Clegg Throws the People Under the Bus

[autorank]

Clegg Throws the People Under the Bus

Michael Collins sees the aftermath of UK elections — and a Liberal Democrat alliance with Conservatives — as a perversion of proportional representation, the foundation of the Liberal Democrats' platform.

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have long argued that they have the answer to representing the true will of the public in elections - proportional voting. The "winner-take-all" voting system which awards just one representative per district was to be replaced by one that elected one member per district in a more equitable fashion and additional members of parliament on a regional basis in proportion to votes cast. The Liberal Democrats and Clegg argue that this approach voting lets each major faction gain some representation.

Ordinary politician that he is, Clegg abandoned the proportional approach for a Tory offer which is not proportional at all. The Liberal Democrats are floating the idea that this is some sort of breakthrough despite the fact that the Tory version of alternative voting produces results similar to those the Liberal Democrats seek to remedy.

Clegg's cave-in on proportional voting is not just about some future reform. Through his alliance with Conservatives, he embraced a governing partner that is at odds with his purported views and those of his party. He has chosen to ignore the majority will of the voters.



Previously:
British Elections: The Leaders' Debate - Foreign Affairs
http://agonist.org/leadersdebate

and

British Election Leaders' Debate - The Grand Betrayal
http://agonist.org/leadersdebate3

[Oregone]

1. Its a fake grouping (re idealogical split)

The will of the people is the only thing you could base an argument like this on, and since the system doesn't allow preferential voting, that cannot be measured.

[autorank]

4. Lib Dems and Labour are "progressives" and have

been referred to as the "progressive alliance."

Ideologically and in terms of programs, the Lib Dems match up much more with Labour than they do
with Conservatives. Hence, Clegg abandoned his ideological partner and chose one that opposes
many of his programs, his "Manifesto."

[Oregone]

7. Labour is anything but progressive.

And voters have left them in a flock because of their abandonment of their progressive principles. Fuck them.

If Clegg can use his coalition to pass STV and create a more progressive electoral system, the short term aggregate progressive effect of that will surpass any coalition he could have had with Labour (who were not negotiating). If he can't, that sucks.

In this case, regarding STV, the Ends most certainly justify the Means (and both Lib-Dems and Labour will benefit from this reform if he gets it through).

Not everything is black and white.

[autorank]

19. Clegg abandoned STV out of the gate

He tried to get Alternative Voting + but caved in for a referendum promised by the Torys on Alternate Voting (without the "+" which is the proportional part of AV+).

So there you go.

There's New Labour and Labour. Labour is still quite functional, the unions, the left, and this will let them reform the party more in line with the membership. Labour was always to the left of the Lib Dems, even it its most recent iteration.

[formercia]

9. Did Clegg hate Brown that much?

..or was this already preplanned?

[Oregone]

13. ...or do Americans not understand parliamentary politics?

[formercia]

15. Just a dumb American,I guess.

..not that our system is any better.

[autorank]

20. I think it was pre planned

Clegg went easy on Brown in the last two debates. He announced that he'd form a coalition with
the Conservatives if they finished first and Labour last but then did it anyway when he was last.
No one would say the Lib Dems have more in common with the Cons than Labour. It was a back stab.

[tritsofme]

21. One Labour MP referred to prospect of such an alliance as a "Coalition of the Defeated"

The government would lack legitimacy, and be very unstable, and they could have faced new elections in less than a year.

Labour and the Lib Dems both lost seats in the election, and still would not combine to form a majority without adding even more minor parties to the mix.

[Arkana]

2. I just don't understand--he had such hatred for Gordon Brown

that he was willing to fuck all of Britain over?

[autorank]

5. Strange isn't it

I don't think he's a progressive at all.

He showed that in the last debate when he really rolled over for Cameron, didn't lay a glove
on him.

Ego uber allis!

[tcaudilllg]

6. Yeah really

The way things are going, the Liberal Dems will be absorbed back into Labour.

And with Brown gone, that might not be a bad thing.

[Arkana]

16. Clegg's starting to remind me of Nader circa 2000.

[formercia]

3. Scammed again.

The new face that never was.

[Truth2Tell]

37. We need to be cautious here too

a lot of people in US are looking for a new liberal face. And we've shown we can easily be sold a fake.

[malaise]

8. Yes it is a grand betrayal but it won't work

I find the idea of a fixed election date quite scary at this time. On the other hand Labour needs to return to its roots and purge all the New Labour Blair morons. The LibDems will self destruct and be swamped by the conservatives while this greedy little opportunist sells his party's soul for short term and short lived power.

