I have been arguing it might be best for Labour and Lin Dems to let the Tories form a minority government in the sure knowledge it will fail, and it’s better that the Tories take the flak for trying to impose cuts and creating social and economic mayhem than Labour and the Lib Dems doing so. But in the light of new evidence I may have to change my mind.
If the Observer is right — and I suspect it is — then it’s very clear that the Nasty party is re-emerging. The Tories were famously described as such by one of their own — Theresa May — in 2002.
Cameron tried to brush over that.
In the process he has made enemies. May enemies. As the Guardian has reported:
David Cameron was facing a growing backlash from his own MPs and party grandees today over the conduct of an election campaign that left him short of an overall majority and trying to make a deal with the Lib Dems.
And:
The Observer can reveal that Lord Ashcroft, who pumped £5m into marginal seats, is furious with the Tory leader for having agreed to take part in television debates that he believes undid much of his work for the party.
To top it all:
Today, one senior frontbencher rounded on the Conservative leader, demanding that he sack key figures involved in the campaign, including the man who ran it, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor. The frontbencher said: "He ran his campaign from the back of his Jaguar with a smug, smarmy little clique — people like Osborne, [Oliver] Letwin and Michael Gove. He should get rid of all of them. The party will settle for nothing less."
Fantastic!
This puts things in a very different light. Especially as:
A friend of Ashcroft told the Observer that the peer held Cameron personally responsible for the emergence of Clegg as a genuine rival: "He believes it knocked several points off our poll ratings and that, without it, we would have won."
Now the way is clearer. The Lib Dems have to ally with Labour — as Shirley Williams has now had the courage to say (and few in the Lib Dems can ignore her). If they do there is a real chance of the Tories tearing themselves to bits. They’ll then re-emerge as the Nasty Party they have always been. And as has been proven time and again — that Nasty Party is utterly unelectable — especially when the only leaders in waiting are the once failed William Hague, who no one could take seriously again, and David Davis — ditto. Look at the rest — I bet you don’t even recognise five of them let alone have a hope of naming them. The only two heavy weights are Clarke and Willets — and they’re both hated almost as much as Cameron.
The Tory threat does not exist in that case. And forcing them into opposition will ensure it is completely neutered.
Sure it’s still a gamble — but as a pub of my acquaintance declares in its name “The Case is Altered”.
Now we really do need a progressive coalition — because the Tories might implode for another generation without even getting into office. That’s a chance that has to be grabbed.
I’m in favour of an immediate Lib-Lab coalition after all.
But there are conditions:
1) Brown has to accept a caretaker role
2) Labour has to elect a new leader
3) Clegg will have to be PM as he’s an elected leader
4) The parliament has to have a fixed term — maybe 2 years
5) The economy and electoral reform have to be priorities
An then they go back to seek a new mandate
I have a strong suspicion that will be bought by many in most parties — and even the electorate.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard, why do you personalise your comments to the degree that you do? Please do not say that it is down to passion. Passion does not include personalising comments to the extent that you do. I think most people would have no problem with you disagreeing with ideas or policies, but to personalise shows a “nasty” edge to your comments. The great statesmen (JFK, Atlee, Churchill, etc.) never felt a need to personalise their comments. They let the power of their ideas, oratory and actions speak for themselves.
As for Mr. Brown, I think you’re deluding yourself. I see that Jim Mann and Kate Hoey said the largest issue that they faced was Mr Brown and not Labour policies. The biggest favour that Mr. Brown can do the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is to stay where he is. I do not think that that’s going to happen because the Labour party will turn on him. If they do not and he manages to cobble together an alliance of Labour, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalists then this is the best possible news for the Conservatives. As you state, whoever governs for immediate future has the most poisoned of chalices. Can you really see such an alliance sticking together? Particularly, when the Nationalists will just try to extort more money for their own causes?
My view is that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are demonstrating a highly responsible attitude and acting in the interests of the whole nation.
Absolutely pathetic and precisely the kind of stone age tribal bollocks the the new politics is intended to eradicate. Who cares if the country goes down the pan as long as we can score a few points against our political opponents? Observer a reliable source of information about the Tories? Shirley Williams a voice that cannot be ignored. Puerile and naive.
“Now we really do need a progressive coalition — because the Tories might implode for another generation without even getting into office”
Equally, if the Lib Dems do a good job of it Labour will cease to exist. After all, we don’t need two centre-left parties and why should the unions fund the losers?
Also, its worth recalling that the Toriesdid better – in terms of number and percentage of votes – than Labour did in 2005 and Labour did worse. So anyone who believes in democracy has to admit that the Tories have a better claim to rule now than Labour did in 2005.
