Rundle’s UK: It’s dire for Lib Dems
|
The Conservative Party led by David Cameron have failed to win a majority in their own right in the 2010 UK election, in a poll marred by sit-ins and protests at polling places where people were unable to vote by the time polls had closed at 10pm. At the time of writing, around 3am UK time, the Conservatives were on target for around 305 seats, with Labour on 250 and the Lib Dems on around 60. The result confounded polling throughout the campaign, which suggested that the Lib Dems were on track to increase their vote towards 28%, up from 20% of the vote. The result suggests that the UK will be presented with a hung parliament, with the Conservatives having a strong but not overwhelming claim to be offered a chance to form a government. However, the major problems with voting difficulties have thrown the legitimacy of the poll always shaky into further uncertainty. Though such problems have long been a feature of US elections, which are managed on a municipality by municipality basis, but are unprecedented in the UK, which prides itself on the smooth running of elections. As early as 10pm, exit polls had suggested that the enormous upheavals created by the televised debates and the rise of the Lib-Dems had not been borne out in the polls. This seemed to be confirmed as results started to come in. The first important seat to fall was Battersea, which demonstrated a considerable swing to the Conservatives. However other seats that the Tories needed to win, such as City of Durham, and Vale of Clywd, failed to swing with sufficient force, leading to the forecast that the Tories would fall around 20 to 30 seats short of their goal. However Labour managed to hang onto seats it was wildly expected to lose, such as Bolton North East. As the night progressed it became clear that the Lib-Dems were not achieving the breakthrough they had hoped, with colourful figure Lembit Opik losing Montgomeryshire, and the party failing to capture Guildford, a key target. As the number of seats declaring went into three figures, it became clear that the Tories were unlikely to get the 7.5% swing they required to gain a majority in their own right. At 3am David Cameron’s seat was declared and he spoke to the nation, saying that while there was nothing certain about what might happen, it was clear that Labour had lost its mandate to govern the country, and that the Tories would be committed to the national interest in the days and weeks ahead. Gulp. And the count continues towards the morning…. |
|
|
|
33 Comments
Are you sure Labour wasn’t “widely” expected to lose those seats? However, losing a seat wildly would be awesome.
It seems clear that the outcome of the election is almost total limbo. The voting patterns suggest that the electoral verdict is that:
1 Gordon Brown has been rejected by the electorate;
2 David Cameron hasn’t been endorsed - the Tories have won more seats but the swing towards them is far less than the swing away from Labour; and
3 the Lib Dems have no right to claim a place in any coalition government as the swing towards them has been very small, and they’ve lost seats.
The only coalition that could remotely conjure a majority on the floor would be a Tory/Lib Dem government. But given that the Lib Dems want voting reform, which the Tories will not accept, that is doomed. While, a Labour/Lib Dem coalition will not command a majority without the support of all the minor parties, 4 of whom won’t
What about a minority Labour or Tory Government? Each is possible but either way it is unlikely to last even a year, given that Lib Dems will demand voting reform and confronting the UK’s fiscal crisis will require spending cuts and tax rises that neither of the two major parties will agree on, and which will be resisted by the minority regional parties (SNP, Plaid Cymru, Ulster unionists). In fact, any Government proposing such actions would probably lose a no-confidence motion before it could be implemented.
Possibly a labour minority government could go on, but it would be doing so under a leader who probably doesn’t even command the support of his own party, and which is demonstrably tired and unable to set a direction for the future. And how will David Cameron command his own side given his failure to win?
Julian Evans: ’ the Lib Dems have no right to claim a place in any coalition government as the swing towards them has been very small, and they’ve lost seats.’
I disagree. They had a vicious tabloid scare campaign launched against them in the aftermath of the first debate. That sort of thing sticks. I think they’re a breath of fresh air.
I don’t think it is a question of whether the Lib Dems have a “right” to claim a place in a coalition govt, it is whether either Labour or the Tories are willing to do a deal to secure a majority of votes in the Commons if it comes to that.
