Is it officially OK to feel sorry for Gordon Brown now?

[strange_complex]

Well, this election aftermath story is certainly throwing up some surprises, isn't it? I was a bit downcast about it all on Friday afternoon. I didn't think the LibDems had a strong enough hand to make electoral reform a central tenet of a coalition with either of the other parties. And if that couldn't be achieved, I couldn't really see how any of the three most likely outcomes (Con-Lib coalition, Lab-Lib coalition or Tory minority government) would ultimately do anything much else other than damage the Liberal Democrats in the long term - and hence damage the prospects of them having any serious input into the formation of government policy in the future. Like a lot of people, too, my immediate instinctive reaction to the idea of a Con-Lib coalition was "ugh!".

But I clearly underestimated Nick Clegg and his negotiating team. As nwhyte has pointed out, Clegg has personal experience of coalition negotiations. Meanwhile, obviously the Liberal Democrats as a party must have been preparing for this for decades. They must always have known that their golden opportunity would arise in a situation like this, and lo and behold here they are, ready to seize the moment. It seems very much to me as though they are leading the negotiating agenda not only in the obvious sense of being the party which gets to play the other two off against each other and make the final decision, but also in the procedural sense of showing the other two parties how it's done.

I also underestimated both of the other two parties. Just look at them both - being willing to make compromises and negotiate like adults; saying how keen they are to stabilise the country, solve the economic problems, listen to the will of the people, respect each other's decision, etc. OK, so fringe people in the media (Malcolm Rifkind, David Blunkett) are starting to say some pretty unpleasant things - but those actually doing the negotiating are a model of good behaviour. If this is the new politics, and indeed what we would get regularly under a more proportional voting system, then I like it! And now offer is following counter-offer, and it suddenly looks like at least some form of electoral reform is genuinely going to be on the agenda after all.

What will actually happen is still anyone's guess. Each day the landscape seems to change. And whatever either party is promising now, who's to say that they won't find a way to change the agenda and wriggle out of their commitments after the deal has been completed? But what's gradually sinking in for me is that I didn't need to be as disappointed about the outcome of Thursday's election as I originally thought. The Liberal Democrats may have lost seats, but thanks to the collective unwillingness of the voting public to elect either the Tories or Labour outright, and thanks to their own negotiating abilities, they suddenly have more power that ever before. Whatever happens, Liberal Democrat manifesto promises are now going make a real and meaningful contribution to government policy in the new parliament. For me, that's better than what we had before the election, and better than an outright Tory majority would have been as well. I've voted Liberal Democrat all my adult life without ever seeing that translated into direct political outcomes - and now suddenly I actually feel that my views are being represented by the political process that is going on. It's a novelty that is taking some getting used to.

Not everyone is happy with the outcome of this election, of course. Those who wanted an outright Tory majority will now be feeling annoyed because their party got the most votes and the most seats, but is still being held to 'ransom' by the party which came third. A Lab-Lib coalition will look to them like an unstable collaboration of losers, now to be headed by a prime minister whom the public hasn't (s)elected, and possibly propped up by Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parties demanding localised protection from spending cuts as the price of their support. Those who would have preferred a Labour majority will also be feeling let down on the grounds that left-leaning voters were 'stolen' from Labour by the LibDems, thus splitting the progressive 'consensus'. A Con-Lib coalition will seem to them like a betrayal that lets a much-hated Tory party into office without an overall majority. And there's also a lot of talk about grass-roots LibDem activists reacting with horror and betrayal to a Con-Lib coalition in particular.

I've got to say that I'm not seeing any such horror and betrayal in my corner of the internet, though. miss_s_b argues that a Con-Lib coalition is worth it for Single Transferable Vote (the main thing that most LibDem supporters really want) even if it means medium-term damage to the LibDems' public standing. matgb shows that the LibDem leadership can't simply 'betray' their party. And the two of them together (see comment thread) suggest that the Tories are more likely than Labour to agree ultimately to the implementation of STV. (If anyone can tell me the right HTML for inserting proper links to people's Dreamwidth blogs in an LJ post, BTW, I'll gladly change the journal links here - I have scoured the LJ FAQ, but can't seem to find the information I need).

Personally, I'm pretty OK with Con-Lib if it's going to achieve the implementation of as many of the LibDems' key manifesto commitments as it looks like it might. It's not going to be 'Torygeddon' - that wasn't the outcome of the election, and it's not how the Tory party would be able to behave while held on a tight leash by the LibDems in the context of a formal coalition. I'm not sure Lab-Lib is as workable - but if it can be made to work, I'd be perfectly happy with that too on the same grounds. It's a pity that the particular type of electoral reform that's being talked about by both Labour and the Tories at the moment is alternative vote, when single transferable vote is a lot fairer - see innerbrat's excellent discussion for details. But that any kind of electoral reform is being seriously offered at all is amazing - never mind all the other issues surrounding the economy, taxation and education which are all clearly going to end up being resolved in ways that are much more to my taste than either the Tories or Labour could have managed alone.

