May 112010
 

As Left Foot Forward notes:

The anti-progressive press react in predictable loathing and incandescence, the Mail calling yesterday’s developments "A squalid day for democracy" and the Express proclaiming a "shabby stitch-up". The Telegraph colourfully describes the Lib Dems as "behaving like ‘every harlot in history’", saying their will be "recriminations from both sides as Nick Clegg prepares for ‘crunch time’ talks that could decide the make up of the next government".

How can forming a government after a democratic election be a squalid activity, I wonder?

Wait until we get near a referendum and see what they say.

My suspicion is the press will be as ignored as much as they were in the election itself.

After all, on most counts the Tories were the biggest losers: it was theirs to take and they failed to do so.

 

BBC News – Gordon Brown ‘stepping down as Labour leader’.

That’s it.

The end of New Labour.

I will not mourn its passing.

Is Brown going?

 Election  Comments Off
May 102010
 

Labour prepares to pounce if Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition talks fail | Politics | guardian.co.uk .

Labour is preparing to seize the initiative this afternoon if the Tories andLiberal Democrats fail to reach an agreement over coalition government.

That could involve an announcement before the end of the day about the future of Gordon Brown, who has been considering whether to step down as prime minister.

With the shadow cabinet and Lib Dem MPs meeting separately now, it is being suggested by Labour sources that their party may have something important to say this afternoon.

I hope so.

 

FT.com / Comment / Opinion – The unappealing choices after an inconclusive election.

From Niall Ferguson:

[I]f Mr Cameron wanted to change the rules of the electoral game in a way that would really benefit his own party, it would not be Mr Clegg he would turn to, but Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister. A really bold stroke would be for Mr Cameron to write Scotland off by offering the Scottish National party independence and getting rid of the Scots MPs at Westminster, at which point he would have a majority to govern England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

However, I suspect this is not a road the cautious Mr Cameron will choose.

Full marks for creativity.

Not very much Unionist about it.

 

Gordon Brown told it’s time to go as hopes fade for deal with Lib Dems | Politics | The Guardian .

On Saturday I promoted the idea that it was best for Labour that they accepted the loss of this election and for the Lib Dems that they did not go in with the Tories. Minority government was the suggestion.

Yesterday on seeing the undoubted chaos in the Tories I wondered if it was best for Labour and Lib Dems to exploit this.

Candidly, I think that chance is over. Clegg gas flirted for too long with the Tories not to go with them now.

As the Guardian notes:

That is leading a growing body of older ministers to argue that Labour should now recognise this is a good election to lose, relinquish power and regroup with dignity.

So, back to plan A then.

But I fear the Lib Dems will pay a high price for this. I for one will find it much harder to ever vote for them again. The idea that they are progressive is being shattered, very fast. But it’s quite good that Lib Dem support on the economy will make it very hard for Cameron to say we need the distraction of another election for a year or two – just long enough to prove how unacceptable what he’s proposing is and not long enough to allow it to inflict too much harm.

 

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.

 

Yesterday and earlier today I wrote on what I thought the election result meant, and what I thought should happen now.

I suggested it would be best if the Tories were allowed by the Lib Dems to form a minority government. My logic is in the original post.

One reader, Stuart Bruce did not agree:

I’m glad you can live with the neo-liberal alliance for the next three years. Some of us, many of us, working in the public sector can’t.

Those who rely on the public sector for essential services might not be too keen to spend the next three years watching those services disintegrate.

Standing by and waiting on the inevitable collapse might be a good argument, I’m not so sure its a good tactic.

If I’ve failed to explain let me do so in more depth.

I agree with Stuart. I don’t, I admit, work in the public sector. My wife does. And as a family we rely heavily on it. My son has been in an NHS hospital twice in the last tree weeks. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of how and where the state supports the whole fabric of life all around us.

I believe, passionately, in public services.

I believe there is no alternative to public services in the vast majority of cases.

I profoundly regret that many sectors have been inappropriately privatised at cost to us all.

I regret as much the outsourcing of far too many public sector jobs at cost to us all.

I loathe PFI.

I am proud to work for the TUC.

I’m proud to work for PCS.

I’m proud to support PCS’s campaign against HMRC office closures and job cuts which I think profoundly misguided.

I have argued consistently that there is no reason for cuts.

More than that – I argue we should be spending more now to get us out of recession. I’ve done so whenever and wherever I can. It’s not been a popular line.

So I’m really not saying I can live with a neo-liberal alliance. I will hate every minute of it.