Here, the Libs and Nats have remained in coalition federally even though the Nats have steadily lost seats over the years. In Tas, Labor and Greens have done a deal to secure govt. If Labor had refused to deal it could, in theory at least, been a Liberal-Green govt
@Julian Evans and @Campers.
More than simple arithmetic of what it takes to form a working majority, the LibDems so far have got 6.3M (23%) of the vote compared to Lab with 8.0M (29%). This is almost 80% of the Labour vote. So I don’t know how anyone could say they don’t have a strong moral claim on a share of any government.
As in 1974 it is highly unlikely the Conservatives will be able to negotiate a deal with the LibDems even if they wanted to. Conservative almost anywhere in the world find it almost impossible to share power with anyone. And when the combined Lab+LibDem vote is 52% such a coalition would have validity. It is hard to find a similar equation for any Conservative coalition.
So it seems Brown will remain PM (even if some behind the scenes deal is made for his early retirement, he desperately wants to have won the job once in his own right — even if he retires after a year or two).
The questions remain how effective the LibDems can be in negotiating electoral reform given their poorer than expected performance (so far). But Clegg would be nuts if he settled for anything less. And of course that will be the truly momentous outcome from this election not whether David or Gordon or Nick became PM.
Hey Guy
How are you and your socialist buddies doing? ROFLMAO.
Boy, what a (lack of) result!
Here’s my $0.20 worth:
Losers:
Lib Dems: not getting anywhere near the swing they (and everyone else) expected. It’s not just the ludicrous FPTP electoral system not converting votes into seats, the % of votes didn’t go up significantly.
Tories: had a 20 point lead a year ago, an economic crisis, a government on the ropes, and most of the media (including Murdoch) behind them and still couldn’t take government. P*ssed off the LibDems who will walk over glass to avoid forming a coalition with them (qv Liberals in the Tassie election).
Winner: (to my utter astonishment)
Labour: Brown was handed a sh*t sandwich by his party, was massively behind Cameron until recently, was shown up by Clegg as well in the TV debates, was personally unpopular, had the “bigotgate” gaffe and still held on to enough of the vote to form a government, albeit as senior partner in a coalition. Brown deserves full marks for guts if nothing else.
Other losers:
Pollsters: What happened to that Cleggmania again? (Mind you, the exit polls were pretty well spot on).
Murdoch media: threw everything they could behind Cameron and came a cropper. If Labour and LibDems form a coalition (and they both have every reason to do so) Murdoch is on the sidelines with a government that (a) owes him nothing (b) has every incentive to “get medieval” with his empire.
UK local polling authorities: a record turnout and what happens? Couldn’t handle the rush. Not as bad as the US, but bad, bad, bad nevertheless. Like FPTP, a historical relic that badly needs updating.
Skepticus: doing better than your Tory mates, who’ve blown the best chance they’ve had in years to get government!
I’m a Labor voter, doofus.
@ Skepticus Like he said, a Tory.
Oh, here’s one of Guy’s socialist buddies turned up. Pretty soon, the whole phone booth will be here!
Gosh, you’re so funny Skeppy.
Cameron is politically dead. He should have landslided this election. Instead (and I suspect teh troglorights didn’t help, like they don’t help here), he’s bungled it…
Brown is also dead.
Clegg will be next…
Dire for Lib-Dems? Wrong. Best result for them. Reminds them they have no chance. The only future they have (they don’t have a past) is to get rid of first past the post. Brown would trade his saggy arse to save Labour- so Clegg should be able to stitch up proportional rep. in return for coalition. (Clegg would be a fool not to put a date on the deal) Brown might be forced to agree to self-destruct to clear the stink, after a face-saving interval- Miliband is as hungry as a rat trapped in a drawer. His delight at Labour’s vote couldn’t be disguised today: enough to fight on, but also enough to flush Brown down the sewer of history. A neat, rodent-sized hole in the worm-hole of history.
Even Cameron might do the deal with Clegg. The Tories have failed to knock off a tired, rotten Govt. even though they tried to kill the Nasty Party monster with Caring Cameron- young, fresh, and his bike is powered with his own methane. But Mock-Green didn’t work. And Cameron knows Scotland and Wales have fucked the Tories for decades, just like this time. The Tories seem to offer a choice between the Eton Boating Song and feral lower middle class ratbags like Thatcher. Computer says no.
