UK Chaos: Labour, Lib Dems ‘Coalition of Losers’ Angers Britain
Monday was not a great day for British democracy. Up until 5:00 p.m. London time, it looked as if Britain was to be governed by David Cameron’s Conservatives — comfortably the largest party following last week’s general election yet just short of an overall majority — with the support of Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats, who finished third.
That all changed when Gordon Brown announced he was stepping down as prime minister. Brown fell on his sword in a desperate bid to scupper any deal between the Tories and Lib Dems. A Labour-Lib Dem coalition suddenly became a possibility.
However, widespread outrage at the prospect of a “coalition of the losers” appears to have made the parties think twice. Clegg’s people are still talking to the Tories, and a minority Tory administration with limited Lib Dem support remains the most likely outcome. If, as reports suggest, the coup attempt fails, Britain’s two left-of-center parties will have sullied themselves further in the eyes of the electorate while gaining nothing.
Whatever happens in the next few days, yesterday’s events were an affront to the 29 million Britons who voted last Thursday. Brown was effectively forced from office by Clegg, whose party won less than a quarter of the vote and has 57 out of 650 MPs. Clegg had made it clear that he wouldn’t be able to work with Labour while Brown remained the leader, and Brown’s party, no strangers to putting power before principle, was happy to sacrifice him.
But Brown isn’t going just yet — he had one last gift to bestow on his benighted subjects. He said he would stay around long enough to try and form a “progressive coalition” with the Lib Dems, before making way for a new leader who will be chosen by Labour’s union backers and spin doctors, and not the British people. Under the British system political parties are fully entitled to choose their leaders, but the public don’t take kindly to having prime ministers foisted on them by the party in power.
As part of the deal, Labour offered the Lib Dems reform of the voting system, replacing the current “first-past-the-post” system with some form of proportional representation (PR) which would ensure that the votes of smaller parties would more fairly translate into numbers of MPs.
Such a system would also undermine the link between MPs and their constituents, and ensure that the kind of backroom dealing and subterfuge in which Labour and the Lib Dems have been engaged would become a permanent feature of British politics. The Conservatives have offered the Lib Dems a referendum on the issue, although they oppose PR and would campaign against it.
Clegg, you may remember, shot to fame in the first of the televised leaders debates. His Obama-like paean to “change” gave the Lib Dems a boost in the polls, but had the unfortunate side-effect of causing voters to actually look at their left-wing policies. Far from changing the face of British politics, they ended up losing seats.
So it’s ironic that, despite their failure, the Lib Dems now hold the balance of power. And Clegg has made the most of his position, attempting to hold the country to ransom over voting reform — an issue which is far from a pressing concern for most of the British public, and one which should be considered soberly and in a spirit of cross-party co-operation, not used as bait in pursuit of a short-term political fix.
A weeks ago Clegg was the golden boy of British politics; now he seems like just another cynical and scheming politician. And the events of the past 24 hours have given the public a nasty taste of what to expect should his beloved PR ever be introduced.
Brown comes out of this equally poorly. The arrogance and dishonesty of his resignation speech befitted his short and undistinguished term in office. He talked about “stable and principled government” and “the national interest.” But any arrangement between Labour and the Lib Dems would not be stable, would be the polar opposite of principled, and most certainly would not be in the national interest.
Unlike a less-formal Conservative-Lib arrangement, a Labour-Lib Dem coalition still wouldn’t command an overall majority in the House of Commons, and would have to include Scottish and Welsh separatists and other minority parties.
Such a pact would be poorly suited to delivering the deep cuts to public services needed to reduce the national debt, particularly with key Labour ministers neglecting their duties to campaign for the leadership. The favorite, Foreign Secretary and Blair clone David Miliband, is likely to face a bitter struggle against challengers from the left of the party.
A coalition of the losers would likely fall apart sooner rather than later, paving the way for a second election. If Cameron does indeed become PM with Lib Dem support, Britain is still likely to be heading back to the polling booths later this year. But Cameron’s behavior and tone since election night have been responsible and statesmanlike, and will stand him in good stead.
It shouldn’t, however, have come to this.
Even if Cameron is installed in 10 Downing Street by the end of the week, many in his party are far from happy. Cameron delivered big gains both in terms of vote share and MPs, but running against a government that had been in power for 13 years and was led by an unpopular prime minister in a dire economic climate? He should have done better.
The key charge against Cameron and his clique of advisers is that in the process of trying to make his party electable again they cast aside core Tory policies on immigration and Europe and lost touch with traditional Tory voters. Tellingly, analysis of the results shows that had the Tories not lost votes in key marginals to the anti-EU, tough-on-immigration United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), they would likely have won an overall majority.
Inevitably, pundits in the U.S. are analyzing the results in the context of the U.S. political scene and are trying to draw lessons for the November midterms. But comparisons are mostly useless. There’s no single UK issue which might generate mass opposition in the way health care has. Neither do we have the same conflicts over the size of government or over federalism versus states’ rights.
