Is Ming right to suggest a deal with Gordon?
March 4th, 2007
Won’t this encourage more switching to the Tories?
Whether this is a fair report or not we will have to wait and see but BBC News is suggesting that today’s speech to the Lib Dem Harrogate conference by the leader, Ming Campbell, “sent out the strongest signal yet that he wants a power sharing deal with Labour after the next general election.”
Missing from the list of items which the party would want is a electoral reform and the report quotes a “senior official” as saying that such a requirement would not longer be a “a deal breaker”.
But how dangerous a move is this for Ming? For the voters that he is trying to keep on board at the moment are those that might be termed “liberal conservatives” who could be scared off by talk of deal with Labour and Gordon?
You have to ask whether the old strategy of never committing either way was by far better than this apparent new route which could simply alienate a key segment of voters.
There another reason why today’s Ming’s speech could be dangerous - one of the great opportunities for the party next time will be in encouraging Tories in LAB>LD marginals to vote tactically thus helping to hold on to the gains from Labour from 2005 and helping in other seats.
You have to ask whether Campbell is looking at the national scene too much from the perspective of Edinburgh and Scotland - where, of course, the Tories have become an endangered species.
A challenge the party has, particularly in Southern England, is that the councillors and activists tend to be much more left wing than many of those who vote Lib Dem and who came over to the party towards the end of the Thatcher years when the Conservatives appeared “nasty”.
Whatever talking in these terms is going into dangerous territory.
UPDATE 1630. BBC Online has changed its headline on the story to “Sir Menzies sets tests for Brown” and has added this paragraph. “But in a sign of disagreement within Sir Menzies’ inner circle over the party’s position, his chief of staff Ed Davey told BBC News 24 he “did not recognise” the source of the story, adding “I briefed the leader’s speech and I didn’t say that”.” The latter is a reference to the extensive quote from a “senior official” in the BBC story about the party not making PR the sticking point.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Funnily enough I was just thinking about this. The response of the Lib Dems to a hung parliament. That just shows how boring and middle aged I have now become, but still -
Can any Lib Dems here explain something to me. I understand your natural inclination is probably to the left, towards Labour, and that the party would find it easier to bed down with Brown than Cameron.
But surely the actual state of play in the Commons and the ballot box must be paramount? What I mean is: it seems very likely to me that the Tories will get more votes than Labour, at the next G/E, and pretty likely that the Tories will get more seats, even if ot an outright majority.
In that situation, surely the only moral thing to do is for the Lib Dems to try and enter a coalition with the party supported by most of the people? To go against the popular will, and try and support a Labour party in power, when they have fewer votes than the Tories, would not only be unethical - but possibly catastrophic for your party’s future image. Or so it seems to me.
So? Could you really, in all conscience, support a Labour party with fewer votes and seats than the Tories? It’s a genuine question. Ta.
Stupid, stupid move if true. This could really hurt the Lib Dems. If people know or think Ming is going to back Gordon in the event of a hung parliament, this will make them less likely to vote Lib Dem and more likely to fall into the Tory column, in a hope that this will make a hung parliament less probable.
Not really sure of the tactical thinking behind this, even dropping commitment to PR! Ming would have been much better placed to bide his time and decide who to back after an election. This just gives the Tories more ammunition.
The DUP have hopes of providing support for Gordon if he needs just a few.
..although if the Tories were the largest party and needed a few extra they’d no doubt be willing to support them too.
If true it would kill Clegg’s attempts to win Tory support in Labour seats or convince One Nation Tories in Con-Lib seats to stick with them. It would ensure a stalling of their adavance v Labour, and a greater squeeze v Con.And yet is Ming speaking to Labour or the Tories. Re-paste below….
Lib Dems say PR no longer a “deal breaker” for coalition. Interesting the focus is on Labour, but it always was a bigger stumbling block with the Tories. At the same time it opens that possibility, it raises their leverage with Labour by raising that possibility. A new realism by the Lib Dems. Perhaps. I think in the first instance they will try to make sure they nail down some gains perhaps something on the House of Lords than stake everything in obtaining PR for the HoC, risking triggering a quick second election as in 1974 which see one or other of the big two returned with a majority, and the “moment” gone again for another 35 years.
by Punter March 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Yes, I think PR is most likely to be used for the new Lords elections so that might allow Lib Dems and other small parties a lot of leverage there. If more power was given to the Lords it would give our smaller parties that bit more influence.
This is a desperate, desperate reckless gamble if indeed it is actually what he is doing.
Setting aside the ‘Electoral reform’ aspects of everything (which clearly remain on the LD agenda), why on earth would wavering Conservative (or Labour voters in Conservative/LD marginals who are already tactically vote against the Conservatives (Net no change)) vote LD if all they are going to get is ‘Labour’. (New or old)
This reinforces Conservatives as being ‘the only alternative’ and signals weakness on the LDs part.
Can’t believe that Rennard agrees with this.
This could be the final straw, as far as I’m concerned *if* this is true then Ming must go now, to be replaced, hopefully, with Clegg.
I will never vote for a party which sees itself as a junior partner to labour, who have been the most illiberal government in living memory.
As for the junking of PR as being a major factor, I had, ironically, just posted that this was the only way that I could justify the above, that we would immediately return a parliament which reflected the country more fairly.
So that’s it, if this is accurate then Ming has just served his retirement papers.
Whether it is a stupid move or not, remains to be seen. There are many people in this country, who would like to see a realignment of the centre left. Perhaps the ditching of the Labour party’s ’socialism’ could clear the way for that. This realignment could eventually include ‘Liberal Conservatives’ as well. A first move, could be a recognition by the Labour Party that a vote for Labour, in much of the South and West is a wasted vote, a withdrawal of those candidates who came in third at the GE, and a recommendation that Labour voters choose the obvious alternative to the Conservatives, the Libdems.
If the Liberal Democrats genuinely intend (from this distance out) to prop up a defeated Labour government, almost unconditionally, then the question “What is the point of the Liberal Democrats?” has to be seriously asked.
Astonishing news, if true, because it provides the Conservatives with a fantastically powerful weapon to use against the Liberal Democrats.
