You are here: Home » Comment »

Sorry Peter and Polly – a Lab/Lib coalition is a non starter

August 31, 2012 1:16 pm

Author:

Mark Ferguson

Tags:

Share this Article

Polly Toynbee has an interesting article in the Guardian today about Labour, the Lib Dems and what happens in 2015. The argument that forms the main part of her piece – that Labour should side with the Lib Dems to cleave apart the coalition – is a good one, both politically and morally. Anything that can be done to end this coalition sooner than 2015 and get the Tories out of power should be on the table. That’s why I’ve argued in the past that Labour should make a big, open, comprehensive offer to the Lib Dems.

Until 2015 that’s the only potential game in town.

But where Toynbee’s argument falls down is when she suggests that a future Lib/Lab coalition government is on the cards. She suggests that shorn of Clegg and Alexander, the relationship between Labour and Lib Dems would be convivial, as if those two are mere bad apples spoiling the Lib Dem parliamentary party. If only it were that simple. If only most Lib Dem MPs had not supported the formation of the coalition and then repeatedly rolled over and had their tummies tickled by the Tories on the economy, higher education – and perhaps most grievously of all, the NHS. But they did, almost all of them. It is the few Lib Dems who have stood up to the Tories who are the exception, not the Lib Dem half of “The Quad”.

For that reason, a huge proportion of Labour supporters find the notion of going into coalition with the Lib Dems a fairly gruesome thought. An electorally significant percentage of Labour’s gains in 2015 will come from those who have turned their back on disgust upon the yellow peril.

“You’re all the same” will be an attack with profound resonance if we allow the Lib Dems to slink back into the government benches despite an electoral thumping. The party’s will rotate, but many of the faces will remain the same…

Yet it’s not just the media who continue to push for a Lib/Lab coalition in 2015. Peter Hain – one of Miliband’s closest supporters – has argued that Labour will find it hard to win a majority next time and should reach out to the Lib Dems. Considering current polling and the abandonment of boundary changes, that’s a remarkably pessimistic response from an Ed Milibandite. Labour must aim for a majority next time, rather than focussing on what happens if we fall short. Preparation for an agreement with the Lib Dems feels like preparation to fail – or an admission that Labour has yet to do enough to win next time.

Such musing on this subject might be better placed in private than in public, for fear of the electoral consequences of such conjecture…

Rather than spend time allowing the Lib Dems back into the political debate by continuing to pretend that they remain a credible progressive force, we should be consolidating our support with those who have gone from the Lib Dems to Labour already. Many feel betrayed by Clegg and his motley crew and are looking to Labour as a credible alternative. We can and should be able to turn some of these ex-Lib Dems into solo Labour voters in future, something we won’t acheive in a Lib/Lab coalition. And two people who should know that better than anyone are Peter Hain (ex-Liberal) and Polly Toynbee (ex-SDP). Rather than being the vanguard of a coalitionist sentiment, they should be exemplars of what can be achieved in the big tent that is the Labour Party – the sole remaining credible progressive force in British politics.

aracataca

I agree 100% with this piece. Attaching ourselves to them would be akin to tethering ourselves to a corpse. Furthermore, the breathtaking and crass cynicism and hypocrisy of ‘announcements’ (for want of a better word) such as that made by Clegg earlier this week about taxing wealth after having endorsed the 5p reduction in the top rate of tax have driven us further apart. Mischief making apart we should treat Clegg & Co with the contempt they deserve.
- RoyBoffy
  
  Better the sinner who repents? And we certainly need LibDems of a progressive stripe within the Labour tent to counter the authoritarianism of new Labour at its worst.
- Serbitar
  
  Most of the Liberal Democrat leadership and the majority of the political party’s membership seem to belong to two different tribes, the former right-wing and the latter quite a bit left-of-centre. It is a strange dichotomy. Rather similar to the Labour Party’s current situation itself truth be told: it would be very foolish to tar all Liberal Democrats with the same brush and reject them based on what their leaders and strongly whipped MPs have done as part of a Coalition government in concert with the Tories.
Monkey_Bach

“If only most Lib Dem MPs had not supported the formation of the coalition and then repeatedly rolled over and had their tummies tickled by the Tories on the economy, higher education – and perhaps most grievously of all, the NHS. ”

Coalition misrule in respect to the economy, higher education, and the NHS has been nothing short of spectacular and yet… no mention as per the Coalition’s astonishingly cruel and swingeing welfare cuts, eh? Eeek. I may be a monkey’s uncle but that seems kind of strange to me. Eeek. If they have no bread let them eat bananas, eh?
AlanGiles

I think Peter Hain is just being realistic, Mark.

It is only 2.5 year since Labour left office, and though some of the liabilities have gone (expenses swindling MPs and ministers, Gordon Brown and his unfortunate personality), there are still too many of the old guard still around. I don’t think it helps that Ed Balls is still shadow chancellor, for example. Or the incipient Mayor of Birmingham still hangs on in the shadow cabinet. Moreover, one or two of those who “didn’t get away with it” at the 2010 election have the chutzpah to try again (Tony McNulty for example, who still seems to have designs on Brent).

