UPDATE #2, 20/5/08: Nick Clegg comprehensively denied that there was any truth at all in the Telegraph story at the Policy Exchange tax launch this lunchtime. Commenting on a thread on LibDem Voice, Andy Mayer wrote: "I’ve just come from Nick’s tax launch speech at Policy Exchange where he addressed a question about this with the entirely unambiguous response that there was no truth at all in the Telegraph story."
UPDATE #1, 19/5/08: As I mention in this later post, A very reliable and informed source tells me that the parliament/Clegg/Tories Telegraph story referred to below was a planted piece of mischief making by the Tories rather than anything originating from Clegg & co. I note that the article contains no direct quotes and is mostly written on the basis of "The Daily Telegraph understands that...".
This is a very interesting story in the Telegraph. My response to all this, on reading the article, is, this far out from a general election: "Fair enough". However, I cannot see this arrangement lasting very long simply because we currently know very little of Cameron's actual policies. His first Queen's speech under a hung parliament situation would probably be "motherhood and apple pie". But, sooner or later, the leopard of the Tory party will revert to its spots. And I see little point in shoring up a government which is "treading water" and not addressing the radical changes needed in this country. In essence, the only satisfactory outcome for a "hung parliament" would be another general election after a reasonable time period.
Having said all that, Nick's statement is ground-breaking, brave and, I suspect, necessary. I am not sure at this stage whether it will cause more or less questions and controversy than our previous position. I hope it will neutralise the question which always comes up for LibDem leaders as we approach a general election. But knowing the media, I doubt it. I can see Humpty Humphrys and Paxo coming up with all sorts of niggly detailed questions about hypothetical situations which are potentially thrown up by Nick's stance.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, will support David Cameron if the Conservatives are the largest party in a hung Parliament.
In consultations with senior members of the party, he said he was prepared to take the necessary steps that would enable the Tories to form a minority administration.
Mr Clegg ruled out taking a Cabinet seat in a Conservative government in return for his support and instead would provide Mr Cameron with "supply and confidence" – meaning he would promise to back a Conservative Budget and would side with the Tories in any votes of confidence.
As a result, Mr Cameron would be free to accept the post of Prime Minister from the Queen on the day after the next geneIn return, the Liberal Democrats would reserve the right to vet Mr Cameron's first Queen's Speech – the publication of his legislative programme for his first year in office.
Mr Clegg would have an effective veto over the Tories' domestic policy proposals as he could withdraw the support of his MPs and order them to vote with the Labour opposition on measures with which he disagreed.
Before now, it had been thought likely that Mr Clegg would wait until after an election to embark on negotiations with both of the main parties in the event of a hung Parliament.
But The Daily Telegraph understands that he has decided that the public would not forgive him if he propped up a Labour administration that they had voted to throw out.
He is uninterested in taking up a Cabinet seat led by either of the other parties, as he believes it would fetter his ability to criticise an administration.
Instead, he wants the power to veto legislation, which, he hopes, would raise the Liberal Democrats' profile enough to allow them to become the second largest party at a future general election. ral election, even if he failed to win an outright majority.
Monday, May 19, 2008
UPDATED: Telegraph story regarding "hung parliament" support for the Tories
Written by Paul on Monday, May 19, 2008
Labels: Liberal Democrats, NIck Clegg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
I also have to say "fair enough". If the Tories are the biggest party at Westminster, people will feel they have "won the election". The Liberal Democrats would probably come under some gibing on the lines of "being afraid of power" for not joining a coalition, but junior coalition partner is a rotten place to be (you get all the blame if things go wrong, none of the credit of things go right), so the position of minimum support necessary to keep the government going, while remaining outside, is probably the best. We would be very badly criticised for anything which looked like propping up a Labour government which had "lost the election", though that shouldn't be ruled out if only as a negotiating position.
The nice thing about this position is that an excuse for dropping the support could probably be made at some time in mid-cycle when the Tory government was slumping in the polls.
Many thanks Matthew
I agree - allowing the largest party to form a minority government is the best thing to do, providing both stability and allowing us the freedom to vote with our conscience
Has the Cleggster been taking notes from our friends in Reading?
It seems we should watch our local parties pretty closely to see how this works in practise over the next two years.
A genuine case of foreshadowing, though some localistas would say R-Town has always been at the crossroads of national debates.
This is an absolutely disastrous and ludicrous statement to make. He was under no pressure to do so and now we'll be pilloried as the toadies of the Tories. I can visualise the cartoonists' images taking shape already...
In Witney we are opposed to David Cameron. What do we say to voters there now? Vote for us so that we can, er, support the Tories. Brilliant.
That will no doubt become the view of all voters. Only a stern denial by Clegg today will save this situation. We shouldn't be supporting either party - until the results of an election are known because that's the earliest opportunity we will have to know how the land lies.
This is a disaster!
Wit and Wisdom, perhaps you should talk to your former PPC who is now the leader of the LibDems in Reading and has made a similar undertaking to support a hated minority administration.