This will be of paramount importance in Tory / Lib dem seats and even Labour / Lib Dem seats. Why bother voting for the Lib Dems, when they will wish to pursue more of the same? Shorely in a Labour / Lib Dem marginal it is better to vote Labour and in a Tory / Lib Dem marginal Tory.
The reasoniong is leverage. An MP in a large party has more leverage than an MP in a small party to deliver for their constitiency. This is particularly the case in a hunng or slim majority government. I would rather give my vote to a large party that is interested in the national interest rather than a small party that has only self interest. This is the worst possible way to conduct politics and i believe is ultimatly counter productive. This could cause a split in the Lib Dems and really is a silly card to even put on the table 3 years before a probable election. The tories and Labour are probably relishing this.
Another factor is the recent poll in which ming got just 6% as best leader to be PM. Dreadful politics, if you were a former Labour voter who went lib dem in 2005, why support ming once Blair has gone if he is going to support Brown. Might as well vote Labour.
Again, if you wanted to vote for change - Ming has just finished his party as change agents by aligning with Labour and logic would suggest you would back another party including the tories.
If you were a orange book lib dem- you would be more inclined to vote tory. It just does not add up at this point in the political cycle.
Ming or anyone else for that matter cannot go back on a central plank of party policy. Just as Thorpe did in Feb 1974 the party leader must stay firm with a commiment to the introduction of PR as a condition of Liberal Democrat support in the event of a hung parliament.
Coldstone, agree that’s an option but it immediately opens up the same argument from the reverse side.
If Labour decided not to (say) challenge in an untold number of seats South of a line from the Severn to the Wash, they could easily be painted as a regional party not fit to govern and the LDs
as their Southern Branch Office lap dogs.
I’m supremely confident that any such gamble would backfire on them in spectacular style.
Er, can some Lib Dem answer my question? Morally, in the event of a hung parliament, how can you keep in power a Labour government with fewer votes and seats than the Tories?
12. And Thorpe got nothing for his stance did he not. If Ming got some deal over the House of Lords, that would be huge. If you stake it all on PR for the HoC you will get what Thorpe did nothing.
Sounds like a rogue briefing from somone in party. Leadership trying to rubbish it already.
The reason why Thorpe did not take uo Heath’s offer of a deal had nothing to do with PR. It had more to do with Lord Wigg contacting Thorpe and making it clear that he, (Wigg) would blow the whistle on Norman Scott: politics a dirty business!
I’ll repeat what I said on the last thread
I have to say I don’t think saying you will prop up Labour is good for the Lib Dems. it will cost them votes. What is more even if a new leader takes over, it will still be there as an issue.
Once the electorate want rid of Labour, they will punish Labour AND any who stand with them!
Nuff said. It is, in short, suicide!
I just wonder whether Ming… well. He knows that if he hangs around until ‘09 that it’s the last election he will fight. And he knows Gordon from the train journeys. I’m just wondering - does the position of Foreign Secretary or similar in a Labour coalition government just look TOO tempting for him to ignore?
13
I think Labour should recognise they are a ‘regional party’ in the same way as the Tories are a ‘regional party’ (even more so). I think the day of the national party is coming to an end. It is becoming more and more difficult to reconcile people to the concept of a ‘United Kingdom’ we are becoming a fragmented society, and politics will have to reflect that.
14. Well I’m not a signed-up member of the LDs but I don’t quite see your logic. If the electorate votes to elect a big majority of Labour and LD MPs then it’s legitimate to have a Lab-LD government. This is of course the effect that various forms of PR have - when forming coalitions there is no obligation to join forces with the ‘most votes’ party.
I think this is a mistake from Ming, though, and I’m somewhat confused as to why he’s made it.
17. THe point still holds. If the Lib Dems insist on PR for the HoC a second quick election will be very likely, and instead of securing something they will have a high probability of getting nothing as one of the big two is returned with a majority. I have to say everything in the above article is true. Yet it is so extraordinarily dangerous, that I can’t believe Clegg would have let it pass with that intention. My query is was it intended to open a channel of communication to the Tories, by dropping the PR thing, but a Labour leaning Lib Dem has spun it aroound 180 degrees. If not I bet Clegg for one will be livid I think.
10. To hitch the Lib Dem wagon to this tainted and increasingly unpopular administration AND sell the pass on PR at the same time is an appalling error of judgement by Campbell.
It looks like a desperate attempt by the combined left to circle the wagons and makes the Lib Dems appear a mere appendage of Labour. I cannot believe other senior Lib Dems will go along with this - it could even be a recipe for a split.
This report is a load of drivel - Ming would find he is the ex-leader in waiting after all if this is what he really intended.
Afternoon all :). I’m going to reserve comment on what Sir Menzies said until I actually read what he said not what the BBC thinks he said or what some Tories on here spin.
Sean T’s question is entirely irrelevant because, as I’ve argued on here on a number of occasions (and this argument has been accepted by some of the more thoughtful Tories on here) there isn’t going to be a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition in the event of a Hung Parliament at the next election. David Cameron isn’t going to make the call and 18 Doughty Street’s fanciful and mischievous spoof of a post-election deal between Cameron and Campbell just isn’t going to happen.
IF the Tories are the largest party in the next Parliament, Cameron will form a minority administration safe in the knowledge that Labour isn’t going to force a second election by backing a motion of No Confidence. Cameron won’t need the LDs, Nats, DUP or anyone else to form a Government.
Back to seanT’s question, the premise of which seems to be that the LDs will prop up a minority Labour Government which is second in numbers of seats to the Conservatives. As that won’t happen (see above), the question is whether the LDs will support a minority Labour administration where Labour is the largest party in a Hung Parliament. Now, a lot depends on the electoral arithmetic but if we assume that the Tories plus LDs would outnumber Labour, the question is whether IF the Conservatives put down a motion of No Confidence, the LDs would back it.
First, I don’t see why they should or would. IF the Tories have failed to gain the confidence of the electorate (and it’s seats that count, not votes) then why should the LDs help them into Government by forcing another election ? No, if I were an LD, I’d abstain on Cameron’s (if he’s still around) Confidence motion and let it stand or fall.