I have frequently suggested Ed M has a reshuffle, because, – let’s be frank about it – there are some lightweights in the shadow cabinet. Some hardly talk about their briefs. Some are conspicuous by their absence. Twigg gives Gove an easy ride – an easy ride to the most reactionary Education secretaries of the past 30 years.

I can hardly see a working majority in 2015 – the Tories, to try to win back some of their deserting voters to UKIP and elsewhere will claim that, in truth it has not been a “Conservative” government since 2010 (though of course it has been ultra-Tory) and if they win they will persue an entirely Tory programme. They will say that they have had to make compromises, which in retrospect they will apologise. They might just pull it off, they might not, but whoever wins will, I think, find it hard to win a working majority.

As for the LibDems, I think they will be lucky to retain ten of their current seats. I should think Dr Cable will, and a few of those who have shown some independence of thought (Tim Farron et al), but I should imagine the great days are over.

It might be if there are nine or ten LibDems left, that Labour will need them.
- Hugh
  
  Reactionary: “Opposing political or social liberalization or reform.”
  
  Sounds rather more like Gove’s opponents to me.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    ?
    
    The definition of reactionary I have is (paraphrase) ‘desiring to return to a previous state of affairs; a position of extreme conservatism; restoration of a traditional social and/or political order’. Not just, ‘opposing political or social liberalisation or reform’. That’s far too broad.
    - Hugh
      
      Take it up with Oxford dictionaries.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Well there’s your problem. Mirriam-Webster FTW.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Mirriam Webster? Is that not a bit American? And I am not sure that you can paraphrase a definition as you do above as by definition a definition is definite and irreducible.
        
        It seems to me that you can have reactionary elements on both ends of the left-right political spectrum. For example, if a tory wished to end the welfare state, there would be a huge argument, with many left wing people quite rightly opting to maintain the status quo. But yet, by the definition, that would be reactionary.
      - PeterBarnard
        
        Merriam* Webster is wholly American, and it’s a fine dictionary (* by the way, you two, second letter is e not i). I bought a copy about fifteen years ago.
        
        My old Concise OED (1964 vintage) defines reactionary as “retrograde tendency especially in politics.”
        
        MW says, in the political sphere … (i) reaction = resistance or opposition to a force, influence or movement, especially a tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy, and (ii) reactionary = relating to, marked by, or favouring reaction, especially ultraconservative in politics.
        
        As I have always understood “reactionary,” MW certainly strikes a bell.
        
        I would like to see a hard copy of the OED to see what they say about reactionary. I am sure that the hard copy would be somewhat more comprehensive in its definition than the online version.
      - http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone
        
        “ by definition a definition is definite and irreducible.”
        
        That’s an interesting view but as usage changes over the years so does the associated meaning and therefore definitions are always in flux.
        
        For example, no one today would be flattered to be called a ‘tart’, yet ‘tart’ is a contraction of the affectionate ‘sweetheart’.
        
        As an experiment why not call your wife a tart. While you may have to defend yourself with a hefty dictionary you’ll at least have first hand experience of the promiscuity of meaning and of how usage is the larger part of definition.
      - PeterBarnard
        
        Problem is, Dave S, although English as a language is constantly evolving (and has done so for centuries), if usage becomes the “larger part of the definition,” it can – and almost certainly does, I’m sure - lead to misunderstanding.
        
        I guess it’s because I have been used to standards and specifications in my working life in works of engineering construction, that I do tend to take a literal view of words when they are expressed - the last thing that you want in a specification is ambiguity.
        
        If the objective of communication – whether written or verbal – is to convey a message without ambiguity, then a “common standard” is essential : that seems to be a logical outcome, at least to my mind.
      - http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone
        
        Misunderstandings? Categorical errors? Tell me about it! They’re the blight of my life!
        
        And usually, just before things go ballistic, I back-off, and excuse myself with a muttered: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
      - Brumanuensis
        
        ‘Promiscuity of meaning’. I see what you did there Dave. Very droll.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        By paraphrase, I mean combine a variety of elements included within the term’s definition. As for use of Merriam-Webster – thank you Peter! – I went to a majority-American school and it was the standard reference work as I recall.
        
