Will Clegg have the bottle

[Fiona]

I keep hearing that Brown is an impossibility. Why is this ?

 

[Delscottio]

I keep hearing that Brown is an impossibility. Why is this ?

He is tainted beyond belief and such an easy target (imo of course). I can't see the Liberals committing political suicide by jumping into bed with him. Add in the amount unpopular decisions to be made soon and things start to look a bit ropey from the Lib Dems point of view.

 

[andyandy]

I keep hearing that Brown is an impossibility. Why is this ?

I just don't think the electorate would stomach it - he's just too unpopular. Whereas if labour change their leader it gives them a chance to show a break from the past, a new start, new policies yada yada....and they would certainly benefit from someone who doesn't have the televisual skills of a dead tree....

 

[Fiona]

I realise that the media have been saying he is a disaster for ages: and that he is personally unpopular with the electorate. This is the same media which told us that there would be a major surge for the lib dems.

I have been thinking about this election result today. I can only conclude that I have no idea at all what is going on in the public mind.

The media coverage that I heard before the election said that labour were hugely unpopular. That would be no surprise for a party which had been in power for 13 years; had presided over the final manifestation of the results of pursuing right wing economic policies; and was the party which took us into a very unpopular war or two with no obvious goal and no sign of progress. That same media said that Brown was a major liability and it says so still.

With this open goal the tories could not enthuse anyone, and this was in part acknowledged, though in the early stages it seemed to be assumed that they would win for all of these reasons even if the voters were not actually for them: there is a phrase: parties do not win elections, governments lose them. That appeared to be the general thinking and this should have translated to a tory win even if only on the basis of "time for a change". That this did not happen suggests to me that the tories are enormously unpopular: they have got all they can get from the mere wish for a change. But it is nothing like 1997 at all. If the media were right about the attitude to labour and to Brown, it should have been.

After the first debate there was a lot of talk about a lib dem surge. I took this at face value (to some extent). I took the view that traditional supporters of both of the main parties were disillusioned and had stayed on board largely because no alternative was in prospect: if the lib dems could look as if they offered a genuine alternative, and if they could persuade people they actually had a chance they would pick up a lot of votes

In the event that did not happen and I have to wonder what actually went on. I find it difficult to believe that voters are happy with either of the main parties: they did not give either of them a mandate. It seems to me they may have been looking for a real change but that was not on offer: the lib dems are not so different from the other two and this is shown by the fact that they are seen to be capable of making a deal with either. No other party had any chance of forming a government and people do not vote in numbers for no-hopers (as the lib dems have often pointed out): so perhaps the lib dems were not percieved to have a real chance. If so then the media is not as powerful as it supposes, and I feared.

But if that is correct then it applies equally to Brown. The media has attacked him ferociously and it has become conventional wisdom that he is deeply unpopular and a liability to his party. What is the actual evidence for that? The party, led by him, lost a lot of seats: but it was not a landslide and in fact I think the tories are back somewhere near where they were in about 1992. That is hardly a sea change in their favour.

Either the leader does not matter very much: contrary to the media's portrayal of the importance of the debates and focus on the personality. Or the leader does matter and Brown is in fact popular despite being unphotogenic and generally unsympathetic/uncharismatic. I don't see a third alternative unless the narrative is that labour would have won if he had not been there. I don't see anyone arguing that, though. Perhaps it is argued they would have got more seats, but not enough to win? At whose expense?

I am no fan of Brown: I think he is a war mongering tory like Blair and that mob will never get my vote. But I do not see why people are so sure he is a liability and I do not see why the labour party would be anxious to get rid of him: if they had there is a serious possiblity that, rather than losing fewer seats they would have lost more, in a rerun of 1997 in reverse

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know what's going to happen. The system is far too adversarial for the sort of deal-making that needs to happen. Where there is PR, parties know they'll have to talk at some point, but with FPTP they're so used to knocking the stuffing out of each other I don't know where they start.

Only Labour and the LibDems have any real form in coalition. It's true that they're more aligned policy-wise, but if you're going to accept that the LibDems will never coalesce with any party but Labour you might as well treat them as a Labour vote and be done with it.