I’m disappointed about the absence of a commitment to PR but again I’ll wait to see about Sir Menzies ACTUALLY said…
21. Albeit that in most countries with PR, the party that wins the popular vote always conventionally has the first shot at forming coalitions and heading the government, due to the fact that it is (recognisably) the most popular option.
Well, this is hardly surprising to those of us who have long considered the Lib Dems to be Labour stooges.
3. Maybe that is what they’ve been to talking to Gordon about. Shockingly enough they are probably somewhat leaning more to the left on social issues than most people would think.
14. I wouldn’t worry, doubt its going to happen. Anyway making such a decison could actually cause a serious split within the LD’s. Whatever way they go, some within the party won’t be happy.
25. Not true. In 74 Heath had fewer seats but did not resign for 4 days until it became clear the Liberals would vote against him. Obviously if Cameron is miles ahead in seats it becomes clearer, but if it is close I could easily see Brown refusing to resign, and then everyone will be looking at what the Lib Dems do especially if Brown + nationalists still have more seats than the Tories.
I listened to Ming’s speech and to comments on BBC24 and SKY - cannot see where justification for the BBC Online report comes from
22 There is a possibility,(no more than that)that Labour could be talked into PR, for the Tories to abandon FPTP would need, the u- turn to trump all u-turns.
When you read in today’s Observer, (Pendennis) that Murdoch thinks, Cameron is a w****r, and he has given orders for the NOW to ‘dump on Cameron’ Murdoch looks like he’ll support Brown. When you read that right-wing Republicans, want a Labour government to stay in power, you know that the term right/left has no meaning. The present party political system in this country is redundant, the voters are in the market for something new.
I’m £200 long of LD seats at the next GE at 58. This announcement (if true) is very bad news. If the tories have the most seats without an overall majority, it will be because the current govt is seen to have run out of energy and ideas. And who is grandpa Ming going to support? Amazing.
There is an old adage which explains who is the best physician. He is not the one who makes the most number of right diagnoses. He is the one who recognises when he has made a wrong one, the quickest. There may be supporters of grandpa who don’t yet see their mistake.
Do they look like the sharpest knives in the box?
I think Labour and the Lib Dems would be playing on very dangerous ground if they clubbed together when Labour had a) fewer seats than the Tories, or even b) fewer votes than the Tories. Nowadays people just aren’t going to like that. It would hurt both of the parties who did that.
Here we go all again. I listened to the speech on TV and did not get the impression the BBC give on their web site. I formed the impression that he was saying the Government under Brown, if that is who it is gong to be, would have 5 areas to cover. That is just a Lib Dem view, it may not be a Labour view. It is what the government would do between Brown taking over and the next election, not after the next election. It seems no different to any political party saying the others should be doing this and that, not what they are doing. That is an oppostion role.
The next election will probably be in 2010, miles away.
You could also say that if Brown did not follow such an approach then the Lib Dems might be ameniable to an approach from the Conservatives, dependant on what they say.
After all there are plenty of examples round the country where the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are in co-alition or working together.
I feel some posters on this site really need to get away from this obsessive partizan approach, which in my view really takes nobody anywhere.
Also we should not jump in respond to headlines which are just that and which may well not represent the reality of what is being said, but just the spin a reporter puts on them, for journalistic purposes.
I think this is a positive move as it puts Ming in the publicity spotlight and should give the Lib Dems plenty of airtime to justify their ‘five tests’ for entering coalition with Labour.
If Brown meets the five tests then he is seen to be following the Lib Dems, and if he doesn’t then the LDs can drop Labour but can at least say “we tried” so softening the impact of either a) joining with the Tories or b) being blamed for refusing to join any government and so creating ‘instability’ in the event of a hung parliament.
I’m not a LD and wouldn’t vote them but I think this is a bold move by Ming that draws attention to the LDs and away from the interminable Labour leadership nonsense.
Ming is slowly evolving into the Michael Foot of the Liberal party. With his championing of disarmement and other lunitic policies. The only thing that has given him any merit was his anti- Iraq policy, something that he was opposed to anyway. Bring back Charles Kennedy!!!! At least he was human!
You can just imagine the “sun newspaper” at the next election, doctering a picture of him to present him up a pair of sep ladders in his garden playing a violin to the moon!!!
I don’t see ming lasting long enough to even play this card. Let alone it working. We do need to change the electoral system in this country, make it more representative. What i think the left will find though is it will not be so pro-left wing as they think. There will be gains for the extreme right and left and splits of all the big 3! I think it will be more evenly balanced actually, the lib dems are very niave on this basis!
31 - It means that new labour have become a neo-conservative party, that much is clear.
34 - BBCi quotes senior spokesman so spin was put on by the LDs not the beeb.
38 - No it doesn’t. It quotes Ed Davey saying the story is rubbish and nobody in support of the Beeb’s interpretation.
The headline has now been changed from “Sir Menzies seeks deal with Brown” to “Sir Menzies sets tests for Brown” and I expect this unsupported and badly written story to change also to follow the headline. Red faces at the BBC, I think.
36 - “Ming is slowly evolving into the Michael Foot of the Liberal party. With his championing of disarmement…”
Um, Martin, the vote yesterday was against unilateral disarmament and Sir Ming strongly backed that position. Time to have a lie down in a darkened room I think.
Re: 29 and others - To follow on your point, Wilson didn’t talk to Thorpe in 1974 because he knew he didn’t need to. Cameron is probably in a similar position. Menzies knows that the only side that will talk to him is Labour and he has to establish where the LDs are if/when they do.
My hope is that any “deal” is on the basis of an agreed four-year programme for Government but if that can’t be achieved, then Brown can either try and go on as a minority Prime Minister or, and this is far more likely, he will walk away and Cameron will be Prime Minister. I fully accept that the Tories on here will spin this the way they are and that’s fine because it shows how frustrated they will be at another period in Opposition.
39. I can imagine why Ed Davey and others would be unhappy with this, but that doesn’t mean the story is incorrect.
The Tory spin machine is out in force today.