Tories know that the Lib-Dems could usurp their position in the long run. Coalition is risky, but better in the tent than sitting on Labour’s tank.
‘Dire’? Who subedits crikey?
‘Disappointing’ Clegg admits - relative to inflated expectations and a deflationary electoral system. Even with threat of wasting a vote 22% voted LibDem. Imagine 25% voting Green here with first past the post… a 16th century electoral system.
The LibDems wake up as KingMakers, for only the second time in 80 yrs. Their only regret in power terms is that Labor didn’t do a couple of percent better: that would have given an inevitable parliamentary mandate for a medium-term-stable Lab-Lib coalition including electoral reform.
ps Skepticus you confuse. The Conservatives branded Lib-Dems, for years as leftists. If so, 51% minimum, leavng aside SNP, PC, SDLP, Greens have voted for the centre left. The centre right barely scrapes 40%. But who really knows with such an archaic voting system, fit for 16th century shows of hands. FPP only makes sense in a two party system, of which none survive (the US parties being institutional shells).
well skepicus, since both Labour and Conservative parties have received low votes expressing no broad support, the legitimacy of the whole UK political system has been undermined at the same time as the collapse of Greece pulls the EU apart, i’m doing pretty well. You’re a Labour voter - it just got its worst vote since the 1920s. How you doing? UANATFWYH.
Ye gods, unbelievable. In my post above I wrote:
“The question remains how effective the LibDems can be in negotiating electoral reform given their poorer than expected performance (so far). But Clegg would be nuts if he settled for anything less. And of course that will be the truly momentous outcome from this election not whether David or Gordon or Nick became PM.”
It seems that Clegg is nuts. And delusional. At the time I write (late Friday night) by talking about forming some sort of arrangement with the Conservatives — nothing formal (no one thinks the Cons are capable of such a thing…..isn’t this all one needs to know?), no ministerial positions and probably no binding agreements on any policies! And certainly the Conservatives are never going to agree to electoral reform because they would be the ones to suffer irretrievably and it will become much more difficult for them to ever gain government (without losing their right wing tendency, in other words lose their capital C conservative nature).
So why would Clegg do it? There is some kind of suggestion that it is because natural justice suggests Cameron should be the PM. That is utter BS. Not only has he not won a convincing mandate (and losing a 20% lead over the past few weeks is ample evidence) but once you have three parties with broadly equal slices of the vote there is no question of “ethics” in any combination between these parties to form a satisfactory arrangement.
And of course for the LibDems the single most important, indeed the only important issue is electoral reform, which would make the system fairer and ensure LibDem equitable representation into the future. This would be transformational. If Clegg and his party f**k this up, because of some petty dislike of Brown or whatever then they are irredeemably stupid and do not deserve any power. Why should anyone ever give them a wasted vote again? I can only hope it is some kind of negotiating ploy, toying with the desperate and beleagued Gordon Brown. It doesn’t look like it but I hope he plays hardball.
Greens won a seat.
OK, even the mincing latte set get it. From the grauniad late Friday a.m. UK time:
” his (Clegg) fatal flip-flopping about who he might fancy putting in power.
And at the end of it, Gordon Brown and Labour are still standing – or just about anyway. Despite a gaffe-prone New Labour-style campaign, it looks as though fear of Cameron’s cuts and Brown’s last-minute playing of the social justice card saved the party from the threat of third place meltdown.
As I trailed yesterday, the prime minister has already decided to try and make the Liberal Democrats an offer on electoral reform they will find agonising to refuse – and initial contacts have already been under way.
For Clegg, this is likely to be his last big moment. Does he grab his best once-in-a-generation chance to bust open a creaking electoral system and put the Lib Dems in permanent pole position – or bow to Cameron’s insistence that he has the mandate to govern and a media mob demanding Brown be defenestrated without further ado?”
