constituency of LD voters who haven't got a 'Fatcher' hang up and are instinctively small 'l' liberal on both economic and social issues. Hopefully this coalition with the conservatives will persuade the social democratic wing of the party to run off to the Labour party that they never in their hearts left.
Devolution -democratic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! who the f**k for ? was it democratic for the people of England ? was/is it democratic that Scots/Welsh MPs can vote in their new Parliaments on issues that effect Scotland and Wales but can also vote in the Commons on "english issues"---------------- yes please do explain how that is DEMOCRATIC to the people of England ?
defeat for the lying scom isnt good enough they DESERVE to be ground down into nothing for what they have done.
[cite]Posted By: SantaClaus[/cite]Completely diasagree with those on here who think a majority of LD voters are instinctively anti Tory. There's a huge constituency of LD voters who haven't got a 'Fatcher' hang up and are instinctively small 'l' liberal on both economic and social issues. Hopefully this coalition with the conservatives will persuade the social democratic wing of the party to run off to the Labour party that they never in their hearts left.
I would agree that the liberals are not instinctively anti -Tory. Didn't the Orange book have a quite long flirtation with notions of dismantling the Welfare State? The social democrats though would find it hard to return to Labour, as indeed do many Old Labour voters. Whichever version of Labour emerges from the shadows, it's far from clear that it will welcome home the various waifs and strays. I will watch with interest from the obscurity of my political wilderness.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Devolution -democratic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! who the f**k for ? was it democratic for the people of England ? was/is it democratic that Scots/Welsh MPs can vote in their new Parliaments on issues that effect Scotland and Wales but can also vote in the Commons on "english issues"---------------- yes please do explain how that is DEMOCRATIC to the people of England ?
defeat for the lying scom isnt good enough they DESERVE to be ground down into nothing for what they have done.[/quote]
Devolution brought government closer to the people of Scotland and Wales that's democracy for them, unfortunately this didn't do anything for England. The coalition have announced plans to hold a commission on the west Lothian question, to stop scots and welsh voting on English only issues.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]I have Labour friends who are angry at the Labour politicians who scuppered the chance of a coalition keeping the Tories out. They say that the practicalities of putting together such a "progressive" coalition are irrelevant. All that matters was that it was possible, and principles are more important than politics. They had the chance to protect the poorest in society from the cuts that have to be made, but instead they've allowed the Tories take over for the sake of political gain. They've sold out the poorest people in the country just so that they could get back into government soon, and that's not what men of principles do.
Not my opinion, but the opinion expressed to me by Labour-supporting friends.
It's wishful thinking on their part though, I'm afraid.
Labour's time was up - although it took time for a few of the big beasts of the party to accept it - and hanging on with a Lib-Lab deal would have stunk the house out something rotten - especially when they had to do sweetheart deals with the Nationalists.
I am Labour through and through and despise the Tories but the numbers were not there for Labour and in a democracy the other side has to have their turn at the wheel eventually.
As they said, it's not about taking turns, it's about doing what's best for the country. If you're a Labour politician who worries about the Tories attacking the weakest in society, then doing what's best for the country requires you, in as far as possible, to keep them out of government.
Again, not my opinion.
The Lib Dems are not going to pull out if their poll ratings collapse, because if they do, they'll be annihilated. If things get really bad for them, they'll try to get through the agenda they believe in (or as much of it as they're allowed) and disappear into the distance. If they're able to get through a full PR system (ie better than AV, though there are many types of PR), they can afford for their ratings to drop as low as 10% before they'd lose any seats. They probably won't, but they have other things they believe in. If you want an example of a party staying in government because they know they'll be annihilated if there's an election, the Irish government is one such example - the Greens will be wiped out next time an election comes round, and everyone knows it.
The Conservatives can't pull out, as far as I know, because the government can only collapse with 55% voting no confidence in the government. Who are these Tories who'll vote that they have no confidence in Cameron as PM and then go out and campaign for him?
