An open letter to Labour supporters, from a leftie Libdem

by Guest    
May 13, 2010 at 12:44 pm

contribution by Kim Lofthouse

Dear Labour supporters,

I voted Lib Dem in the general election and that I did so not out of some sort of misplaced disillusionment with recent Labour policies or hope that it would keep out the Tories in my local area. I voted Lib Dem because when it came right down to brass tacks, they were the party who’s values & manifesto pledges were most in-line with my own values and ethics.

Now as someone who has die-hard Labour supporters as family, friends & co-workers, I’m well aware of why any outcome involving the Tories being back in power is abhorrent to you and from the point of view of being anti-Tory (some may say to an almost fanatical extent at times) I’m well & truly on your side of the line.

However, I don’t think that painting the Lib Dems and their supporters as the new Satan is particularly helpful to the Labour movement or the left in general.

This outcome isn’t the fault of the Lib Dems or their supporters; in the end the Lib Dems only ended up with the choice of Labour or Tory as coalition partners because of the hung parliament result of the election and they never stated that they would only go with Labour if that were to happen. For more detailed reasons on why the ‘betrayal’ charge doesn’t stand up in the cold light of reality can be found here on Pickled Politics

An argument that I’ve seen come up quite a bit today which is that the Lib Dems are really Tory-lite and that, therefore, all their supporters are pro-Tory. This is just a modified version of the right-wing Conservative line that was going around, prior to the election, accusing the Lib Dems of being Labour-lite.

It also negates the fact that many Lib Dem party members & supporters passionately despise the Tories and what they stand for (myself included on the supporter side of the fence) – a lot of us were just as disappointed, outraged & saddened to see Conservative after Conservative seat rolling in on Thursday night.

On the contrary, those of us in the left-leaning Lib Dem camp (such as myself and more notably Simon Hughes) are simply choosing to wait & see before we take a leap of faith with our political allegiances.

For us, we can’t give up our own liberal values to make that leap from the yellow ship to the red one without seeing some radical changes in Labour policy and thinking over civil liberties & constitutional reform at the very least.*

In my mind, the left-leaning Lib Dems are part of the hope for the new liberal left and Labourites who choose to burn all their bridges with them via demonising them & throwing stones are doing the movement no favours.

We understand that you’re angry, but choosing to thrust it all on the Lib Dems simply because as a party & support base we’re smaller than you is a bloody stupid idea if you want to avoid the Tories having their own 13 year reign in Downing Street.

Instead, showing respect & understanding to those in the Lib Dem camp who are choosing to follow the cautious ‘wait-and-see’ model for the time being is more likely to result in these people either aligning themselves more definitely with the Labour side of the fence or going all in and jumping onto the socialist bandwagon.

In short, to paraphrase one of those old clichés, now is the time for Labourites to remember that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar and that the same goes for attracting & keeping left-leaning Lib Dems as part of the movement.

Yours in alliance – not war,

Kim

—————
Kim Lofthouse blogs at Amor Vincit Omnia (where a longer version is posted) and tweets here.

Labour can’t rush its leadership election; why not have a TV debate?

by Tom Watson MP    
May 12, 2010 at 10:11 pm

There’s so much I want to shout out about the last 13 years. There are so many great achievements I want us to organise to protect – Sure Start and the Building Schools of the Future programme to name but a few. And there are the inevitable mistakes that I want us to learn from.

First though, I want the blisters on my feet to heal and the many thousands of Labour members – our volunteer army of progressives and community builders, to get a well earned rest. We asked a lot of them these last months and years. And in the face of adversity, they helped prevent a hubristic David Cameron command an overall majority in the House of Commons. I’m proud of them for that.

In the whirlwind of Westminster news cycles, my colleagues and I sometimes develop a kind of collective anxiety that drives us to instantly react to every twist and turn of events.

When under pressure and facing uncertainty, it’s an understandable response. Yet at these times it is often more effective to be still. We are in a period when our movement should remain calm and reflective.

A couple of months for the party to take stock, to work out what we did right and wrong, would help prepare our new leader for the challenge of a ConDem government.

I’ve not often gone in for toff-bashing but one thing I know about these two particular public school boys in Number 10 is that they’re both well-mannered, charming and utterly ruthless. The idea that their partnership will fall apart by October is missing just how well-trained they are for power. They’ll do anything to win. Dissent will be charmed away or crushed.