        ‘Reactionary’ has, since its inception, always referred to extreme right-wing policies – so David Cameron is not a reactionary, but Andreas Breivik is. The term originates from the French Revolution and was applied to supporters of the restoration of the monarchy and of the ‘ancien regime’, pre-1789. Application to the left is a rhetorical flourish, rather than an accurate political term. There are plenty of other epithets – ‘old-fashioned’, ‘traditionalist’, ‘backward-looking’ – that would better describe opposition of the kind you describe.
      - robertcp
        
        Jaime, I would say that defending the welfare state is sensibly conservative. Ending the welfare state would be reactionary. Policies that favour people on low and middle incomes would be progressive or radical.
  - http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh
    
    There are reactonaries on both sides, including Gove.
- http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh
  
  That is untrue, Alan. Firstly, there is a predicted 45% swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. That not only helps Labour takes seats like Manchester Withington, East Durbantonshire, Brent Central, Hornsey and Wood Green, Bristol West, Bermondsey and Old Southwark but it also means that Labour can take three-way marginals like Bristol North West, Cambridge, Watford, Colne Valley, Calder Valley, Leeds North West, Filton and Bradley Stoke, Stafford. If the Tory vote remains unchanged, that gives Labour the most seats in a hung parliament alone. It is very clear that now the Conservatives have lost credibility, key local government bases, they are a divided and that Labour on many issues (including the economy) are now ahead, a majority government is on the cards. As for Stephen Twigg, Labour is more trusted on education under his time as a shadow cabinet minister and he has been putting radical free-thinking ideas but tribalism for tribalism’s sake is not needed. This argument about the old guard, well Peter Hain has gone. The idea that the Tories will move to the right will prevent Labour from winning a majority is also risible. All Labour needs to do is consolidate on what it has done so far and build from it but the idea that a working majority is unrealistic, when every poll under the Sun, is pointing to a Labour majority higher than that of the one we got in 2005 is silly. There is all to play for and those who are carping from the side lines because Ed is not pursuing their agenda are on the wrong side of the argument.
  - aracataca
    
    Quite correct Renie. Well said. Your list is fairly comprehensive but omits a few more seats that IMHO look likely to fall to us (given the criteria you have set out), for example the 2 Norwich seats.
    - http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh
      
      I’ve added Norwich South but Norwich North is seat we need to win with Tory voters.
      - aracataca
        
        Rennie
        
        This is a completely winnable seat and was Ian Gibson’s old seat. Really good popular MP forced to resign in one of GB’s madder, panic stricken moments. Take it from me – good candidate totally winnable.
- aracataca
  
  Interesting that someone who routinely criticises Labour from a Leftist perspective is so intensely relaxed about us going into coalition with Clegg and co. We need the Liberal Democrats like we need a hole in the head.
  - AlanGiles
    
    For one thing, I doubt Clegg will even be in Parliament after the next general election, still less as his parties leader. Huhne may well be occupied elsewhere, if you know what I mean, and it remains to be seen in trougher David Laws is forgiven by his constituents.
    
    I said you may need the LibDems, what is left of them, in the event of a hung parliament; and I have explained my reasoning about that elsewhere.
    
    It is worth remembering that Labour left office in June 1970, and came back to office in February and October 1974 with miniscule majorities – and that was the choice between Ted Heath and Harold Wilson. As all three parties are now so close together, I honestly can’t see either of the big two suddenly earning the undying love and affection of large swathes of people. Also remember people are far less loyal and liable to vote now than they were 42 and 38 years ago. There was a huge swathe of difference between the policies of Ted and Harold, for people to choose from. Now, frankly, they are being offered bread and bread.
    
    May I ask you: do the Shadow Cabinet genuinely inspire you?
    - http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh
      
      Miniscule majorities? Back then a 66 seat majority was seen as a landslide. What you ar really saying is that Labour should go down your route – lurch to the left – in order to massively differentiate itself from the Coalition parties, and win Tory voters. How does that work, Alan? Consensus in politics can be a very good thing, but we are different from the Tories and the Lib Dems – we have our own agenda, our own plan and our own ideas, most thinking people recognise this.
      - AlanGiles
        
        What do you think the majorities were in February 1974 and October 1974?. I can assure you it was NOT 66 in either of those two elections, which was what I was talking about (remember?: “It is worth remembering that Labour left office in June 1970, and came
        back to office in February and October 1974 with miniscule majorities –
        and that was the choice between Ted Heath and Harold Wilson.”)
        
        Do keep up!
      - AlanGiles
        
        Just in case anybody thinks Labour had a 66 majority in 1974 (though it would have been deserved), here are the actual results:-
        
        http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge74b/results.htm
        
        Overall Labour majority – 4
http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

As I said on Emma’s piece here nothing short of a split could detoxify whatever segment of the Lib Dems did break free of the coalition.

Their ancestral parties (the Liberals and Whigs) split acrimoniously roughly every generation between the Stuarts and 1931 – what is wrong with the current lot?

Or perhaps rather what is right with them?

The Orange Bookers may look like pathetic losers but they and their Tory allies have actually done more to destroy the welfare state, NHS and public education in little over two years than Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown achieved in 30.

See them not as ordinary politicians but as true fanatics and recognise that ‘rolling back the frontiers of the state’ is far, far, far more important to them than their individual careers or the continued existence of their party and it all makes sense.

In this light their political self-immolation is actually almost heroic (and would be truly heroic if they weren’t all looking forward to lucrative directorships and sinecures from their corporate masters when they do lose their seats) – if only our leaders and MPs had the commitment to our class that they and the Tories have to theirs.