But that’s not stopping lefties like E.J. Dionne from making mischief by suggesting that Republicans need to embrace Cameronesque centrism to succeed in November. Democrats would love to see the Republicans, like the Tories, detached from their base but failing to win over enough independents. However the polls, and the success of the tea party movement, suggest neither will happen.
Republicans have woken up to the fact that moderation is not an option when you’re in a battle with extremists; it’s a lesson the Tories need to learn, and fast.
There is, however, one factor which Republicans might want to take note of: Labour, with the help of large amounts of cash from its union paymasters, was able to get out the working class (blue collar) vote in northern cites where the Conservatives were targeting seats.
The relationship between Labour and the white working class in particular (although fewer and fewer of them are actually working these days) is similar to that between U.S. Democrats and black voters: when they’re not ignoring or abusing them, they’re exploiting them. But come election time they’re cajoled and frightened into the voting booth by dire warnings of what the other side will do to them.
It’s entirely fitting that the abiding memory of Brown’s first and last election campaign as PM will be his calling an archetypal working-class voter a bigot. His remarks revealed his utter contempt for the ordinary men and women who have helped to keep Brown and his colleagues in power for 13 years — and still, they voted for him in droves.
There’s certainly a lesson for U.S. conservatives there: if the left stays in office for long enough, no matter how badly they govern they’re extremely hard to get rid of.
All three of the major parties have hurt themselves badly during this election season.
Actually, news is that the L-Ds have pulled out and are going with the Conservatives. Brown is meant to leave in the next day and Cameron to take over. The only worry is that L-Ds will balk at the idea because they have not got proportional representation. The L-Ds are meant to get the 6 seats in the Cabinet. We shall see if it holds together, but all indications are that the Lib-Lab pact is no more.
Andrew, I’d like your take on what is likely to ensue, as to the strategy and tactics of this new government. I thought I heard something about fixed election dates, so this would enter into it. Mind you, up here in Canada, the federal government introduced legislation, which I think passed, mandating fixed election dates, but it was gotten around.
Do you read the blog entries, as well as the columns of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard? For in his most recent blog entry, a comment about an expanded pound sterling zone sounds interesting, otherwise we are marking time until, as the commenter put it, “I see WW3 all the ingredients are there in place, we just need the excuse from some mad man.”
Your final observations about the left and its blue collar and/or black base are really interesting and true but I am always astonished at this trick that the left plays:
the left has only one thing that it can promise to the “poor”: MORE POVERTY, more misery.
And “the poor”, who are unluckily victim of their own lack of thorough information, always fall into the trap.
If it weren’t a tragedy, it would be laughable.
As if that isn’t enough, the next group to be treated in that manner is the Hispanics.
Perhaps because a large percentage of the Democratic base would rather be assured a meager, impoverished existence for nothing than to be forced to work for a little bit more success. Unfortunately, I think the trend will largely be towards higher unemployment in the future, particularly amongst males with little or no education. As it stands now, even though national rate of unemployment is around 10%, this doesn’t really give us a good picture of the situation. People with advanced degrees have a much lower unemployment rate, while amongst the poorly uneducated (think Detroit) rates are upwards of 20 to 25% in some areas. Detroit itself, while the official figure is 30%, city figures have hinted that the number is closer to an eye-watering 50%. Things will not get easier for these low-skilled workers as the American economy transitions to a system that requires even more knowledge and provides fewer jobs that require no training. Just think about the positions that today require significant computer skills (nursing for example) but have only done so in the last few years.
A lot of these people will opt for a meager, yet guaranteed existence instead of pushing themselves to learn a marketable skill. That is at least how it has turned out in Europe; now we can even see that living on the dole is the key indicator that your kids will also live on the dole. The gravy train lifestyle appears to be passed on from one generation to another seamlessly. That is why it is hard to get people off the dole and into work once they’ve gotten comfortable on the sofa.
Gordon Brown has just resigned and is going to the Queen. Now we see what follows his resignation. One thing is almost for certain, there will be a new election this year.
It is possible the L-Ds will cease to be as any force after this unless they got a referendum on PR.
I can’t wait to see he details of the deal.
About bloody time, huh?
You have any of that Scottish moonshine that’s been laying about for 13 years or so?
I think I’d like to indulge in a wee dram of the stuff, (though I usually avoid it like the plague).
Purely for medicinal purposes, of course.
Blame Scotland. And cut it loose, like a loose mooos aboot the hooos.
Andrew: I’m actually disappointed the Lib-Lab deal fell through. I was hoping they’d go for it and blow it, allowing the Tories (and a hopefully chastened Cameron) to sweep to power. But yes, hopefully Clegg has overplayed his hand, and the voters have got a look at what PR would mean. If I were Cameron I’d tell Clegg all previous offers are off the table, and it’s now my way or the highway. I truly hope the LDs tear themselves apart over this. Come October (or whenever) I’ll be tramping the streets of Bath trying to get Foster out.