A number of colleagues have said to me that Liberal Democrat back benchers will not stomach seeing their front bench colleagues make the compromises that ministers very often have to make. This misses the point. With 20 odd ministerial positions, all Nick Clegg has to do is promise his 57 MPs a turn in the ministerial Prius over the next five years.

His job is easy. He could even have a ministerial rota. It’s harder for David Cameron to manage the expectations of his party old guard but many of them retired last week. So we’re in this for the long haul. And though depressing, it gives us plenty of time to prepare for the next general election.

So why don’t we learn from Michael Howard? Why not turn our conference into a platform for our future leaders. Give a day to each candidate to make their pitch. We could even test their TV skills with a big election-style debate.

The Labour Party couldn’t do this for much of the 1980′s because it was split. Using our conference to focus on potential leaders would have been suicidal. Yet we now have some amazingly talented potential candidates. They’re all broadly pro-european progressive social democrats who can make a difference.

Whichever of them wins, they’re going to lead a newly invigorated Labour party. I’m told 3000 people have joined or re-joined in the last 48 hours. We should give these members the chance to have their say about the future.

So let us slow down, be calm and think about what we’ve done right and wrong in the last 13 years. Then we can have an enjoyable, positive leadership election that focuses on the future.

Life imitates art

by Unity    
May 12, 2010 at 9:20 pm

Just a little pictorial commentary for a dull Wednesday evening…

Libdems refuse to work with Tories… in London

by Newswire    
May 12, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Libdems in London are refusing to join in a coalition with the Conservatives.

That would almost certainly mean that Tories will no longer be in charge of scrutinising the Mayor.

Blogger Adam Bienkov was told by a Libdem source at the GLA:

At City Hall, and almost certainly at LFEPA, we will be retaining our agreement with the Labour and Green partys. Our work is about scrutiny and we have always argued that the opposition should lead that work.

He reports that Lib Dem MP Tom Brake is being tipped as Minister for London.

Adam Bienkov adds:

The other big role on offer is Chair of the London Assembly. And with Green and Labour AMs taking the last two turns, the Lib Dems are now due to take theirs.

However, given the national coalition, the Green Party and Labour may not be entirely happy with the deal.

But if Dee Doocey does take the position as expected, then there can be little doubt that she would keep Boris on his toes.

Exclusive: Was this the Con-Lib agreement?

by Sunny Hundal    
May 12, 2010 at 1:34 pm

I’ve been sent this document from a source who wishes to remain anonymous.

They say this document forms the basis of the agreement between the Libdems and Conservatives. I’m not going to publish the Word document, but here it is in HTML format.

——————

Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations

Agreements reached

11 May 2010

This document sets out agreements reached between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on a range of issues. These are the issues that needed to be resolved between us in order for us to work together as a strong and stable government. It will be followed in due course by a final Coalition Agreement, covering
the full range of policy and including foreign, defence and domestic policy issues not covered in this document.

1. Deficit Reduction

The parties agree that deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain. We have therefore agreed that there will need to be:

• a significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit over the course of a Parliament, with the main burden of deficit reduction borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes;
• arrangements that will protect those on low incomes from the effect of public sector pay constraint and other spending constraints; and
• protection of jobs by stopping Labour’s proposed jobs tax.

The parties agree that a plan for deficit reduction should be set out in an emergency budget within 50 days of the signing of any agreement; the parties note that the credibility of a plan on deficit reduction depends on its long-term deliverability, not just the depth of immediate cuts. New forecasts of growth and borrowing should be made by an independent Office for Budget Responsibility for this emergency budget.

The parties agree that modest cuts of £6 billion to non-front line services can be made within the financial year 2010-11, subject to advice from the Treasury and the
Bank of England on their feasibility and advisability. Some proportion of these savings can be used to support jobs, for example through the cancelling of some backdated demands for business rates. Other policies upon which we are agreed will further support job creation and green investment, such as work programmes for the unemployed and a green deal for energy efficiency investment.

The parties agree that reductions can be made to the Child Trust Fund and tax credits for higher earners.

2. Spending Review

– NHS, Schools and a Fairer Society

The parties agree that a full Spending Review should be held, reporting this Autumn, following a fully consultative process involving all tiers of government and the private sector.

The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments.
The target of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid will also remain in place.

We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere.

The parties commit to holding a full Strategic Security and Defence Review alongside the Spending Review with strong involvement of the Treasury.

The Government will be committed to the maintenance of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.

We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.

The parties commit to establishing an independent commission to review the long term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights.