The truly contemptible Lib Dems are in my view not Laws and Clegg but the likes of Kennedy and Farron who won’t openly act against the coalition that they know is destroying not only their party but the country but who salve their consciences by strategically absenting themselves from votes like the final reading of the NHS Bill.
Daniel Speight

The problem the Liberals have is that it will be almost impossible for them to position themselves to the left of Labour after their recent actions. That leaves them no real place in British politics anymore. I would hate to make the parrot joke as badly as Thatcher did, but this one is definitely dead. As for the well-permed Peter Hain I would be happy to see him return to the party which was his first love.
http://twitter.com/pwrac Phil Rackley

I was annoyed by Polly Toynbees article. The sheer hypocrisy of the LibDems should act as a warning to us not to accept them as allies. Look at their record in supporting clearly the Conservative led Coalition and their economic prescription. Remember the tax cuts for the rich and the benefit cuts for vulnerable, the farce over outsourcing etc. If I wanted to be a conservative I’d join one of the Conservative Parties now in government.
- AlanGiles
  
  Sadly, Phil, hypocrites abound (and flourish) in all parties.
  
  Remember how Labour continued to endorse the reforms of welfare “expert” David Freud, AFTER he became a Tory peer?.
  
  Where do we stand now on this policy alone?. God knows - if Labour think they will sail in to office, policy lite and fancy free they are seriously deluded.
  
  There should be a nucleus of clear policies now – the Coalition could break up at any time prior to 2015, yet there seems a total lack of preparedness in this regard, with Mr Crudas and his review ambling on for 2/3 years and some Shadow ministers still unable to articulate their ideas.
markfergusonuk

Remiss me me – that should of course have been on the list, but the list could be very long indeed.
- AlanGiles
  
  For the reasons I cite to Monkey_Bach above, Mark, I can well understand how it would have been embarrassing to have mentioned it in the article.
telemachus

The way forward has to be capturing the LibDem MP’s who are inherantly friends and beguiling them(not the party) with continued occupancy of a Commons seat under the red banner.
We need to go for the gold of a majority.
We cannot be beholden to misfits like Simon Hughes when Clegg and Alexander are gone
Brumanuensis

Now as always, I found Polly Toynbee’s article a bit of a strain – it’s the tone more than anything, even when I agree with what she says. And I agree with aracataca’s point that openly ‘tethering ourselves to a corpse’ is a pretty awful idea.

And yet, there is the possibility of a coalition. I think the best course for Labour would be to concentrate on winning outright for now and then – independently, not through any back-channels – draw up an outline for a potential agreement, during the early months of 2015. We can’t completely defenestrate the Liberals, yet. Wait until we have them over the barrel, then impose our terms.
- John_Dore
  
  This is exactly right, should we be just short of a majority we could dictate terms rather than tethering ourselves to a corpse ( I like that phrase).
  
  “I’m different Clegg” has ruined what was an institution in British politics.
DrBlighty

I agree. Labour shouldn’t touch them with a barge pole. They are an unprincipled bunch of opportunists who would sell their own grannies for a seat in a ministerial car. They must pay the price for their treachery.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Spammo-Twatbury/100002426967566 Spammo Twatbury

“If only most Lib Dem MPs had not supported the formation of the
coalition and then repeatedly rolled over and had their tummies tickled
by the Tories”

Oh, do shush. We didn’t have to have a Tory/Lib Dem coalition at all. There was a chance of a rainbow-coalition alternative in 2010. It would have been fragile numerically, but it could have commanded a majority, and governments have ruled with fragile majorities before. It would certainly have been better than what we have now.

Who torpedoed it? Not the Lib Dems, but Labour, who were so aghast at the prospect of having to work like grown-ups with the Scottish and Welsh nationalists that you couldn’t get them off the telly saying there’d be a revolt if it was attempted. The Lib Dems were left with nowhere else to go.
- robertcp
  
  Quite right Spammo. Labour supporters need to get off their high horses!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=36910622 Edward Carlsson Browne

Having a plan if we don’t get a majority to get the Lib Dems on board seems like a good idea, even if we may fairly doubt the enthusiasm they’d have for helping us cobble together a government.

Openly saying we’d settle for a Labour/Lib Dem coalition is quite another matter.
http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

Amen to that!
NT86

Labour needs to invest all its time and resource to ensure a majority in that case. I think Hain and Toynbee’s words should be interpreted as being overly cautious, more than anything. It shouldn’t be too difficult to regain lost ground to the Tories seeing as how most of their gains from Labour in 2010 were with wafer-thin majorities (3,000 or less). Furthermore, expect the Tories to hemorrhage votes to UKIP.

As for the Lib Dems, they’ll probably hold onto a small handful of seats where they’ve rooted themselves in for years and/or have good constituency MPs. Any narrow chance of a Lib/Lab coalition would be untenable with the likes of Nick Clegg or David Laws steering negotiations. Assuming Tim Farron, Vince Cable or Simon Hughes manage to hold on in 2015 only then could potential negotiations be more fruitful.

