But the Labour party needs to start taking the Libdems seriously in terms of concessions. It should stop openly talking of concessions, but be prepared to ditch Gordon Brown if a majority is not achieved.

If AJ and Lord Mandelson are the ones making noises about coalitions with the Lib Dems, then I think we can take it as read that they are signalling they are “prepared to ditch Gordon Brown if a majority is not achieved”.

“Secondly, this talk solidifies the new Tory narrative that if you vote Libdem you get Labour. Cameron is going to be repeating this like a parrot over the next few weeks so Labour had better stop reinforcing that narrative.”

Surely the response to this is: “No, vote Libdem and you get a hung parliament”. Neither of the other parties, or arguably much of the media, seems to have accepted that maybe, just maybe, the electorate are actually sophisticated (and finally fed up enough?) to punish both Labour and the Tories by engineering a hung parliament.

It may not be ringing endorsement of the LD’s , but it speaks volumes about the failings of the other parties.

I’d add that Brown is not the only one who’s intransigence (and plain attitude),track-record and personality (him, conceding any control?) would mean that in a post-electoral deal-making scenario, he’d be out of the frame. You can add Balls to the list of those to be jettisoned (how the hell anyone can work with the man, let alone those of a differing political hue…), probably Burnham (what is the point of him), Harman too (too obviously two-faced/self-serving).Some have said Adonis my persist in this hypothetical scenario, but can’t see the LibDems having any truck with the turncoat who’s been sniping at them of late, plus his being a Lord goes against their grain. Darling on the other hand may well survive (reasonably popular, experienced),but probably not as Chancellor as in this scenario most see that going to Cable.
Ones I’d hope to see sidelined would be Miliband (D, but not necessarily E), Straw (but he’ll cling on, and on, and on…), Byrne, and Jowell,
Mandelson of course would sail on, apparently serene and untouchable,trimming his sails ensuring that he’s able to pull strings but duck direct accountability.

The big question of course in all this is who’d be the PM in this projection…

@3 Alisdair

Although I’m not a huge fan of Gordon Brown, isn’t the question which of the bunch of intellectual and political pygmies round about him has the guts, or the recognition, to step up?

It’s interesting that in some of the polls on the first leader’s debate over the weekend, Brown actually beat Cameron into third place on certain aspects. People may not like him, or warm to him, but many still seem to think he’s than a better bet than Cameron.

@3 – Even in a coalition I doubt the Lib Dems would get to dictate who takes the Labour seats in cabinet, because while a deal has to be worth it for the Lib Dems, it also has to be worth it for Labour. If you bar almost all the current cabinet from taking a role in the new government you’d be creating a large and influential bloc of backbench Labour MPs with a vested interest in wrecking the coalition and ensuring Lib Dem policies fail. The government wouldn’t last three months in that scenario.

So if a coalition is going to happen then there will need to be painful compromises on both sides. I disagree with Sunny though. I don’t think the time for horse trading is in the middle of an election when it will only confirm Cameron’s line of attack. Meaningful discussion of concessions will have to wait until after an election, until we know if a Labour-Lib Dem coalition is viable.

@ Chris. I’m not saying that the whole lot of Labour ministers would be gone, just listing those whom it’s hard to see staying prominent. There’s a list just as long if not longer I could have composed of those who’ll most likely stay on (inc. the likes of Straw,though I’d like to see him go), plus of course there’ll be new faces too, up-and-comers who’re more coalition minded. There’s still be a Lab Cabinet majority but not the same old faces, I’d say, not least because some of the old ‘usual suspects’ have wobbly seats and aren’t certs to even be MPs.

The Conservatives and surrogates had best be careful about the extent to which they smear and denigrate the LibDems least the Conservatives come to depend on them to form a coalition for government after the election.

The Mail with its editorial line of thinking with blood amazingly seems to have fallen under the influence of DH Lawrence, author of: Lady Chatterley’s Lover:

“My great religion is a belief in the blood, the flesh, as being wiser than the intellect. We can go wrong in our minds. But what our blood feels and believes and says, is always true. The intellect is only a bit and a bridle.”