[BunkerHill24]

11. + 100000

[autorank]

22. Agreed. You'll like this comment from The Agonist

Exposed As A Fool

I suspect Clegg will soon learn that the position of Deputy Prime Minister means as little as its title implies. Whenever Cameron is out of the country, Clegg will be allowed to perform ceremonial roles in Cameron's absence. Further, what does Clegg do when the Tories actively campaign against the AV proposal, as they must? What does Clegg do with his own party members when Tory opposition defeats the AV effort? We now see why the LibDems are the 3rd major political party when they have leadership like Clegg. He, and the LibDems as a result, have signed on for the worst of both worlds - trashing of long-held policies and opprobrium from the electorate
VizierVic May 12, 2010 - 10:52am
http://agonist.org/hallowmen#comment

[malaise]

33. Thanks for that

They nailed it. I live in a Westminster system and I can tell you Deputy Prime Minister is easily the most meaningless post on the planet.

Sadly the English cricket team just reached the T20 World Cup final being played in the Caribbean. England has never ever won an international cricket title and we'll never hear the end of it if they win this one. One of Australia or Pakistan can still beat them on Sunday.

The really fun part is that we spotted Alistair Darling, Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer at the match in St. Lucia. Guess only Labour have time for a holiday in the Caribbean right now.

[greencharlie]

10. power baby... all about thePOWER. nt

[Skidmore]

12. aka, governance by outliers.

[Me.]

14. Two Peas In Pod

Tthey look exact;ly alikee and must've been born under the clone tree so why would we be surprised that their politics are merging?

[autorank]

23. They have the same tailor too, I hear;)

[Me.]

31. Though They Did Wear Different Ties

So people could distinguish one from the other.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Neither Labour nor the Tories ended up offering STV (or AV+, for that matter)

So there was nothing Clegg could have done. He was only going to get a referendum on proportional representation if both Labour and the Tories wanted enough to form a coalition that they'd bid for it - with one offering PR.

But it turned out Labour and the Lib Dems didn't have enough seats between them to govern on their own, and Labour didn't have the stomach to form a multi-party coalition that would govern with a tiny overall majority. As soon as the Lib Dem/Labour talks started, senior Labour figures were publicly saying there should be no coalition. The Conservatives matched the offer of an Alternative Vote referendum (which was in Labour's manifesto), and they could offer their backbenchers who'd actually support a coalition, at least in the short term, as opposed to Labour's rebellious backbenchers, and the further need to convince some small parties to vote for a Lab/LD coalition government.

Clegg's only alternatives were to walk away from the Tories too, and let them form a minority government (in which case, no referendum on AV either, or on proportional representation for the Lords); or to force a new election - in which case, the most likely outcome would have been a Tory majority government (they had the money for further campaigning, while the Lib Dems certainly didn't, and Labour may not have either; and the chances were an immediate 2nd election would have seen people swing towards the party that got most votes and seats the time before, just to get it over with).

So really, Michael Collins doesn't know what he's talking about. There's no shame in that; he';s trying to commentate on another country's politics from thousands of miles away.

Unrec.

[Nye Bevan]

18. Thanks.

That's the clearest 2-paragraph explanation of the British election outcome that I have seen on the Internet so far.

[autorank]

25. 52% Labour-Liberal Democrats v. 36% Conservatives - 'Proportional' Voting

The point of the article wasn't to show Clegg's allegiance to STV, that was out the door from the start.

The point was the combined 52% for Labour-Liberal Democrats. That's an alliance of ideology and programs to a much greater degree than the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. In terms of representing the GREATEST PROPORTION of the electorate. That's the goal of STV or proportional voting - proportional representation of the views of the voting public. It couldn't be more clear.

[Nye Bevan]

27. The Conservatives actually got 36%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010

Cons+Dems = 59%
Labour = 29%

[autorank]

30. typo corrected n/t

from OP

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Quoting a combined *vote* for Labour and Lib Dems doesn't mean much; their *seats* were under 50%

and Collins ignores that totally in his comments. He doesn't mention once that Labour and the Lib Dems would have needed to bring in other parties to form a coalition.

Collins hasn't bothered talking about this, but Labour basically turned down the idea of a coalition, by not moving on their positions, and with various Labour MPs denouncing the idea of a coalition betwen Labour and the Lib Dems the moment the formal talks started:

For most Lib Dem MPs, the prospect of a deal with Labour was dead within about four hours of Gordon Brown opening it up as an option by resigning on Monday, despite negotiations.

On Monday night, Lib Dem MPs and activists were aghast as Labour MPs took turns on television to denounce the idea of a pact between their two parties as a "coalition of losers" even as the two teams of negotiators were in talks.

