For a hung parliament? Not bloody likely
I was away from the blogosphere for about two weeks – and I wasn’t reading newspapers either. Then suddenly I come home and the so-called ‘left-liberal’ commentariat are waxing positively orgasmic. The latest part in this unfolding saga has just been reported by Sunny over at LibCon. Think tank Compass have issued a poll to members as to whether they should advocate tactical voting.
A tectonic shift in politics it isn’t – the Lib-Dems are benefitting from the unpopularity of the other two parties, not from independent popularity. It’s not hard to see this. David Cameron’s team, initially surging ahead in the polls, have made so many gaffes, and their message is widely disliked. George Osborne is a bit of a joke and has largely been benched. Don’t even mention Chris Grayling. As for Labour, well, they’re in power.
I sympathise with the Lib-Dems telling themselves that it’s all a media conspiracy (well of course it is, welcome to what Labour experience virtually every election) and that now, because of the TV debates and people seeing what the Lib-Dems are like for themselves, the Lib-Dems really can be the second party. All of which is rather torpedoed by a whole street full of vox pops asking, “Nick who?”
Having chatted with Lib-Dem activists, they say that they’ve talked to real people themselves, who are enthusiastic about the Lib-Dems. One has to wonder if these are the same people John Prescott talks to, who are apparently enthusiastic about Labour and agree 100% with Prescott that Labour should win the election on the grounds of “leadership” and “delivery”.
In reality, the entire political class is in bad odour, and the Tories and Labour are simply the more visible faces of that – so catch more of the blame.
Which, by a rather circuituous route brings me back to the point. Why on earth are people touting a hung parliament? I could be wrong, but isn’t still going to be a parliament of this very political class? It might be gratifying if the Tories don’t have a majority…but who is to say that a hung parliament delivers the ‘best’ individual members from each party?
Or, alternatively, who is to say that preventing any one party from pursuing their agenda means that the ‘best’ elements of each party, or of two coalition partners, will be followed? There’s a bit of a flaw in this democracy thing; we elect our representatives and then they can twiddle their thumbs for five years, if they so wish. There’s nothing that ensures they do what we want.
It’s in this context that I’ve been quite happy to agree that Nick Clegg is the new Obama. All things to all men, but when it comes time to get things done, he’ll throw baby and bathwater out, as Obama did with the public option on health care reform. Probably aided by St. Vince, who often talks like a Tory when it comes to things like room for private provision in the National Health Service.
Neither Clegg, nor Obama, both of whom are closer to the liberal tradition than the social democratic, are enamoured of trades unions. Clegg has even descended to the level of dog-whistle politics, with his recent remarks that bankers today are like the trades unions of yesterday. Meanwhile, Clegg’s partner in crime, St. Vince, wants to massively slash the unionised state workforce.
Why is this significant? It’s not going to be twitter campaigns which hold power to account, it’s going to be unions. These organisations, however corrupt, are still responsive to pressure and are still our button to bring down the government when Lib-Dem cuts mirror Labour and Tory cuts and begin to attack pensions and public services, in the guise of being anti-bureaucracy and pro-individual choice.
The markets themselves have acknowledged that Lib-Dem commitment equals to slashing spending equals that of the other two, which is why we haven’t seen Sterling and associated gilts seesawing all over the place. A hung parliament simply means we get to endure endless rhetoric about the ‘national interest’ and smugness over measures having ‘cross party support’ while we get stabbed in the back.
For Labourites, particularly in Compass, there’s also the issue that a coalition government would represent the final death of Labour Party democracy. Just as in 1931, when the leadership of the party was able to reach outside the party, ignore activists and rest its ideology on the active support of coalition partners (and resulting in spending cuts to the primitive social welfare network as it existed then), so now.
Except this time, the parliamentary party is so utterly destitute of backbone, and conference so undermined, there’ll be no Arthur Henderson, no George Lansbury, no Clement Attlee. So what the hell are some of you doing, hoping for a hung parliament? Political parties should stand or fall on their own merits, and if yours has too few, then you need to ask why.
It’s understandable these inconstant people who refuse to be members of a political party supporting the idea, it’ll let them continue their love-in and ignore inconsistent elements in Labour and the Lib-Dems. Frivolously speaking, I long for the day when the certainty of power removes the ambiguity of hope from the Liberal Democrats and their often holier-than-thou members. But you, Labour members?