I think they have to talk to Cameron. You can't deny that the Tories got the majority of votes and seats, by a reasonable margin. They've almost got enough for minority government. If it had been extremely close, and if a Lib-Lab pact would deliver a stable working majority then there might be an argument. But it won't. Labour and the LibDems combined still don't make a working majority. And for Clegg to decide under these circumstances to prop up the party that has arguably been rejected by the popular vote seems to me to be a bad idea.

Sure, we could re-run the election. And if the same thing happens, what then? Cameron can try to run a minority administration, and maybe he will. But the financial markets don't like what's going on and they'll like another election even less. Only the Tories and the LibDems can form a potentially stable government by the arithmetic of that result. I think Clegg should do it for the good of the country.

Rolfe.

 

[Fiona]

In what way will that be for the good of the country?

It seems to me that your post is predicated on the assumption that the markets are the real power and that politics is an also ran: to some extent I think that is true, for that is what both tory and labour administrations have chosen. It does not need to be like that, however. That is a political decision. Unless we choose another path we might as well acknowledge that democracy is over. That might be something we should embrace: I don't think so but it is perfectly arguable. If that is what we choose then let us do so openly

 

[geni]

In what way will that be for the good of the country?

If we don't get a stable goverment in a fairly short order we risk having a situation where Mervyn King is running the country.

It seems to me that your post is predicated on the assumption that the markets are the real power and that politics is an also ran: to some extent I think that is true, for that is what both tory and labour administrations have chosen. It does not need to be like that, however.

The bond markets would beg to differ.

That is a political decision. Unless we choose another path we might as well acknowledge that democracy is over. That might be something we should embrace: I don't think so but it is perfectly arguable. If that is what we choose then let us do so openly

You got £848.5 billion handy? If not the practical fact of the matter is that the bond markets matter a lot.

 

[andyandy]

But if that is correct then it applies equally to Brown. The media has attacked him ferociously and it has become conventional wisdom that he is deeply unpopular and a liability to his party. What is the actual evidence for that? The party, led by him, lost a lot of seats: but it was not a landslide and in fact I think the tories are back somewhere near where they were in about 1992. That is hardly a sea change in their favour.

Either the leader does not matter very much: contrary to the media's portrayal of the importance of the debates and focus on the personality. Or the leader does matter and Brown is in fact popular despite being unphotogenic and generally unsympathetic/uncharismatic. I don't see a third alternative unless the narrative is that labour would have won if he had not been there. I don't see anyone arguing that, though. Perhaps it is argued they would have got more seats, but not enough to win? At whose expense?

I am no fan of Brown: I think he is a war mongering tory like Blair and that mob will never get my vote. But I do not see why people are so sure he is a liability and I do not see why the labour party would be anxious to get rid of him: if they had there is a serious possiblity that, rather than losing fewer seats they would have lost more, in a rerun of 1997 in reverse

There's been consistent polling that the electorate see Brown as a liability (eg. 1) - but of course when it comes to the election other factors are in play - people vote for the party, for their own local candidate, against the opposition etc etc.

The biggest benefit in ditching Brown is that it allows Labour to change unpopular policies and distance itself from earlier unpopular decisions. I think they'd be crazy to stick with Broon....

 

[Fiona]

That is probably true but there is another old saying; if you owe the bank £100 you are in trouble: if you owe them £100 million the bank is in trouble. If it were this country alone then there would be no doubt at all: but it isn't.

There is no doubt this mess will have to be sorted out: but it is also true that it arose because we gave power to those same financial bodies which are now "holding the country to ransom". That was grounds for radical legislation when it was the trades unions who were said to be doing it. It is grounds for radical legislation of the same sort for the financial institutions, who are doing this to a far greater extent than the unions ever did.

We have done this before: we can do it again, if we stop swallowing the woo which equates this kind of financial wisdom with the laws of nature. They are no such thing. They are human and they are alterable. They would like us not to believe that, of course. So what?

