The election showed that Britain is a progressive country but two significant interventions today make a Rainbow Coalition both unworkable and undesirable.
The election showed that Britain is a progressive country but two significant interventions today make a Rainbow Coalition both unworkable and undesirable.
First, Douglas Alexander said that Labour could not work with the SNP because of “fundamental” policy differences. Without SNP support, a rainbow coalition would have just 323 seats – the absolute minimum – unless they relied on the support of the DUP. As Iain Dale highlights, it would be inconceivable for the Labour party to go into formal coalition with homophobes such as Ian Paisley Jnr.
Second, Jon Cruddas has wisely demanded a process for consultation with the broad Labour party. This would be an similar process to the Lib Dems’ “triple lock” – but negotiators should be clear that there is not yet support within the parliamentary Labour party and it looks increasingly unlikely that this support will be forthcoming.
There are also some practical objections that are well worth considering. The first, pointed out by Liberal Conspiracy’s Don Paskini, is that:
“The Labour MPs in the last parliament were the most rebellious ever. How can a coalition which depends on Jeremy Corbyn, Frank Field, Tom Harris and John Hemming all voting the same way ever get any legislation passed?”
And as highlighted by Rory Cellan-Jones on BBC, Lib Dem blogger and Left Foot Forward contributor, Mark Thompson has come out in support of a Lib-Con deal. He points out:
“Gordon Brown has promised instant legislation to bring in AV for the Commons and a referendum on something more proportional … It would only take a few Labour MPs to vote against this for it to fall. And having conversed with some Labour backbench MPs I am convinced that there would be enough for this to happen. So what Brown is promising simply cannot be delivered.”
There can be little doubt that the Liberal Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. The collective failure of progressive parties to win an additional 20 seats – which would have provided a parliamentary buffer – has scuppered their preferred option of a Lab-Lib coalition with a new Labour leader. But the Lib Dems must now hold firm and not sacrifice principle for power by getting into bed with the Conservatives. The only progressive route ahead is a Tory minority government with case-by-case “confidence and supply” from the Liberal Democrats followed by a Lib-Lab electoral pact at the next election.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
48 Responses to “No gold at the end of the rainbow”
D-Notice
According to the Guardian, only 320 seats are needed http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/may/07/parties-coalition-government
This equates to Labour + Lib Dem + both parties’ N Ireland variants (SDLP and Alliance) + AN Other.
Guido Fawkes
The game is up Will Straw cheerleader for the Progress Coalition realises it is more likely a Change Coalition http://bit.ly/aqUVFU
Guido Fawkes
The game is up, Will Straw cheerleader for the Progressive Coalition realises it is more likely a Change Coalition http://bit.ly/aqUVFU
Sunder Katwala
Will,
The broad legitimacy argument is the important one. It would be interesting to have more evidence on public attitudes to this. The Tory party and press keep telling us what public opinion is, and keep trying to construct it, but have a less sure touch than they think.
* The SNP point doesn’t matter so much, certainly in terms of confidence. The SNP can not vote out a progressive coalition in Westminster, and then fight the Scottish elections next Spring.
* The Labour PLP argument is important. However, I can not see how the LibDems could legitimately ask, or Labour could legitimately offer, an electoral reform Bill on AV where there would be no referendum. Given the Labour manifesto commitment, that would generate principled refuseniks, and I doubt LibDem supporters and members would think it legitimate. Offering AV and/or multi-option PR referendums is a good thing which could get through as a mtter of confidence. We ought to offer PR for English local government too. And I would have thought Labour opinion ought to be able to coalesce around a citizens convention on constitution and electoral reform, with a commitment to a referendum on the outcome, which is often the LibDems’ first preference.
PS: There are news reports that our Justice Secretary Jack Straw opposes such a coalition. I was therefore hoping you would back it, and could be quickly ennobled as Lord Straw of the blogosphere, to take on the constitutional affairs brief.
Martin Coxall
RT @guidofawkes: Will Straw cheerleader for the Progressive Coalition realises it is more likely a Change Coalition http://bit.ly/aqUVFU