The only possibility that poll ratings would affect the government is if the Lib Dems' share goes up and they look likely to take seats from Labour especially.
If having to take tough decisions was going to destroy the Lib Dems, then they were looking at a hiding to nothing no matter what happened after the election. Support the Tories, support Labour, allow another election to take place. Not great options, I think they've taken the best of the lot.
Of course, there may be irreconcilable differences that may take the coalition apart, but at least Cameron and Clegg do seem to be genuinely warm to each other, which is probably better than what would've happened if it was Davis and Huhne.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]I have Labour friends who are angry at the Labour politicians who scuppered the chance of a coalition keeping the Tories out. They say that the practicalities of putting together such a "progressive" coalition are irrelevant. All that matters was that it was possible, and principles are more important than politics. They had the chance to protect the poorest in society from the cuts that have to be made, but instead they've allowed the Tories take over for the sake of political gain. They've sold out the poorest people in the country just so that they could get back into government soon, and that's not what men of principles do.
Not my opinion, but the opinion expressed to me by Labour-supporting friends.
It's wishful thinking on their part though, I'm afraid.
Labour's time was up - although it took time for a few of the big beasts of the party to accept it - and hanging on with a Lib-Lab deal would have stunk the house out something rotten - especially when they had to do sweetheart deals with the Nationalists.
I am Labour through and through and despise the Tories but the numbers were not there for Labour and in a democracy the other side has to have their turn at the wheel eventually.
As they said, it's not about taking turns, it's about doing what's best for the country. If you're a Labour politician who worries about the Tories attacking the weakest in society, then doing what's best for the country requires you, in as far as possible, to keep them out of government.
Again, not my opinion.
The Lib Dems are not going to pull out if their poll ratings collapse, because if they do, they'll be annihilated. If things get really bad for them, they'll try to get through the agenda they believe in (or as much of it as they're allowed) and disappear into the distance. If they're able to get through a full PR system (ie better than AV, though there are many types of PR), they can afford for their ratings to drop as low as 10% before they'd lose any seats. They probably won't, but they have other things they believe in. If you want an example of a party staying in government because they know they'll be annihilated if there's an election, the Irish government is one such example - the Greens will be wiped out next time an election comes round, and everyone knows it.
The Conservatives can't pull out, as far as I know, because the government can only collapse with 55% voting no confidence in the government. Who are these Tories who'll vote that they have no confidence in Cameron as PM and then go out and campaign for him?
The only possibility that poll ratings would affect the government is if the Lib Dems' share goesupand they look likely to take seats from Labour especially.
If having to take tough decisions was going to destroy the Lib Dems, then they were looking at a hiding to nothing no matter what happened after the election. Support the Tories, support Labour, allow another election to take place. Not great options, I think they've taken the best of the lot.
Of course, there may be irreconcilable differences that may take the coalition apart, but at least Cameron and Clegg do seem to be genuinely warm to each other, which is probably better than what would've happened if it was Davis and Huhne.
Sorry IA, but I fear that the fortitude of Clegg and Co is going to get a real test over the next 18-24 months and the strain will be too much once it gets white hot.
Don't forget that Clegg is not universally popular within the LD's (and is seen by some as damaged goods since they actually LOST seats at the GE) and if Cable walks away from Treasury after a row with that dickhead Osborne then where does that leave them?
When the heat is on politicians tend to turn to their base instincts despite what they might say in public about goodwill and working together and when it comes to base instincts then the Tories and Lib Dems could not be further apart on most issues.
Cameron has the impossible task of keeping his right-wing happy - who already hate him and who form a substantial part of the PCP - as well as his new Lib Dem coalition partners, how on earth anyone can pull that one off I have no idea!!!
There will be a 12 month honeymoon and then the cracks will appear and the decline will start.
Yeah, OA, as I said, irreconcilable differences may split the coalition, but it won't split, as some on here suggest, because of their poll ratings taking a massive hit or because the Murdoch press are having a go at them.
For 'irreconcilable differences', include issues within the parties related entirely to being in coalition together as well as arguments between the leading members.