It is true that the deficit needs to be tackled and it is not going to be pleasant: but I think many people are not happy to pay those who got us into this mess while allowing them to carry on as before: and that is what is on offer from all the major parties.

 

[Fiona]

There's been consistent polling that the electorate see Brown as a liability (eg. 1) - but of course when it comes to the election other factors are in play - people vote for the party, for their own local candidate, against the opposition etc etc.

The biggest benefit in ditching Brown is that it allows Labour to change unpopular policies and distance itself from earlier unpopular decisions. I think they'd be crazy to stick with Broon....

Polling can be wrong, as we have just seen.

There is an article in "the guardian" today by Ian Jack, who makes a similar point. His impression (not a poll or anything scientific like that) is that Brown is not unpopular in the north of england or in scotland. He is hated iin the south according to the journalist. I don't have a poll either: but I do not hear people disliking Brown much up here either: not any more than other politicians anyway: and a lot less than they hate Cameron.

If it were as it has been portrayed then I cannot see how the tories could not have won by a large margin. I do not believe it is any more accurate than the lib dem surge. But of course I cannot prove that any more than you can prove your positon: and apparently you have polls on your side. It happens that the labour vote went up in Scotland: there were probably a lot of reasons for that: but I see no evidence that Brown is unpopular with labour's traditional support: or if he is it is not making any difference at all

 

[Rolfe]

[....] we gave power to those same financial bodies which are now "holding the country to ransom". [....]

Seems to me this "we" is Gordon Brown. Now Cameron may be ideologically just as bad, but that's not the point. Cameron didn't preside over getting us into this mess, and Cameron won the election insofar as anyone did.

It would be a betrayal of democracy if he were denied the opportunity to try to sort this out, and if Labour and the LibDems gang up to deny him that chance, the West Lothian Question is going to send the south of England into hysterics.

Rolfe.

 

[Fiona]

Seems to me this "we" is Gordon Brown. Now Cameron may be ideologically just as bad, but that's not the point. Cameron didn't preside over getting us into this mess, and Cameron won the election insofar as anyone did.

It would be a betrayal of democracy if he were denied the opportunity to try to sort this out, and if Labour and the LibDems gang up to deny him that chance, the West Lothian Question is going to send the south of England into hysterics.

Rolfe.

I disagree: I think that the attenuation/abolition of financial regulation was largely completed under Thatcher: it takes a long time to destroy a system for there is a lot of inertia. Every administration since Thatcher has gone along with that agenda and deepened it. And they have done so with the blessing of the electorate. Which is "us" though not me as an individual and probably not you. In a democracy, however flawed, you cannot pass that particular buck to politicians: it was the body politic as a whole. I bitterly resent it but that doesn't change the facts


You are correct that Cameron has not contributed, but his policies show that this is because of lack of opportunity only: he will go along too, and go along faster. At least if his statements are to be believed.

He can have a minority government or a coalition with the lib dems if they are willing. I have nothing to say to that at all. My concern is about something else

 

[little grey rabbit]

I don't think Cameron can say he won the election, in a change election his party got 36% of the votes, that has to be the weakest mandate in modern times. And in the same way I think people underestimate Clegg's achievement in not seeing the LD vote squeezed in the face of a desire for a new government and a credible opposition. Last election there was a somewhat unpopular government and an opposition that still lack credibility and people were looking to place a vote to protest Labour but not support the Tories. To increase vote by a percentage point in this election is really quite an achievement.

Put Labour and LD vote together and you have 52%.

What is unfortunate for Clegg is he can only guarantee a stable government by supporting the Conservatives. Had the Conservatives got 10 fewer seats his position as kingmaker would be much stronger. Now he runs a risk if he did a deal with Labor for PR referendum AND couldn't deliver a viable government, he would damage both the Liberals and prospects of the referendum passing.

As it is, I am not sure that it would pass.

 

[geni]

That is probably true but there is another old saying; if you owe the bank £100 you are in trouble: if you owe them £100 million the bank is in trouble. If it were this country alone then there would be no doubt at all: but it isn't.