Marginal Lib Dem seats are the ones most at risk. They’ll go back to Labour in the north, Tories in the south, and according to some opinion polls a chunk of Lib Dem voters are considering opting for the Greens at the next election.
http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

One also only needs to look at the list of Lib Dem seats sorted by percentage vote to see that most of their seats have unnaturally low Labour votes

Their top 10 seats range from being Labours 480th to 631st worst seats by percentage and you have to go down their list as far as #29 to find a seat that has a percentage vote for Labour higher than our national median.

In fact by my rough count in only half a dozen of the LD’s 2010 seats was Labours vote higher than our national percentage.

Their MPs are therefore hugely dependent on Labour voters who voted tactically in 2010.

But given that the Tories are much better placed to win most Lib Dem seats than we are this does indeed raise the possibility of even a small rump of surviving Lib Dems holding the balance of power again as while by with-holding our tactical votes from them we can take away 40 or 45 LD seats between three fifths and two-thirds of those will go to the Tories rather than us.

So if the Lib Dem vote was halved but Labour had no real swing against the Tories and only picked up former LD votes this would not be enough to win an outright majority as so many of those formerly Lib Dem votes would be wasted in what are natural Tory constituencies.

In which case even a dozen surviving Lib Dem MPs could still hold the balance of power.

And the fixed term parliament act could prevent a minority Labour government from holding another election as we did in 1974 – in which case we really would have no option but some sort of pact.

However this need not be a coalition – both Jim Callaghan and Ramsay Macdonald came to arrangements with the Liberals which fell a long way short of formal coalition and a chastened and humiliated Liberal Democrat party desperate to rebuild its centrist reputation could hardly turn such a deal down.
- JoeDM
  
  So Tories could gain seats from disaffected Limp Dems voting Labour !!!!
EdwardDavie

It’s not just that the Lib Dem leadership is vile so are many of their MPs, councillors and activists as any who has fought them will know – they fight dirty, they lie, they undermine trust and they go into coalitions with Tories in Town Halls at the drop of a hat
rekrab

Invite Lord Owen and Charles Kennedy to speak at the conference! that’ll put a sock in Clegg’s gob.
http://twitter.com/Chas_Boz David Arrowsmith

I find the presumption that New Labour has in the past or ever would pursue policies any different from those of the Lib Dems, the Coalition or even the Tories laughable. The government with which we face today was created in the image and the shadow of Blairism, with Blair’s default presumption that the private sector is the only force for change in our society and all those who are not members of “Hard working families” are outsiders from that society. The days when Labour could claim to be a “Progressive” party of the left are long gone, as they were for the Lib Dems post 2010.
AlanGiles

” the Coalition’s astonishingly cruel and swingeing welfare cuts, eh?”

2009: Freud, Purnell, Brown, McNulty, Cooper, ATOS
2012: Freud, Grayling, Duncan-Smith, ATOS

Pots and kettles. If I may say so, until Labour supporters stop this basic denial that it was LABOUR who created Frankenstein’s monster, we will get nowhere: You can’t keep fooling the public that it was “nothing to do with us, guv” – the people who matter – the ones who have been bullied by ATOS, and allowed to do so by both the coalition AND Labour, know better and will punish all three parties equally.
- aracataca
  
  You say ‘we’ but you’re voting Green or abstaining or something next time aren’t you? You only comment on here to try to demoralise us.
  - AlanGiles
    
    I say “we” because I am broadly supportive of Labour – provided that persue policies that do not harm the weakest in ociety as the Freud/Purnell bid palpably did. Did you see the report from the CAB this week, which highlighted the number of people who had actually died after being declared fit for work by ATOS?. 70% of people who appeal are succesful in that appeal. Some probably are too weak and demoralised to do much about it. But Labour, and Labour alone, are to blame for Freud and ATOS. The coalition has merely continued what Purnell started. If you recall when Purnell introduced his bill, he said that the longer term results would not be seen till 2012/13, and for once he was quite right.
    
    I have, in the past, mentioned on LL an old friend of mine, who suffers from uncontrolled epilepsy and cerebral palsy, who has been deeply concerned since 2009 when that pair started the dirty tricks. I have mentioned how he fears brown envelopes from the DWP. Well, on August 22nd he suffered a mild stroke, and is still in hospital, where I have visited every day. At present he is greatly confused and has problems with short-term memory loss.
    
    I am not saying the stress caused this stroke, but it is highly likely the stress has contributed to it.
    
    Let’s hope that all those Labour supporters who want to ingratiate itself with right wing tabloids and Conservative voters are proud of their achievements.
    
    I am not trying to demoralise anyone, Bill: but until Labour is prepared to tell the truth and admit their part in the welfare reform scandal, they will demoralise themselves, because people will find it very hard to believe Labour politicians who say one thing and did, and probably do, another.
    
