UK Labor Vs. US Dems: Snobbery and stubbornness?

[romulusnr]

After Labour-Lib talks in the UK break down, I start to wonder why two presumably ideologically sympathetic parties would fail so horribly in joining together, particularly as Labour stands to lose all power otherwise. Meanwhile two presumably ideologically opposed parties, Lib and Tory, manage to seal a compromise deal.

What could possibly have turned Labour away from a deal with Lib Dems so quickly and in doing so seal its own fate? Can it really be irreconcilable differences? If so, then Labour has a lot to learn, apparently, from the Conservatives' willingness to compromise.

But is it something else -- a classic "splitter" animosity between the two, Labour incensed at LibDems' existence and it's spoiler effect? If so, it has nothing to do with principle, ideology, or the good of the nation -- it has to do with just being plain stuck up, stubborn, and begrudging, a combination of factors that makes no one look good.

But in the U.S. the Democratic Party establishment has the exact same problem. Nader supporters of 2000 almost found themselves worse off in Democratic forums than Republican! Even today the allegedly center-left and progressive party's senior elected members are more likely to join ideology with conservative Republicans than the spoilers of Greens or other left parties or even the progressive and leftist influences in local and state parties.

The inability of center-left parties to break bread with further-left parties is damnable and self-defeating. Why won't they cut it out?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

1. the Lib Dems hate the trade unions which are the lifeblood of Labour

Labour isn't as keen on proportional representation as the Lib Dems are.

However, a deal would have been more likely struck if Labour was just short of a majority and Labour + Lib Dems = a large working majority. Many in Labour were sceptical about being in a coalition of ragtag parties of varied agendas that barely contained a majority within itself.

[TheBigotBasher]

3. It is rubbish to say that Lib Demms hate Trade Unions.

That is not why Labour could not make a deal with the Lib Dems.

Labour refused to budge on repealing the database state and ending civil rights abuses, they remained absolutely committed to a National ID card, they remained absolutely committed to child database project. They would not agree to any of the principles of the Liberal Democrat Freedom bill.

They refused any discussions about Trident.

They refused to consider any of the Liberal Democrat education proposals.

They remained of the belief that they had a right to givern because they were part of a progressive majority even though over the last 13 years there is no way that they could describe themselves as progressive.

They acted during these talks the same way they acted in Government, out of touch, dangerous and presumptuous.

I trust that this will see New Labour disappear in to history.

I look forward to the civil war to come in the Labour Party and that it may one day recover some element of what it once stood for.

I hope that the deaths of the thousands of children, their parents, their families and of course the deaths of soldiers needlessly sent to an illegal war pray on the minds of every New Labour politician until their death and then beyond. Like history remembers with disgust the people who led Nations to previous war crimes, I hope they are remembered in the same way.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. the Lib Dems were frustrated by the inability of Labour to get AV agreed

by its own party. That was the main sticking point for the Lib Dems.

The reasons for this is that it's not in the party's interest to bolster Clegg. Left-wing MPs are turned off by the Lib Dems anti-union rhetoric, and the Lib Dems do support getting rid of union funding for Labour. The Lib Dems are ideologically opposed to unions. While the Lib Dems are bang on about social issues, they're weak on workers' rights.

The Labour right with their inability to guarantee AV saw opposition as desirable compared to a bare majority coalition.

[TheBigotBasher]

8. They are not anti-union.

They certainly would not support anti-union legislation. Supporting legislation banning political parties from big business, rich donors or big union donations is not an anti union position.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

9. they opposed the minimum wage

Simon Hughes boasted that he'd "sort out the RMT" if he was elected Mayor of London. Vince Cable even supported introducing more restrictions on the unions' right to strike before the election.

[T_i_B]

10. Back in 1997 they supported the minimum wage

I distinctly remember Richard Allan, who in 1997 won Nick Clegg's Sheffield Hallam seat for the Lib Dems advocating the minimum wage in a Q&A session with my 6th form.

[TheBigotBasher]

11. They proposed a minimum wage back in 1994

In 1994 they took to conference a choice of a nationally set minimum wage or a regional and industry based statutory minimum pay level.

In the 1998 vote on the minimum Wage Act the votes were as follows

Nae
Con 145 (+2 tellers)

Yae
Lab 352 +2 tellers
Lib 26
PC 2
SNP 5
UKUP 1
UUP 1

[EmilyKent]

2. Here's a comment:

Andrew, Newcastle-under-Lyme, writes: Andrew Cooley, Newcastle-under-Lyme: Why is the idea of coalition such a surprise to all commentators? In last Thursday's local election, about a quarter of local councils elected had no overall control. Here in Newcastle, we've had a joint Tory-Lib Dem administration and the audit commission says it's been the most improved council in the country for two years running.

[CBHagman]

4. Nader isn't the right analogy in this case.

But in the U.S. the Democratic Party establishment has the exact same problem. Nader supporters of 2000 almost found themselves worse off in Democratic forums than Republican! Even today the allegedly center-left and progressive party's senior elected members are more likely to join ideology with conservative Republicans than the spoilers of Greens or other left parties or even the progressive and leftist influences in local and state parties.

The inability of center-left parties to break bread with further-left parties is damnable and self-defeating. Why won't they cut it out?

Speaking strictly for myself, both as an American and a Democrat, Nader is exactly the wrong analogy. The U.S. doesn't have coalition governments. We have an Electoral College. At least four times the winner of the popular vote didn't become president.

In the U.S., elected officials who are independents or members of a third party are the exception, not the rule. Far from producing some progressive golden age, third parties merely split the vote further and generally a Republican or Democrat wins the seat/office. Two percent of the vote and a few dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, not political clout.

Granted, the U.S. Senate does have the wonderfully progressive Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but he caucuses with the Democrats.

The reality of American politics is getting stuff done by making allies, not keeping a nice long list of people who aren't ideologically pure enough for you. If Nader's heart was on fire for the long-term good of the country, he wouldn't -- well, don't get me started on Nader.

Anyway, the ideological purity business is tripping up both major parties in the U.S. The Republicans are at times eating up their own, and at least one one occasion lost a congressional election by dividing their own vote between the more moderate candidate and the hard right.

I'm not qualified to comment on the U.K.'s system. In fact this past week has been an education for me.

[craigmatic]

5. Lib dems would have more power in a coalition with the tories because they'd be the only other party

if they had joined a leftist coalition they'd be in line with the national parties and the green party as well as labour. It's about decreasing competition within the government. Plus Clegg is a closet tory.

[T_i_B]

6. A whole number of issues

Firstly, Labour and the Lib Dems despise each other at local government level. Admittedly the Tories also despise the Lib Dems at local government level but all the same there is bad blood. A lot of people in the Labour party would have found the Lib Dems untrustworthy.

Secondly the arithmetic is against a Lib-Lab coalition. They would need SNP and Plaid Cymru votes as well, which really would make attempting to pass legislation as difficult as herding cats.

Thirdly, there are policy differences on issues such as ID cards where the 2 sides were from what I've heard unwilling to budge. Why Labour can't admit that ID cards are a terrible idea is beyond me but there you go.

Finally, it's quite obvious that a lot of Labour folk have concluded that a spell in opposition would do Labour some good. They could renew and regroup under a new leader while the Tories and Lib Dems make unpopular decisions and possibly start fighting between themselves over policy. It may not take much for the progressive wing of the Lib Dems to get disillusioned by the Con-Lib coalition and the result could be a lot of disaffected Lib Dems returning to Labour.