When their negotiating team reported back to their parliamentary party after their first meeting there was shock.

Every one of the Lib Dem negotiators gave an individual report back of their meeting with Harriet Harman, Lord Mandelson, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Lord Adonis, and they each reached the same conclusion: that the Labour team were uninterested, with no movement on ID cards, the third runway at Heathrow, or increasing the proportion of renewable energy from 15% to 40%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/11/liberal-democrat-mps-coalition

Note that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition have already announce the cancellation of ID cards, the scrazpping of the 3rd runway, and Chris Huhne has been made Energy and Climate Change Secretary, and so will be able to encourage renewable energy (new nuclear stations may happen, which the Lib Dems didn't want; but Labour wanted those anyway). But it was Labour who scuppered the idea of a coalition. By Tuesday lunchtime, Andy Burnham, a Labour cabinet member and possible leadership candidate, was giving interviews saying various cabinet members were against the coalition: http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/2010/05/11/burnham-speaks-out-against-a-rainbow-coalition/

If Collins wasn't writing the article to talk about PR, then he shouldn't have mentioned it in 4 paragraphs and the opening sentence. The main subject of the article is PR. Collins also doesn't quote everything Clegg said before the election about negotiations. He said that if a party got the most votes and seats, then it should have the first chance to try to form a government. And after the election, Brown said that made sense too. Cameron invited the Lib Dems to talks; after some time, the Lib Dems also talked to Labour, but as we have seen, Labour's heart wasn't in it.

I really think Collins is out of his depth here. He just hasn't been following what's going on.

[malaise]

35. This is an excellent explanation of the numbers

but it does not speak to the philosophical views of the parties.
No doubt any attempt to change the voting system is high on the LibDem's agenda but they sold their soul for this one and the Cons will simply campaign against it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. But Labour wasn't up for a multi-party coalition

and so the choice was a coalition with the Tories, or just let the Tories govern on their own. That would keep the Lib Dems ideologically pure, and they could have hoped for Labour to get its act together, the Tories to screw things up, and then for another hung parliament with the combined Labour and Lib Dem seats to be enough to form a government. But it would need all of those to happen. And then Labour would still not be keen on PR.

[malaise]

42. Valid points but

I'd have let the Cons have their Minority Government. Given the economic reforms that are coming and the memories of the Iron Lady, I expect the Cons to screw things up.

[brooklynite]

24. Sounds like this was Labour's fault

I've been listening to the Guardian's political podcasts, and it sounds as though Labour activists and backbenchers weren't happy with the coalition either.

[BrklynLiberal]

26. I do not quite understand why Clegg went with the Conservatives instead of Labor...

[Nye Bevan]

28. Read post 17- very good explanation (nt)

[BrklynLiberal]

38. Thanks for the headsup on that.

[autorank]

29. He came up with this wacky rational in the campaign

If the Con's won and Labour was last, he said it would be some "moral" outrage if he went with Labour.
That Was 12 days before the election and people said, what's he doing announcing that now. The Lib Dem deal is proportional representation, but this outcome is the 52% who voted for the progressive parties get a Conservative government.

Clegg doesn't make sense at times. In debate 2 he argued that Britain should be in Afghanistan to stop terrorist attacks in Britain. He seems to have forgotten that the terrorist attack in Britain came after they joined the invasion, not before. Facts mean little, power a great deal.

[totodeinhere]

39. The problem with your analysis is that New Labour is far from being a progressive party.

I think it's too simplistic to say that 52% voted for progressive parties. A lot of thongs came into play here, including regional issues which had nothing to do with progressive vs conservative.

[Prism]

32. Clegg's a Pragmatist

:evilgrin:

[autorank]

34. It's the "New Politics"

[grantcart]

36. To begin with Labour and LIBDEMS didn't have enough seats by themselves

and would have had to negotiate with other parties to get enough votes.

Secondly in a coalition government everybody has to give up some things. There is the Espirit de Corps of parlimentary government to give the leading party a chance to get things done.

Personally I would have preferred the LibDems to not negotiate with the Conservatives and simply vote for Cameron to establish a minority government and wait for them to implode after the draconian cuts but that may be seen in the UK as being a bad sport, I don't know.

[Odin2005]

43. For some context via the Political Compass...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

Labour and the Conservatives are much closer to each other than either is to the Lib-Dems. In fact, Labour is more Authoritarian than the Tories.

[Oregone]

44. Thanks for the link! So the real "idealogical group" should be Labour + Conservatives, right?

:)

I thought the UK was more to the left than that.