Everything could still fall apart, of course, without any of us really getting anything we want - no matter what we voted for. But one thing is for sure. Between the outcome of this election, the priorities of the Liberal Democrat party, and the activities of groups such as the Take Back Parliament coalition, the issue of electoral reform has become a central part of the political discourse. People are talking about it all over the internet, and yesterday evening the BBC News channel provided a detailed outline of the differences between FPTP voting, AV and STV. It feels to me as though this issue won't just fade away again now. And that is one of the main reasons why I voted LibDem in the first place.

Click here to view this entry with minimal formatting.

Comments

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

I live in hope that the long delay in a conclusion to the Conservative/Lib Dem talks is a sign that they will break down.

I'm aware that my intense hatred of the Conservatives verges on irrational and paranoid, but I will never, ever forgive the Liberal Democrats if they catapult Cameron into power. He'll stomp all over them, force them to implement their budget, and they'll have been used as pawns in a game to hand power over to some people on the seriously-deranged far right of the party. It would be an absolute disaster - the Liberal Democrats are, at least in theory, a progressive left-of-centre party, and pushing the Tories into power would massively betray their supporters.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

I'm not at all sure it would be as bad as you're suggesting here. It could be, and I certainly expect to see all the current polite behaviour evaporate once the negotiations are complete - whatever the outcome. But it could all turn out quite positively, too. There's a very good post on the topic (http://millenniumelephant.blogspot.com/2010/05/day-3416-captain-clegg-and-path-to-dark.html) by Millennium Elephant (writing from a LibDem supporting perspective) which you might find interesting.

[ms-siobhan.livejournal.com]

"being willing to make compromises and negotiate like adults; saying how keen they are to stabilise the country, solve the economic problems, listen to the will of the people, respect each other's decision"

Call me a cynic but I don't see that so much as 'will do and say anything to get into power'.

I wonder how Gordon Brown's leadership will be perceived by future historians?

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

That's interesting, but as far as I'm concerned, the Conservatives just will not compromise, and they'll find some way to steamroller through a pile of policies that favour the rich, pander to big business and shit all over the ordinary people again. I can see things are getting interesting - and may get better - but I'm still at the depressed stage about it all.

I suspect what will happen is that the Conservatives will be happy to be nice to the Lib Dems for about five minutes, get a few things done, then break all their promises and attempt to go it alone as a minority government, somehow managing to get enough support off other parties to have their own way.

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

Call me a cynic but I don't see that so much as 'will do and say anything to get into power'.

Absolutely. Cameron thinks he's got some sort of divine right to rule, because he went to Eton and has a spare few million in the bank. His "we're all in this together" stuff is ridiculous, and it's patently obvious who he's going to pander to once he gets his own way.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

You're quite right - obviously this ostensibly noble behaviour is being driven largely by that goal. But in my view there's an extent to which people's motivations don't really matter that much, as long as the outcome of their behaviour is the same. These people are now in a position where they have to appear polite and willing to compromise for the sake of their own interests - and as long as they're doing that, I don't really care why.

[ms-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I think the desire for power applies to more than just Cameron though - I'm sure if Gordon Brown thought he could have stayed in No 10 he would have done, though I also think he's going to be massively relieved to no longer be PM. So much so he might end up being able to crack a genuine smile rather than that awful rictus grin he regales people with. Don't think he'll be as much of a diva money grabber as Blair turned out to be though - I think he genuinely has a social conscience.

[ms-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Mmm good point but again the cynic in me is just waiting for all the politeness to crack.

I would give anything to be a fly on the wall at those negotiations and to hear what is said when the person they're trying to schmooze leaves the room.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

Hehe, yes - I hope for their sake that they've banned all microphones from within 100 miles of the proceedings!

[ms-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Oh yes it would make Bigot-gate look like a picnic.

I bet Osbourne has some choice things to say about Clegg.

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

I agree - Brown is a miserable bugger but he's much more Old Labour than Blair, and does seem to care about people. He's enormously popular here in Scotland, where people seem very sad about the outcome. I do feel a little sorry for him. He may not have won the election, but no-one else has either. This should have been Cameron's for the taking, but it wasn't, so there you go.

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

I would just like to point out that I am in no way, size, shape or form related to George Osborne.

At all. Even slightly.

At least I hope I'm not.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

I'd be quite happy with a Lib-Con pact even if it only delivers AV. AV is not a great system (I'm not much of a fan of STV either) but it's a noteable improvement on our current system which is about as bad as anyone could possibly come up with.