We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

3. Tax Measures

The parties agree that the personal allowance for income tax should be increased in order to help lower and middle income earners. We agree to announce in the first Budget a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with the benefits focused on those with lower and middle incomes. This will be funded with the money that would have been used to pay for the increase in Employee National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives, as well as revenues from increases in Capital Gains Tax rates for non-business assets as described below. The increase in Employer National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives will go ahead in order to stop Labour’s jobs tax. We also agree to a longer term policy objective of further increasing the personal allowance to £10,000, making further real terms steps each year towards this objective.

We agree that this should take priority over other tax cuts, including cuts to Inheritance Tax. We also agree that provision will be made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to this coalition agreement.

The parties agree that a switch should be made to a per-plane, rather than per-passenger duty; a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.

We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.

The parties agree that tackling tax avoidance is essential for the new government, and that all efforts will be made to do so, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals.

4. Banking Reform

The parties agree that reform to the banking system is essential to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to sustain the recovery and to protect and sustain jobs.

We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.

We agree that ensuring the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth and should be a core priority for a new government, and we will work together to develop effective proposals to do so. This will include consideration of both a major loan guarantee scheme and the use of net lending targets for the nationalised banks.

The parties wish to reduce systemic risk in the banking system and will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and
investment banking in a sustainable way; while recognising that this would take time to get right, the commission will be given an initial time frame of one year to report.

The parties agree that the regulatory system needs reform to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis. We agree to bring forward proposals to give the Bank of England control of macro-prudential regulation and oversight of micro-prudential regulation.

The parties also agree to rule out joining the European Single Currency during the duration of this agreement.

5. Immigration

We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit. We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

6. Political Reform

The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive
result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motions by December 2010. It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

The parties will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of programmed business and including government business within its scope by the third year of the Parliament.

The parties agree to reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.

We have agreed to establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’.

The parties agree to the implementation of the Calman Commission proposals and the offer of a referendum on further Welsh devolution.

The parties will tackle lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.

The parties will promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a full review of local government finance.

7.
Pensions and Welfare

The parties agree to phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not
be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women. We agree to end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.

We agree to implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.

The parties agree to end all existing welfare to work programmes and to create a single welfare to work programme to help all unemployed people get back into work.

We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants facing the most significant barriers to work should be referred to the aforementioned newly created welfare to work programme immediately, not after 12 months as is currently the case. We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants aged under 25 should be referred to the programme after a maximum of six months.

The parties agree to realign contracts with welfare to work service providers to reflect more closely the results they achieve in getting people back into work.

We agree that the funding mechanism used by government to finance welfare to work programmes should be reformed to reflect the fact that initial investment delivers later savings in lower benefit expenditure.

We agree that receipt of benefits for those able to work should be conditional on the willingness to work.

8. Education

Schools

We agree to promote the reform of schools in order to ensure:

• that new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand;
• that all schools have greater freedom over curriculum; and,
• that all schools are held properly accountable.

Higher education

We await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:

• increase social mobility;
• take into account the impact on student debt;
• ensure a properly funded university sector;
• improve the quality of teaching;
• advance scholarship;
  and,
• attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain
in any vote.

9.
Relations with the EU

We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21^st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.

We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would
be subject to a referendum on that Treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.

We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.

We agree that we will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.

We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in Brussels.

We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.

10. Civil liberties

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

• A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
• The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
• Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
• The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
• Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
• The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
• The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
• The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• Further regulation of CCTV.
• Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
• A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

11. Environment

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy, including:

• The establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters.
• The full establishment of feed-in tariff systems in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded ROCs.
• Measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
• The creation of a green investment bank.
• The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills.
• Retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs.
• Measures to encourage marine energy.
• The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to
  meet the emissions performance standard.
• The establishment of a high-speed rail network.
• The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow.
• The refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.
• The replacement of the Air Passenger Duty with a per flight duty.
• The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.
• Measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence.
• Measures to promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats
  and restore biodiversity.
• Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
• Continuation of the present Government’s proposals for public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fired power stations; and a specific commitment
  to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10 per cent within 12 months.
• We are agreed that we would seek to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the Climate Change Committee.

Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new national planning statement) and provided also that they
receive no public subsidy.

We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national
planning statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.

This process will involve:

• the government completing the drafting of a national planning statement and putting it before Parliament;
• specific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesman will speak against the planning statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain; and
• clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence.