    If you asked me the question, if there was an election next week, who would I vote for, I will give you the same answer I gave you at the start of the year: I want a true Labour government, but while Byrne remains in post, and Ed Miliband seems so frankly wooly on policy that it is impossible to see the outcome of an administration under him, I would either vote Green, but if my constituency didn’t have a Green candidate, yes I would abstain.
    
    It is for Ed and his team to inspire people to vote Labour, and admit the mistakes of the past, then put them right. You can’t do that at DWP while Byrne is allowed to twist in the wind.
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      Alan,
      
      precisely one study by the University of Gothenburg has found a causal link between self-declared stress and cerebral infarctions, whether ischemic or hemorraghic (ie “strokes”). That study itself has been widely criticised, the methodology ripped into pieces and the authors indicate further work needs to be done to prove such a link. ie they are backtracking, fast.
      
      A stroke is caused by a physical blockage (ie blood clot from somewhere in the body being floated up into the brain where it blocks blood flow) or leakage (ie a blood vessel ruptures on the surface of or internally to the brain).
      
      What causes the blood clot to form, or the vessel to rupture? Any number of factors, from genetics, previous history all the way through to diet. Brown envelopes on the doormat have not to my knowledge ever been identified as a possible cause.
      
      Until then, as you assert, it is not “highly likely the stress has contributed to it”
      
      I like your interventions, but please don’t try diagnosis by assertion. It is a nonsense.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Jaime, with all due respect, you don’t know the person concerned, and I do. Like many people in his situation he has heard and read of the aappalling blunders made by ATOS, and has genuinely been under stress. I have known the person concerned since just after we left school. You roughly know my age. And lets be frank, a company being paid by results is going to make as much money as it can, and if that means signing people off who shouldn’t be….well, business is business.
        
        But the gravamen of my argument is that it is about time intelligent Labour supporters stopped trying to pretend Freud and ATOS has nothing to do with Labour: they set the process in motion, and however much they might like to rewrite history, the evidence is on record
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Alan, I don’t doubt that he has been under stress and probably very understandably, but you make the assertion of a high likelihood of stress contributing to a stroke, which is not evidenced.
        
        I only comment on your assertion, which could perhaps be short-handed to “ATOS causes strokes”. There is no evidence for that at all.
        
        As for the main thrust of your argument (gravamen? I must look that up), as it happens I agree.
      - AlanGiles
        
        No. Jaime I was not saying “ATOS causes strokes” what I AM saying is that they are being paid by results, so it is in their interests to sign off as many as possible – even though as the CAB report stated this week, many people so signed off as “fit for work” are deceased not long afterwards..
        
        I suppose I am saying ATOS, not to mention Freud, Purnell, McNulty, Cooper, Duncan-Smith and Grayling didn’t and don’t bother to consider the CONSEQUENCES of their actions, and how this can impact on people already physically and/or mentally ill.
        
        True, a few people DO exploit the system, but if they are that practised in it, they will still get away with it, while the genuine cases suffer.
        
        There is a good analogy in shoplifting. Nobody is for theft any more than they are for benefit (or expenses) fraud, but despite spending millions of pounds on anti theft devices, CCTV and mobile guards, there are still people who practice it, and they often get caught – but a proportion don’t. One poster on here once accused me of “encouraging benefit fraud”, but I prefer to see the world as it is, rather than as some dreamer would like it to be.
        
        But as I said my main concern is this ostrich-like stance Labour is taking by pretending ATOS is entirely down to the Coalition. When will they be honest and admit what happened in 2009?. I know Purnell is yesterday’s man but it is only 3 years, but they seem to have collective amnesia!
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        OK Alan, I don’t think we’ll get much further. All I say is that you cannot ascribe stress as a contributory factor to a stroke – which you did. It is a fact. I am not saying that stress does not exist in your friend, or that it could not contribute to other conditions. But not to a stroke.
        
        On your wider point, a genuine question. You have consistently talked about ATOS payment by results, and directly or indirectly led us to believe that the results are a lower number of people signed for benefits payments (i.e. it is in ATOS’ financial interest to make the count of people lower). But is this really the case? I am not familiar with the legislation on this. What would happen if ATOS signed more people for benefits – what does their contract say for that?
      - Serbitar
        
        In fairness, as I am sure you know, the British Medical Association has demanded that the ATOS administered Work Capability Assessment be scrapped for the reasons Mr. Giles above has already outlined.
        
        http://bma.org.uk/news-views-analysis/news/2012/june/scrap-work-capability-assessment-doctors-demand
    - NT86
      
      What would the Greens do that Labour doesn’t? Aside from matters of environmentalism, climate change (issues which I think are of great importance) and their support for the living wage, large swathes of their policies are absolute madness.
      
      -A citizens income which is like the polar opposite of universal credit (a reform by IDS I don’t agree with either). It would disincentivise millions from working and would cost an arm and a leg to pay for.
      
      -Inconsistent use of science. Fair enough to use scientific evidence to back up AGW, but they’ll turn a blind eye to the science behind nuclear energy and GM crops. A friend of mine is researching a PhD on nuclear waste minimisation and he says that there’s many in the field who do care about climate change and forms renewable energy, but they are working on making nuclear much safer.
      