The system is rotten and needs to be reformed, I agree on that. But I would like someone from the left to explain why the system that gave Labour a big majority in 2005 with 36% of the vote and a 3% lead on the Tories was acceptable, whereas the current system, which denies the Tories a majority with 36% of the vote and a 7% lead, is not.
So come on, a simple question: why is the system fair when it gives Labour a big majority but unfair when it gives the Tories a slim lead but no majority?
My view is that this is a dangerous time: it could lead to any of the major parties imploding. There are plausible scenarios for each scenario. But one thing is a fact: no government has ever been as unpopular as the current Labour one. and anyone who believes in democracy should respect that.
@badger
I see it didn’t take long for the Nasty Party to turn up and show its true colours
@Richard
Oh come on. One I’m not Churchill et al. two please live in 2010. Then blame the Murdoch press. And note – the Tories gave themselves the label., I did not.
As for your other comments – I have already dealt with all the issues you note
@mad foetus
The system is rotten. I say so
Brown is a problem. I say so
Major parties might implode. I say so
This is a dangerous time. I agree
Seems like we’ve got the basis for a coalition going here
@Richard Murphy
Richard. I’m a a Lib Dem but one who has grown up beyond the fantasy world which you inhabit and the juvenile name calling which you consider to be sophisticated politics.
But, Richard, the numbers are against you. Labour and LibDems can’t form a coalition without the support of other parties (and not just the SDLP – who always ally with Labour – and the one Alliance Party MP – who will effectively take the LibDem whip).
We may not like the electoral system, but until it’s changed this is the way the numbers turn out, and if you’re a democrat you have to accept the way the cards have been dealt by the electorate.
As to Clegg taking the Premiership, it’s simply not credible that that would be acceptable to the Labour Party in the country or the more, shall we say, passionately socialist Trades Unionist backers.
While a Labour+Lib Dem+a few others coalition is an exciting idea I don’t know if it’s stable enough to work given the parliamentary arithmetic. Some of the right wing Lib Dem MPs – e.g. David Laws – might not accept the idea and might even resign the Lib Dem whip in the Commons, or the Lib Dem party might split. But equally, that’ll probably happen if the Lib Dems agree a coalition with the Tories.
This is a really tricky situation for all 3 main parties. On balance my view is that we’re most likely to end up with a minority Tory govt – but it’ll be riven by infighting (the right wing has also started blaming Cameron for failure to win outright), unstable, and probably will only last 18 months at the most. Most likely it will become very unpopular very quickly – particularly if Labour elects a new leader who is more popular than Brown (not hard?) Labour could come storming back at the next election. But whether this scenario comes to pass, or there is some sort of Lab/Lib+others coalition, we desperately need voting reform ASAP – that must be a priority even if Labour gets an overall majority next time round.
“the Tories gave themselves the label”
Another falsehood propagated by you – they did not. If you bothered to read your own link then you will see that May said that some people see the Tories as the Nasty Party. She did not say that the Tories are the Nasty Party.
And I believe Norman Tebbit responded by saying that if the Tories won 4 general elections in a row by being the nasty party, then they better get nasty again!
On the subject of the election, it is ridiculous that the Lib Dems are now holding so much power. Did anyone else notice that the Lib Dems lost this election, or was it just me? A pathetic 23% of the vote despite all the free publicity in the form of the leaders’ debates. The only party which proposes PR bombed on Thursday. And yet they strut the stage as the little boys they are.
The Lib Dems were the only party proposing PR (Labour were not, actually), so it is clear that there is no mandate for electoral reform, indeed the election was a victory for two-party politics; if anything Clegg and his men merely galvanised the Tory and Labour tribes to bring out their supporters to stop the other getting in.
How is it fair that Labour are excluded from government whereas the Lib Dems might be included, despite Labour winning 6% more of the vote? And the ridiculous thing is that if the Labour Party had 36% of the vote and the Tories 29%, Labour would have a near three-figure majority, no doubt claiming a “mandate” to govern, yet we had Labour politicians on the TV this weekend saying the Tories had no mandate to govern!
@badger
The reality is politics is dirty
If you didn’t know you’re not in it
@Howard
And on balance, I’m back with you
Yesterday afternoon’s flirtation with this idea has gone
Time to regroup
@Peter
Oh come on
I used the term precisely because Theresa May used it to express something widely thought
I would not have used it for any other reason
Although it is remarkably apt
And why is plain speaking so harmful
The same as why is saying someone is a bigot such a bad thing?
This is not name calling. It’s the right thing to say sometimes. And if so good politics demands it be said
The tories have been “the nasty party” for decades. Only ever interested in the rich. Past policies such as opposition to a minimum wage and their latest idea of cutting inheritance tax for the very rich shows where their priorities lie.