But this is a battle in a long war. And as someone who has chosen not to stand for political office (and some have encouraged me to do so) I stand on the sidelines. From that perspective I am convinced this campaign is only just beginning. The fight to not just hold neoliberalism at bay will be a long one. It is one we must win. I do not exaggerate when I say neoliberalism has the capacity to destroy society as we know it. Look at the callous indifference of the European central bank to the people of Greece and working people throughout Europe, for whom they will grant not a Euro of monetary concession, in contrast to the unlimited funds for bankers, and you’ll see just what I mean. This is a struggle for the future of ordinary people, society, democracy and the well being of ordinary people everywhere. The Tories are a part of the anti-democratic process that seeks to take power away from the vast majority in the interests of the minority for good. Their record on the unions was just the start. Their proposals on electoral reform are, in effect, to permanently dismantle democracy in the UK for good and grant perpetual power to the faction whose interests they serve.

I make the point to make clear I suffer no illusions as to the importance of the issues.

But I also make the point that this is a battle – not the war itself. This battle has for now been lost. Not nearly as badly as many feared. But damage has been inflicted, some of which was avoidable.

What should have been avoided was the absurdity of Labour and Lib Dems seeking to out do the Tories in committing to the cuts Stuart and I both oppose. There was no reason to do that. These cuts are the economics of the madhouse. The private sector is not creating jobs. None at all. Banks aren’t lending to allow the private sector to do so. Therefore every job axed by government  is a job lost – and due to the multiplier effect at least half a job or more lost in the private sector too – a spiral of loss which will rapidly head us towards recession unless arrested soon after it has begun. The insanity is obvious. Just when we have increased national debt to pay the prescription is that we cut our national income. It is as blunt as that. And only a fool cannot spot the obvious problem: that if you reduce income and increase the debt obligation the result is exponentially reducing real after debt repayment income. That’s why spending to stimulate growth – growth that will pay for itself and so eliminate debt – is the only answer. That’s the Green New Deal.

The problem is though Labour and the Lib Dems are committed to those cuts: cuts which will not deliver and which will bring massive retribution to bear on whoever tries to impose them.

I face the reality that Lib Dems and Labour would if in office try to do that now. Within two years that project would fail but the result then would be a Tory victory – a massive one.

We’d then face national annihilation. We’d see an end to real democracy. After that the Tories would slash the state, reduce benefits, charge for services now free, and enjoy the fear and panic this would induce, knowing they’d ensured there was no prospect of electoral backlash.

I can’t face that.

So I don’t want Labour to seek to impose cuts – wholly unnecessary cuts – now or soon. But Gordon Brown would try to impose those cuts.

So Labour has to fall back and regroup.

Brown has to go.

New alliances have to be built – including solid agreement on STY PR.

New policy has to be built around the essential nature of public services – and honouring the commitment to maintain and grow them in the interests of the people of this country. Yes, I mean that: we need to grow them. How else will we deal with an aging population? Or the boom in the demand for education and eventually jobs that there will be as the current baby bulge (yes, we have one just starting school)?

But that means we must have the chance to vote the Tories out when it has been proven that cuts don’t work – because they’ll have tried them, the reality of them will have become clear, and people will be enthused to resoundingly reject them and the party that tried to impose them.

It’s essential that the party rejected in that way is not Labour.

It’s essential that Labour is prepared to fight when that election comes. On a radical, new, confident platform that says no to cuts.

Only Labour will eventually do that (plus the SNP, Plaid and the Greens).

But that means the Tories have to take the blame for the failure of trying to implement policy adopted by all parties right now – a policy that is bound to be a disaster.

Unions will have to be prepared to fight those cuts. I hope they will.

People will have to be angry and campaign against those cuts.

Labour must be confident in its re-grouping, and do it fast.

But holding office right now – as Mervyn King (of all people) predicted – is not something to be aspired to.

So, I agree with you Stuart, entirely, that our public services must be defended. But I think we have to see the big picture when seeking to do so. There is no point winning this battle to lose the war. I want to win the war.

 

This Parliament does not represent us.

We demand fair votes now.

There must never again be an election under this broken system.

Please sign the petition.

Here.

 

Lembit Opik played a minor part in British politics.

No policy can be attributed to him.

His own party no doubt cringed, frequently, at his antics.

Best known for two failed engagements – one to a glamorous weather forecaster, the other to a Romanian member of the “Cheeky Girls” – he was, however, reported to be a good constituency MP.

He lost his Lib Dem seat this week.

Last night he appeared on Have I Got News For You.

That took courage.

He was clearly hurt. He had obviously not expected to lose.

His humour as intact. Much of it was self deprecating. And he gave back to Ian Hislop in buckets in a way few can or do.

His charm was apparent.

He may be a bit of a buffoon. He may have suffered from wandering lust. And he may not have been a great politician. But he added some rare colour to life whilst doing little harm. And that’s no bad thing.

Which does make me hope he finds success in a new career.

It’s sad I can’t say the same of so many retiring MPs.