Given that Labour are attacking the Tories and Liberals primarily for cutting public expenditure, how could they attack from the left in a way that they aren’t doing at the moment? Seems to me they are setting themselves out to be on the left of the coalition!

I agree, especially with point 3. So far I’ve been pretty disappointed with the LD-left’s inability to criticize the government or (at least) provide breadth to the debates, when the Tory-right seem to be doing it so well. I’m hoping it’s just a question of finding their feet, and things will improve. For a coalition to work properly, the parties need to take advantage of their differences rather than pretend they agree on everything.

About the only part I accept is

The anger should be directed at the Tories. And it needs to be done in a way that will drain them of popular support (by focusing on rising unemployment than cuts), while bringing Libdems on side.

I make a point of calling this a Conservative government because it is. But more importantly, it gives an escape hatch for the LibDems who disagree with what they are doing. Admittedly, when I talk to a LibDem about this Conservative government they bristle, but it does mean that they can get used to the name for when the split occurs.

LibDems like to say how they have changed this government, but in reality there is little that they have actually changed, or are likely to. The raising of the income tax threshold and the AV referendum are about the only things that they claim to have done. Yet Cameron said during the election that he would like to raise income threshold, it just wasn’t a priority for him. The LibDem influence has merely delivered something that the Tories would have liked anyway.. The AV referendum is just a sop, since the Tories will vote campaign it. Quite a patronizing sop really – if there had been a real conviction to allow the people to decide on electoral reform then STV would be on the ballot. The LibDems have been humiliated there.

I think that Labour are right to point out that the minority party in this unholy alliance is getting all the shit for no benefits. This is a two fold strategy. Firstly, if the LibDems were persuaded to get off their star-struck arses they could actually make a difference and stay the arm of the Axe Wielder. At the moment they are being told by the Axe Wielder where to stand. We (that is the 60 million of us who do not have those 22 jobs in government) may actually benefit from the LibDems pushing harder for the things that they had in their manifesto (like, you know, why people voted for them?). Secondly they may realise that they have been taken for a ride and that it would be better for them to leave the coalition sooner rather than later.

Finally, since the coalition was formed the idea of “supply and confidence” has completely disappeared. I point out to the LibDems that “supply and confidence” would now be delivering LibDem policies, whereas the coalition is delivering Conservative policies. They know I am right, but it will be a while before they admit it. Let’s help them realise that their real power is in delivering LibDem policies, not Conservative policies.

The Observer assumes that it is Labour’s strategic aim to drive a wedge into the coalition. I would have thought that is strategic lunacy. The aim should be to bind the Liberal Democrats ever more tightly to the Conservatives, so that it is utterly impossible to be a supporter of the Liberal Democrats and yet opposed to the government. That way, Labour will be in the best position to attract the broadest possible base of support from those who do not agree with the Coalition’s approach.

I do not believe British politics properly has place for three main parties. It should be a duopoly of large broadly based parties. If Liberalism (or liberalism) wants to maximize its power and influence on British politics, it would do so far better as a strain of opinion within the two main parties rather than purporting to form a party of its own.

If the next election is held on FPTP, the chances are that the LibDems will be reduced to a small parliamentary rump (they’ll probably do a bit better under AV). What Labour need to focus on wooing are the 23% who voted for the LibDems rather than playing silly parliamentary games.

LibDems like to say how they have changed this government, but in reality there is little that they have actually changed, or are likely to.

Ending of detention of child refugees was a Lib Dem policy. I would have been surprised if the Conservatives had implemented the Equality Act in full as a majority government. Increase in capital gains tax in the budget, even if it’s not the full amount the Lib Dems wanted, it’s more than the Conservatives would have done.

I expect over the five years if the coalition holds together there will be many more. For now, the Lib Dems have a very strong incentive to keep it together.

At the moment, all the strongly-left Lib Dem voters have already left the party for Labour or Others. If the AV referendum passes, Labour will need to pick up the majority of the second preferences of the rest, which they’re not currently in a position to do. If it fails, then the collapse in the Lib Dem vote will give the Conservatives an unassailable English majority. Neither looks particularly good.

