Three ways the Lib Dems could fail themselves if rumours are right
Rejection of “progressive alliance”, bottling out of cabinet places and electoral reform with a government saying “no”.
By James Macintyre Published 10 May 2010 16:49
This is clearly a very time-sensitive post, so let's get to the point. If the rumours about the Clegg-Cameron agreement are correct, there are three potential ways in which it would fail both progressive politics and, in the long term, the Liberal Democrats themselves.
1. By avoiding a "progressive alliance" with their natural bedfellows in Labour and others, the Lib Dems will have let go of the possibility of not just proportional representation and a number of seats -- perhaps six or seven -- in the cabinet. They will also have failed in the immense historic possibility of reunification between two movements -- Labour and Liberal -- that belong together and that were, once, together. From such a reunification, there might have flowed a fairer Britain, if not a fairer world, with a more progressive tax system and a more ethical foreign policy.
2. Much is being made of this bizarre concept of "supply and confidence", under which the Lib Dems would prop up a minority Tory government, passing through the "emergency Budget". The Tory-supporting press in particular is excited about it. Not surprising. But what is not clear is how it benefits the Lib Dems, other than to retain an element of their already heavily qualified "purity" as they avoid becoming tainted by a party with which they have been in intense talks for days. It is hard to see how a one-party government of the Tories would support the progressive politics advocated by people such as Charles Kennedy. Further, it would mean the Lib Dems have bottled out of sitting in the cabinet and making politics better and more plural. I do know some anti-Tory voters who are happy for a Tory-Liberal coalition, but -- far away from the Westminster village -- it has not occurred to them that there will not be any Lib Dems in the cabinet. "Supply and confidence", they would neither understand nor welcome.
3. Even if there is some sort of perceived Tory concession on electoral reform, it would be a mirage, not least because the Tory government would campaign for a "No" vote, resulting almost certainly in just that, and in the Lib Dems having squandered their most real chance in decades for genuine change.
Nonetheless, some version of the above seems likely to happen, if rumours are to be believed. If so, a progressive moment this is not.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

















12 comments
"Progressive"? So you mean a party consisting of those that lost the last election? progressive to whom I might ask. Themselves only I should think
Re:Stephen
How about a "majority coalition" then.
Considering the majority of voters choose either the Liberal Democrats or Labour rather than the Tories.
A progressive coalition is just not viable, the seats aren't there.
If the Liberal Democrats get a guarantee of fixed term parliaments and cabinet places then they can work with the Tory Reform Group and keep the Conservatives from going too right wing.
We have to remember Libdems and Clegg included are a treacherous bunch who would put narrow party obsessions before the good of the country.
The irony is that the Conservatives are at least as friendly towards progress as the so-called "progressives", which is just an arbitrary catch-all term for people bored with saying "left wing".
Many of the policies (eg LibDem opposition to nuclear power) are *regressive* and neo-Luddite.
Labour lost. Learn to live with it. The votes aren't there for a Lib-Lab pact plus Labour in government has shown itself to be the country's most illiberal party. The Lib Dems will not want to be seen proping up losers - and where was your progressive alliance and support for PR before Labour lost?
Re: George's maths.
I am exasperated with people wrongly claiming the seats for a Rainbow Coalition are not there. It's not true. Once Sinn Fein, the Speaker and his deputies are factored out, a working majority comes down to 321. A possible Rainbow coalition comprises 329 seats - all of whom have a strong vested interest in voting reform. If such a coalition got cracking on voting reform, it could be delivered well before the next election.
Desperate as you are to see Labour back in government, the Tories actually got a slightly higher %age vote than Labour in 2005, but not enough seats to form a government. Even with new boundaries Labour have managed to keep the bias to themselves in the electoral system , so why should the LibDems trust them to provide fair electoral reform? The AV system they have mooted is still biased towards Labour.
Support for PR was here for all to see before the election,John.Take off the blinkers.If the Liberals fail to get PR this time then the opportunity will be lost for a generation. Liberal spokespersons always complain about the unfairness of the system after every election.In future they will have nothing to say because the obvious retort will be "you had the chance in 2010 and blew it". I know a group of young people who registered to vote for the first time because they saw an opportunity to vote for something differant. They voted together and all voted Liberal. If this deal goes ahead they will have vote not for something differant but for reaction. Will they vote again?
A 'rainbow coalition' clearly will be very weak with a patch job alliance with too many snouts in the trough. Simple maths tells you that the Tory lib dem alliance offers the strongest government and allows the party with the most seats a main role in government. The lib dems must put aside party politics and do what is right for the country
Does no-one see the irony that the clamoured-for PR, the supposedly magic panacea to the supposed defects in the electoral system, would lead after EVERY election to this kind of fish market politics? Is it Italy that has had 60-odd governments since the War? With PR I could see UK quickly catching up.
The progressive alliance is the only way forward for a somewhat stable Government!
Otherwise, the UK could be stuck with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister until the next General Election(5 more years of Gordon Brown)! He used the words 'if' and 'hopefully' and to me this casks a matter of doubt over his resignation.
In my opinion, once he gets the 'Confidence of Commons' during the Queen's speech later this month, he could hold the Country to 'ransom'!
The position as Prime Minister in return for:
1.'The Economic Recovery' which can take years.
2.'Election Reform' which can also take years.
Gordon Brown offers an unstable government in a rainbow coalition government (somewhat a matter of a few seats), therefore one has to ask himself whether he taking the tactical position 'If I can't run the Country, then no one else will'.
Lets say, Lib Dem will not get 'Election Reform' and the 'Economic recovery' will take forever.
The above is just Reginald's opinion!
Post new comment