It was these strange, arcane views of Lawrence, about thinking with blood, which lead Bertrand Russell, previously an admirer of Lawrence’s writings, to finally conclude Lawrence’s sentiments were a forerunner of emerging fascistic sentiments in the inter-war period. But then Russell, later renown for his campaign for nuclear disarmament, was an advocate of Liberal perspectives, which the Mail probably regards as thoroughly anachronistic and positively anti-social:

“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.”

Mandelson as PM and Clegg as Deputy PM and leader in the Commons? (Those with long memories will recall the “Derby-Dizzy” Tory governments in the 19th century…)

Whenever I imagine a world without Peter Mandelson in power, I feel like a starry-eyed 60s beatnik – doped up on acid, and waiting for eternal peace.

@9 Ben

I just hear the music from Star Wars when the evil Emperor arrives….

‘And it’s even less likely that Clegg will talk with Labour while Gordon Brown is leading it. ‘

So Brown becomes PM without a general election and everybody says boo hiss. Then he wins the most seats of any party in a general election* and has to resign. And that’s the actual new politics.

I suppose I wouldn’t mind if Brown is resigning as long as everyone who fails to win an outright majority resigns at the same time. Fair’s fair.

*Of course if it’s a Lib Dem government with Labour support propping it up then sure, whatever.

I just hear the music from Star Wars when the evil Emperor arrives….

Come to think of it…

Lord Mandelson, who heads Labour’s campaign, criticised some Liberal Democrat policies but made clear that a coalition government would not be a disaster. It is the first time a senior Labour figure has spoken about a Lib-Lab coalition, in which Liberal Democrats would sit in a Brown Cabinet.

He has grown strong. Only together can we turn him to the Dark Side of the Force.

@ Alisdair – However long your list is the presumption that the Lib Dems could dictate who’s in and who’s out of the cabinet is spurious anyway. To demand the leader’s head is one thing, to demand the heads of influential Labour ministers is another.

Take Harman. She’s the elected deputy leader of the party. If Brown resigns she’ll be the Labour leader. Fair enough for the Lib Dems to say they won’t support her as PM, but while she is leader she’s hardly likely to consent to her own demotion from the cabinet as a condition of the alliance. In the situation where a coalition is being negotiated the parties will have to keep everyone with any power or influence in the Labour party that they can onside, lest the whole arrangement collapses. Whoever the coalition PM is they’re unlikely to have the authority to sack/appoint whoever they want.

To be honest I don’t think a coalition is possible.

The Mail has finally convinced me.

I shall be voting for a hung Parliament and a weaker pound.

A weaker Pound is just what the British economy desperately needs now to boost exports and price out imports when public spending is being slashed, business investment is running well down on a year ago and because consumers are being pressed into to paying down debt and saving more.

Where else is extra demand for home produced goods and services to come from except by exporting more and substituting for imports?

@Chris – if Brown were forced to quit as PM, that wouldn’t necessarily mean he’d quit as Labour leader. I suspect he’d be very reluctant to hand Harriet Harman that “incumbency advantage”, and would hang on in a “caretaker” role until a new leader had been chosen.

But I agree, very hard to see how the simultaneous electing of a new Labour leader and putting together a coalition with the Lib Dems could work. My off-the-top-of-my-head guess would be that Peter Mandelson would rule the roost: leading negotiations with the Lib Dems while kingmaking within the Labour party. Given that he is in the Lords (and hence out of the running for the job of PM, however much I enjoyed Mike’s comment at #8), he could claim to be an “honest* broker” in both sets of horse-trading.

(* Poetic licence…)

>There are two problems when Labour ministers talk about entering into a coalition with the Libdems.

3. The LibDems might remember how they were treated last time by the same people.

But I have *no* idea how it will pan out.

Whatever, there’s no escaping the market fundamentals.

A weaker Pound is what we need.