At the local hust for LD candidates, I asked if PR was enough to get into bed with either Labour or Tories at the last election. All three candidates, thankfully, said no. Electoral reform will come, I have no doubt.
The reason Ming can put 5 ultimata to Labour, but not to the Conservatives, is that the Conservatives have no interest in areas of policy.
Which of the five areas to Tories disagree with? OK, they love the council tax, and think it is fair, as they invented it. But the others?
39 - look at the heading to this thread - the pre-Davey version. Read it “a senior party official later confirmed”. So it was it sounds like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.
Probably comes from “leading from the front, I know no other way” while behind him the various factions meander down their own paths.
41. Not really sure you’re addressing my point. I’m assuming Brown in a similar position to Heath fewer seats than Cameron but very close to. So even if Cameron has more seats, it will be up Brown in the first instance to resign or not. I for one agree highly unlikely Tory-LD coalition in any likely scenario. But I make my point to you, even if Cameron has more seats, Brown can well refuse to resign as Heath did initially and then it will be deicsion time for Liberal Democrats.
UPDATE. I’ve put an update on the main story to deal with the changes in the way the BBC is reporting it.
Clearly something has gone wrong somewhere and the mysterious “senior party official” has been saying things that he shouldn’t.
43 - Don’t trust the main parties regarding PR, labour stiffed lib dems before and they’ll do it again. The only chance is to use the leverage of a hung parliament.
If not now, when?
43 - No, Samuel, the reason that Campbell can put ‘ultimata’
to Labour is that he calculates he has a chance of getting them to listen to him. It has been made very clear that the Conservative Party (and its activists) will have no truck with the Lib Dems and would rather sit in opposition than rely on their support to form a government.
As a LD, I know both larger parties have extremists in that I would have no truck with. But Labour and the Tories usually keep them off the front bench. However, IDS did have Bill Cash and Ann Winterton in the Shadow Cabinet. I can’t see the LDs putting up with loons of this order whoever they get into bed with.
Ming’s vision is a moderate modern liberal programme. If you are, say, a Tory who hates ID cards (and I accept that many Tories love them), you may have a greater chance of ditching them if you maximise the number of LDs in Parliament. This sort of pitch by Ming will leave to tactical voting by Tories in Lab / LD seats.
40. No he wants to to cut the number of trident warheads by half. That is what his policy vote was about and they were split on that. How could such a split party be trusted in a government partnership!
Afraid you have picked the wrong person to try and “belittle” on this subject. Curently trident warheads are only 100 k-tonnes in size per warhead. To put this in perspective, they are worthwhile having but when you consider in the cold war the soviets had 60 mT bombs and the russians and chinease still have multi- MT warheads, the trident detterant losses it’s potency in comparison! Ming’s policy would leave this country below the critical mass in terms of warheads and it would be pretty pointless continuing with it on the basis he proposes. Bit ill-thought out like most of the other policies he has expressed!
Think you need to lie down and take the tablets, indeed you should go and research the area of nuclear weapons as i have as you are obviously out of your depth. It is one thing to make jokes, another thing to make a serious contribution in the process. You can take the piss out of my contrubution but you should say why you are taking the piss and back it up! Otherwise you look like ming - out of your depth!!!
This seems to me extremely foolish. If Labour win most seats despite losing the popular vote any coalition would be weak and tail end and the Liberals would sink with the Labour ship, moreso if the Tories win more seats in a close contents and a libdem coalition keeps labour in power.
The elephant in the room is, would Labour in that situation agree to PR in the pious belief that this would stop the tories ever winning again, the trouble with this is that the electorate will change the way they vote to suit the system they are voting with and it will also give the far right a permanent presence in parliament. With the main parties getting barely 50% of the vote in the last EU elections introducing PR could be VERY VERY dangerous and see both the current main parties dissapear within a generation.
49. But Cameron’s policy is to scrap ID cards, isn’t it?
SBS - as the Conservatives have an absolute policy to get rid of ID cards a Tory who wants them gone would prefer a load more Tory MPs to LDs who were close to supporting unilateral multi-disarment, are stridently anti-american and support increased european intergration.
Electoral Calculus is already forecating a near halving of Lib Dem seats after the next General Election to just 36 MPs.
The amazing thing to me is that their leadership appears unwilling to recognise the fact that the main opposition in most of their seats comes from the Tories - keep siding up to Labour and we could soon be bringing back all those old jokes about squeezing all their MPs into one London taxi.
51. Good point:
PR will split all of the parties in their current existence! Why would Blairites and leftwingers stay together? Or rightwingers and Camoronites or for that matter orange book liberals and social liberals! PR would mean an end to the current system of politics and i think you would find that the left right split would flip backwards and forwards overall by very small amounts. What you would find however is a change in stregth between the parties on each side of the political spectrum and this would lead to a governing coalition.
Intersesting point if Labour vote falls to say 31% and the lib dems were say 17% and formed a coalition, they would not be in a majority in terms of the vote or possibly in seats. That would be illergitamate as would a tory / lib dem on the same figures.
52 - ” But Cameron’s policy is to scrap ID cards, isn’t it?” - yes, it is, this week. But the guy who wrote the last Tory manifesto wanted to keep them.
Who knows what his policy (the one and only) will be come the next election? He may well back ID cards again.
54 I think you are right- an increase in the Tory vote will be curtains for many Lib Dems MP’s. They benefitted from the unpopularity of the previous Tory goverment. The swing against Labour helped them in some seats in 2005 due to the Tories still being unpolpular. Once those students who voted in 2005 move away from the University seats they will find it difficult to hold these seats, some were very narrow wins in 2005.
Stodge, et al, you haven’t really answered my question, just posted obscurantist if well-meaning waffle. No surprise there then - from a Lib Dem ;).
I take it from your wriggling that some of you would indeed first seek a coalition with Labour in a hung parliament, even if Labour had fewer seats and votes than the Tories. That seems not only contemptible, in its disregard for the views of the people, but also self destructive. People will just see you as the Labour party - but with less conviction.