Given that Labour are attacking the Tories and Liberals primarily for cutting public expenditure,

On social issues, I meant. I agree that economically they’re in the right place.

Richard
LibDems like to say how they have changed this government, but in reality there is little that they have actually changed, or are likely to.

Perhaps, but the Labour party was willing to offer even less in return for a coalition. They took the best deal they got.

which is why they can’t do….

I think that Labour are right to point out that the minority party in this unholy alliance is getting all the shit for no benefits.

…because Libdems have a very easy comeback to that.

Secondly they may realise that they have been taken for a ride and that it would be better for them to leave the coalition sooner rather than later.

Again, the Labour party then has to offer something better in return then.

David
That way, Labour will be in the best position to attract the broadest possible base of support from those who do not agree with the Coalition’s approach.

But you’re assuming that Labour would become bigger than a Tory-Libdem coalition. That is very unlikely.

Henry – mmm, too early to say they’ll be reduced to a small rump. We’ll have to see how Labour respond first. If they don’t attract those Libdem voters then the Libdems will hold up their base of support.

The LibDems have done a 180 U turn on many of the things that they said at the election. VAT going up, cutting the debt too qickly, etc etc.

Labour have every right to attack them, and to remind those that voted for the Lib Dems that they have been played like a grand piano. If the middle class Liberals at the Observer don’ t like that, tough.

“The LibDems have done a 180 U turn on many of the things that they said at the election. VAT going up, cutting the debt too qickly, etc etc.

Labour have every right to attack them, and to remind those that voted for the Lib Dems that they have been played like a grand piano. If the middle class Liberals at the Observer don’ t like that, tough.”

Leaving the class bigotry aside, I think it’s entirely disingenuous to describe the Lib Dem’s behaviour as a u-turn. The Lib Dems were describing what they would do if they found themselves in power, not what they would realistically be able to achieve as the weaker partner in a coalition. It’s patently obvious that any coalition agreement will involve compromise, and the Lib Dem’s other option was to uncompromisingly achieve none of their campaign pledges by refusing to deal.

Many Lib Dems will quite rightly feel that they have been played, as you say, like a grand piano. While Clegg admittedly said he would be prepared to work with the Tories before the election, that was widely viewed by supporters as a sop to ease any anger against a possible Labour-Liberal coalition, and this needs to be taken into account. Others, though, will feel that Clegg did the best he could in the circumstances. It comes down to the individual and their reasons for voting Lib Dem.

#blah blah blah….”the approach to taking them on in opposition needs more thought”. #

…another new depth plumbed by the progressives’ barrel scraping deep sea blogger …you’re meant to provide the thought Sunny…we don’t need the problem restating..we all know the problem..you backed the wrong nag…get over it…it’s not like you’ve got any recognisable credibility to defend.

“…another new depth plumbed by the progressives’ barrel scraping deep sea blogger …you’re meant to provide the thought Sunny…we don’t need the problem restating..we all know the problem..you backed the wrong nag…get over it…it’s not like you’ve got any recognisable credibility to defend.”

Christ, I’ve never seen someone actually be bitter in victory before. It must seriously suck to be you.

Sunny @ OP

I hear what you are saying but looking at the position we are in now, I think the Left have got to aim some fire at both coalition partners. The hard core of the Conservative Party are following their instincts. They want a smaller state right reason or none and will not be swayed in the least from carrying out these merciless cuts. However the Liberal Left are the weak links in the coalition, we (on the Left in whatever party) need to keep exposing the Liberals on these points.

I doubt that the ‘Orange bookers’ will need any convincing to fuse further with the Tories. I would not be surprised to see a few outright defections in the near future or certainly by the next election. If there is a split in the Lib Dems on ideological grounds and the Left of the Party are reduced to a rump they will have to decide whose side they are kicking with. If they are forced to examine what is currently being done in their name now, it will be harder when things start to fall apart…

Hi Sunny,

I think you have completely misread (or mischaracterised) my post.

