You won’t often find me agreeing with Labour heavyweights, but it does seem that they’ve got the latest LibDem talks with Labour right.
Big Blunkett:
David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, gave public voice to concerns about whether Labour could trust the Lib Dems in a coalition deal, claiming they were behaving like “every harlot in history.”
Can’t disagree with that.
John Reid:
John Reid, another former Home Secretary, warned that voters would punish Labour if it tried to “cobble something together that was not in the national interest.”
Yup.
Jack Straw:
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary who has always been opposed to agreements with the Liberals, is said by colleagues to be “incensed” about the moves. One colleague even questioned whether Mr Straw would stay in the Cabinet in such circumstances.
Well, some spine at last.
And for the Tories, comes that delicious description from Boris Johnson interviewed on the BBC when he referred to it as ludicrous skullduggery. Ludicrous skullduggery is precisely what it is.
I do wish people would shut up about the British electorate having spoken and voted for a hung parliament. They did not. The electorate is not a homogeneous mass that votes collectively, it consists of millions of individuals who voted individually for the candidate they wanted to win or against the candidate they wanted to lose. They did not vote for some ridiculous progressive rainbow coalition of losers, just as they did not vote in sufficient numbers for a Conservative government. Still it doesn’t stop the odious progressives trotting out the line that most people voted other than Tory while conveniently ignoring that most people voted other than Labour, just as they did in the last election. To suggest that the electorate has spoken with one voice in tandem as if it is a unified thing rather than individuals speaking individually is mere collectivist claptrap.
Given the ludicrous skullduggery and blatant whoring going on, I guess we are seeing just how the LibDems’ beloved PR will work in practice. I don’t know about others, but it has firmed up my previously ambivalent position. So despite Billy Bragg and others campaigning with their purple coalition for PR; given a referendum now, I would definitely vote against, which is interesting. Once, I could have been persuaded. Now that the LibDems are in a position to exert some influence, to finally realise their dream, they demonstrate just how grubby, tawdry and underhand they can be; undermining the very cornerstone of their manifesto. In short, for me, they’ve blown it. Reform the system, sure, but PR, count me out.
“Can’t disagree with that.”
Indeed. After all, if anyone knows harlots, it’s Blunkett….
.-= My last blog ..Because This Never Happened Before, Right? =-.
For a self proclaimed libertarian you are becoming particularly single-minded on a possible outcome of this election… “guess we are seeing just how the LibDems’ beloved PR will work in practice”
Did you read their manifesto? They don’t mention PR until page 88 where, in a section about ‘fairer politics’, they only express a PREFERENCE for introducing the Single Transferable Vote system.
I don’t read anything that is set in stone and ‘beloved’ in that.
No, I’m not and if you think that, you’ve misread me.
I was a LibDem supporter in the eighties when PR was very much on their agenda. I was a believer in it then, too. PR has been a cornerstone LibDem policy for decades. Whatever preferences they have in the desired type, PR is what they want, which would give them more seats to reflect their share of the vote. Given that long history, my use of “beloved” is perfectly apt.
Unfortunately, PR would deliver more of what we have been seeing. It is not particularly single-minded to deplore the horse trading we are witnessing, particularly bi-lateral talks when one set has not reached an outcome. Blunkett’s assessment was spot on. That, frankly sickens me so unethical is it.
Which part of my “previously ambivalent position” makes me “single-minded”? The very use of the phrase implies that I am open to changing my mind or have already done so. Single-minded people tend not to change their minds. Back in the eighties and nineties a Lib/Con coalition would have horrified me. Today, I see it as the least worst outcome and it is the Tories who have behaved with a degree of dignity in this past week. Now it seems that Reid, Blunkett and Straw have joined them. And I once would never have thought I’d say that.
As I understand it, Labour are offering Cleggie legislation to bring in the “alternative vote” system immediately and then a referendum on full-blown PR. So, if the LibDems become the junior partner in a “progressive” administration, you (and I) will not be given any chance to opt to retain FPTP under any circumstances.
I am coming round to Cameron’s suggestion of FPTP with evenly sized constituencies. Not sure how that will work in practice, but I’d like to see it explored.
I do have some experience with party list systems. When Labour came to power in 1997, they gave those of us who wanted change the opportunity to experience it when selecting candidates for the EU elections. Our sitting MEP was popular and we wanted to reselect him. We got Glyn Ford. This was because the party list system enabled the prospective candidates to choose safe seats. So we got someone not only that we hadn’t voted for, but wasn’t even on our ballot paper. The chair of the local party complained and was told, basically, “You wanted the change, suck it up”.
Of course, this is not what the LibDems are seeking and I’m not for one moment suggesting that they are. What it did do, however, was make me cautious about unintended consequences. Hence my ambivalence mentioned in the post.
And I have a real problem with this.
“…it is the Tories who have behaved with a degree of dignity in this past week”
I think that all the parties have been behaving rather decently and it is the press that is trying to create a ‘them and us’ – ‘black or white’ – ‘yes or no’ situation, when there is not really one to be had.
Any public discussions seem to have been even tempered and well judged – sure there are a few rogue MP’s (and rather more rogue ex-MP’s) wittering at every camera they get a chance to perform in front of – but on the whole the change in the political landscape, even if it is for a few days, has been quite refreshing.
As I type it looks like we are going to get a Con/Lib-Dem alliance soon – but given the apparent total secrecy that they have managed to work under, the details as to what the parties are looking to get out of it is pure speculation by anyone at this point and I would not be overly surprised to see an outcome that has not been widely forecast.
The LibDems let themselves down by talking to Labour while discussions with the Conservatives were ongoing. That was tawdry. If they had been upfront that they were going to talk to both at the same time, then fair enough.
Overall, though, yes, I agree that there has been a refreshing change in attitude. An inconclusive result has dented the tribalism somewhat and that’s no bad thing.
I disagree that there was much feeling of tawdriness and ‘letting themselves down’ here – there had been plenty of comments that the leaders had been talking anyway – and (as far as one can tell) they had an offer, once GB had announced his intention to quit, that they felt they should follow up promptly.
It appeared to me that the Conservatives were well aware of this too.