If the situation were reversed, and there was a hung parliament with a Labour plurality, as a Tory supporter (for the moment) I would still want the party with the most votes - Labour - to have the first shot at power. That’s democracy.
Otherwise its just politicking and we all suffer and we end up like Italy.
***** JNN Exclusive for PB.com ***** JNN Exclusive for PB.com
Sir Ming Campbell Sets Five Tests For Jack W And Jacobite Party.
………………………….
JNN can exclusively reveal to PB that in a portion of his speech in the written text but not given at the Spring conference Sir Menzies Campbell has stated the 5 tests for a coalition with the Jacobite Party :
1. 104 year old Jack W to remain Jacobite Party leader, so as to reaffirm Ming’s youthful credentials.
2. Jack W to join the cabinet and become Lord of Misrule in the upper chamber with special responsibility for upstart bloggers.
3. Writers with recent passport stamps to Thailand be detained under Her Majesties Pleasure.
4. Jack W to set out a scale of charges for peerages with a special remit for Beaconsfield gentleman of a vintage of three score years and ten and above.
5. A preservation order be placed on Nick Soames as a historic monument of special culinary and scientific interest.
Ming’s precise words are almost beside the point. Any self-respecting Tory activist will be pointing to Ming and Gordon’s long association/flights to Scotland and will be able to credibly suggest a vote for the Dems is a vote to keep Labour in power.
“orange book liberals and social liberals”
These aren’t mutually exclusive, in fact it is more consistent for economic liberals to be also socially liberal. The other examples you cite are much more clearly divided.
54 - Quite. Hence Mike Smithson’s point about the danger of Campbell looking at this from the perspective of a Scottish politician.
57 “Once those students who voted in 2005 move away from the University seats they will find it difficult to hold these seats, some were very narrow wins in 2005.” - we don’t know how the student class of 2009/10 will vote.
Or if they will vote, as they barely voted in 2005. In many of these university seats, there is a good share of the vote for all 3 parties. You could say it’s all to play for, but there is a large Labour vote to squeeze in these seats.
56 - That really is quite disingenuous of your, Samuel. You know very well that Michael Howard as Home Secretary was wedded to the idea of ID cards and he carried that conviction with him to the leadership of the Party. Cameron, as his policy chief and in consultation with the whole of the Shadow Cabinet, was bound to defer to that whatever his personal views may have been. Are you suggesting that the Lib Dems don’t have similar divisions on such issues? David Davis has already formally written to the Cabinet Secretary (not to mention concerned commercial organisations) to warn that an incoming Tory administration would scrap the ID scheme entirely. To my mind, there can be no turning back from this. And just for your own edification - most of us never supported ID cards to begin with.
Re: 51 - No Government since the war has had a majority in terms of votes cast. You’re probably right about the eventual impact of the introduction of PR. FPTP forces the existence of “broad-church” parties like Labour and the Conservatives.
Re: 48 - For once, Mr Matlock, we are in total agreement. I think that were a second election to produce an inconclusive result, the Conservatives would be compelled to rethink their position.
Re: 45 - I think you’re making some assumptions about what Brown would or wouldn’t do. Heath was forced to resign in February 1974 after negotiations with Thorpe failed. Brown would be in the same position if any negotiations with Campbell failed to reach a conclusion. Cameron would be Prime Minister.
Looks to me as if Lib Dems are cracking up under the pressure of the growing recognition that they could potentially be facing electoral oblivion at Westminster.
You can’t blame Ming for at least taking a clear path. There is no way that the party will be allowed to sit on the fence over coalition in a closely contested election; so Menzies is probably doing the bravest thing to get this out now and flush out the subversives in his party who won’t go along with it before they can do too much damage.
I wonder how many Orange Bookers will have realised today that Ming ‘I’m a politican of the left and have been all my life’ may not be a leader they can work with?
What odds on either a leadership putch or a defection or two?
65 - A second inconclusive election (which is highly unlikely in my opinion) would indeed change the calculus drastically and would probably require fresh thinking on the issue from all parties - I agree, Stodge.
54 That YouGov poll last week that showed 28% of 2005 LibDem voters planning to vote Tory buttresses the baxter calc. The 30 or so Lib Dem MPs in Southern England are particularly threatened by this, and the leadership is floating a plan that will throw them under the proverbial bus. Its not as if there is that much Labour vote to squeeze any more in those seats.
On the other hand, it might not do as much damage to the Scottish LibDems, like Campbell, and he could conceivably get a cabinet seat out of it. Perhaps they are assuming losses in England, and seeking to make the best of things. It certainly makes Mike’s bet on a challenge to Campbell look more promissing.
64 - “an incoming Tory administration would scrap the ID scheme entirely. To my mind, there can be no turning back from this. And just for your own edification - most of us never supported ID cards to begin with.”
Very pleased to hear that! I knew that most of you were eminently sensible people. Never intended to be disingenuous. I guess Howard’s insistence on ID cards shows how dangerous leadership coronations can be!
But what would you prefer… a LD/Labour coalition that keeps ID cards and brings in PR; or a LD/Labour coalition that ditches ID cards and does not necessarily bring in PR?
Or does what happens with ID cards not matter?
66 The LibDems will be squeezed to 16/17% at the next election - Richard Willis March 2005
The LibDems are in for a pasting at the next GE and will lose 20 seats to the Conservatives Marcus Wood 24th March 2005
62. Yes, the Scottish perspective point has some force I think. The fact MC does appear to look at this issue in that way indicates that he really is hopelessly out of touch with mainstream opinion south of the border.
We Liberal Democrats are all DOOMED! DOOMED, I say!
70 Mark.
Stop spoiling the Conservatives Sunday tea-time wet dream !!
69 - PR can’t be brought in by the people, ID Cards can be destroyed by popular protest, I’ll take the PR option and allow the ensuing chaos surrounding ID cards to take its course.
69 -SBS think you got your choices wrong vis ID & PR v No ID/No PR? Obviously if you meant PR + no ID cards v No PR & ID cards is the latter as that government would fall quickly as the LDs defected or split.
Does anyone know if Rik W has been selected anywhere? If you are watching Rik maybe you could tell us?
