Paddy Pantsdown, Brown and the end of tribal politics?

[GinandTonic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6227550.stm

Lib Dem anger over Brown 'tricks'

Lord Ashdown is refusing to comment further on the offer
Gordon Brown has been accused of "dirty tricks" by Lib Dems angry at his attempt to recruit their ex-leader Paddy Ashdown to his first Cabinet.

Lord Ashdown rejected an approach by the prime minister-in-waiting to serve as Northern Ireland Secretary.

And so on and so forth.


So Brown asked Paddy Ashdown if, after doing such a splendid job in the Balkans, he fancied a pop at Northern Ireland. The Libs cried off.

Was Brown setting aside seventy years of tribal politics or attempting to undermine the Libs? Would Paddy have been clearly the best candidate for the job or does the electoral mandate for Lab make the appointment of Lib ministers undemocratic?

 

[Stegyre]

Yes, please explain it all to an ignorant American expat!

In the U.S., this would be viewed as a possible masterstroke of bipartisanship: reaching across the aisle to offer a significant cabinet post to a significant member of another (okay, in our case "the" other) party.

Judging by what I'm hearing on the bbc radio reports, neither Lord Ashdown nor the Lib Dems seem to feel that way. Doubtless, this is just one way in which the GB parliamentarian system differs from the U.S. two-party system. Elaborate!

 

[GinandTonic]

I guess Paddy Pantsdown is by far the most popular lib dem for the last forty years and they are dammed if they want to share him. If he would play in the Lab cabinet they a major reason for voting Lib would be removed.

TBH I really wanted one of our Lib Dems or west country boys would illuminate the issue for me too.

At the mo it seems to me they politically have to say no, and are spinning it as tough as they can.

Cannt help feeling that Brown comes out of this looking like the bigger man :shrug:

 

[brennan]

Well, just`what exactly would PA be expected to do over there? It's been the most thankless job in UK politics for decades and it's more or less sorted now.

The only reason a Lib Dem would consider working with labour is if they thought they could have influence on policy and NI would not present such an opportunity.

 

[GinandTonic]

Firstly I cant think of a better person for the job than Paddy.

Secondly I would have thought NI was perfect for a non-partisan post. Fairly self-contained policy-wise. Would be viable to opt out of cabinet responsibility on unrelated issues.

 

[Stegyre]

Also, shouldn't everyone be in favor of "the best wo/man for the job," whatever the political affiliation? The apparent all-or-nothing approach of the Lib Dems looks counter-productive. Are they in any position to get some concessions from Labor in return for use of LD politicos?

I'm lousy with real politik, but this sort of maneuvering just makes me think it's all "will to power," in the Nietzchean sense: political parties (in the U.S., as well as elsewhere) care not about their nominal policies but solely about their political ascendancy, and the common weal be damned!

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I think Brown is angling for Lib Dem support in the next general election. He's already called for constitutional reform, with a decrease in powers for Westminster; perhaps if he provides the right incentives, he could increase the effective Labour majority in Parliament. In particular, he's probably concerned that David Cameron might catapult the Tories into government in the next general election--it certainly looks like it right now--but if he grants the Lib Dems their main point of contention--proportional representation of some kind--Labour and the Lib Dems would have a majority together, which in theory could be solidified (a coalition between them would be highly, though not perfectly, coherent ideologically). In other words, Brown is figuring that if all goes wrong, he might be able to create a coalition that retains him as Prime Minister.

 

[Atlas14]

WWJD, deleted post.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It was an attempt by the Labur party so split the Lib Dems and it's back fired and resulted in the embarrasing situation for the Labour party in that the only otion they have is to praise Paddy Ashdown. It's also (as has been mentioned) preperation for the fact hat after the next election parliment will most likely been hung so Labour will need the Lib Dems. To be honest the whole thing hasn't payed off for Brown and it's making the Lib Dems look like serious players...it's a good story for the Lib Dems and a bad one for Brown and neutral for the Tories (Lib Dems looking good does them no favours after all).

The only reason a Lib Dem would consider working with labour is if they thought they could have influence on policy and NI would not present such an opportunity.

Damn straight, and thats why i'm happy they turned Labour down.

 

[Furiey]

He'll do anything to get more votes for Labour in the next election and if having Paddy Ashtown on the cabinet does that then that's what he would try, either way it works in Brown's favour - Paddy refuses and wasn't Brown good offering him the job so please vote for Labour, Paddy accepts and some Lib Dem voters follow him. Glad he refused though.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

CD, it's an interesting take that you think this reinforces the LibDems' position. Their current record of being able to actually grasp the nettle of power sharing is looking pretty flimsy - first in Wales, then Scotland, now this. What do the LibDems exist for, if they are not prepared to take on some measure of power and responsibility ? It looks like, for political reasons, Ming needs to reinforce the individuality of his party, even at the expense of actually taking some responsibility on and doing the job which presumably people vote for politicians to do.

Or do you reckon people just vote LibDem to encourage constant carping from the sidelines, and don't wish their candidates ever to embrace the opportunity of actually doing something ?