The bank is in this case is anyone with a pension fund and the like. UK goverment bonds are the kind of traditional safe investment that anyone with some level of savings is going to have ended up investing in.

There is no doubt this mess will have to be sorted out: but it is also true that it arose because we gave power to those same financial bodies which are now "holding the country to ransom".

Nope. The Sovereign bond market isn't greatly impacted by regulation or the lack of it.

That was grounds for radical legislation when it was the trades unions who were said to be doing it. It is grounds for radical legislation of the same sort for the financial institutions, who are doing this to a far greater extent than the unions ever did.

No degree of regulation is going to impact the Sovereign bond market. You can't force people to buy things or stop selling them.

We have done this before: we can do it again, if we stop swallowing the woo which equates this kind of financial wisdom with the laws of nature. They are no such thing. They are human and they are alterable. They would like us not to believe that, of course. So what?

You are suggesting we go to the IMF again?

It is true that the deficit needs to be tackled and it is not going to be pleasant: but I think many people are not happy to pay those who got us into this mess while allowing them to carry on as before: and that is what is on offer from all the major parties.

Not really. At the moment we still have a pretty good chance of making a profit out of the bailout.

Of course we could default on our bonds but 1) I assume you don't have a pension and 2)we would need to cut goverment spending by 159.2 billion the day after and/or have to deal with hyperinflation.

 

[lionking]

If the UK is looking at electoral reform, the preferential voting system is worth a go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting

Yes, I know I may be biased because that is the system here, but we simply don't have the chaos which comes with a hung parliament.

 

[geni]

If the UK is looking at electoral reform, the preferential voting system is worth a go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting

Yes, I know I may be biased because that is the system here, but we simply don't have the chaos which comes with a hung parliament.

In theory at least preferential voting shouldn't make much difference compared to first past the post when it comes to producing a hung parliment. It's more that the UK is in the unusal situation where the lib dems have hung on as a slightly more than nominal third force and the nationalist parties further complicate matters.

 

[little grey rabbit]

If you want a method to change the electoral system, the way NZ did it was quite good.
An indicative referendum that asked
a) Do you want change
b) Which of these four options do you prefer
and then a binding referendum that was a run off between the preferred option and the status quo.

I think the Single Transferable Vote system is the best, as it is not truly proportional but does tend to deliver proportional outcomes. Members all are tied to an electorate, and it is very sensitive to the voters preference amongst candidates from a particular party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
I see that you are familiar with it to some extent in the UK.

I couldn't really see the UK be able to run an election on it, at least not without automated voting. The counting would be too complex

 

[lionking]

AFAIK the single transferable vote system is exactly the same as the preferential system.

 

[little grey rabbit]

No, you are thinking of the federal electoral system. STV is the system in the Tasmanian elections.

The main difference is having multi-member constituencies means that third parties can win representation, yet still be tied to an electorate.

The number of members per electorate determines the chances for minor parties to be elected. ie a seven member electorate will be easier for a third party candidate than a five member.

It is not really difficult for the voter to understand, but counting votes can be a lengthy process if it is done manually.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

i think they could make a deal stick now - it would be contingent on labour ditching brown and replacing him with johnson/milliband - i don't think the electorate would stomach any more brown....Between the two they got over 50% of the popular vote - the right-wing press might not like it, but so be it.

But as you say it might be best for both Lib/Lab to be well out of any of the political decisions made over the next year or two - as Merv said just before the election - the winners of this election are going to be out of power for a generation.

I'd put money on a Tory minority government - but that might be underestimating the politicians making the decisions - after all why do politicans go into politics if not to get as much power as possible for themselves? Clegg's head might be turned by the Tories, and if not, the Lab/Libs might try to cling to power with a coalition even if it's to the long term detriment of their parties.....

I hope Labour don't concede on the Brown issue - would rather have him than Milliband. I don't think the Libs should be dictating who is the party leader of anyone else either. If they concede on the PR point then clegg really needs to get nothing else. Get PR and wait for the next election pretty soon.