——————

We are now officially the voice of opposition

by Sunny Hundal    
May 12, 2010 at 12:28 pm

The Saturday morning after the election I was briefly interviewed by Vanessa Feltz of BBC London and I said Nick Clegg was in a ‘lose-lose situation’ because he was going to be pilloried for whatever coalition decision he took. She laughed at me and said that surely he should be happy as kingmaker.

I don’t claim to understand Libdems that well, but there are an awful number of bad assumptions being made.

1. For a start, while I don’t doubt that Labour memberships will jump up quite a bit, it’s rather naive to assume that Libdems will embrace the Labour party in anti-Tory anger without requiring an actual change in policy (on ID cards, civil liberties, constitutional reform etc).

I suspect a lot of left leaning Libdems will wait and see, after being told by the likes of Simon Hughes and others that they simply could not go into a deal with Labour because of the maths and lack of incentives. A lot of Liberals hate the Tories but not as much as lefties and Labourites do. So they have to be wooed rather than taken for granted.

2. The number of concessions Cameron has offered the Libdems are, it seems, quite a lot. And more keep tumbling out. In fact I suspect even many Libdems are quite surprised how much ground Cameron was willing to cede to them. This will also keep them on side because, as I said last night, if the coalition fails then both parties will be punished brutally at polls.

3. But that said, Libdems are in for a long ride of disappointments. Sooner or later the Heffers and the Tebbits (now channelled via Tim Mongtomerie) will exact their pound of flesh. The Cameroons may claim to be liberal Conservatives but they still have a base that is solidly conservative.

And the right-wing base of the Conservatives is also far more organised and powerful than the left-wing base of New Labour ever was. Which means that by five years time, either the Libdems will desperate to get out or will have mostly been absorbed and forever tied to their new allies.

4. And so I’ll reiterate the point I made last night and explain why this is now the official voice of the opposition: the only way to expand the Left tent is to offer a home to those Liberals who will not want anything to do with the Con-Lib coalition.

Labourites would be foolish to assume that the UK will keep a massive anti-Tory majority, especially since Cameron will try his hardest now to remain centrist and keep Libdem voters on side. He never really liked hard-right ideologues like Norman Tebbit and Simon Heffer anyway, and now he can successfully use the Libdems as his shield and a prop for power. The right-wing base has nowhere else to go.

5. In the face of a centrist Tory-Liberal coalition, the worst mistake the Labour party could make, and the Left could make, is to go really left-wing and start appealing only to the tribalist Labourites. I’m afraid, at this point, that constituency isn’t big enough for power.

What is needed now is a self-assured centre-left opposition that has the narrative to offer an alternative vision while also being able to peel off disgruntled Libdem voters.

6. And lastly, I see that various Labourites can’t help but vent their rage by making sarcastic remarks like: ‘yeah, what are you people who advocated a coalition with Libdems saying now, fools?‘ I refer them to this article. Since senior Labourites didn’t want to try harder to build that coalition, there’s no point blaming those who advocated it in the first place.

It’s time for left-liberals to join Labour

by John B    
May 12, 2010 at 3:57 am

Well, I called that one wrong. My analysis was basically sound at a party level: there was nothing that either Gordon Brown or David Cameron would be able to offer Nick Clegg that would be worth the savage electoral beating his party would end up taking as a result of joining up with either.

Unfortunately, I underestimated the ability of ambitious people to sell out their supporters for a massive dollop of bugger all, in cases where personal rewards are on the table. This was a textbook example of analytical failure; of course I should have been looking at the incentives for the agents rather than the incentives for the principals…

Birthrights, pottage, etc

So Nick Clegg gets to be John Prescott, and four other Lib Dems get cabinet roles (not confirmed at time of writing, but probably the poisoned-chalice ones – Home Secretary, Foreign Aid, Scotland… you get the idea). And when the Liberal Democrats lose all their seats next Parliament, I wonder if the Tories will reward him with a candidacy somewhere rural and blue where they weigh the vote…?

Meanwhile, as far as policy programmes go, the Lib Dems have basically acquiesced to the Tory manifesto. We’re still going to give the US tens of billions of pounds for the sheer love of the American military-industrial complex. We’re still going to put a cap on visas for filthy furriners. We’re still going to rig the tax system to bribe married Tory voters.

In exchange, schools in deprived areas will get a bit more money, the Tories will drop their plans to leave enormously rich people’s heirs completely untaxed, and we’ll have a referendum on Alternative Vote (remember, AV isn’t PR, it’s just “the current electoral system if it were designed by someone who wasn’t clinically insane”) at some point, which will probably fail when the Tories spend vast sums campaigning against it.

