TOP 100 NEWSPAPER SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| A Lib-Lab pact: deep down they know it makes sense | John Harris It may not be exactly a love-in on the left, but a coalition government is the way to stop Cameron taking us back to 1979It won't make it on to any list of my most significant moments of 2009, but this was the year that I attended my first Liberal Democrat conference: three days in Bournemouth that began with a feeling of breezy curiosity, and ended with me in danger of chewing my hands off. Yes, aside from his organisational ball-dropping on the so-called mansion tax, Vince Cable was rarely less than brilliant, and there is always something stirring about the Lib Dems' proud attachment to their own internal democracy. However, the event was haunted by the sense of how different things could easily be.A few months on, where are they? The Lib Dems' poll scores continue to chunter along in the late teens; and unlike the election of 2005 – when Iraq, tuition fees and a 50% top rate of tax gave them an enviably solid platform – they still lack any clear electoral offer. Where is the tub-thumping on electoral reform or our disastrous engagement in Afghanistan? Is it really beyond their wit to turn Cable's dependably impressive take on the financial crisis into the stuff of primary-coloured proposals?Of late, Nick Clegg has made arguably his most baffling move. Towards the end of November he was asked about the decent chance of what the Lib Dems used to call a "balanced" parliament; he replied that whichever party has "the strongest mandate from the British people" had a claim to a Lib Dem-backed crack at government – which, given the likelihood of the Tories getting the biggest share of the vote, looked distinctly like another shuffle to the right. There was no policy context for any Lib Dem support, let alone a recognition that a "mandate" could easily be based on the votes of around a quarter of the electorate. If you're a left-inclined voter in the kind of seat where the Lib Dems need all the support they can get, you should worry about assisting the prospects of a Tory party whose new "progressive" aspect is looking fragile, to say the least.Plenty of Lib Dem members must be more anxious still. A recent BBC poll may have found only 31% of them in favour of a post-election coalition with Labour – but when it came to a deal with the Tories, the number was a miserable 16%. Therein lies a truth to which any conversation about the third party returns: that despite Labour people habitually decrying them – often with good reason – as apolitical opportunists or Tories-in-disguise, the instincts of most Liberal Democrats will always pull them to the centre-left.And so to the biggest question. With recent polls pointing to an inconclusive election result, what chance of a Lib-Lab alliance? This much is clear(ish): there is widespread recognition among Labour high-ups of the impossibility of another majority in the Commons; some imaginative commentators have made the case for a deeply unlikely pre-election coalition; and there have been sporadic reports of Downing Street at least toying with similar notions.I can only tell you what I know: when I have mentioned the idea of quietly talking to Lib Dems in preparation for a post-election tangle, senior Labour people have responded with a mixture of indifference and alarm: best to hold out some vague hope of co-operation without doing much about it. On the Lib Dem side, there's an even more tortured silence – heightened by Clegg's apparent openness to a Cameron ascendancy – and a very big fear: that to hint at both propping up Gordon Brown and toppling off the ideological high wire would lose them precious support in Tory-Lib Dem marginals.Still, let us imagine. If Labour somehow managed to get the biggest share of seats, the case for a deal would be obvious – though if the Tories were only narrowly to outdo Labour, the game would not necessarily be up. In either case, it would take an ambitious PR job to sell a Labour-Lib Dem coalition. In advance – and here the importance of clear policy comes in – the Lib Dems would have to campaign on the kind of platform that implicitly rules out any deal with the Conservatives. In keeping with the necessity to recast a coalition as a unity administration rather than another Labour government with an expedient bolt-on, Labour would have to make some serious moves indeed: such as Brown's resignation, and the embrace of a clean-break agenda that would begin with a voting system based on Roy Jenkins's proposal for AV-plus.All that said, even if Cameron formed a minority government and resolved to go back to the country soon after, some measure of Lib-Lab co-operation would surely be the only dependable means of breaking the Tories' momentum – and come the quickfire second election, there would be an even clearer argument for a common front.Whichever scenario came to pass, both parties would face a watershed moment. Labour would have to accept the demise of the sour, shrill, authoritarian politics that greets every drop in the polls with a call to the redtops and a drive to crack down on that week's populist scapegoat; and any agreement would mark the death of Labour's claim – with membership reportedly down to 130,000 – to be the sole worthwhile presence on the centre-left. For some Lib Dems, mind you, the upshot could be every bit as scary: the imperative to finally leave the free-market right of politics well alone.About 15 years ago, when there was arguably no need for it, Tony Blair's short-lived belief in political pluralism led to a fit of Lib-Labbery: a private understanding encompassing an electoral non-aggression pact and agreement that a hung parliament or small Labour majority would be the spark for coalition, involving two or three Lib Dem cabinet posts, and a move on PR.Of course, this brief love-in happened when New Labour's progressive bona fides were largely untainted and Conservatism was unarguably on its way out – but there again, don't times like these make such moves even more imperative? Here, after all, is the absurdity of the likely post-election scenario: the basics of the post-1979 order still in tatters, but the prospect of a Tory government that would plainly attempt the revival of just about everything that has been so discredited.For the Lib Dem leadership, that tension-cum-paradox cuts straight to the heart of a massively important choice: to carry on fuzzily tacking to the right – or realise that the moment requires not just much clearer policy, but some desperately needed strategic thinking. In short, history calls. But do they want to listen?LabourLiberal DemocratsVince CableNick CleggConservativesDavid CameronGeneral electionJohn Harrisguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
US mortgage bosses may earn $6m The heads of bailed-out US mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may each be paid up to $6m (£3.7m) for 2009. news.bbc.co.uk |
'Flaws' in key Lockerbie evidence A BBC investigation casts doubt on key evidence linking Libyan bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to the 1988 Lockerbie attack. news.bbc.co.uk |
Guinea's leader says he's not returning home OUAGADOUGOU, Burkina Faso (AP) -- Guinea's wounded military leader agreed Friday not to return to his country in order to continue his convalescence abroad following three days of feverish, late night negotiations between members of his military clique.... hosted.ap.org |
Yemen in crisis London conference seeks response to security fears news.bbc.co.uk |