While a Lab-Lib pact would have much to recomend it over a Lib-Con pact, I think the result of the election means that a Lib-Con pact or a Supply and Confidence arrangement are really the only tenable outcomes. A Lib-Lab pact with a pseudo-majority would be too weak and spend it's first months mirred in the Labour leadership election.

I also don't believe a Lib-Lab pact would get PR through, I think too many Labour backbenchers would join the Tories in voting it down. Which leaves little to recommend it to the Liberals.

The only real question, I think, is whether Clegg and Cameron can carry their parties with them. I think there's little doubt that the two of them would be very willing to deal.

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

I've not read Millennium Elephant yet, but I've read Mark Thompson's blog (linked to from the Guardian's live blog, and being plugged on BBC News right now) and this confirm my instinct that the Conservatives are the only viable allies. I don't think that the rainbow coalition or Lib-Lab minority government is possible.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

I'd be quite happy with a Lib-Con pact even if it only delivers AV.

Yes, this would certainly be a good start, and much more than I expected to be achievable when this whole process began.

I agree with your reasons for thinking Lab-Lib wouldn't really work, or deliver the desired outcomes, too. If it could, I'd be all for it - but for all Paddy Ashdown's protestations, I don't think it really can.

[biascut.livejournal.com]

He's pretty popular here in the North-West of England. I've had loads of conversations with people at work recently where everyone says tentatively, "You know, I really don't think Gordon Brown is that bad," and everyone else goes, "No, me either! But the media keep saying...!" I don't know whether it's a regional thing or the media being really massively out of touch with what the public are actually saying.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the pointer - just found it (http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2010/05/lib-dems-should-take-tory-deal.html). It seems a pretty sensible and pragmatic view.

[steer.livejournal.com]

I'm less happy about it. A Lib Con pact will slash the liberal vote next time, much of which is from the left. I would not vote Liberal if I thought I would get Conservative as a result then I would vote Labour.

The Tories are proposing a referendum on AV not to legislate for it. Even if they got to do that in the likely six month lifespan of this parliament they would probably campaign against it. Also, I can't imagine them applying the party whip with too much vigour so the Libs would probably need a few labour MPs to help even to get the referendum through which would then probably not pass. The AV system makes little difference in practice with projections from this election showing almost exactly the same seat breakdown as FPTP.

It seems what the tories are offering is the sliver of a hope of a vote on something the lib dems don't want in any case. In return the lib dems would have their vote in the next election slashed hugely.

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

I think the media is generally biased to the right, and therefore don't think much of him, and the "unelected" label has stuck, despite the fact that all PMs in the UK are unelected. We don't vote for presidents.

I think he's genuinely a man of principles, but he's suffered because he doesn't have Blair's looks or charisma. He's actually acheieved a great deal, both as chancellor and PM, and I hope history will recognise this. The dire state of the economy is certainly not all his fault, and his efforts to rescue it have been pretty effective.

[steer.livejournal.com]

it's a noteable improvement on our current system

If you look at the Electoral Reform Society web page you can find their modelling of the current election held under AV rules. They think only about ten or twelve seats would change. It's at best a marginal change. AV+ would be a better change but still not much.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

I suspect the change would be more dramatic than that prediction. But, yes, I don't expect a radical shift in power balance as a result my reason for prefering it is more philosophical than practical, AV gives representation to a greater proportion of the voting public than the current system because whereas votes for a losing party are simply not counted in the current system they do get applied (albeit second choice) under AV.

[diffrentcolours]

Though that assumes that people would cast their ballots the same way in a preferential election than in a non-preferential one, and I'm pretty sure it would be drastically different.

TBH given the choice between a preferential, non-proportional system and a proportional, non-preferential one, I'll take the former every time. AV+ just seems like a mess to me, and I'm not a fan of party lists.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Well remember that's modelling done by people who are extremely devoted to pushing the case that electoral reform is extremely different and that's their best model of what would be different. It could be they are wrong.

[diffrentcolours]

For everybody complaining about "I voted Liberal Democrat and got Labour / Conservative", it's worth noting that nobody's going to get a Labour or Conservative majority government out of this. What they're going to get is a situation where the Liberal Democrats have influence and power, which is surely what they wanted when they voted.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

I certainly take your points on the impact on future LibDem votes and the difference between a referendum and direct legislation - they are serious concerns. But the mood in the air seems to be that everyone is trying to achieve some kind of arrangement which lasts longer than six months, so I am less worried than you about the prospect of even a referendum not having time to be tabled or implemented.

I also assume that people would have voted differently if they knew that their votes would be fed into an AV system rather than FPTP, so that the outcome under that system would not necessarily be as close to what we've got as calculations based on actual votes reflect. Of course, though, this also rests on people actually understanding the implications of AV when they vote, which is quite another matter!