What else can fill the gap in demand for goods and services produced in Britain if public spending is slashed, business investment continues to run well down on a year ago and consumers are being pressed into paying down debt and saving more?

@John H – I’m not so hot on the Labour part constitution, but I presumed that the role of Labour PM was tied to the Leadership, i.e. if he steps down from one on May 7th he steps down from both? If this isn’t the case, since no election to replace him could be held for several weeks who would be PM in the interim? Or would he just hang on as PM while a replacement was found, and would be be allowed to?

I don’t see how a Mandelson solution would work. He may be an ‘honest broker’ but I doubt having faced a serious electoral defeat the PLP or party more generally would allow another uncontested leadership election, and there’s no guarantee that the victor of that election would be anymore palatable to the Lib Dems than Brown.

“But the Labour party needs to start taking the Libdems seriously in terms of concessions. It should stop openly talking of concessions, but be prepared to ditch Gordon Brown if a majority is not achieved.”

Why?

I can’t see any advantage for Labour in fighting an election with one set of policies, and then getting rid of their leader and their policies on the say so of another party, in order to cling on to power.

I guess it will be something for after the election, but personally I think that there is some common ground where Labour and the Lib Dems could co-operate, it needs to be based on principles. I think Labour should only work with the Lib Dems, for example, if they make the following concessions:

- drop their support for an extra £15 billion of unspecified public spending cuts
- drop their support for getting rid of the Child Trust Fund
- support Labour’s plans to give young unemployed people paid work through Future Jobs Fund, rather than just apprenticeships at £55 per week.
- support Labour’s plans to expand the “living wage” for low paid workers

etc.

Or if slashing public spending, denying all young people the chance to start adult life with some savings, not helping young unemployed people get jobs and not paying low paid workers a bit more is that big a priority for the Lib Dems, and they aren’t bothered about having a referendum on electoral reform and working to tackle climate change, then they can team up with the Bullingdon Boys to do savage cuts to public services instead and discuss things like whether climate change is happening, and when to schedule the votes on restricting abortion rights and bringing back fox hunting.

@Chris: Labour leadership and being PM are separate – and the PM is appointed by the Queen, not by the governing party. I’m a bit hazy on what happens if there’s a hung parliament, but I understand GB remains in post until the Queen can work out who to invite to the Palace.

As for Mandelson: just a flight of fancy on my part. Perhaps it’d be someone like Jack Straw instead (who might start out as elder-statesman-acting-in-interests-of-party-and-country and then – ta-da! – somehow end up as PM). Bottom line is it’d need to be someone who could present themselves as being above the fray, not someone like Ed Balls, David Miliband or Harriet Harman, who’d be too busy fighting it out amongst themselves.

Don P:
I can’t see any advantage for Labour in fighting an election with one set of policies, and then getting rid of their leader and their policies on the say so of another party, in order to cling on to power.

Because Gordon lost them the election. I’m sorry but you can’t run for PM, then lose, but then come back in anyway. Especially if your party comes third in the popular vote.
It’s ludicrous and will only hurt Labour if Brown hangs on. The party needs to move forward.

@Sunny / 21
You’re right in theory Sunny, but this is Gordon Brown. If he cared about the Labour party he wouldn’t still be leader (and PM). Indeed, if he was self-aware to any degree he wouldn’t have stood for the leadership in the first place.
Most of the party always knew that Brown was not leader material, but he’s scared them off thus far and he’ll not go quietly.

[22] I’m not so sure. I agree with you as far as you go, but his post-debate comment on his own performance – or how it was perceived – showed a degree of self-awareness, I thought.

@22 WhatNext?!

I kind of agree with Mike @23. Brown is an odd character in many ways. People don’t seem to warm to him, but post debate polling showed he actually came out ahead of Cameron in some issues, and plenty of people still trust him as a steady pair of hands, even if they don’t like him much.

Brown’s big mistake was to wimp out and give Blair a free run years ago, and then not to have knifed Blair in the back sooner when it might have done us all some good. As for Brown not being leader material…it’s not as if Labour are exactly spoiled for choice is it?