Once again, I'll mention Ireland. The Greens are preparing to be wiped out at the next general election after doing a deal that was unpopular with their voters, and are taking the further hit in popularity from having to make cuts, but, in the meantime, they're doing what they can to put through what they believe is right.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]Yeah, OA, as I said, irreconcilable differences may split the coalition, but it won't split, as some on here suggest, because of their poll ratings taking a massive hit or because the Murdoch press are having a go at them.
For 'irreconcilable differences', include issues within the parties related entirely to being in coalition together as well as arguments between the leading members.
Once again, I'll mention Ireland. The Greens are preparing to be wiped out at the next general election after doing a deal that was unpopular with their voters, and are taking the further hit in popularity from having to make cuts, but, in the meantime, they're doing what they can to put through what they believe is right.
Well, there are some excellent points you have raise there IA and I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.
What I can say is that my political instincts tell me that those warm and fuzzy pictures of "Dave and Nick" speaking together today are going to cause Nick a lot of pain come the next election.
Labour won't have to look far for its main campaign ads and the likes of Simon Hughes in Southwark and their northern MPs will be under huge pressure to hold their seats.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]Yeah, OA, as I said, irreconcilable differences may split the coalition, but it won't split, as some on here suggest, because of their poll ratings taking a massive hit or because the Murdoch press are having a go at them.
For 'irreconcilable differences', include issues within the parties related entirely to being in coalition together as well as arguments between the leading members.
Once again, I'll mention Ireland. The Greens are preparing to be wiped out at the next general election after doing a deal that was unpopular with their voters, and are taking the further hit in popularity from having to make cuts, but, in the meantime, they're doing what they can to put through what they believe is right.
Well, there are some excellent points you have raise there IA and I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.
What I can say is that my political instincts tell me that those warm and fuzzy pictures of "Dave and Nick" speaking together today are going to cause Nick a lot of pain come the next election.
Labour won't have to look far for its main campaign ads and the likes of Simon Hughes in Southwark and their northern MPs will be under huge pressure to hold their seats.
Yeah, fair enough, if it all goes wrong.
If it goes well, then you'd expect the Lib Dems to be rewarded for doing a good job. You might not, because you're a Labour voter, but the general 'you' would. ;-)
If it goes wrong, and they lose popularity, they'll lose seats whether the general election is in 2015 or 2011, so they might as well wait until 2015 and do their best for Britain (in their opinion) while they're in government. They're also likely to take a bigger hit the sooner the next election is - it'd show some people what they already fear about coalitions.
A funny story from election day. David Hoffman aged 63 from Bow, placed a Class War (those cuddly anarchists) poster in his window. it carried a picture of Cameron and the word W*****r written across it. On election day, the police forced their way onto his home, threatened him with arrest, handcuffed him (for threatening a breach of the peace)and forcibly removed the poster as it was offensive. He happens to be a highly respected photo journalist and when they police discovered that, they calmed down a bit. But Hoffman has returned the poster to his window but replaced the offending word with 'onanist'. Onanist is derived from a biblical character in Genesis 38.0 whose seed was 'spilled on the ground'.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]I have Labour friends who are angry at the Labour politicians who scuppered the chance of a coalition keeping the Tories out. They say that the practicalities of putting together such a "progressive" coalition are irrelevant. All that matters was that it was possible, and principles are more important than politics. They had the chance to protect the poorest in society from the cuts that have to be made, but instead they've allowed the Tories take over for the sake of political gain. They've sold out the poorest people in the country just so that they could get back into government soon, and that's not what men of principles do.
Not my opinion, but the opinion expressed to me by Labour-supporting friends.
Hence why people have turned their back on Labour up and down the country.
Well done the british public.Might just be the kick up the arse labour needed.
