The Tories will either rule as a minority government; in which case their lifespan is limited and they will be burdened with what will be undoubtedly unpopular, excessive cuts. In other words, the next election, in roughly 12-24 months, ought to be a defeat for the Tories.
If the LibDems end up whoring with the Tories, then this will either result in electoral reform (end of the Tory party as we know it) or a complete a fiasco for what appears to be a bizarre coalition (and would probably result in diminished seats for both parties at the next election in 12-24 months).
Real positives:
Peter Robinson's unseating by The Alliance Party in Belfast East. It's always nice to see a bigot go and the post-victory embrace by Naomi Long touched a real soft spot with me.
Nick Griffin's failure followed up by the ousting of all 12 council seats in Barking. What happened? I thought they represented real 'white working class' voices? Instead, they've been shown the door, not in a close fashion, but with an increased mandate for Margaret Hodge and a total failure in the council elections.
As far as the constitutional nature of government formation is concerned, it's perhaps best to sit back and enjoy. I do not see a mandate for the Tory Party (or indeed for Labour), but I guess now's a good time for a bunch of idiots to have a crack at it, since it will end their political careers. Hip hip...
15 comments:
The most sensible action in the short term is for Brown to stand down as Labour leader clearing the way for a Lib/Lab pact that concentrates on a comprehensive reform of the electoral process in time for a new election in 18 months.
If Clegg has got any wit this is what he's pushing for right now and the overture to the Tories is merely a frightener designed to motivate Labour (Mandelson) to make the necessary sword falling arrangements.
We'll see...
Brilliant about the BNP getting shamed out of office so conclusively...
Strange...I left a comment but it's not there...just like a vote I suppose!
Just said that Clegg should be pushing for Browns resignation so that the Lib/Lab pact can oversee complete electoral reform...
...the overtures to the Tories might just be to motivate Mandelson to arrange the exiting of Brown...(although it occurs to me now that the cunning political animal that Mandelson is might prefer to allow the Tories to take the tiller at a time when the most unpopular cuts in history will always be their legacy...)
..(although it occurs to me now that the cunning political animal that Mandelson is might prefer to allow the Tories to take the tiller at a time when the most unpopular cuts in history will always be their legacy...)
sorry...now they have both appeared...duh
Lester,
What an interesting election this is turning out to be.
I'll be honest, I'm not convinced by the 'Brown out' option (it may be an option, but I'm sceptical). There are two reasons:
First, we've been told how terribly unpopular he is and how he has damaged Labour, but in the end, despite an overwhelming anti-Brown media campaign, a substantial number of people voted Labour.
Secondly, since people did vote Labour and since the Labour campaign was based around Brown, it would seem odd to replace him now (and in fact, the irony would be that the pathological anti-Brown crowd always maintained that he was unelected, yet seem to think that replacing him with what they might call an 'unelected PM' would now be ok in principle).
Thirdly, I don't think this should be reduced to a personality question:
This is about electoral reform, and if the LibDems (or others) reduce it to 'I don't like Brown', then they obviously don't take electoral reform that seriously.
Whatever government forms, it won't last longer than 12-24 months (i.e. the 'Brown question' will be resolved anyway), so the main aim should only be electoral reform. This is something the Tories will not settle for, so I think it's either a Tory minority government (dead in the water from the word go) or an arrangement of sort (coalition or toleration) between Tories and LibDems, in which case Labour will profit from all the LibDem voters who are more Dem than Lib.
In the end, there were three reasons...
Utterly convincing olching and I agree...personally I don't actually mind Brown as far as it goes...in fact I find him less irritating that either Clegg or Cameron and a whole lot better than Blair...so yes...it's more than a personality question for sure...
...the thing is that tactics the anti-Brown media campaign tend to get results...chopping off Browns head to enable a pact probably wouldn't work for the reasons you say...and I may well be responding to all the sounds being made that Clegg cant stand Brown...
What I find most interesting is the way that this election seems mostly a rejection of all three parties...on a deeper level than the inevitable shenanigans Britain is in a whole lot of political shit...and to be honest there is something almost comforting about that...of course there is a systemic inability for this rejection to be articulated (and even after electoral reform that is still going the be the case)...but I'm buoyed in a way that the politics of the last thirty years has ended up in such a wholly appalling mess...
But yeah...this is turning out to be more interesting than I imagined it would...
Lester,
Yes, I agree. The last thirty odd years have ended up here, in an unsavoury bout of in-the-media bartering.
What really strikes me is the amateurish nature of it all. In countries where coalitions are part and parcel of politics, these deals are set up before the election and finalised (usually quite quickly) thereafter without big media announcements.
It's bizarre, but it seems that Nick Clegg and his advisers didn't think through the possibility of having to negotiate with either the Tories, Labour, or indeed both.
