When backing the winner isn't always the best course
Liberal Democrat Voice is running a poll asking who the LibDems should support in the event of a hung parliament. It gives three options (plus don’t know/other): a) The winner of the popular vote ; b) The winner of the most seats; or c) Neither: we should oppose whatever the circumstances.
Now, as a woman with an opinion on most issues, I’m not a natural ‘don’t know’. But in this situation, despite having a very strong opinion, I’m going to be falsely bundled up with the indecisive. The obvious answer to me is that we should support whoever will put the greatest number of our policies into practice. To do otherwise is not only to go against our principles and those who had worked to put us in that position, but is also allowing the electoral system that we despise to bring resolution to a problem of its own making. We are in politics to get LibDem principles and policies into effect and must therefore use every ounce of bargaining power to achieve that aim. That means we must be open to negotiate with whoever is both willing and able to work with us to do so.
Neither the winner of the popular vote, nor the person with the greatest number of seats is necessarily the ‘real choice’ of a population tied to a ‘first past the post’ system. And whilst it could be said that Labour would have lost the right to govern should they fail to obtain a majority, can it be said that a minority Tory group have earned that right, when unable, it would appear, to find an open goal against a discredited government.
Of course there is the answer that says that we should work with neither of the other two main parties and just let them get on with it. The purist position would be to allow the party with the largest number of seats to form the next government, giving us the freedom to take each issue on its merits. Whilst seeing much merit in that proposal, the minority government is likely to seek a firm mandate, either from within the House, or by returning to the country. Whilst there is something to be said for not supporting any party which has failed to gain the support of the electorate, there are two good reasons why we should not walk away.
The first is that realistically we are not looking at a LibDem majority government at the next two elections. I remember after the Ribble Valley by-election watching Peter Snow saying ‘If this result were to be repeated across the country at the next General Election …‘ and watching the most hopeless seats for the then three year old LibDems, including the seat I was hoping to contest the following year, going gold. I am optimistic enough to believe that we could finish up with a good three-figure sum of MPs after the election, but I think it unlikely that that number will start with a 3 (or a 4 or 5).
Secondly voters don’t like repeated elections and uncertainty in government. Having been out to vote once, they don’t want to be told to do it all over again. This isn’t The X factor, where candidates are eliminated on a weekly basis, until only one is left standing at the end. Even if Brown goes all the way to next June, the country will almost certainly still be in the grip of a deep recession. Voters just want someone to take charge and run the country. And that means with a working majority, however it is formed. And from a selfish point of view, if we ask voters to choose again they’ll harden their votes behind the old Ugly Sisters, as politics polarises back into the old two-party see-saw.
Whatever the likelihood of a hung Parliament, it is imperative that during the election campaign itself we campaign on our own priorities for the country, making it clear that the chances of the other parties of forming a coalition depend not on the colour of their rosettes, but their willingness to support OUR manifesto. We cannot afford to be diverted by questions that we do not have the information to answer until after the votes have been counted.
The next election maybe the best chance in a generation or two to really change British parliamentary politics and to change the system that underpins the way our country is run. The optimism of doing so in 1983 was sunk with the Belgrano; what others saw as a Renaissance in 1997 turned out to be a false dawn that has put politics back many years. We must not let the opportunity slip through our hands again.
Related posts:
- Tally Ho! Tally Ho! It’s off to vote we go!
- Forget it Dave, the wedding's off
- Are you drinking what he’s drinking?
Comments
Leave a Reply:
