Thursday 17 February 2022

Can Labour Trust the Liberal Democrats?

It's progressive coalition time again! Thursday's edition of the FT reported on talks taking place between Labour and the Liberal Democrats with a view to running an informal pact at the next election. If the overriding goal is the removal of the Tories, this is smart politics. For those who don't pay much notice outside of the general election, Tory accusations they're being ganged up on has plausible deniability. Everyone everywhere will still have the opportunity to vote for either of these parties, but they pare back their resources and concentrate them in their target seats - obviously a boon to cash-strapped Labour without any rich donors ready to step in to replace trade union money. And the early ruling out of a coalition by both leaderships, provided they keep repeating it, will also make matters a touch rougher for the Tories. I.e. They have two parties almost exclusively gunning for them. What could go wrong?

The biggest problem, from a Labour perspective, are the LibDems themselves. If we've learned anything these last 15 years, it's that this "progressive party" isn't that progressive when it comes to the crunch. They preferred to throw their hard-won electoral support into the burning oil drum when the Tories offered them a chance of ministerial office. And in power, if their party stayed the hands of Dave and Osborne at all there's very little evidence for it. More recently under the wise leadership of the blessed Jo Swinson, they saw putting the boot into a Labour Party bedevilled by paralysing faction fighting as their route to the big time without any wider considerations. Such as being more accepting of a Boris Johnson government and everything that entailed than a bit of social reform under Jeremy Corbyn. Given what has happened and their constitutionally snakish formation, would Labour be daft to trust them?

The answer depends on context. In some localities the LibDems present as very anti-Labour because the local council is run by Labour. And, unsurprisingly, are vociferous foes of the Tories in Tory-run areas. It will be forever thus for as long as the party persists. But right now, the vibes are more favourable for Labour's chances. As this place has long argued, local election results and council by-elections show that Tory voters are more likely to dump blue to go yellow - a point forcefully made by formerly safe Tory areas. It therefore makes sense to go after the Tories. That and it's the only place the LibDems can go: of their top 30 targets, 26 seats are held by the Tories and just two by Labour.

Additional to electoral realities, there are two other very good reasons why the LibDems are unlikely to do a 2010. Then, Gordon Brown was a busted flush and everyone knew it. Plus the position built up by Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy, and Nick Clegg during the decade was on its opposition to Labour. They might have made a plausible argument that coming to an arrangement with Brown would have jettisoned its support just as well as their alliance with the Tories did. And, as far as they were concerned, Corbyn was so far beyond the pale to not even consider. But now Labour is in the process of being made safe for bourgeois politics again, electoral interests align with an affinity in the outlooks of both party leaderships. And lastly, there have been constructive relationships between the two parties for some time. The LibDems had the education portfolio in the Welsh Labour government until last year, and there are those not terribly quiet "informal" deals cut in last year's by-elections and in the upcoming Erdington contest not to do much campaigning and avoid harming each other. The de facto alliance, which Starmer said warm words about in December, is already operating.

This alliance can work, but it depends on the politics. Labour are going to have to do the heavy lifting and recent polls have reported significant slippages in the party's lead. Which isn't surprising as it's operating with a strategy of saying nothing apart from the most abysmal right wing positions. Like Angela Rayner's sudden enthusiasm for shoot-to-kill, for instance. A quiet compact with the LibDems makes things easier, but the question of winning and losing depends on the politics the party is peddling. And, at present, it's still doing all it can to repel its core constituency. Which, when Labour needs every vote in what will be a tight election, doesn't strike one as a terribly wise idea.

Image Credit

14 comments:

Blissex said...

«the most abysmal right wing positions. Like Angela Rayner's sudden enthusiasm for shoot-to-kill»

Natorious "centrist" Nick Cohen wrote in 2001 as to New Labour's "most abysmal right wing positions", of which we are getting season 2:


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/sep/02/immigration.labour
After the election, David Blunkett was promoted to the Home Office. He promised Blair he would 'make Jack Straw look like a liberal'. He was bragging, there's not a politician in Britain who can do that. But again it tells you something about the PM that Blunkett was obliged to make it.

Someone wrote that Robocop at least gave 20 seconds to surrender before shooting, so New New Labour is now to the right of that.

«Plus the position built up by Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy, and Nick Clegg during the decade was on its opposition to Labour.»

And in many cases, and especially Kennedy, oopposition to New Labour from the left.

Blissex said...

«Labour is in the process of being made safe for bourgeois politics again»

It is not even merely “safe for bourgeois politics” in general, because the mixed economy social-democratic programme of Corbyn was entirely compatible with bourgeois interests, as other time periods and other countries with that kind of social-democratic mixed economy show clearly.

New New Labour is like New Labour not merely safe, but actively supportive, specifically of thatcherite politics, prevalently to benefit property and finance interests even at the expense of industrial and other business bourgeois interests. As demonstrated by the ferocious anti-Johnson campaign by the latter.

Anonymous said...

Can Labour trust the Liberal Democrats? No.
Can the Lib Dems trust Labour? No.
Can voters trust either party? Absolutely not. That has been repeatedly demonstrated.

The way things are going, the minority of MPs in Labour worth supporting are probably going to be deselected (like Corbyn) or completely marginalised (like RLB).

That the Tories are a shower of bastards should go without saying.

So where does that leave us?

Anonymous said...

As for Angela 'Dirty Harry' Rayner: “I am like, you know, shoot your terrorists and ask questions second, if I’m honest.”

What a fucking clown. Does the name Jean Charles de Menezes mean anything to her? That's why you should ask questions before shooting people, Angela!

Blissex said...

«Can voters trust either party? Absolutely not. That has been repeatedly demonstrated.»

Voters who are "aspirational", that is usually affluent, property-owning, southern, thatcherites can trust LibDems and New New Labour, as well as the Conservatives! That has been demonstrated by 40 years of booming living standards for them. That is the whole point of "There Is No Alternative", to keep the good times rolling for them.

«So where does that leave us?»

Staying within Labour waiting to take it back, but vote Green hoping this has the same effect on New New Labour that UKIP had on the Conservatives. Also engage directly to keep the movement going, especially labor unions, Labour is just one element of the workers side.

For us being a labor union member is a duty, even if some labor unions are not entirely social-democratic (one labor union boss remarked that there limits to how much he could support the "left" as 40% of his members usually voted Conservative). Note: I am not a labor union official dependent on your membership fees...

Splendid, Bella! said...

You're right. They're completely unprincipled. I had one at my door in 2014 telling me he was "quite relaxed" about Scottish independence when he realised that I was in favour, yet they were frothing at the mouth at the prospect as part of the Better Together campaign.

Blissex said...

«They're completely unprincipled»

Yet another way in which New Labour, LibDems, Conservatives are similar. “There Is No Alternative”. This was written over 20 years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/24/labour2001to2005.news
The certain knowledge that the Conservative Party would be a worse government than Labour is not enough to sustain what used to be a party of principles.

Anonymous said...

I am missing something. It is so advantageous for another party to win seats from one's main rival in FPTP that it would be much better for the Labour Party not to have candidates in those constituencies where the main opposition to the Conservatives is someone else, regardless of whether that other party reciprocates or not . Given that, it would then make sense to get something reciprocal from that arrangement.

And as a side bonus, the internal pressure for compromises to a party's principles would probably diminish too.

Blissex said...

«it would be much better for the Labour Party not to have candidates in those constituencies where the main opposition to the Conservatives is someone else, regardless of whether that other party reciprocates or not»

Only in the very short term, because there are two bad consequences of that:

* A party can be based on principles, and a fundamental political principle is that a party exists *primarily* to organize and represent a class of voters, even before winning seats or majorities. Giving up on representation in some areas for purely opportunistic reason is not going to work well.

* If in many seats the LibDems are unopposed and win more seats, they may become a more viable opposition and more people might vote them that currently vote Labour because they don't think the LibDems have a chance. This may create a tipping point for the LibDems nationally. See the case ofg the SNP, that achieved that even if Scottish Labour and Scottish Conservatives did not refrain from competing with them.

There is also a political reason, for Labour as a social-democratic or democratic-socialist party: the LibDems are as thatcherite as the Conservatives, even if of a different flavour, and helping them to win more seats means more seats for thatcherites. But since New, New Labour is also thatcherite, they may well not consider that an issue.

Peter Mandelson, 2002-06-10: “in the urgent need to remove rigidities and incorporate flexibility in capital, product and labour markets, we are all Thatcherites now”.

Anonymous said...

By your logic, it is still a good thing to do, since splitting the 'Thatcherite' vote would be so much better for the Labour Party than pretty much anything else. It isn't helping 'Thatcherite' parties to win seats though, since the entire point is that this applies in seats where 'Thatcherites' are going to win either way.

But I agree if you the think that the first duty of a political party is to be on the ballot regardless of winning or losing, then it is a bad idea. But if you want to win in FPTP, then optimizing to win FPTP might be the thing.

Blissex said...

«By your logic, it is still a good thing to do, since splitting the 'Thatcherite' vote would be so much better for the Labour Party than pretty much anything else. It isn't helping 'Thatcherite' parties to win seats though, since the entire point is that this applies in seats where 'Thatcherites' are going to win either way.»

And that is an inconsistent (to put it mildly) argument: because splitting the "thatcherite" vote only benefits Labour if that results in winning the seat, but if there is not chance of that, how does that splitting benefit Labour?

Put another way, in what way Labour and the labour movement benefits if a seat that cannot be won by Labour is won by the LibDems instead of the Conservatives? The only possible results of that are:

#1 The Conservatives still have a majority, but somewhat reduced.
#2 The Conservatives must make a Coalition with the LibDems.
#3 Labour can make a coalition with the LibDems.
#4 Labour gets a majority, and the LibDems make the Conservatives a smaller minority than otherwise.

Well, #1 and #2 don't change much, #3 and #4 give a boost to the credibility of the LibDems as an alternative to Labour as opposition, and #3 is not so good because it means that Labour's programme will have to be thatcherite to get the votes of the LibDems.

Of course "The Guardian", the "FT", etc. would be really happy with #2 and #3, because the LibDems would ensure that the Conservatives could not enact a tory nationalist programme, or Labour could not enact a social-democratic internationalist programme.

And indeed Con-Lib or a Lib-Lab coalition are the most obvious goal, and the most likely result of helping the LibDems gain some Conservative seats, and also gain greater longer term credibility as an opposition alternative over Labour.

Blissex said...

«if a seat that cannot be won by Labour is won by the LibDems instead of the Conservatives?»

Things would be different if for every seat that the LibDem won thanks to Labour passivity, Labour won a seat thanks to LibDem passivity; but there are very few marginals that Labour can realistically win if the LibDems are passive, and 10 times more seats that the LibDems can win if Labour is passive, and that's also because it is much easier for a Conservative voter to switch to the LibDems than to Labour, still, even with Starmer, as the LibDems proved themselves as very reliable thatcherites during Coalition.

Anonymous said...

But #3, even if it is not so good as #4, is better than #1 & #2, no? And that is the minimum you get, if there is no reciprocation. So no, it isn't an inconsistent argument: it increases the chance of #3 and reduces the chance of #1 & #2. I think that you under-estimate how much of a Labour programme could get through on #3 and the benefits of showing some success of that programme to increase the chance of #4.

If there is reciprocation, then you also increase the chance of #4.

Anonymous said...

Unless you think that #3 is no better than or worse than #1 or #2, the Labour party would still be much better off doing it. It certainly isn't an inconsistent argument: if Thatcherite votes are more split, the chances of #1 reduce and the chances of #3 increase. #2 is probably a little better than #1 too, FWIW.

#3 lets you get 'some' of your programme in and that seems unequivocally better than #1 or #2; it is also useful advertising for the benefits of #4.

In any case - how has the current strategy been working out?