Home > Alex Massie

Friday 10 February 2012

Clegg Gets Labour to Drive His Party to the Tories

Tuesday, 11th May 2010

There's one thing that may be said of Nick Clegg's willingness to talk to Labour: it allowed Labour to show Liberal Democrat MPs that a deal with the Tories is the only show in town worth buying a ticket for.

Once Labour MPs vowed to derail any plan to force through voting reform without a referendum and once John Reid, David Blunkett and Andy Burnham pointed out the absurdity of a "Loser's Alliance" that, however constitutionally permissable, would mock the actual, you know, result of the election then even the most sawdust-brained Liberal Democrat MP could appreciate that this bird wouldn't fly.

That leaves a proper deal with the Tories the only sensible option - an outcome that I suspect was Clegg's preference all along. But he may now have been able to sell the idea to his party without having to make it a confidence motion in his own leadership or having to issue an ultimatum to his party. That leaves Clegg in a stronger position internally.

And, of course, by flirting with Labour Clegg was able to persuade the Tories to increase their offer on voting reform even though it became clear that Labour couldn't possibly give Clegg any real assurances on voting reform themselves. This too makes it easier for Clegg internally.

So while the public may not have been impressed by the shenanigans of the past 24 hours Clegg's manoevering has had a certain logic now that it seems that a deal can be concluded today. Had matters dragged on until the end of the week things might be different but the deal seems to be coming quickly enough to save Clegg from too much public wrath.

At least that will be the case if the new government can last three or four years. Another poll in six to 12 months might be a different matter.

The Lib Dem membership may not like it but they'll have to lump it.

And, um, yes, that means that if this is right then quite a lot of this post, er, has to be wrong.

Filed under: Clegg (60 more articles) , Coalition (1871 more articles) , Election 2010 (598 more articles) , Labour (2013 more articles) , Lib Dems (97 more articles) , Tories (265 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (11)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Ben G

May 11th, 2010 5:02pm Report this comment

At last; despite everyone working themselves up into an angry fury about Lib Lab talks, what a relief that one person, Mr Massie, can see them for what they are - a simple negotiating tactic.

Clegg used to negotiate with the Chinese. He knows what he's doing. And as the events of the last 24 hrs have shown, he's very good at it.

shorpe

May 11th, 2010 5:12pm Report this comment

So, you think the collective hissy fit the Spectator (including you) has been having for the last 24 hours might have been a little bit overblown?

fifer

May 11th, 2010 5:22pm Report this comment

Not being a Daily Mail reader, I fail to see what Clegg's done wrong in the last few days to have attracted such opprobrium. Both larger parties wanted to talk to his party to see if an accommodation could be reached because neither of them got enough votes or seats to form a government by themselves. Clegg was - and is - under no obligation to smooth Cameron's path to power.

All of which said, I think a Conservative / Liberal coalition is the best (and most stable) outcome and hopefully the Liberals will come to recognise that they and the Conservatives have actually developed common ground on some hugely important issues over the last 13 years - ID cards, DNA retention, the rule of law, torture, over-reliance on CCTV - there's a lot there, and I say that as someone who'd put his own eyes out with pins before voting Tory. So, on the whole I can't see that Clegg's done himself any harm at all.

Nigel

May 11th, 2010 5:23pm Report this comment

>>that means that if this is right then quite a lot of this post, er, has to be wrong.<<

I don't see why. You can either be machiavellian or principled, not both, and Clegg has made his choice.
Not necessarily a bad choice - but it's certainly not a "new kind of politics".

Alex Massie

May 11th, 2010 5:33pm Report this comment

Shorpe - I refer you to the last line of the post.

donpatrico

May 11th, 2010 6:00pm Report this comment

Fifer - it's been reported that Clegg opened secret negotiations with Labour whilst in open negotiations with the Tories. He could have made it clear that he reserved the right to talk to Labour as well, and done so openly. Perhaps that's what he did in fact do, but what he appears to have done if true deserved the criticism it received. Not a good start to a partnership, and it won't be forgotten.

Hal

May 11th, 2010 6:02pm Report this comment

I give you credit for rethinking your previous views. Clegg's opening of talks with Labour pushed the Tories into agreeing to a whipped vote on electoral reform; that's a significant win for the Lib Dems. Nothing wrong with negotiating effectively, is there?

And was Gordon Brown trying not so much to cut a deal as to force the Tories to up their bid. It's done in bridge all the time: you know your opponents have the better cards, but if you can make the contact expensive for them, your chance of defeating it improves. So far, Clegg is making Cameron a weaker PM than otherwise, because the Tory ranks will be unhappy at the concessions. And the more promises the Lib Dems extract from the Tories now, the greater the chance that one of those promises will be broken later, giving the Lib Dems cause to bring the government down. If I were a Labourite, I'd want a new election in 18-24 months, not 4-5 years.

(I am American, so if I made any seriously off-base assumptions, please correct me.)

JohnBUK

May 11th, 2010 6:09pm Report this comment

fifer, the issue is, what do those who voted LD this time think of their behaviour? From what I've been hearing on Pravda in the last hour or so many of them are unimpressed with Clegg's behaviour. Examples seem to include those who voted LD were doing so tactically to remove the Liebor candidate only to find they were to get a a continuation nationally of their nightmare. Unscientific I know.

Ian Walker

May 11th, 2010 6:53pm Report this comment

Not wrong yet, Alex. I should imagine the Tories have drawn the same conclusion as you re: the amount of time Clegg has with the public patience, and are screwing every ounce back out of the last meeting as they can. There will not be any more negotiation, that's for sure.

Nick Drew

May 11th, 2010 9:25pm Report this comment

Yes, the earlier post was wrong, I'm afraid: Clegg was simply 'shopping the deal', as often a negotiator must before putting it to his stakeholders:

all explained at the time !
http://cityunslicker.blogspot.com/2010/05/dont-misread-cleggs-latest-move.html

Jaded63

May 11th, 2010 11:56pm Report this comment

For the first time in history we have, en effet, the Whigs and Tories combining. The minority socialist tendency that the Whigs-cum-Liberals-cum-Lib Dems had become lumbered with in latter years can now splinter off and get embedded in Liebore’s rump.

The new Whig-Tory combo could become so powerful that it will keep Liebore out of power for good. Now THAT’S a progressive coalition.

Post comment