Mary: With you on Scotland. Time for an English parliament. And when we do cut them loose the Scots will be swarming into England like Berliners fleeing the East as the wall when up.
Mike, over here in Canada, CTV has a cable news network, and for an hour on Weekdays, “Power Play” is on the air. The strategist segment was interesting today. When you have Clegg, and 5 others (I think) going back to caucus with those not in cabinet, what are the odds that they will be presenting stuff that has to be passed, but is distasteful? That is the price of power that Cleggie
will have to pay.
I recall Daniel Hannan musing on his blog about a split in the Liberal Democrats
along the lines of the Liberals splitting along the lines of David Lloyd-George,
and Lord Asquith. Stranger things have happened. Right?
Mark: agreed, but I do think the Conservatives can come out of this best. Labour’s ready for another civil war and see my comment above on the LDs.
Sherab: re the left and the poor – it’s a junkie-pusher thing. I hope the Tories take this chance to show that conservative values and policies can help the poor more than any amount of socialism, but the British underclass has been so ruined by 13 years of Labour, and four decades of progressivism (see Theodore Dalrymple, who writes here and has produce several excellent books on the subject) that I’m not optimistic.
come on brown, step down…
http://subprime-mortgage-lender.blogspot.com
http://geniusreality.com
“Neither do we have the same conflicts over the size of government or over federalism versus states’ rights.”
Federalism is states’ rights: the division of power in a federal republic. What you’re thinking of is the struggle between federalism and centralism, a federal republic vs. a unitary polity.
Al Gore in England … men of no character, all political greed.
Phineas: Thanks – elementary Brit error, I did mean the tension between the states and the federal government
#6 Mike Mcnally – I agree. I think the Labour and Libdem parties dodged a bullet by not forming a coalition. The label ‘coalition of losers’ would just be the start. There would have been a second successive non-elected PM open to attacks like “subversion of democracy”; “fringe parties with no electoral mandate scamming their way to power”; “Stalin is smiling”; “it’s a coup, not an election” etc etc.
A great pity that Labour didn’t take the bait. Their non-elected reign would have ended the day that a spending cut was proposed. No British democrat would have taken them seriously in the soon-to-be-called next general election.
Now Cameron will govern with a quasi mandate until the day that the first spending cut is proposed. All this nonsense form the “Pollies”, as the Aussies call them, just when the great train wreck of the welfare state is beginning. Instead of political theatre the UK needs someone who can slowly bring the train to a civilized halt. Well, unsustainable things can’t last and continuing to put off tackling the problem will end in an almighty crash.
Unless Cameron does a Henry V and suddenly looks like a statesman, I think the Conservatives got the short end of the stick.
why didn’t they simply throw some towels and sheets around their heads. for sure, the british public would have loved that and voted them in post haste with many, many seats to their favor. well, isn’t that what they thought.
in any case, this couldn’t happen to a nicer nation state. but then, whose nation is it, anyway?
Actually, George Galloway went many steps further than that. As I once read, when they circumcised Galloway, they threw away the best bit. At your leisure, you can find videos of the man who single-handedly lowers the collective Scottish IQ by a few points dressed in pink leotards or lapping milk out of a bowl like a cat; with so many interesting hobbies, it’s a wonder that he found time to personally deliver goods to the Hamas, cheat on his Palestinian wife, or host his own show on the Iranian propaganda channel Press TV. (You can find the videos on youtube. I won’t post them because they personally make me a big queasy.) Despite his pandering demagoguery and virulent anti-semitism, he recently lost his position as an MP. He just came in third. That and a resounding thumping dished out to the BNP are two bright spots in the election, even if the final outcome, Cameron as PM followed by the most anti-Israeli man in the room, may be short lived.
The markets may start pushing Britain to make those spending cuts sooner, rather than later. It is a shame that neither of the three parties seemed willing to break the news to the British public; the 13 year New Labour spending binge has come to an end, and they will have a fiscal hangover that will last long past lunchtime.
As far as immigration, no one seemed to touch this issue either. There is quite a bit of discontent amongst the British public. Some of it is old fashioned bigotry, but the vast majority is related to the types of immigrants that have come in. Pakistan is a basket case and many British citizens may be physically in Her Majesty’s Realm, but spiritually they are much more in tune with the violent, vicious, anti-western paranoia being pumped out of Pakistan these days. Though it sounds extreme, I think they need to hit the pause button and reduce immigration to a trickle until they can get a handle on things a bit better.
While I agree with most of this article I have to question the reasoning behind the assertion that Cameron could have won the outright majority had he stuck more to the traditional immigration and Europe planks of the Tory party. Surely we can all see that taking that harder line would likely have lead to LESS people voting Tory, no? More likely it would simply have translated to more Lib Dem votes.
“…the two left-leaning parties…”
They’re all Left-wing parties — Britain is effectively a one-party state.
If Americans want to know about British politics, they should read Peter Hitchens (author of ‘The Abolition of Britain’ and ‘The Broken Compass: How British Politics Lost Its Way,’ among others).
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/