      -A less than progressive tax system which will falls heavily on the poorest despite feigning care for them.
      
      -Uncontrolled immigration. Not very environmentally friendly.
      
      -Their inability to put sustainability at the heart of the modern economy. Instead of thinking of innovative ways to adapt existing sectors to become more energy efficient, socially responsible, etc, their ideas basically seek to deindustrialse the country. That’s not progress, that’s Luddism.
      
      Look at what the Greens have done to Brighton if you want to a preview into their quackery.
    - http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh
      
      You are not supportive of Labour because you back the Green Party. A ‘true Labour government’, what do you mean by that? You are just full of hatred towards anyone with the slightest bit of respect for Tony Blair.
      - rekrab
        
        But Tony Blair wasn’t a collectivist, the third way was a mixture of collectivism and individualism and the education, education, education line became the individualist PFI mishmash.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Look, Renie, I am not discussing anything further with you.I’m sorry but you think you know it all. Yet you don’t even know the result of the 1974 UK General Elections. Presumably they don’t teach modern history these days. Not your fault, but stop trying to tell me what I believe or know. I am not interested in your self-aggrandising – badger somebody who cares.
- Monkey_Bach
  
  ATOS and the WCA are a national disgrace. Eeek. WCA is a test that almost anyone can pass, no matter how ill or disabled. On Monday, 30 July 2012, Channel 4 showed a television programme as part of its Dispatches thread in which Dr Steve Bick, a GP with 20 years’ experience, applied for a job as an assessor with ATOS to carry out their work capability assessment (WCA), secretly filming his training. Eeek! His foreign trainer, a lady whose medical “speciality” was not recognised in the United Kingdom which prevented her from working as an employee of the NHS, revealed that if a disabled person could only “push a button” he/she would be considered able bodied enough to “work on a supermarket checkout” and so would pass the ATOS test as far as their “work capability” was concerned. Eeek! Here is a link to a Guardian article about this scandal:
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/27/disability-benefit-assessors-film
  
  After these revelations anybody who still believes that ATOS and the WCA they administer are wholesome, good, or fair must be monkey nuts! Eeek.
trotters1957

“Vote Liberal get a Tory” is an old saying but the electorate now know this is true.
It will be a straight fight between Labour and the Conservatives. Cameron couldn’t get a majority with his “Compassionate Conservatism” and the Nasty Party have been rejected since 1992.
Labour won’t need the Lib Dems.
- postageincluded
  
  ”They’re just Tories who haven’t got the guts to say so” was how my Dad explained it to me, circa 1963.
John_Dore

Isn’t it just wonderful to watch the Tories tearing themselves apart? A leader who can barely connect with his party let alone the electorate.
brianbarder

After their current experience of formal coalition with the Tories, I can’t believe that the LibDems are going to rush into a coalition with Labour if there’s another hung parliament after the next election — and I can’t see much benefit for Labour in inviting the LibDems into a Lab-Lib coalition, either, apart from its marginally greater stability and durability (at a price). There are big potential benefits from a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement plus a broad informal agreement on a range of policies that the left-of-centre LibDems (and other progressive parties in parliament) could agree to support, ideally before the election so that people know what they’re voting for. I have argued this recently on LL here, both in the original post and in response to comments on it. We need to stop talking as if he only kind of alliance, pact, agreement, or arrangement with the LibDems is a coalition; we should aim to work with them, quite closely on some issues, while maintaining our respective parties’ freedom to disagree when necessary, a freedom which coalition severely curtails, even for the senior partner.
- postageincluded
  
  Well, Brian, as I was the most persistent critic of your last offering I feel I have to respond.
- postageincluded
  
  Well here we go again!
  
  The issue, Brian, is not what sort of relationship we should have with the LDs after the election. I’m completely agnostic about that, and wouldn’t even discount coalition with the LDs, as you and Mark do, if that seems to be the only way to prevent another Tory government.
  
  No, of prime importance is what message Labour’s relationship with the LDs sends to voters before 2015. What value is there in some sort of pre-election “progressive” love-in? It may make you feel very good but by “value” I mean extra votes for Labour.
  
  Peter Kelner’s piece “The LibDems Flagging Fortunes” at YouGov points out that polling shows “most left-of-centre voters place the party [LibDems] on the Right”. Why on earth would we want to change that by publicly demonstrating how much we have in common with them?
jaime taurosangastre candelas

Yes, but the BMA are nothing more than a union seeking the best for their members. If you examine a little deeper, the majority of the BMA’s concern is about working conditions and careers of the doctors concerned, thinking that it dumbs down the professional element of judgement. That may well be the case, and is a reasonable thing for a union to complain about. What it is not is some form of objective view on the impact of such assessments on medical judgements and the patients concerned.