If you can’t conscionably support a Labour majority, even with the bad excuse that it is the least-worst option, then you are playing ostrich with the problem that Labour isn’t what you think it is, that when the Lib-Dems are seen to be Left of Labour, then the Party is in deep trouble, and that you need to be laying the groundwork now for a socialist future – however you see that. Crucially, this is not the same thing as phonebanking for some gormless moron currently hoping to hang on their flimsy majority and then waxing lyrical about it on twitter.
Resting your hopes on Lib-Dem success, to blunt the onward rush of the Conservatives, is simple escapism from the dismal realities of the socialist Left within Labour and the continuing inability of the Left to gain purchase.
Believe me, the realities outside of Labour are pretty dismal too – but at least we’re honest about it!
Bottom line? A hung parliament is what people are pinning their hopes to because of the utter failure of reform campaigns to actually make embed their ideas into any stable political theory, or any political party. It is a shot in the dark, as I have said, as failing to exert institutional grip over a party (a failure mirrored in the anti-party political approach of many proponents of reform) means that no one is sure where the chips will fall, which signators to which pledge will be elected, whether the new government picks the best or worst options from the buffet.
It’s just not good enough.
It’s really quite bizarre. Overnight, half the blogs I read seem to have transformed themselves into Fib Dem campaign sites. It’s like SuBo all over again.
My god, this really is a terrible mish-mash of conflicting thoughts.
First you say, Why on earth are people touting a hung parliament? I could be wrong, but isn’t still going to be a parliament of this very political class?
… so I think perhaps you’re arguing for people to take up for a revolution or some far-left party or sit at home… but then you say:
If you can’t conscionably support a Labour majority, even with the bad excuse that it is the least-worst option
sorry what? I thought you didn’t want us to vote for this political class? And New Labour definitely isn’t the least worst option right now. The Libdems are better on reducing taxes on the poor, better on Trident, better on environmental issues, better on our energy needs and better on foreign policy. They are also waaay better on civil liberties and political reform.
I sat there at the second debate getting increasingly angry at Brown’s lame jibe that Clegg was “not real” about Trident or that he was “anti-American”.
Really? Least worst option? I see you actually haven’t mentioned much in terms of policy here.
I don’t agree with what the Libdems say on trade unions. But Labour doesn’t do any different. It has a policy of not criticising trade unions but in reality it pretty much ignores them anyway. So that card of yours also falls flat.
Yes I want a Hung Parliament. I want that so I can see some proper electoral reform, which will give lefties far more power and choice every election rather than this repetitive saga where people sit around talking about the least worst option. If voting for the Libdems makes that happen then so be it.
My feeling is that your dislike for centre-left groups makes you oppose what is being proposed here. But frankly all Compass are doing is encouraging tactical voting and endorsing the idea that lefties and progressives are not just confined to the Labour party. That is now a FACT. Complaining from the sidelines doesn’t change anything.
Other points:
Lib-Dems are benefitting from the unpopularity of the other two parties, not from independent popularity
So? There are now a great number of independent voters and if the Libdems grab them then good luck to them. I see you’ve always been fairly contemptuous of electoral reform because you think it doesn’t matter to people on the streets.
But actually it does. That’s why people have moved towards the Libdems.
he dismal realities of the socialist Left within Labour and the continuing inability of the Left to gain purchase.
Exactly. And you know why this is? Because lefties are always forced to pray at the altar of Labour and organise themselves only to get the party elected. I don’t buy that crap.
The left should organise itself outside of Labour because it’s bigger than the party. It includes parts of the Libdems and Greens. Once it becomes a broader alliance only then can it actually wield some influence. While it’s a rump within Labour it can be safely ignored. Which is pretty much a state of affairs you seem to be contributing towards.
This comments sounds like I’m being annoyed at you.I’m not. I’m just disappointed you can’t see the opportunity it presents to actually change this archaic and idiotic system of voting. Furthermore I can’t see other than contradictory points here that lamely ask a person to vote Labour as the least worst option. I have Alan Keen as my MP. I’ll be damned if I’m voting for him.
I don’t want people to vote for the political class – uncritically at least. And ‘Cleggmania’ seems the definition of uncritical. I have already written my General Election post, advocating a vote for TUSC, which went up as part of Claude’s election series.
I’m not saying Labour ARE the least-worst option. Which is why I didn’t make that argument and why the above post doesn’t require policy comparisons.
You missed the focus of my point – which was that, for Labour members, if things have got to the point that they can be caught up by Cleggmania, they’ve made some deeper errors in their political judgment, by remaining part of Labour and confining their efforts to the odd campaigning attempt with their local MP. Which counts for the largest majority of Labour members.
I say ‘for Labour members’ because, in case you forgot, I’m no longer a Labour member.