The only way this could possibly not be a terrible outcome for the Liberal Democrats is if Cameron has pledged not only to allow a referendum on AV, but that the Conservatives will support the “Yes” campaign. If that’s the case – which I haven’t seen any evidence for yet, and which would surprise me – then the collapse in the Lib Dem vote share at the next election will partly be offset and the party will at least survive.

What next?

The country will benefit in the short term. While the Tory government isn’t going to drop any of its core commitments, it’ll be deterred from doing anything really socially nasty by the need to keep the Liberals onside (equally, a lot of the socially nasty Tory PPCs who we all feared would get in last year were denied seats by the Labour resurgence in core marginals).

I don’t think that’s worth the long-term damage to the country caused by destroying the one viable alternative option for the non-authoritarian left, but heigh ho.

But the big winners, in a funny sort of way, are Labour. Who d’you think centre-left people looking for a change are going to vote for next time round, following five years of brinksmanship and savage cuts? Yup, that’d be the one.

I’ve made this point here before, but especially with this defeat (oh, come on, yes, I know, but it really was in the end, wasn’t it?)  and Gordon Brown’s departure, it’s time for lefties to join the party and lobby to get the Blairites out and the non-warmongering, non-civil-liberties-hating left in.

I’d also expect an influx of left-liberal former LD supporters into Labour (if I still lived in the country, I’d be signing up today) – join now, and you’ll have a say in who stands next time, and what platform they stand on. And in five years, or whenever the coalition collapses, it’s the duty of everyone left-leaning to get out there and flyer for Labour.

And if, by some miracle, AV does get passed, it’ll also be good news for the smaller parties of the left. Not great news – AV still won’t allow any of the 5-10% parties any seats, unlike STV – but it means that next time round you’ll be able to put Green first, Labour second and not risk letting in the Tories.

So overall, as a traditional Lib Dem supporter, I’m absolutely livid. As a liberal, I’m in two minds. At least the country’s not solely ruled by the Tebbit/Dorries party, at least there’s some hope for a left-Labour future, and at least there’s a tiny amount of hope for a multi-left future…

Why Lefties should worry about the Con-Dem-nation

by Sunny Hundal    
May 11, 2010 at 9:55 pm

1. While I would have liked to see a broad Labour-Libdem alliance, I think that a “coalition of losers” would not have worked with the electorate unless there was a compelling reason why a Con-Lib coalition was not happening.

Clegg had always said his party would first negotiate with the party that won the most votes and he had to stick by that.

2. And the Libdems were under no obligation to do a deal with Labour. Brown was unpopular as leader and it’s not clear what was offered on the table. Some say Labour offered a referendum on full PR. But what about ID cards? Trident? Cutting taxes for the poorest? Libdems had an obligation to go with the party that offered them the sweetest deal and had a good chance of delivering on those promises. They did that, clearly.

3. This coalition won’t fail easily, and a lot of Labourites should be careful of being optimistic about that. Cameron and Clegg know that if their government fails soon, then a new Labour leader plus severe budget cuts would hurt them electorally. So expect this to be at least a 4-5 year parliament.

4. Which brings us to the biggest worry: if the Con-Dem-Nation works well, then it may seriously re-align politics in a way that could put Labour out of power for a generation. Why?

For a start the parties will happily pursue a broadly right-of-centre economic agenda. It may be fairly anti-Trade unions, pro-civil liberties and may even take some good elements from the Libdems (a serious agenda on the environment and cutting taxes for the poor). This means that the political centre will shift right-wards, and a lot of Libdem voters will become less anti-Tory.

If the future of politics is indeed coalition governments, then there is a real danger here that the future is anti-Labour majority than an anti-Tory majority.

5. And this potential anti-Labour majority is why Labourites should avoid burning their bridges with Libdem voters and activists.

The way forward now is surely for the left to argue even harder for civil liberties, low taxes for the poor and better policies for the environment. Otherwise there is no reason for Libdem voters to abandon the Con-Lib coalition and vote Labour.

6. Will Libdems be more sympathetic to Labour now? I’m not sure that will be the case. Senior left-wing Libdems will say that Labour did not offer them enough sweeteners. I don’t know if this is true, but it is true that Labour determination for a coalition government started faltering yesterday.

The political will just wasn’t there, and it’s no surprise then that a deal didn’t happen. There is no point blaming parties: the electoral results almost certainly made this happen.