Bloody hell, is there any choice here? OK, so they still need to lasso some other minor parties but for god’s sake, whichever party gets into No.10 is probably not going to last long, so at the least Clegg should get the electoral reform from this mess.
Daniel, yes a Green. That should be one in the bag for the Lab-LibDem coalition.
In fact do you remember I urged Guy to go down to Brighton to investigate and have a bit of fun (and vicariously his readers). But no, he had to go north and subject us to the unbearable grotty make-you-slit-your-wrists north!
Matthew Parris was on Lateline saying it’s a Conservative govt, quoting convention and the constitution… I then remembered he writes for the Spectator… He’s pretty reasonable, to be fair, but if hte numbers were reversed, would he use the same argument?
(and yes, I know, there’s no document for the British Constitution, short of Bagehot)
DLEW919. I saw Parris and was disappointed as he is usually very sensible. But it seems a part of the British disease because it a common lament on the Guardian blogs that it would be oh so unfair and unBritish to not let Cameron be PM because he got the most votes (even though none of these Guardian readers could not possibly want him)! Incidentally Parris writes for The Times, and he was a Conservative MP way back (when I lived there) but left I think because of pressure due to his gayness/coming out.
Anyway here is George Monbiot:
“For the first time in living memory, we have a chance to smash our antediluvian system. If we can seize the opportunity a hung parliament offers, to deliver proportional representation and party-funding reform, we will change politics in the UK for ever.”
Here is Simon Jenkins:
“Since Cameron cannot yet be sure of the confidence of the House of Commons, the first move clearly lies with Brown as incumbent prime minister. He is down but not out. He has clearly been beaten by the Conservatives but is entitled to see if he can form an anti-Tory alliance with the Liberal Democrats and possibly the so-called Celtic fringe. It would have to defy the bald fact that the Tories are certain to be the largest party, and most disciplined in the whipping cauldron of a hung parliament.
Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats now have their moment of power, but it will be just a moment. “
Also in the Guardian:
“He (Clegg) may also know that some of his party might rebel, and even cross the floor, if he insists on trying to form an alliance with Labour, led by Brown or a fresh faced Miliband. My understanding is that Clegg, tired and despondent, is very wary of forming a coalition with Labour, but he has to think hard about how his party is to grow after the massive disappointment of last night.”
WTF? “even cross the floor”! Are these LibDems wet behind the ears? Milsops? Are they kindergartners? Do they ever want to get elected ever again? Are they incapable of seizing this opportunity?
They need to do the bloody deal with Brown and change the system forever or get out of politics.
Been watching the Grauniad live blogging of the election. Interesting the number of comments from Tories p*ssed off that their party romps it home in England but doesn’t get office due to the votes of Scotland etc and how unfair this is. Do they realise that what they want is effectively the break-up of the United Kingdom?
Little Englanders indeed!
The only winners in this election have been the Greens, and the won just one seat. ROFLOL.
Have we got any UK posters here?
I’d be more interested in how they call it.
Seems like Rupert cannot back a winner , here or there. Did you know that Prince Alawaleed bin Talal is the 4th Largest investor in Ltd News, and guess what Fox don’t like the Americans knowing that (Tea Party ?) No bad words about Saudi Princes anymore on Fox .
@Michael R James: You are correct. I wonder how many of them are seeing the Poisoned Chalice (Parris himself said whichever govt gets up and loses next time will be out for 30 years), and so are mischievously suggesting Cameron to destroy the tories. Are Guardian readers that subtle?
Not only does the UK have an antediluvian political system, it IS an antediluvian political system. Formed in 1800 by a process of conquest, state terrorism, genocide and royal interbreeding, the UK has lost whatever relevance it ever had as a socio-political entity.
What the English egocentrically and arrogantly refer to as ‘the Celtic fringe’ is hanging in there out of habit, but it’s gradually devolving away from London - and this is particularly apparent in the Tory poll result. Even though this most English of parties received the largest number of votes, those votes were mainly in England.
Well, Pauline Hanson is supposedly heading over there to live. She can form One Kingdom and wrap the Union Jack around her and test the waters, LOL!