Might be the end of the labour party, the middle ground has been shown to be more a meeting of orange and blue, the labour left under the leadership of unite will now demand a bigger say after bankrolling the party. This will clearly mean a move back to the unelectable left and a long period in the doldrums. The extreme of the tory right have already had this opportunity with UKIP being their natural party and not taken it. It is time for the left to rise in labour and help to make sure we don't end up having another labour government ruin our economy by becoming unelectable. Maybe we will see another split between new and old labour, whatever happened to the SDP anyway?
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Might be the end of the labour party, the middle ground has been shown to be more a meeting of orange and blue, the labour left under the leadership of unite will now demand a bigger say after bankrolling the party. This will clearly mean a move back to the unelectable left and a long period in the doldrums. The extreme of the tory right have already had this opportunity with UKIP being their natural party and not taken it. It is time for the left to rise in labour and help to make sure we don't end up having another labour government ruin our economy by becoming unelectable. Maybe we will see another split between new and old labour, whatever happened to the SDP anyway?
Hardly likely.
In 1997 the Tories lost 197 seats and were reduced to a parliamentary rump with just 146 seats and just like now people said it would be the end of the party and that they would be taken over by unelectable right wingers - here we are 13 years on and they are back in as a minority government.
Labour only lost 91 seats this time and still have nearly 260 seats in parliament - they only need to knock off 66 Lib Dems/Tories over the next one or, more likely two, elections and they are back.
When the Tories got creamed in 1997 they had to win back nearly 190 seats to regain power in their own right (something they did not manage in the subsequent three election).
However, you are right in saying the struggle for control between the left wing and the Blairites will be crucial in how long they stay out of power, only a centrist like Milliband can really win power (although probably not at the next election).
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite].......make sure we don't end up having another labour government ruin our economy....
It does not matter how many times you state this it simply is not true. The UK economy, along with the rest of the economies of the developed world, has been ruined by the greed and fraudulent activities of the world's under regulated banks. These banks took massive risks that went spectacularly wrong and had to be bailed out by the tax payers of thoses developed economies. The cost of these bail outs and the inability of those banks to continue with one of their main functions of providing credit to businesses and individuals are the primary cause of the 'ruined' economies across the developed world.
Comments
Maybe I misunderstand you Thommo but are you seriously suggesting that the Lab-Lib talks collapsed because of Kate Hoey, John Reid and David Blunkett? I know there is scope for spin but the Lib Dems' account of the talks is scathing over the intransigence on a varierty of policies by Ed Balls, who seemingly described himself as the "Protector of the Manifesto" (despite the fact that it appealed to less than 20% of those eligible to vote).
There is a lot of spin and bullshit being put around about why the Lib-Lab talks failed and fingers being pointed unfairly at certain people.
Fact is that a Lab-Lib alliance, although desirable for keeping Cameron and his Andy Fordham lookalike missus out of Number 10, would have been on very shaky ground because it would have needed the Welsh, Scots and NI nationalists support and the price for that would have been impossible to pay politically.
I thought that John Reid got it exactly right yesterday in saying that the numbers just were not there and that the political price at the next election just would not be worth paying as Labour would be punished for hanging on after losing an election.
As for this current government, coalition deals always end up badly for the minority partner because they get squeezed from both ends come election time and that is going to be a huge problem for Clegg going forward.
Deals on paper are all very well but there are going to be some tough choices made in the next few months and you can bet your bollocks that the Tories will be putting a huge bucket of shit on Clegg if he tries to back away from them.
If there is going to be some deficit cutting then that means that schools, hospitals, public sector jobs will have to be cut, I bet you a pound to a penny that Cameron will insist on Clegg fronting up to announce the bad news alongside him.
I give it 12-18 months at most before the Lib-Dems cut their losses and pull out once their poll numbers go into single-digits.
When the next election is called the vast majority of punters won't remember all the details of the politicking that took place over the formulation of the coalition they will just remember that it was Clegg who put Cameron into Downing Street and he will get punished for it.
With the numbers in place, which they were not here, a Lib-Lab pact would work pretty well given the outlooks of both parties are very similar (the Libs are to the left of Labour on many issues) but a Tory-Lib coalition just seems doomed because of their policy differences.