So they are not calling for the WCA to be scrapped for the reasons Alan above outlines. They are calling for it to be scrapped because they worry about the careers of their members.
- Serbitar
  
  Personally I think better of general practitioners than that and to be honest have heard scant praise for ATOS or the WCA from any reputable source whether medical or otherwise.
AlanGiles

I didn’t say I agreed with every one of their policies. I have always thought that there are more than one type of Green – just as there is more than one type of Labour, LibDem or Conservative: I would regard myself as a pragmatic as opposed to romantic Green: I have said before it would be both impossible and unfair to prohibit people owning cars, as some diehards would like, or pricing people off of roads or using household appliances. I don’t think we need or want to go back to the 19th century, but there are incremental changes that could be made that would benefit future generations, if we were not so wasteful of resources (speaking of which we live on an island and are surrounded by coastline but we don’t really harness the power of the sea – something that deserves in depth investigation).

But the truth is I am not prepared to vote again for a Labour party that bullies, demeans and scapegoats the most vulnerable in society. If Ed Miliband wants the uncommitted Liam Byrne to stay at DWP it will be a sign that he has not learned from the errors of 2009: that Byrne remains in Shadow Cabinet at all, as he would be more interested in being a Mayor, shows a fundimental weakness: having told EM he would resign if the Birmingham referendum said yes to a Mayor, Ed should have insisted Byrne step down right away. After all, Sion Simon, who was after the same position had the guts to do that.

If Labour truly don’t regret Freud and the WCA, they should at least have the guts to say so. At the moment they did’nt say yes and they didn’t say no. It’s pathetic.
Brumanuensis

Interestingly, the ‘citizen’s income’ is identical to the ‘negative income tax’ that Milton Friedman proposed. Now both would be highly inefficient – they would require extraordinarily high levels of income tax to achieve the same effect as regular welfare policies, as my welfare economics textbook pointed out whilst I was at university – but both also form the basis for the tax credits system, albeit in a modified form.
Brumanuensis

I’ve never supported the Greens for most of the reasons NT86 points out. I don’t agree with them on nuclear power and GM crops and find their economic model too ‘luddite’ as well, as NT86 notes. That said, there is a case to be made for lower immigration controls – Alex Hern made it recently in the New Statesman – and whilst the carbon tax is regressive, it is also a highly effective means of fighting climate change and with rebates for energy conservation, could be made much more progressive. For an example – albeit American-centred – of how this might work, see here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/27/how-a-carbon-tax-could-help-the-u-s-avert-the-fiscal-cliff/?print=1
robertcp

If Labour are the biggest party but without a majority, a minority government ruling with the support of smaller parties will probably be the best option. The most important thing for Labour to make clear is that there will be no more New Labour claptrap from a minority or majority Labour government.

Latest

Comment
Planning the revolution – Labour and the Spending Review

By David Robinson

In four weeks time the Chancellor will announce the results of the 2015 spending Review. There won’t be many winners but some will have lost more than others. Political commentators and discussion forums will pass judgement and public sector managers will, yet again, pick through the debris, making do and mending from what ever they can salvage. Before we get overtaken by the detail we should reflect on the bigger picture. What ever the chancellor says on June 26th it [...]
Read more →
Comment
A call for action at the G8

By Ivan Lewis

In less than a month’s time, the UK hosts the G8 Summit. With hunger, tax, trade and transparency all on the agenda, the UK has a unique opportunity to show global leadership on these issues. The scale of hunger is devastating. There is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry. 2.3 million children every year die from malnutrition – to put that in perspective, that is around 16,000 children every day. Or one [...]
Read more →
News
TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run “The TUC along with its international equivalent – the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – is calling on UEFA to address the appalling treatment of workers and players in Qatar and [...]
Read more →
Featured
A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

By Mark Ferguson

The Labour Party spends a great deal of time beating itself up over its performance in Southern England. We know it simply isn’t good enough, but we can’t seem to put our finger on why exactly that’s the case. Is it demographics? No. Culture? Perhaps. Lack of basic party organisation in some areas? It’s certainly a factor. But whilst we’re flagellating ourselves over our inability to perform south of the Watford gap (outside of London), we should remember that the [...]
Read more →
Comment Featured
Why we love Woolwich

By Jon Wilson

Woolwich is an amazing place. It’s where the Labour party was founded as a mass membership organization. The Woolwich Provident was one of Britain’s first building societies. The Royal Arsenal Coop one of our first cooperative societies. Woolwich had the second Polytechnic in the country, created with the aim of providing education for working adults. Woolwich is my nearest big town centre, where I shop and go to meet friends. In the last few days, for many people, its name [...]
Read more →

← previous next →

DOWNLOAD IT NOW: One Nation Labour – Debating the future

Signup to our daily email

Proudly sponsored by

LabourList Videos

Latest Posts

Sorry Peter and Polly – a Lab/Lib coalition is a non starter

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Latest

Planning the revolution – Labour and the Spending Review

A call for action at the G8

TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

Why we love Woolwich

Email*
Forename
Surname