1931 again? No, a Lib Dem coalition could destroy Labour for good

[T_i_B]

Diane Abbott in the Guardian. Make of this what you will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/10/lib-dem-coalition-destroy-labour

Labour was poised to do very badly (and the Liberal Democrats very well) on polling day. But these pragmatic considerations were overshadowed by the undeniable fact that going into coalition with the Liberal Democrats was one of the dearest held aims of the right wing of the Labour party. It would be a step of huge historic significance. Once and for all the Labour party could abandon its links with the organised working class, and cut loose its own leftwing and its socialist origins. Instead it would move irreversibly to the centre ground. As is well known, this was the original aim of Tony Blair (a faithful protege of Social Democratic party grandee Roy Jenkins). But the sheer size of Labour's majority on that summer's morning in 1997 meant that (reluctantly) the right had to put that goal to one side. But it was not forgotten, and now faithful Blairites (led by the unelected Alistair Campbell and Lord Mandelson) have resurrected it.

But the problem for the Blairites was, first, that actually the party was not decimated in the recent election. With the whole of the metropolitan middle class (as represented by the leader writers of the Guardian, the Independent and Observer) against it and a rabid Tory press determined to destroy Gordon Brown, astonishingly the Labour party base rallied. The Lib Dem surge never materialised. In Scotland the Conservatives were locked out. In London we won back a series of councils, and key marginals such as Islington South and Finsbury stayed Labour.

But somehow, just as it seemed the Conservative/Lib Dem negotiations were nearing completion, Brown has been forced out. It is too early to say what the consequences will be. But we have already had a foretaste of the future. For days we have watched a series of men in grey suits going in and out of meetings in London trying to stitch up a deal. In the short term, the adherents of proportional representation will see a Labour/Lib Dem alliance as a great victory. But whether, in the end, the public will support PR remains to be seen.

What we do know is that the Labour movement has been here before. As before, it was precipitated by a huge international economic crisis. As before, the narrative was all about the national interest. And as before, ordinary people were shut out of the dealmaking. It was the national government of 1931. And it destroyed the Labour party for a generation. This time it could be for good.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. She seems most concerned that Brown has gone

But realistically, the only faint hope he ever had of staying on was a coalition with the Lib Dems in which they didn't demand he went. With a Lib Dem-Con coalition, or Tory minority government, Labour would have been in opposition, and Brown held primarily responsible for the loss - he'd have had to go, probably this year too. The only option would have been whether to hold the leadership election before or after the party conference.

For a Labour party 'destroyed for a generation' in 1931, Labour did remarkably well - a vital part of the wartime coalition 8 years later, and a landslide victory 6 years after that. Looking it up, after 1931 (which was a disaster that year, it's true), in 1935, Labour, under Attlee by then, got 38% of the vote, pulling the Tory vote back below 50% - and then there wasn't another election till 1945. That's not a 'destroyed generation', it was an opportunity for rebuilding.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

2. I am left wondering two things

1) Was Gordon Brown being a sleazy politician to step down and possibly derailing that Tory/LibDem talks?

or

2) Is Clegg being two-faced by secretly meeting with the Labour team when it seemed that Tory/LibDem talks were coming to a close?

I still hope there'll be a deal soon.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

8. My thoughts

1) No. Brown wanted to stay PM badly and is only going because his party needs him to go.

2)Yes probably. Clegg had to give first crack to the Tories because he wanted to deflect the "vote Clegg, get Brown" accusation from the Tories. I suspect that Clegg wanted to deal with Labour all along but needed plausible deniability when it came to negotiations.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

9. I just thinking

Prior to the election, Clegg said he'd support the party with the most seats. When he said that, I think he was hoping Labour would get the most seats and not a wipeout...

The BBC Pundits on the all-BBC News channel are saying that the Rainbow Coalition wouldn't work. It might work, it might not work. Just got a new definition of the Rainbow coalition from the Labour pundit, "Too many cooks in the kitchen."

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. He said the party with the most votes and the most seats has the "first right to seek to govern"

http://johnrentoul.independentminds.livejournal.com/378315.html

And he started talks with the Tories first, because they were seeking to govern. But they weren't offering much, and the noises from their right wing about not giving any ground at all were fairly loud, so he then started talking to Labour. Which did have the effect of getting the Tories to offer a referendum. But Clegg never said "I'll support the party with the most seats", or the one with the most votes.