You are essentially asking the Red Meat Tories to govern like sandal-wearing Liberals for the next four years - that is just not going to be possible in the real world.
Totally agree but then why did Mandy, Balls et al have the meetings with the Lib Dems? Would have been much better (and Brown would IMHO truly deserve the praise that has been heaped upon him) if they had recognised that rather than go thru a charade.
We shall see.
I went to Fabian meeting in Birmingham last night and the feeling there was one of annoyance with the Labour old guard that even if the numbers had added up the 'anti PR and anti Mandelson brigade' of Hoey, Abbot, Reid, Blunkett, Harris et al who put individual interest ahead of any chance of a progressive alliance.
[/quote]
Maybe I misunderstand you Thommo but are you seriously suggesting that the Lab-Lib talks collapsed because of Kate Hoey, John Reid and David Blunkett? I know there is scope for spin but the Lib Dems' account of the talks is scathing over the intransigence on a varierty of policies by Ed Balls, who seemingly described himself as the "Protector of the Manifesto" (despite the fact that it appealed to less than 20% of those eligible to vote).[/quote]
Im not inferring that they were the ones that forced the talks to collapse, my point is that they all came out very early against any form of 'progressive alliance' and called for Labour to regroup in opposition. Meaning those who entered negotiations did so without any particular commitment as the old guard made it clear that they would vote down any talk of a Lib Lab alliance at the NEC. Im not a Labour member but honourary member of Fabian society following a piece of research I did for them a while back and occasionally attend their meetings in Birmingham. My original post was a fair representation of their feelings.
(For my sins)I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and having chatted with a friend on the federal executive who voted at the meeting last night, she told me that the negotiating team said that Labour wouldnt give way on anything, stopped short of saying that Balls was any 'protector of the manifesto', but talks fell down on labours insistance on continuation of ID cards, failure to commit to pupil premium and any real commitment to substantive political reform (when i asked her if political reform meant electoral reform she said this question wasnt answered)
Not my opinion, but the opinion expressed to me by Labour-supporting friends.
Interesting Thommo.
Begs the question, who will the electorate ultimately recognise as the "progressives"? I have never thought it synonymous with or the preserve of the left and some of Labour's big cheeses seem to be proving that.
Had they survived by an alliance with the Libs,SNP,Plaid Cymru,Green and anyone else they could drag in. They would then have been railroaded into imposing the greatest cuts upon England. 'Cause sure as hell if they suggested Scots should burdon some cuts. The SNP would have been out in a flash.
England voted Conservative........overwhelmingley.
It's wishful thinking on their part though, I'm afraid.
Labour's time was up - although it took time for a few of the big beasts of the party to accept it - and hanging on with a Lib-Lab deal would have stunk the house out something rotten - especially when they had to do sweetheart deals with the Nationalists.
I am Labour through and through and despise the Tories but the numbers were not there for Labour and in a democracy the other side has to have their turn at the wheel eventually.
However the 40% of votes meant that England elected a Tory majority with 56% of the seats - so if you want to say England elected an overwhelming Tory majority, then that is better (although even then some may question your understanding of the word "overhwelming").
(For my sins)I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and having chatted with a friend on the federal executive who voted at the meeting last night, she told me that the negotiating team said that Labour wouldnt give way on anything, stopped short of saying that Balls was any 'protector of the manifesto', but talks fell down on labours insistance on continuation of ID cards, failure to commit to pupil premium and any real commitment to substantive political reform (when i asked her if political reform meant electoral reform she said this question wasnt answered)[/quote]
Interesting Thommo.
Begs the question, who will the electorate ultimately recognise as the "progressives"? I have never thought it synonymous with or the preserve of the left and some of Labour's big cheeses seem to be proving that.[/quote]
Indeed Peanuts, progressive is a word bandied about loosely by those on the left, but defining what it means is needed before we can use it as a yardstick to measure against, Toynbee and the so called progressive movement systematically fails in defining what progressive is and ultimately she comes out looking like a 'left'field clueless demagogue.