As for your other points:
- I have never been contemptuous of electoral reform. I am in favour of electoral reform. I signed the Power 2010 pledge, I voted to shape it and my name is on a bunch of other petitions and pledges to that effect. I have shown contempt with regard to how it’s pursued by a semi-professional elite. There’s a difference.
- On the subject of being pro-reform, and wishing for a hung parliament to see that secured, is there any guarantee that a hung parliament will result in that? Or that a hung parliament will make it more likely? This was one of the things I addressed above; a hung parliament is a shot in the dark.
You can say, “Vote Lib-Dem” as they are pro-electoral reform, and that’s a good argument – but you’re not really “pro-hung parliament” then. You’re pro-Lib Dem. You can even say vote the best of Labour, the best of the Lib-Dems and vote Green, TUSC (or whatever) elsewhere. But you’re still not in favour of a hung parliament.
This isn’t semantics either. People should vote Left. Period. All this guff about a hung parliament just gets in the way. And it doesn’t offer the protections which its proponents mention – that the worst elements of every party will be abandoned. Unlikely. Probably the most Left elements of every party will be abandoned. That’s certainly how it has worked in the past.
- The altar of Labour bit. I agree, being part of the Left-outside-of-Labour, that the Left is bigger than the party. But organising over multiple parties is simply unsustainable, from the point of view of grassroots activists – which are what wills secure the health of Left politics long term. Not sure how I am contributing towards this state of affairs though. It may be that this impression of your stems from your misperception above that I really am saying Labour is the least worst option.
Why, you ask, are people touting a hung parliament? There’ll be a different answer depending on where people are coming from, but for the radical left it should broadly be welcomed. At least as an alternative to a Tory majority.
Like many situations, it will present both dangers and opportunities. But on balance the opportunities are more important here. It will mean a weakened and fragile political class, with no single party being in a position where it can guarantee pushing through legislation thanks to having a majority.
This is important because it gives a boost to extra-parliamentary activity: protests, lobbying, even strikes. When we all know that a governing party can push things through because it has a comfortable majority there’s a limit to what movements and campaigns are likely to achieve. It’s hard to galvanise and mobilise people because they know, deep down, it won’t affect what actually happens.
A hung parliament will change the situation. Campaigners on a range of issues will be encouraged by the prospect of piling pressure on a delicate government and parliament. This can go in different directions, and there are no guarantees of progress for the left, but it’s likely to help those of us campaigning beyond the confines of party politics.
I don’t necessarily agree that a hung parliament represents a fragmented ruling class. No single party can guarantee pushing through legislation, in that circumstances – this is tautological to a hung parliament. But British parliamentary democracy has a long history of putting the principals in a room together and letting them hammer out an agreement.
Bearing in mind a) just how close the Tory and Labour positions are, relative to previous periods – e.g. the 1970s and b) the much smaller degree of control which the party exercises over its parliamentary party, never mind the parliamentary leadership, I can see the Lib-Dems getting put right back in their box by a Labour-Tory compromise. Which is a pity in one sense. And even if it doesn’t happen like that, there’s little enough to prevent agreement between elements of all three parties.
sorry, did I mention the idiotic Labour position on Amnesty for long term illegal immigrants?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/23/nick-clegg-immigration-amnesties
Least worst option?? With the Libdems now commanding a significant percentage of the vote, the argument that a vote for them is ‘wasted’ is out of the window. At least you didn’t bother to argue for that.
Surely the point is that, even if lots of people want to believe the Lib Dems are a left-liberal party, they aren’t. They’re a liberal party. The dominant Orange Bookers have frig all to do with the left, and in places like Cornwall where they’re serious contenders they are quite clearly a right-of-centre party. Not to say there aren’t good people or attractive policies there, but the lumping of them as part of “the left” actually misses the complexity (or mess of contradictions) of the Lib Dems.
And if we end up with a Tory-Lib Dem coalition, which is just as likely as a Lib-Lab coalition, then an awful lot of people are going to have egg on their faces.
In short, Splintered Su is right. How people come to believe there is something inevitable about a Lib-Lab deal is beyond me and indeed there is a glut of stories in the press who seem to know the score better than some of the political commentators. See Matthew Parris in The Times especially.
I agree with both of the above points – I was trying not to get caught up in that though, as I didn’t want to end up with one of the Lib-Con Lib-Dems lecturing over here on the socialism of JS Mill and his descendants, the Liberals. Like the constant attacks on the left-right spectrum, or the declaration that fascism is Left-wing, it’s one of the puerile arguments that gets really old, fast.