Posted Saturday, 8 May 2010 at 10:49 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
OK. So far, so script. We’ll shortly find out if Clegg is a soft-toy Tory or a real politician. Brown’s offer was short and to the point: proportional representation. He offers Clegg nothing except what Clegg really wants. Cameron offers Clegg everything except what he really wants.
Should be a no-brainer, but perhaps Clegg is a no-brainer.
Negotiating with Cameron first is just a sop to a country which doesn’t comprehend proportional representation, like most of the British commentariat.
Could be a nice irony if Clegg bends over for the Tories: the Lib-Dems regard Wales as “the Saudi Arabia of wind energy”. So Wales will be utterly fucked by England again. As usual. Cameron will pedal to his limo with a grin on his face.
It is very, very unlikely Cameron has a smile on his face unless it is a forced ricktus for the cameras. He is almost stuffed. On the one hand if he actually offers Clegg a hard promise of PR then a lot of his own party will erupt in vicious rebellion. If he doesn’t, then all of the party will be even more furious with him at losing this election than they already are (and they are, he lost the unloseable election and permitted those tv debates and invented that fatuous “Big Society” BS.)
Even if Clegg is such an utter milksop to accept Cameron’s non-binding flimflam on electoral reform (commission of enquiry etc; I would be disinclined to even accept a hard promise from the Tories because they will be calculating the cost of reneging or delaying until the fickle voters lose attention), the Cons will be left with Brown’s economic mess and an almost impossible political situation to try to fix it. In all likelihood he and the Cons will become even more reviled than Brown, because he will slash and burn, and he ain’t any Thatcher. And of course any coalition is doomed and they will be back at an election within 6-18 months but as the hated incumbents. Meanwhile labour will have a complete change in lineup (and dare I say it, with Balls).
The Lib-Dems will probably go down further — not just or even because of their utter inability to play hardball real grownup politics to get the only meaningful outcome from this election, electoral reform, but because voters will not have been impressed at wasting their vote; this is almost certainly the reason why they didn’t fare so well this election — because of the huge economic uncertainty that tends to sweep voters back to the familiar choices (though they in fact did get about 1% more of popular vote than last time).
That is why this is the moment for the LibDems. If they fail, they fail for all time and disappear at the next few polls as their impotence grows. Like the Dems here.
The news media (even the non-Rupert parts) are still singing the line that the odds favour Cameron being PM. I am confounded by this. Some perverted and incorrect notion of “fairness”. It is some kind of syndrome, fatalism doomed to miserable third-rate failure, the “mustn’t grumble” crap, a Monty Python sketch writ large. But then back in 1997 when I last voted in the UK (in blue-blood Oxford a waste of time) I did not understand all the fuss about Blair. Still don’t. Possibly I have been spoiled/blinded by my earliest political experiences of Whitlam who still looks like a giant amongst pigmies of all UK and Oz politicians since then (Keating exempted).
I might give Clegg the benefit of the doubt and imagine he is simply playing it smart by taunting Cameron and so avoiding opprobrium from both the public and the limp lettuce part of his own party, knowing that the Cons cannot possibly agree with his demands. After extensive negotiation with Cameron he is forced to turn to Labour. He is a highly experienced eurocrat and must therefore be expert at playing these games? But that’s what I thought about Rudd. The real political stage, however, is trickier with its more unruly individuals (no clear hierarchical or stable pecking order like in these public service bureaucracies or diplomatic services where these guys learned their chops) not to mention the voter’s capriciousness.
@MRJ: “If he doesn’t, then all of the party will be even more furious with [Cameron] at losing this election than they already are”
They say that oppositions aren’t voted in; goverments are voted out.
On the numbers, they didn’t vote Labour out hard enough.
Certainly dire for the Lib-Dems now. They took everything they didn’t need and don’t get the one thing they can’t do without: PR. A referendum with the Tories campaigning against PR could land them in the rubbish bin of history forever. And they’d just climbed to the top of the skip…
The Lib-Dems are not just inside the tent, they’re trussed up. Dick Cameregg is the new PM. The clones have merged.