It just doesnt equate that there is a dichotomy between Conservatism and progressivism, but perhaps there is between small c conservatism and progressivism.
Labour made significant inroads into both fairness and equality agendas (minimum wage, signing social chapter, equalities legislation (repeal section 28, Civil partnerships etc), but was far from progressive on democratic reform yes we have had devolution, yes end of heriditary peers, but failed regional project and wasted efforts of Jenkins commission coupled with systematic withdrawal of power away from local government and growth of Unitary councils mean the democratic movement has stalled.
Does that make them progressive?
I used the word 'voted' in it's broadest sense. I accept your clarification but point out the numbers.
In England.
Con 297 seats
Lab 191
Lib 43
Green 1
That's 106 more than the nearest rival and 62 more than the combined oppposition.
I consider that overwhelming.
Well put (in both cases).
The libs are CON-DEM'd - literally!
There are people who voted Lib Dem as an anti-Labour vote, and those people have reason to be pleased with this outcome. But those people won't have that motivation to vote Lib Dem next time.
There are people who voted Lib Dem as an anti-Tory vote, and those people will be pissed off to high hell with this outcome. Likewise, those people won't have that motivation to vote Lib Dem next time.
Imagine what a bi-election is going to be like? Will Cons & Libs stand against each other? If so, why? If not, then Labour will be the sole serious opposition vote.
And, of course, the Lib Dems will be the Murdock Press's whipping boys for anything & everything that goes wrong for the coalition.
There's already heavy dissent amongst the grass-roots card-holding Lib Dem membership, and that will grow if they see they've less infuence on Government than they are (unrealistically) hoping for. When negative polling starts coming out for the Lib Dems (for the above reasons), there will be calls for them to withdraw from the coalition.
I hope for the sake of the Country I'm wrong & this all works out well. But I sense that Labour are the mid/long-term winners here, and they well knew it when they wimped-out on talks for the LDs. They've slipped both their enemies the poison challace of forming a compromise goverment which will be seen to splinter & disunite in the face of unpopular decision making, while Labour will be back within weeks with a fresh-faced, popularist Blair #2 leader in David Milliband.
defeat for the lying scom isnt good enough they DESERVE to be ground down into nothing for what they have done.
I would agree that the liberals are not instinctively anti -Tory. Didn't the Orange book have a quite long flirtation with notions of dismantling the Welfare State? The social democrats though would find it hard to return to Labour, as indeed do many Old Labour voters. Whichever version of Labour emerges from the shadows, it's far from clear that it will welcome home the various waifs and strays. I will watch with interest from the obscurity of my political wilderness.
defeat for the lying scom isnt good enough they DESERVE to be ground down into nothing for what they have done.[/quote]
Devolution brought government closer to the people of Scotland and Wales that's democracy for them, unfortunately this didn't do anything for England. The coalition have announced plans to hold a commission on the west Lothian question, to stop scots and welsh voting on English only issues.
That's great news!
As they said, it's not about taking turns, it's about doing what's best for the country. If you're a Labour politician who worries about the Tories attacking the weakest in society, then doing what's best for the country requires you, in as far as possible, to keep them out of government.
Again, not my opinion.
The Lib Dems are not going to pull out if their poll ratings collapse, because if they do, they'll be annihilated. If things get really bad for them, they'll try to get through the agenda they believe in (or as much of it as they're allowed) and disappear into the distance. If they're able to get through a full PR system (ie better than AV, though there are many types of PR), they can afford for their ratings to drop as low as 10% before they'd lose any seats. They probably won't, but they have other things they believe in. If you want an example of a party staying in government because they know they'll be annihilated if there's an election, the Irish government is one such example - the Greens will be wiped out next time an election comes round, and everyone knows it.
The Conservatives can't pull out, as far as I know, because the government can only collapse with 55% voting no confidence in the government. Who are these Tories who'll vote that they have no confidence in Cameron as PM and then go out and campaign for him?
