John Harris on the North-South Divide

[non sociopath skin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/08/north-south-divide-soon-become-chasm

Ain't it the truth?

The Skin

[T_i_B]

1. This bit is very true

There is a deeply unpleasant noise around this government, founded on an unbelievably haughty view of people who live beyond the affluent south, and an apparent belief that the public sector comes close to being an offence to the human spirit.

It's that sort of shitty attitude that put me off the Tories in the first place. They can't get elected in most of the North so they despise the North in general and being a bunch of mardy gits, behave with a great deal of spite toward those areas.

This is actually a big problem as Labour needs opposition in places like South Yorkshire as the Tories are in no position to provide this even if they wanted to (which they don't). The Lib Dems look set to take a nosedive electorally so that will leave Labour far too dominant in much of the North.

[non sociopath skin]

2. The reason they can't get elected in the North ....

... is because their (sincerely-held) philosophy simply doesn't resonate here.

I hear what you say about Labour "needing" opposition and agree with you. However, that opposition will probably still need a centre-left orientation. Most Northern and celtic-fringe Lib Dems still had (have?) a vestige of that tradition and so could gain some traction. Now that the Lib Dems have been pinned-down as a sort of UK equivalent of the German Free Democrats, it isn't going to work so well for them.

The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

3. The LibDems may suffer badly for their involvement in this coalition...

especially if they do not manage to push the Conservatives significantly to the left. You mention the Free Democrats - I am not sure what role they play now, but in the 80s, their leader(?) Genscher did seem to have some real role in pushing the German government to the left. There may simply not be *enough* LibDems to be able to play such a role now, even if the MPs make a concerted effort (some of them will; Clegg will probably stay in hiding!). And Cameron is coming up with more RW idiocies than even I had expected.

I think that the entry into the coalition was fairly impulsive and un-thought-out. And may bring the LibDems down very dramatically (polls show that they could be down to under 15 seats next time). Which is a pity IMO. Just as there are some Northern areas that need an opposition to an always-ruling Labour, there are places in the South where the LibDems are the *only* opposition to the Tories. If the decline in the LibDem vote leads to a Labour government, great; but I can see ways in which it could lead to increased Tory dominance, certainly in the South; and contribute to the North/South divide.

A message for Nick, and all LibDems who think that their fortunes are best served by collaboration with the Right:

Q: What was the only postwar election where the LibDems got more than 60 seats in Parliament?
A: 2005.
Q: What seems particularly special about 2005?
A: It was the only election where the LibDem leader (Kennedy) was *clearly* to the left of the Labour leader (Blair). There may have been other times when such was the case; but this was the only time when it was clear-cut.
A gallop to the Right is thus unlikely to be electorally helpful, apart from other reasons why it's a bad idea!

Speaking of Labour leaders, when will they finally *have* one??!!! A Leader of the Opposition is seriously needed at this stage. Nothing against Harriet Harman; but her temporary status makes it impossible for her to be truly effective in this post.

[T_i_B]

5. I only think that's part of their problem

The other issue is that the Tories are very sore losers and as a result they all too often wind up viewing any area where people reject them as something to be treated with distain at every opportunity. This leads to spiteful government policies and compounds their lack of presence in much of the UK.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Very scary

The Tories' contempt for a large part of their own country - plus of course their contempt for the poor, and for anything related to public services. The article by Boris sent chills down my spine - the sheer hatred for anyone or anywhere who needs to rely on public services.

And the assumption that crushing public services will automatically lead to a boom in the private sector - much more likely the reverse, as the cuts in a recession lead to businesses laying people off, or at best not risking any new expansion. And with regard to the 'Big Society' - where does Dave think that the charities are going to get all their money from?!