Re: 58 - Thank you, Sean. Unfortunately, as most of your posts descend into verbose drivel after a couple of paragraphs, I really don’t think we need any lessons on obstructionist waffle from you
What you have completely failed to grasp is that the LDs, as third parties, wouldn’t make the first move. It’s up to the leaders of the two larger parties to decide how they want to play it. Neither is under any obligation to talk to us and it’s perfectly feasible neither will.
For what it’s worth, and putting the flowery, confrontational and unnecessary verbosity to one side :), I do agree that the party with the largest number of seats in Parliament should have first “go” at forming a Government. Unfortunately, the British system doesn’t work like that and Heath’s efforts in February 1974 illustrate that. IF no party has a majority, the system allows Brown to try to form an administration before Cameron is able to.
To try to form a Government, Brown may decide to talk to Campbell and others. That’s his prerogative. How we choose to respond or not is the key issue.
69 - None of the above. I want a Conservative majority that acts on its pledge to scrap ID cards and, more importantly, gets this corrupt and authoritarian Labour government away from the levers of power - your leader’s apparent openness to propping them up is very troubling to me, as it must be to you if you are the libertarian you claim to be.
76 - yes, he’s been selected to run for a council seat in Reading again apparently.
Before all you Ming-bashers get too carried away, you should note that YouGov’s Politicians’ Popularity Poll, due out tomorrow, will show a healthy increase in The Aged One’s rating.
Be warned.
80 - And how do you know that, pray?
80. Moved up to a grand 7% for the best PM then?
78 AHM. More importantly Alastair what are doing out of your lead lined sarcophagus at this time of day ??
77. OK, Stodge, fair enough. To move the argument on then, I wonder what Labour would do if they were seriously deficient in votes and seats compared to the Tories, but the Lib Dems sought an alliance with them.
I think it would be unprincipled to govern in that situation for very long at all. The party with the most votes and seats has the moral authority. But I wouldn’t put it past Labour to try and hang on to power come what may, on the specious basis that “most people voted for centre left parties” - I’ve already seen that argued by Labourites.
As for 1974, hm. My feelings about Ted Heath come straight out of the UKIP lexicon, I’m afraid. I know he’s dead, but still. As Byron put it of a different politician:
“Posterity will ne’er survey: A nobler grave than this: Here lie the bones of Castlereagh: Stop, traveller, and p***’
70. Any further word on your WA prospects. Slightly surprised the Tories are talking up Bridend which you highlighted. If they are fighting hard as Pen Ddu predicts the likely outcome is a Labour hold due to a split vote there. As the storm clouds gather you must be looking to make gains surely from Labour. I think Newport East and Cardiff South. I predict one to go yellow. Labour are in real trouble because with very few exceptions they are facing a single clear but different opponent in a multitude of areas.
83 - I’ve got special permission from the gate keeper, Jack.
Going on demos with the Trots, a return to penal taxation, and now this - will Campbell’s next move be to rename the Lib Dems the ‘Socialist Alternative’?
86 AHM. Mrs Alastair out then ??
80 - No more carried away than the ‘Dave bashers’ who have been predicting doom and gloom for the Tory party ever since he was elected.
59 Jack W you have a book in you somewhere. get writing
64 Quite so M’lud !
90 John W. Thank you kindly ….. I have already !!
89 Max. Any juicy news from the trenches ??
Another view… Ming now has five reasons why he won’t back Gordon at the next election. Can you seriously see Labour caving in on any of these demands? They’d rather muddle on with the DUP, or as a minority government, or fester on the backbenches.
Eroding civil liberties, neo-Con foreign policy, centralisation - these are cornerstones of Labour’s achievements. They’ll never give them up. Even the Tories, have moved on!
BTW, I have of course also blogged this story on my blog which *cough* is here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
I said it before, and I will say it again, it is electoral suicide for this kind of thing to get out at all.
PtP - replied in previous thread, but have now transferred here.
92 - Nothing terribly exciting to be honest Jack. Still not much happening in Edinburgh Central and the other Edinburgh seats are pretty much sewn up.
One interesting thing is that the parties are starting to name there council candidates so you can see the kind of expectations they have. And it turns out that it is very likely that one of my three ‘local’ councillors in Tweeddale West will be David Steel’s daughter - just can’t get away from those pesky Liberals! Peter Duncan (former G & UN MP) is also standing for the council in Dumfries & Galloway.
Having read through the very interesting article from Mike followed by what I think is an even more important update, I have only one question. Just how united are the Libdems when it comes to deciding on a possible coalition partner or strategy for a hung parliament?
I agree with Mike on this point, “You have to ask whether the old strategy of never committing either way was by far better than this apparent new route which could simply alienate a key segment of voters.”
I also think that a few Scottish Libdem MP’s would share the concerns of some of their counterparts in the South of England, if there were any pre GE pacts with Labour in Westminster.
88 - Exactly, Jack.
I appreciate that I am writing this from the Scotland, the very heartland of Socialism etc etc and so this perspective is skewed but…what if the electorate actually likes the idea of a Labour Government curbed of its ‘excesses’ by a Liberal Democrat party?
Despite being in bed with Labour in Scotland, the Lib Dems aren’t going backwards and their shameless appeal of ‘we’re a brake on the Labour - anything good that’s happened is due to us and anything cr*p is down to them - vote for us and we’ll keep them in order’ seems to yield dividends and a Lib/Lab coalition still seems a likely form of government in Holyrood after the May elections - albeit with a strengthened Lib Dem contingent.
By the very nature of the system, everyone knows that the Lib Dems will be propping up a coalition and presenting themselves as the moderating side of government and will receive supported on account of this. I would like to believe this wasn’t going to be the case but I really don’t foresee a rout of the Lib Dems on account of their past involvement with Labour and so I have a nasty feeling that this might play well more generally.
The Labour government would concede ANY point to Ming thats the problem. They have NO principles or ethics. If they did they would still be in opposition supporting CND and Scargill. NuLab policy is straight out of the ‘Teach Yourself Facist Dictatorship’ book of handy hints.