This isn't about how it might be painted by our enemies through diluted media representations (because for every person who would be scandalised by supporting opponents there are two who dislike politicians who can't compromise), but proving that we can deal with the real world and bite our tongues when the opposite might cause more damage.
Narrow party interests have to be placed behind the wider interests of the public and it is up to us to explain the tools that are available (such as call-in procedures and additional scrutiny, the effective veto on the Queen's Speech etc).
We shouldn't panic as the debate will turn when people see what the reults are.
We are not in opposition for opposition's sake, but we are clear we are not interested in abandoning our independence
I don't think the negotiations have finished in Reading have they? One anonymous seems to be saying that he/she thinks we going in with the Tories and one seems to be saying that we will be going in with Labour - or is the same person and I have misinterpreted what they are saying?
The key difference between Reading and what Clegg has done here is that in Reading the elections are over and that is the perfect time for politicians to compromise and haggle over who does what.
I want us to be an independent party and to fight to win every single election. When each election is finished, let's talk.
Excellent article. It sounds like the Australian Democrat's slogan for the Senate elections (under PR), 'Keep the B*stards honest'! i.e. vote Lib Dem to stop the worst and nastiest right-wing ideas of the tories....
This is an absolutely disastrous and ludicrous statement to make. He was under no pressure to do so and now we'll be pilloried as the toadies of the Tories. I can visualise the cartoonists' images taking shape already...
"What would you do if no party has an overall majority?" is not an unfair question to ask, since it is a distinct possibility. Of course, it should be asked of all the party leaders, not just the leader of the third party. I think it looks shifty not to give an answer, and just "it depends what Cameron and Brown do" looks like ducking the question.
I think the British people would best understand the response "the party with most MPs has 'won' the election, therefore allow them to form a government". But it needs to be made clear that a veto on that government's policies will be maintained, and we wouldn't be afraid to use it if that government proposed policy we thought did not have majority support across the country.
mhuntbach, the problem is that you are looking at this from a sophisticated viewpoint. The average voter doesn't care about and has to be persuaded to. Your arguments, though valid won't enter into the minds of most voters.
If we are now going to be seen as soft Tories we are fatally weakened.
An interviewer can ask about hung parliaments if they wish but if our leader ever answers such a question they are ruined.
The only answer, which I trust is the true answer, is that we want to win the election. Full stop.
Ahem,
'The average voter doesn't care about THE LIB DEMS and has to be persuaded to TAKE ANY NOTICE OF US.'
See how angry I am? Grrr!
The key difference between Clegg and Reading is that neither Labour nor the Tories publicly considered not getting a majority and the local media didn't ask the question of the LibDems so as to avoid giving us any credibility - that's what happens when there is a two-way polarization.
The dynamic at national level is different since we cannot be neglected as a serious player and there are far too many media outlets to avoid investigating this line of discussion.
I take it that it doesn't matter which party forms the minority administration in Reading as Mr Epps has stated that he is prepared to use his weapon of holding them to account in the interests of the public.
The short-term danger in this is that if he is true to his word and successful it will make the minority party more popular, though the medium-term upside is huge if we can keep the momentum rolling by building levels of community involvement.
Andy/W&W
First of all I have it on very sound authority that this story originated from the Tories - not Clegg or any of his flunkies.
Secondly, even if it were true, it is much the same sort of statement that Paddy made in 1997 (that he wouldn't prop up a Tory minority government) when we made more of an advance in MPs, proportionally than at any time since 1906.
It better be a load of rubbish. I'm not going to let the party back to tories in the way the report says. We can't just except any old budget. We should reject it unless certain demands are met. We would look weak. We have to stand up against the tories.
Unfortuently as it looks at the moment the tories would have a majority. We are failing to win support of people who have lost hope in labour.
"We are failing to win support of people who have lost hope in labour."
Except, judging from the May 1st results, in Liverpool, Sheffield, Hull, Newcastle, Burnley, St Albans, Cambridge,
Eastleigh, Rochdale, South Lakeland
Stockport, Three Rivers, Watford, Oldham, Warrington, Cheltenham, Cardiff, North East Lincolnshire, Derby, Wrexham, Exeter and on the new Northumberland unitary authority.
Well Wit has a point....and so does Burbler but the elections results were before this...i cant remember where i saw it but i saw a comment from a voter in c&n saying they wouldn't vote Tory but would consider us....i would be interested to see how this story affected that person's views....
mhuntbach, the problem is that you are looking at this from a sophisticated viewpoint. The average voter doesn't care about and has to be persuaded to. Your arguments, though valid won't enter into the minds of most voters.
If we are now going to be seen as soft Tories we are fatally weakened.
Yes, but the problem is that whatever we say in response to the question "what would you do in a hung parliament?" damages us, including "not telling". It's hardly going to help us if we give the impression we would help Labour stay in power either.
It seems to me that "we would allow whichever party has the most seats to form a government, because otherwise what happens is there has to be another general election" is the most sensible reply. We need to make sure this does not mean unconditional backing for anything that government proposes. So the line needs to be expressed in a bilateral way as I have above to avoid the charge "soft Tories" or "soft Brownites".
Post a Comment