The only possibility that poll ratings would affect the government is if the Lib Dems' share goes up and they look likely to take seats from Labour especially.
If having to take tough decisions was going to destroy the Lib Dems, then they were looking at a hiding to nothing no matter what happened after the election. Support the Tories, support Labour, allow another election to take place. Not great options, I think they've taken the best of the lot.
Of course, there may be irreconcilable differences that may take the coalition apart, but at least Cameron and Clegg do seem to be genuinely warm to each other, which is probably better than what would've happened if it was Davis and Huhne.
Sorry IA, but I fear that the fortitude of Clegg and Co is going to get a real test over the next 18-24 months and the strain will be too much once it gets white hot.
Don't forget that Clegg is not universally popular within the LD's (and is seen by some as damaged goods since they actually LOST seats at the GE) and if Cable walks away from Treasury after a row with that dickhead Osborne then where does that leave them?
When the heat is on politicians tend to turn to their base instincts despite what they might say in public about goodwill and working together and when it comes to base instincts then the Tories and Lib Dems could not be further apart on most issues.
Cameron has the impossible task of keeping his right-wing happy - who already hate him and who form a substantial part of the PCP - as well as his new Lib Dem coalition partners, how on earth anyone can pull that one off I have no idea!!!
There will be a 12 month honeymoon and then the cracks will appear and the decline will start.
So both the big two and maybe also the half are themselves coalitions. Wet or dry cons/moderate or lefty lab.
now the bargaining and comprimises are trans-party rather than intra-party. However the deals and factional power struggles were always there.
For 'irreconcilable differences', include issues within the parties related entirely to being in coalition together as well as arguments between the leading members.
Once again, I'll mention Ireland. The Greens are preparing to be wiped out at the next general election after doing a deal that was unpopular with their voters, and are taking the further hit in popularity from having to make cuts, but, in the meantime, they're doing what they can to put through what they believe is right.
Well, there are some excellent points you have raise there IA and I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.
What I can say is that my political instincts tell me that those warm and fuzzy pictures of "Dave and Nick" speaking together today are going to cause Nick a lot of pain come the next election.
Labour won't have to look far for its main campaign ads and the likes of Simon Hughes in Southwark and their northern MPs will be under huge pressure to hold their seats.
Yeah, fair enough, if it all goes wrong.
If it goes well, then you'd expect the Lib Dems to be rewarded for doing a good job. You might not, because you're a Labour voter, but the general 'you' would. ;-)
If it goes wrong, and they lose popularity, they'll lose seats whether the general election is in 2015 or 2011, so they might as well wait until 2015 and do their best for Britain (in their opinion) while they're in government. They're also likely to take a bigger hit the sooner the next election is - it'd show some people what they already fear about coalitions.
Hence why people have turned their back on Labour up and down the country.
Well done the british public.Might just be the kick up the arse labour needed.
Hardly likely.
In 1997 the Tories lost 197 seats and were reduced to a parliamentary rump with just 146 seats and just like now people said it would be the end of the party and that they would be taken over by unelectable right wingers - here we are 13 years on and they are back in as a minority government.
Labour only lost 91 seats this time and still have nearly 260 seats in parliament - they only need to knock off 66 Lib Dems/Tories over the next one or, more likely two, elections and they are back.
When the Tories got creamed in 1997 they had to win back nearly 190 seats to regain power in their own right (something they did not manage in the subsequent three election).
However, you are right in saying the struggle for control between the left wing and the Blairites will be crucial in how long they stay out of power, only a centrist like Milliband can really win power (although probably not at the next election).
It does not matter how many times you state this it simply is not true. The UK economy, along with the rest of the economies of the developed world, has been ruined by the greed and fraudulent activities of the world's under regulated banks. These banks took massive risks that went spectacularly wrong and had to be bailed out by the tax payers of thoses developed economies. The cost of these bail outs and the inability of those banks to continue with one of their main functions of providing credit to businesses and individuals are the primary cause of the 'ruined' economies across the developed world.