I’m arguing that Labour should adopt a mixed carrot and stick approach?

My whole point was that I am semi-persuaded by your argument.

I also don’t think there is any ‘common thinking’ about this in the Labour Party, but there is certainly a feeling of outrage on an emotional level. Nor am I saying that’s good, though I think that some level of such outrage is going to characterise it, for the simple reason that oppositions often feel outrage at the actions of Governments.

Whilst there needs to be an acceptance that some of this resentment will always exist, Labour needs to look beyond it and maintain composure.

The real outrage should be coming from people who voted to scrap tuition fees who are getting them tripled, for smaller cuts, who are getting 40%, and for lower VAT, who got a hike. I think that this is also going to build up as the coalition begins to bite, and that the Lib Dems will feel the electoral force of it.

I’m not arguing that Labour should be broadsiding at the Libs.

I am however arguing that their vote will split heavily between contradictory wings, and that they will be increasingly motivated to leave the Government or do something to drag it seriously leftwards, in the face of annihilation.

As I started off saying, they already stand on current polls to lose 2/3rds of their MPs on uniform swing. Before the cuts have even started to bite.

This is unsustainable in the long term.

Some Lib Dems are going to come left. That is a given.

It is important to foster a debate which allows space for this, to support left-lib dems and give them factional confidence, and to lead a coherent, left-of-centre policy platform in opposition to the current fashionable wisdom of chopping.

At some level, though, that will mean electorally opposing the government. Only if they fear losing power will the motivation to chance hold effect.

Tom

The only scenario where this matters is one which is a sort of mirror of last May. Labour clearly the largest party, but short of a majority. I say a “sort of mirror” because, if the coalition is going to lose 50+ seats, as this implies, it is hardly likely that the Tories will have lost all of them, much less that the Liberals will have made net gains.

In the event the options are Labour minority & Lab-Lib coalition. All Labour’s instincts will be for the former. (I take it as read that the AV referendum will fail.)

As a hitherto non-Labour voter, I’d suggest that if Labour wants to attack the Lib Dems effectively, it ought to focus its activity (and presumably money) at local level where Lib Dem-run councils (either alone or in coalition) are implementing cuts due to the national government’s austerity measures. Bad local election results for the Lib Dems will have far greater impact on the national leadership than a defeated ex-government getting on its high horse at PMQs. Which hardly anyone watches, in case we’ve forgotten.

@ Richard Blogger

“I point out to the LibDems that “supply and confidence” would now be delivering LibDem policies, whereas the coalition is delivering Conservative policies.”

Do you really think the Lib Dems would have more power in a supply and confidence arrangement? Why?

LibDems like to say how they have changed this government, but in reality there is little that they have actually changed, or are likely to

It’s worse than that. Lib Dems voters need to face up to the fact that the way they have changed the government is almost entirely for the worse.

Without Lib Dem support, Cameron would have needed to establish his credentials as a moderate. He would have had to do something meaningful and nice now, and avoid doing anything radical and nasty for 4 years or so.

With Lib Dem backing, the nice gestures can be entirely symbolic (a referendum planned to be lost, some minister speculating about ideas that will never be acted on, and so on), and the nasty actions can be brutal and immediate (take ~10% of the next 6 years of tax revenue out of the hands of those paying it. Put them in a piggy bank marked ‘break whenever someone from the City asks’).

Ex-Labour ministers have been attacking pretty much exclusively the LibDems, and the LibDems contribution to this government. When I listen to Straw or Johnson, I’m not hearing “The LDs are bad for compromising on X and enabling the Tories on Y”, but “The LDs are bad for sticking to liberal positions on Z”, with the implication that they’d actually prefer unadulterated Toryism. Straw actually praised Michael Howard’s “prison works” bs and bemoaned the fact that the new govt was going to be less authoritarian than Major’s.

This suggests that the reason they don’t have their eye on a future LibLab coalition is a simple one: they’re angling for LabCon.