Mmmmm...seems like Browns out in October
...maybe the Tories have just been outfoxed...it'll be harder to push for a coalition with the Euro-sceptic FPTP inequality widening blue-bloods for the Liberals now...
...a pact with Labour with Brown to oversee the transition from a position of experience...
...maybe Mandelson was operating in the shadows after all...
...this election is the most entertaining that I can remember...
Absolutely agree with you previous point about amateurishness and short term thinking...
Labour are gone. Not coming back and, tbh..for all the "they've abandoned the working class" analyses which have become something of a truism, there's an aspect to it which is all too often forgotten. For many years, the years in which 'the Labour till I die' motif was born, the Labour party had very little to do with the working class; or rather they did, but only through the medium of the unions.
The average Labour voter will have encountered most political dialogue through his union rep, shop steward or convener and possibly never encountered a Labour activist except for the obligatory election meeting when one or two, possibly even a candidate was hauled in to turn out the vote.
This situation is not gonna return unless Labour gets on board with the unions again which they're not going to do. First, it would undo the entire Blairite project and destroys any inroads that they ever made into 'Middle England@ (whatever that means). Second, it takes us back to the seventies with union bosses becoming power brokers/ Kingmakers again.
Labour was once the political arm of the Labour movement, without it they are another centre right social democratic party in direct competition with the others..none of whom are currently carrying the albatross of recent calamities. I can't see any hope for Labour unless the party organisation and structure can be appropriated by genuine socialists who see their role as protecting the working class and there is an upsurge in union membership and action.
At last: Eton and Westminster combine forces, taking Britain back to the 18th century - a time before the land was sullied by the trades unions and their silly notions of representation for the proles, a time when the electorate faced a sweet choice between opposing noble oligarchies...
Just for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leU1kbtIZUI
@Monkey:
I agree with much of what you say. The Labour Party will probably never be as it was (if it ever was), but then it is a reforming party.
I'd just be happy for them to rediscover social democracy and move away from the neoliberal shite that has been besieging this country. Unions will always be important in that respect. They represent a union of particular working people and unless we all turn into cybots, the concerns and issues will - whilst not identical - always be there.
I do think, however, that this is also a chance. I mean, Labour cannot shift further to the right (can it???), since the LibDems have wedged their considerable behind in-between Cons and LP, so it seems (as 'harlots'**** tend to do).
We shall see.
@Furius (if indeed it is He):
Thanks but no thanks. If Cameron plays this really unwisely, Britain will end up more divided again, just like after Thatcherism. If that's what floats your Eton boat, then I'm afraid you are part of the problem.
**** The funniest and most intelligent thing David Blunkett has ever said.
Spoilsport ;~) Why not try judging them on their present agreement for now, and later on its implementation?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/lib-dem-tory-deal-coalition
I can tell you that some of their policies (on capital gains, etc.) could potentially cost me a shedload of money, but I don't care - Britain is going to be ruled by proper people again, for whom civil liberties and sound governance actually mean something. I dare say this Tory-Whig tie-up may prove both effective and popular (at least as far as any Government trying to repair Labour's economic disaster can be) - and if we can freeze the reds out of power for a generation while doing it, so much the better...
This is a "problem" I am proud to be a part of!
Hi Olching,
I have to say I'm a little confused as you your stance on "electoral reform". As far as I can tell you seem to be in favour of it, but then you go and use terms such as "harlots" and "whoring", which would imply that you seem to dislike what would be the inevitable results of a proportional voting system, i.e. coalition governments.
I don't get it, really.
Hi Pat,
I'm not against coalitions; I've made this much clear.
But at the moment we have FPTP, i.e. people vote on the understanding of voting for a 'winner'. This is also mirrored in the electoral campaigns.
In the LibDems' case, their campaign involved referring to the Tories' spending cuts as the most dangerous moments since the 30s, deriding their stance on Europe as being led by 'nutters', an opposition to Trident, a cast-iron pledge for PR, the introduction of a mansion tax (aimed at the Tories quite explicitly in debates), an amnesty for illegal immigrants who have been here for 6(?) years, a deriding of the Tories' cap on immigration (Clegg: 'What is a footballer wants to join Man U and the cap has been exceeded?') etc...
All of these have been dropped. It's not the coalition I am against per se, it's the LibDems' about-face on every major issue.
If we had PR, people would be voting with the understanding of prospective coalitions, and indeed you'd probably see some flirting in advance (which in turn shapes voting patterns). That's the way it works in continental countries.
I suspect many LibDem voters voted with understanding that they weren't voting Tory (tbh, I had an inkling this might happen, which is why I steered clear of ticking the yellow box - I've never trusted Clegg-Cable); I know people who did just that and they feel sickened.
So that's roughly my point.
@Furius:
As you will undoubtedly see at the Scottish elections next year, the LibDems will be wiped off the political map. And those votes will go to Labour or SNP; on national level, however, more often than not to Labour. The LibDems are committing party political suicide.
Post a Comment