Every act of this government fits one of these simple criteria;
Does it win votes
Does it reduce our accountability and increase our influence
Does it increase our power
Does it expand the numbers relying on us for benefit, employment, income support
Does it upset anyone who works hard and pays tax?
Mings only vote winning card is his relative integrity, if he sides with them they are doomed
96 Max. Thanks for that.
The Steel clan taking root further !!
Coldstone - I assume you have overclubbed on the old bob hope….. Liberal, liberal and NuLabour ideals would appear to be unhappy bedfellows
99 - not an expert on Scotland but random polling seems to suggest the LDs will be little changed since last polls (last one I think had then down a bit, others seemed to show them up) and the game seemed to be Lab & SNP. Not sure there is evidence that voters overall prefer the LDs”being the brake” only that LD supporters do.
31 When you read in today’s Observer, (Pendennis) that Murdoch thinks, Cameron is a w****r, and he has given orders for the NOW to ‘dump on Cameron’ Murdoch looks
Murdoch thinks Cameron must kiss his Australian @rse like Blair.
Cameron thinks that the Australian should have no say in British politics and should go to Buggery
Hell hath no fury like a Murdoch scorned. Ahh, diddums
I withdraw the alst post as I assumed it was hypothetical…… if Ming has actually offered such a deal or anything like it ……then he wont last the week. Is it really such a different world in westminster? Peter Sutcliffe would get elected the next PM if he was in Camerons shoes, to not appreciate the disgust the public hold for Bliar and Brown is simply inexcusable.
A Liberal leader doing a deal with people who allowed torture flights………..is it really this insane?
101. Are there any other dynastic names in current politics egy Lloyd-Georges or Asquiths etc.
96. Is Peter Duncan going for Dumfries and Galloway at Westminster again.
99. ‘what if the electorate actually likes the idea of a Labour Government curbed of its ‘excesses’ by a Liberal Democrat party?’
In 2005, that may have been a runner. But not now.
104 - Hear, hear.
103 - Ted, I accept your point. However, in my defense I would argue that their vote remaining unaffected means, at the very least, that they haven’t been associated with their numpty partners and suffered accordingly.
99 Stephen B. That’s an interesting analysis and broadly similiar to one given by Matthew Parris in the Times some months back, that I’ve refered to before. Namely that the Lib Dems put themselves forward as “honest brokers” of both parties.
Of course it would mean the Lib Dems doing the same for the Tories once the latter had the odd policy or two outside of banning the use of historic university photographs and embracing the local thuggery a deux !!
O/T but Gordon,s price dropping slowly - now 1.26 - has whoever was supporting the price now stopped?
I suspect this is down to a rogue briefing - Ed Davey wouldn’t be allowing himself to be named as he undoes the damage otherwise.
This is nothing to do with possible coalitions - it is just Ming making clear the differences with Brown.
Brown to Scrap ID cards? Pretty unlikely! And Ming knows it.
In my area it is a straight fight btween liberals and conservatives - on the door step the theme that the lib Dems have decided to support Labour will be a gift to the Conservatives - who will be able to play the time for a change card to full effect .
109. “I would argue that their vote remaining unaffected means, at the very least, that they haven’t been associated with their numpty partners and suffered accordingly.”
StephenB, it also depends on how successful the SNP or Conservatives are in campaigning to highlight the record of 8 years of Lab/Libdem coalition, and if certain area’s have benefited more than others from this partnership.
81 AHM
I had a bet on it, which has now been settled.
[Isn't it a bit early for you to be abroad?]
106 Punter. One each from the 3 main parties for starters :
1. My favourite Suusex man mountain - Nick Soames from the Churchill dynasty.
2. Our Viscount - John Thurso from the Liberal dynasty.
3. Hilary Benn from Labour’s Viscount Stansgate family.
115 - Don’t you ever tire of asking that question, Peter? In any case, Jack has beaten you to the punch. You may read up-thread for my answer.
Having said that, Mrs Matlock has just returned and I am once again under strict discipline and we must away. It’s like begin married to a Scottish Margaret Thatcher! Bliss!
117 - *being*, rather.
117 AHM. Married to the Iron Bru Lady !!
119 JackW
116. Ah yes 1&3. But Thurso, aristocratic lineage to be sure but political………….. BTW I thought there was an Asquith knocking around today’s Lib Dem party. Am I right.
112. See 22. It would strike at everything Clegg is attempting. I suspect he would have gone berserk, when he saw such freelancing, if indeed that iy is what it was. If it is a genuine quote, then it is a terrible risk to run.
109 - back from canvassing in this freezing cold, wet afternoon. I have to say did not find that much evidence that the electorate thinks the Libs are a brake to Labour. Didn’t find that much support for them in a supposedly strong ‘Labour’ area. Labour vote very very unhappy with TB & JM. A swing from Labour is out there, how far it goes we shall see; and where it goes to.
The alternative to saying that a deal with Labour is at least possible is to be endlessly questioned on “what if…”. We are 2 or 3 years out from an election, it seems sensible for Ming to be exploring possibilities. You can now leave Labour and vote Liberal Democrat without letting the Tories in - might sound attractive to a lot of people.
If Labour dont get a majority of MPs next time then I suspect that the Lib Dems wont have to ask for PR, they will be knocked over in the rush as Labour introduce it to shaft the Tories for good!
114. Slightly OT, but I remember going to Lewes, Sussex, three or four years ago, on a beautiful sunny Sunday. Gorgeous place, gorgeous afternoon, I got gorgeously drunk with my girfriend and we walked the Downs and strolled the Georgian lanes and got the last train back to Waterloo.
Lewes is fab. Anyway I remember being TOTALLY shocked to discover the next week that Lewes was Liberal Democrat. Affluent, handsome, generous, and full of nice youngish couples with strawberry blonde kids, it seemed obvious Tory territory. Yet the Lib Dems had taken it! All those nice couples obviously found something distasteful in the Tory brand which stopped them voting as their natural inclinations would suggest.
I suspect that these are the people Cameron will win back. I can’t see any reason for them to vote Lib Dem now they have Cameron. Seats like Lewes, which has a decent Lib Dem majority, will therefore, I think, generally revert to the Tories come the G/E.
And any hint of a possible Lib Dem coalition with Labour will accelerate this process greatly.
84 and myriad associated postings
In a balanced parliament the key to an administration will be a mutually acceptable policy programme. Look at the evidence of Scotland (in particular) and Wales. Look at the pattern in local government.
If the LDs can’t persuade either Con/Lab to sign up to an acceptable programme they will remain in opposition and deal with each issue on its merits.
If supporters of an acceptable programme outweigh any other prospective administration but falls short of a majority, (due to Irish, SNP etc), the judgment will be more complicated.
124 - agreed Lewes is lovely. Wonderful brewery - Harveys. It is the county town of East Sussex, and has a prison and therefore has a fair few public sector workers. Public sector workers are not known for their wholehearted admiration of the Tory party.
Added to that, Norman Baker is one of the best MPs in the house. I would say that his 18% majority is very safe. Were the Tories to annihilate the LDs at the next election, he would be one of the last few standing.
123 Yes Icarus very good point…. its funny how popular electoral reform was in the Labour party when it looked like being out of power forever in 1992.
It seems to be mostly the old trades union conservatives who are against it now - their role is much less than it used to be I guess.
124… If Norman Baker is the candidate in Lewes he will win easily whatever the LDs do nationally.
“McConnell starts dirty war”
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=341082007
“Nicol Stephen faces storm over party donations”
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1234272.0.nicol_stephen_faces_storm_over_party_donations.php
121 Punter. The political lineage of the Thurso’s is strong. Our Viscounts grandfather, the first viscount, was leader of the Liberal party and also Secretary of State for the Air Dept during WWII and in Churchill’s war cabinet.
124 seanT. Norman Baker is the Lewes MP and IMO pretty safe.
Blair and Ashdown were pretty pally before the ‘97 election. who knows what a hung parliament will produce? Strange circumstance, can produce, strange bedfellows: Churchill and Stalin 1941, what could have been more peculiar than that!
The last election was their high water mark - and it should and could have been much higher. They are on their way to the political wilderness next time round, possibly for a generation.
124. Isn’t Baker now outed as a conspiracy theorist? Does that help in a place where they still like burning effigies of the Pope once a year?
OT. Another opportunity for 4Bs (Big Boy Benedict’s Blog) to become the Conservative premier blogger as I understand a period of mourning has started over at Mrs Dales Dairy as West Ham has lost at home 4-3 to Spurs ….. conceeding two late goals !!
131 Philip. I think that’s a rather dire prediction for the Tories …. I thought Cameron seemed to be doing reasonably well ?!?!
130 - “Strange circumstance, can produce, strange bedfellows: Churchill and Stalin” - Blair and Bush
131 - “The last election was their high water mark - and it should and could have been much higher. They are on their way to the political wilderness next time round, possibly for a generation.” - guess you are talking about the LDs. This is clearly your wish-list, and is not based on evidence, though I agree the mark could have been much higher.
I recall the Economist in spring 1997 saying that many leading Tories were expecting the LDs to be reduced to 15 or so seats after the 1997 GE. So, we’ve heard it all before; and to try to predict the doom for the LDs up to 3 years before the next GE is not that easy.
Hi,Another Hammer supporting regular poster reporting in-we’re down,I’ve known that for a few weeks- I take solace that Sunderland and Birmingham City,relegated last year,look very good for a return to the top flight after only one season!
Tory posters here seem more worked up by the spin of the BBC on this story than by the substance of what Ming has said. How many have actually read Ming’s 5 tests for Gordon Brown? Do anyone actually believe that Brown would or could deliver on them?
It would rather shoot Cameron’s cuddly green liberal fox if he did, but that’s a very big if.
135. SBS - what has happened to you? After recently being a rather sceptical sort of Lib Dem, you have suddenly morphed into an ultra-loyalist almost of the Mark Senior ilk. What brought about this transformation?
HOW THE E-MAIL INJUNCTION STORY BROKE ON THE BLOGS - CLICK BELOW FOR THE STORY
http://orangebyname.blogspot.com/
nobody who knows the Lib Dems would be surprised that if a formal coalition was needed it would be with the socialists. The Orange Bookers might want to stress Liberalism but they are a small minority of the activists.
Presumably the aim of this tactic is to keep hold of all those Labour voters in Con/LD marginals who perform the ‘anyone but the tories shuffle’.
This is a a reckless gamble. It leaves the LDs as a clearly left wing alternative to Labour and yet supportive of the authoritarian centralising policies of Brown. Clegg, Laws aand co must surely regret backing this confused and ineffective leader. The LDs had a genuine chance to step up a gear but have thrown it away. At what point Clegg decides he’s had enough of this nonsense could make the basis of some interesting betting.
138 - I have come close to tearing up my membership card in recent years. Getting rid of CK helped. The way he cosied up to public sector workers I found too much. Brian Sedgemoor’s defection was also a bit too much. Some of his anti-war bedfellows I also had a distaste for. Would he have cosied up to the BNP too, given the chance, since they also opposed the war?
Ming has been slow to make his mark. But the party is heading in the right direction - and adopting its best set of policies for, oh about 80 years. Ditching the 50% tax rate was important to me too. The new MPs, old and young, Browne, Swinson, Goldsworthy, Huhne, Clegg, Featherstone are probably the best third party intake for 80 years too, and they are starting to make their mark.
There is progress in the party, and despite Ming’s travails, there is not the sense of gloom I have felt since the end of 2003.
I remain critical, and am more than happy to praise some opposition politicians - figures I admire include Cameron, Alex Salmond, Hilary Benn and Nigel Farage - though not necessarily for their policies, im the case of Farage. And there are areas where I disagree with LD policy. I am not an ultra-loyalist. I just feel there is a spring in the party’s step for the first time in ages.
And if it means that the LDs have mutated from powerful electoral force saying whatever the public likes, to a think-tank for the other parties (as seems to be the case at least for the Tories), then is it a bad thing for the country? I actually think we can still be optimistic electorally.