The focus now should be to make sure that the Left can rebuild and expand in opposition.

Update:
A good point made by Ellie: Scorched Earth: A plea to labour and the left. (cheers Rupert)

Our new overlords are here – open thread

by Sunny Hundal    
May 11, 2010 at 8:33 pm

Discuss thoughts on the new government here.

Some policies and posts confirmed are here.

POLICIES
- Tories to put on hold (or drop) marriage taxbreak
- Tories put on hold IHT for rich people
- Libdems drop commitment to amnesty for illegals.
- A tax cut for the lowest paid moves up the agenda

POSTS
Confirmed
William Hague – foreign sec
Andrew Lansley to be health secretary
William Hague foreign secretary
Liam Fox will be Defence Secretary

Not confirmed
Nick Clegg – deputy PM (not confirmed)
Vince Cable chief secretary to the treasury (not confirmed)
David Laws Education secretary (not confirmed)
Secretary of State for Scotland: Danny Alexander

Henry Macory: No 10 press job.

A Con-Lib alliance would push us further into neo-liberalism

by Guest    
May 11, 2010 at 5:45 pm

contribution by Alex Andrews

Reading the papers it would seem that all Clegg needs to do is decide, yet the reality is he will face a far more difficult task, particularly with the majority of the party considerably to the left of the leadership.

It is this dischord between the leadership of the Liberal Democrats and the majority of the party which leads to a more natural alliance between the leaders and the Tories, whose interests are far more harmonious.

David Laws, former investment banker and chief negotiator with the Tories, was co-editor of the notorious Orange Book to which Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne and Vincent Cable also contributed.

Here Laws and the other authors claimed that the Liberals must become more friendly to the economic liberal (ie neoliberal) elements of their legacy and avoid ‘soggy socialism’ that seem to have slipped in. The fact that Clegg is quite prepared to indulge in pro-Thatcherite union bashing and Michael Gove would step aside to allow Laws to implement his crazy free market educational proposals confirms, along with the fact that George Osborne asked Laws to join the shadow cabinet, that formally and ideologically the Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaderships are closer than the base of both parties.

For this reason, it is a genuine fear that an alliance will result not in a tempering of the neoliberal strands of the Conservative party, but rather an amplification of the worse neoliberal elements in both parties.

Those elements which the Liberals and Tories agree on, even if restricted only to a ‘confidence arrangement’, will result only in savage cuts and a further extension of the unjust, unequal neoliberal nightmare.

With this in mind, it is necessary for progressives to begin lobbying the Liberal Democrat federal executive to let them know that allowing a Tory coalition is a very bad idea indeed.

For progressives, voting against the Tories would be a huge betrayal of the primary reason they cast their vote and their party need reminding of this, whatever the opinion of their leadership.

A Tory alliance will lead the Liberals shedding their progressive voters and will likely reduce them to a level lower than just their core support, considering how many in the party itself would desert them, as well as killing any sense of them being any alternative.

This tension between not wanting a Tory alliance and wanting something different must be an element to any progressive position in the coming weeks, particularly as leadership battles begin within Labour.

—————–
Alex Andrews is a writer and activist. He has written for Comment Is Free and blogs on politics, philosophy, religion and economics at the group blog An und für sich.

RECENT OPINION ARTICLES

Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel 32 Comments Watch: Chicken chases Boris Johnson 34 Comments Does Priti Patel MP care for human rights? 61 Comments Watch: funny spoof explains benefits cuts 18 Comments UKuncut to join disabled to oppose Welfare bill 15 Comments Lawson’s GWPF faces questions over funding 25 Comments Shock poll shows public indifferent to Labour’s new cuts line 38 Comments Watch: NHS report “vindicates Labour” 7 Comments Daily Mail writer: Hurrah for French fascists! 64 Comments Save our pensions! Unite slams Unilever in video 11 Comments

LATEST COMMENTS » So Much For Subtlety posted on Does Priti Patel MP care for human rights? » Staffordshire UNISON posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Silvio posted on New Compass paper opens up Red/Green ties » Leon Wolfeson posted on To win London, Ken Livingstone has to step outside his comfort zone » So Much For Subtlety posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Leon Wolfeson posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Leon Wolfeson posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Chaise Guevara posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Brett RB posted on PCC admits: Richard Littlejohn is a bullshitter » Chaise Guevara posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Chaise Guevara posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Cylux posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Alice posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Alice posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Janice posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel