clegg- sell out

[Ned]

Labour didn't "baulk at PR" any more than the Lib Dems would.

There are sections of the Labour party who don't want PR, and they couldn't bring their entire PLP with them on this issue.
There are large sections of the Lib Dems who don't want AV, because it is not true PR. They're accepting the crumbs from the Tory table in full knowledge it will not be brought in.

[David Johnson]

You need to get away from this PR stuff as an excuse.

Once again to put an element of precision in your argument.

1. The Tories have offered a referendum on av which they no doubt will campaign against.
2. The Labour party have offered a referendum on av.
3. The reason they have done that is that both parties realise that av is NOT proportional representation so please stop banging on about pr.
4. THey realise that av would have only resulted in for example, the Lib Dems getting 6 more seats in the 2005 election.
5. Your guesswork about Labour bottling is beginning to look very silly now. There are a whole lot of other reasons why the Lib Dem Labour coalition did not take off that you could much more easily argue - coalition of the losers argument, much harder to see how the numbers can keep together, the Labour prime minister would not have even been seen in the TV debates, Labour had lost nearly a 100 seats etc. etc.

Cheers
D

[Ned]

The most rampant right winger around gets to smash the poor, afte being given the Work and pensions brief.

Theresa May gets to be Home Secretary and Minister for Equality. She is so committed to equality that she voted against lowering the gay age of consent.

[Sam Slater]

I don't think it's breaking news. I think I've stated that some Labour MPs want PR and some, due to fears of losing their seats, do not.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Yes some Labour MPs are against PR (just as some Tory MPs are pro Europe!). But I think you're clutching at straws saying that immediately the Lib Dems started talking to Labour, Labour went off the idea of PR.[/quote]

True, but I can see a reason why some Conservatives would be pro Europe and some would not without it directly affecting their own skins. There are real arguments for being closer to Europe and real arguments against. This isn't so, in my opinion, when it comes to PR. No one can deny it's a fairer system which more accurately represents the electorate's wishes. The only excuse we get is that it's less likely to produce 'stable governments' (how many times have we heard that this past bloody week?!) and it makes it more likely oddballs like the BNP might get a seat now and again. The first excuse is silly because hung parliaments aren't that uncommon with FPTP and other countries who regularly have hung parliaments and coalitions get on just fine and dandy. The second excuse isn't that worrying. We might get the odd BNP seat but maybe that extra scrutiny and power will show the protest voters what the BNP are really like (the Barking and Dagenham council bombing phenomenon back up my views I think). Also, with a fairer electoral system like PR maybe less people would feel the need to vote for horrid parties as some kind of protest.

[quote]Maybe, just maybe, after realising that they were nothing more than a smoke screen employed by Clegg, Labour thought "fuck you, we're not budging on anything!" Seizing their chance to get a bit of face time on the telly, some of the anti-PR MPs and ex-MPs then came out of the woodwork to explain why a Labour/Lib Dem coalition wasn't on the cards.[/quote]

I don't deny that is one possibility. I just don't buy it.

[quote]Yes it's true that on the whole Labour and the Lib Dems are more natural bedfellows. However, as I said earlier (and indeed you have made the point about Clegg sticking to his guns about talking to the party with the most number of seats and the most votes first several times in your discussions with David) a pact between two parties who came second and third, who the voters had plainly rejected, and needing other even smaller parties for help from time to time would not have gone down well with the electorate. If we're all being honest here, for all the talks that went on between Labour and the Lib Dems, there was always only ever going to be one result... a Tory/Lib Dem agreement at the very least.[/quote]

All true, Bob. But, again, that still leaves me with difficult questions about Labour's fawning and flirting with the Lib Dems, and well as the SNP offering their support. It must have been, as I have already thought and expressed, just all about stalling. They were never going to go for PR and just used it to make Clegg look like a ditherer. Again, I have to question why many Labour MPs are afraid of PR. The only real explanation is they're afraid of the Lib Dems emerging as a real alternative vote for the left and losing seats. The Lib Dems, let's remember, were only 6% behind in the vote share. It wouldn't take that much of a swing to the yellows, under a PR system, which would have left the Lib Dems with more seats in parliament. That scares them more than the Libs making a deal with the Tories because they can fight back from the current position. PR was just too dangerous for both the big two parties and so they don't want to touch it .

[quote]I never said Clegg lied to his party. But yes, the talks with Labour were a subterfuge.[/quote]

I know you didn't say Clegg lied to his party. What I meant was that since his party is largely lefties disaffected with Labour then he'd have had to lie to his party if those Lab/Lib talks were only 'pretend'. I don't think his party would have stood for it if he was just fucking around only to go the Tory road. He got the party backing and so I suspect it's more likely that it was Labour who didn't want to talk. The subterfuge was all Labour's to stall talks and pressurise Clegg. This, I think, is where we differ.

[quote]The reasons and time scale of Browns actions regarding stepping down are fairly easily understood. Even to someone as notoriously thick skinned and controlling as Brown, it was obvious that for even an outside chance of a deal to be made with the Lib Dems he would need to stand down. Given it takes about 2 months for the process to be set up for a leadership election within the Labour party, he announced that if a pact could be agreed upon, he would step down in a few months once a new leader was in place.

Once it became clear that no pact with the Lib Dems was ever going to be forthcoming, disheartened after losing the election and clearly tired after 13 years in office and many more in opposition before that, he decided that the time was right, for him at least, to resign immediately and announce that he would also step down as an MP.

I can't see anything sinister in that, and to say that he has gone even earlier than he first said because of opposition in his party to PR is frankly ludicrous.[/quote]

Again, this is where our opinions differ, then. Brown specifically mentioned PR at least twice over the weekend, before talks with Clegg and once those talks began we got murmurings that PR wasn't on the table after all, talks break down within hours and not long after Brown's gone. Maybe I was getting a little carried away in implying Brown left just because of disagreements about PR. I still think it was either part of it or Brown just played his part in offering PR as part of the ruse.

[quote]You are of course entitled to your opinion... I just believe some of that opinion is misguided to say the least.

At least it's enjoyable to argue with someone who at least has the intelligence, knowledge and skills to postulate ideas... unlike some I'll try not to mention! [/quote]

You could be as misguided as I, Bob! I thank you for your compliment and return it in kind. Debating with you has been a little more straightforward and....well.....a relief, if you know what I mean! !grin!

We can only sit back and see how things develop. I wonder how Clegg will fare as Prime Minister when Cameron's on paternity leave? !oops!

[Bob Singleton]

I wrote:

Maybe, just maybe, after realising that they were nothing more than a smoke screen employed by Clegg, Labour thought "fuck you, we're not budging on anything!" Seizing their chance to get a bit of face time on the telly, some of the anti-PR MPs and ex-MPs then came out of the woodwork to explain why a Labour/Lib Dem coalition wasn't on the cards.


Sam Slater replied:

I don't deny that is one possibility. I just don't buy it.



Well Sam, maybe you should... last night on Newsnight Evan Harris (who lost his Abingdon seat to the Tories by a few hundred votes on Thursday) admitted that the Lib Dems having talks with Labour was never a serious attempt to create a coalition. So, far from Labour "bottling it" as you have so quaintly put it in the past, the Lib Dems opened up talks with Labour purely to put pressure on the Tories to reach an agreement.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Well Sam, maybe you should... last night on Newsnight Evan Harris (who lost his Abingdon seat to the Tories by a few hundred votes on Thursday) admitted that the Lib Dems having talks with Labour was never a serious attempt to create a coalition. So, far from Labour "bottling it" as you have so quaintly put it in the past, the Lib Dems opened up talks with Labour purely to put pressure on the Tories to reach an agreement.[/quote]

It could also be just as likely that he's guessing. It could be that he's been told that the Conservatives are still a little miffed Clegg approached Brown at all and saying it wasn't at all serious is just all about appeasement. Maybe knowing his constituency is now Tory, he thinks having a little dig about the talks with Labour will go down well with the voters. Who knows!

All I know is that when I say 'lots of Labour MPs promised PR and then backtracked' many see that as not enough evidence of them 'bottling it', or that Labour MPs were just 'wheeled out' to say these things. And now a single Lib Dem ex MP says something and we're all supposed to believe it as gospel.

I'm not convinced.