[tjwmason]

12. No and Yes - in my opinion.

1 - Gordon Brown has behaved honourably and properly since election day. It would have been precipitate for him to have resigned in the immediate aftermath because there was so much uncertainty. John Major resigned straight away because it was abundantly clear that his party had suffered great electoral defeat and there was a new government ready to be in post. I think that Brown knew straight away that he'd be leaving soon, but uncertainty over the Labour leadership would have been an unwelcome addition. It became clear that there was potential for a Lab-Lib agreement of some sort, and that he was a sticking point, so he stood aside.

2 - Nick Clegg stated during the campaign and again on Friday that in his view the party with the largest number of seats and votes had a moral right to try and form a coalition first. If he saw that these negotiations with the Tories were going to fail, then changing to Labour would have been proper; to keep both going at the same time is certainly a shift from that position.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Blunkett calls the Lib Dems 'harlots'

Classy, Dave.

Asked about the prospects of a Labour coalition with the Lib Dems, Mr Blunkett told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "I don't like what is taking place at all."

He added: "I don't believe it will bring stability, I believe it will lead to a lack of legitimacy, and I think the British people will feel that we have not heard what they said to us, which, in the tragedy of 91 of my colleagues losing their seats, was that we didn't have their full confidence.
...
He questioned if the Lib Dems could be trusted, asking: "Can you trust the Liberal Democrats? They are behaving like every harlot in history."
...
Asked what was in the interests of the Labour Party, Mr Blunkett said: "A coalition of the defeated cobbled together, uncertain whether it can carry anything night by night, people, as they did when I first came to Parliament, dying on average about once every three months because of the nature of the sittings, and a then general election on the back of that - you don't have to be involved in politics to see what that would do to the Labour Party and its vote."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j5zfD1biKFWdk_UsXihTVXlkIFQA

Of course, Blunkett's ministerial career is already at an end, since he's had to resign from the cabinet twice due to his dubious dealings first with his lover's nanny's visa application, and then his directorship in a company bidding for government work. He's happy as a backbencher whether in opposition or government. And he's hardly the kind of upstanding politician to throw 'harlot' around as an insult.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

4. And here I was thinking

That Dave Blunkett was a staunch Blairite and Labour Party politican... Wonder who else will come out to criticise Labour...

[T_i_B]

5. One thing worth remembering with Blunkett

is that he's a Sheffield politician, and Sheffield Labour and Lib Dems are big rivals. They do not get along with each other.

Plus there's the calculation that a spell of opposition while Tories and Lib Dems discredit themselves could do Labour some good.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

6. Who was it that said that Tories and LibDem work well together in

Big councils such as Birmingham? (A DUer on here)

That aside, are you as impatient as I am waiting for the decision? I feel like it's Minnesota again, waiting and waiting!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. I like Abbott but her 1931 comparison doesn't fit very well with the present situation

In 1931 MacDonald and a handful of Labour MPs went into coalition with the Tories, while the great mass of Labour MPs went to the opposition benches. It doesn't resemble the current situation and the 1931 "split" in Labour was more or less MacDonald vs Everyone else. It was nowhere as damaging as the 1981 split (ah the perils of splitting the centre-left).

[oldironside]

11. This whole business reminds me of...

...Harold MacMillan's comments on the 1980 Labour leadership election. When asked who he would support he replied:
"Tony Benn, on the grounds that he's the most likely to destroy the Labour Party."
When told that Benn would not stand he said that he would support Michael Foot, as the second most likely to destroy the Labour Party.
"But what about the country?" asked his young questioner anxiously.
"Oh, you worry about the party. The country's beyond recall."

IMHO UK politicians are acting just like that. They'd let the country go to hell in a handcart for some small party advantage.

The UK desperately needs voting reform. I'd suggest modelling it on the system here in Germany. A federal system (I nearly typed republic there) with parliaments for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, and PR for Westminster. Of course, Most UK politicians would feel faint at the thought of their power being diluted and them actually being accountable to the real wishes of the electorate.

[T_i_B]

13. Interesting to read this with hindsight

It appears to have been the Blairite wing as much as anyone who scuppered the Lib-Lab deal. It appears that quite a few people in the Labour party have concluded that a spell in opposition, a new leader and the possibility of their 2 main rivals cocking up will do Labour some good.