 

[Mise]

@Lambert:
Ming's "reinforcing the individuality of his party" for the simple reason that he sees his party as the true opposition to Labour and the Tories. And he really does mean "Labour-and-the-Tories", since David Cameron has, for a long time now, set himself up as the true successor to Labour, claiming that he'd do what Tony's doing, only better.

 

[Virote_Considon]

In the U.S., this would be viewed as a possible masterstroke of bipartisanship: reaching across the aisle to offer a significant cabinet post to a significant member of another (okay, in our case "the" other) party.

You Americans are lucky with your 2 mainstream parties. We only have the one, in truth.

 

[ComradeDavo]

CD, it's an interesting take that you think this reinforces the LibDems' position. Their current record of being able to actually grasp the nettle of power sharing is looking pretty flimsy - first in Wales, then Scotland, now this. What do the LibDems exist for, if they are not prepared to take on some measure of power and responsibility ? It looks like, for political reasons, Ming needs to reinforce the individuality of his party, even at the expense of actually taking some responsibility on and doing the job which presumably people vote for politicians to do.

Or do you reckon people just vote LibDem to encourage constant carping from the sidelines, and don't wish their candidates ever to embrace the opportunity of actually doing something ?

Paddy Ashdown being Northern Ireland sectary is not power sharing! The Lib Dems would have no influence what so ever with that scenario. Mise makes a good point point as well....what with many people regarding Labour and the Tories as very similar parties the Lib Dems need to reinforce their individuality.

Lets talk about power sharing after the next general election result. A hung parliment then would mean the Lib Dems having far more influence than a token cabinet postition now would. So it makes perfect sense to reject Brown's offer at the moment.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

True, but as I see it, an alliance with Brown right now means that he might spend the next few years sealing an alliance that would ensure that the constitutional quirks of the British system--that technically would allow David Cameron to control Parliament so long as the Tories have a plurality of the votes--do not come into effect; in order to do so, the Lib Dems and Labour have to present a united front, and they won't do that unless it's agreed upon before the election, so they can immediately say "OK, we're behind Brown (or whoever)" before the Tories (who will almost certainly have a plurality) can say "We're one party and they're two. Eat it." If you were to wait too long before the election to make nice with Labour, you might find yourselves not able to prevent a Tory government. Not that there's anything wrong with a Tory government, but Labour is much closer to the Lib Dem philosophy than the Tories are. While this might be a bit early, I think that if the Lib Dems are going to make any gestures to Labour, they should do it before the election--that way, they have a plan to execute before the Tories can beat them to it.

 

[ComradeDavo]

At current I can't see the Tories getting a majority. they are doing well enough to result in a hung parliment, but not a majority. This is party dwn to the factt hat Cameron still hasn't won the battle against the fringe right-wing of his party...who most likely will punish him by either going UKIP, or staying at home and eitehr not voting or not campaigning for him. Hence why it makes sense for the Lib Dems to wait for an election result and thus have more clout and influence in negotiations.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Hi, Mise. Nah, I can't buy into this Ming sees himself as the true opposition to "Labour and the Tories". He isn't so naive as to believe that the two main parties are interchangeable. Maybe he wants to support the (fairly commonly held, but erroneous) view that they are interchangeable, but that's a different matter, and indicates again that he's just cynically playing, rather than trying to make some change for good.

CD, some actual experience of government would serve the LDs awfully well, and that's one thing at least that they would have got out of the deal. As for the "we'll be the power brokers after the next election"... well, maybe. But I've heard this ever since the days of Jim Callaghan, and, at some point, perhaps they ought to actually engage, rather than just keep singing "Tomorrow" like an unwanted red-headed stepchild...

One of the real problems for Ming is that the business of actually being in power can be very difficult for any progressive party. Suddenly compromises have to made, and many of the various causes which are held together in a loose coalition can suddenly find that the pot at the rainbow doesn't puff into existence within days of gaining power. Dunno why, but right wing parties are far better, IMHO, at accepting the pragmatism which real power requires. Ming perhaps wouldn't be well served by being part of any real world compromises at the moment...

One thing which gets me about the most common LibDem reaction to this, is the assumption that it must be a zero sum game - if it's good for Labour, then it must be bad for us. This is college or local authority level thinking at best, and is pretty sad coming from a party which positions itself as being new thinking and co-operative, rather than belonging to an old style confrontational politics.

 

[brennan]

One thing which gets me about the most common LibDem reaction to this, is the assumption that it must be a zero sum game - if it's good for Labour, then it must be bad for us. This is college or local authority level thinking at best, and is pretty sad coming from a party which positions itself as being new thinking and co-operative, rather than belonging to an old style confrontational politics.

Nice to hear from you Lambert.

I think the problem is that with only 1 Lib Dem in Cabinet, and particularly in the policy free zone that is the NI office, the Lib Dems would simply not have any influence. I think that's fairly obvious, even more so since if they are seen as a dissenting voice they could be quickly got rid of by a re-shuffle. Such a situation could only serve to make them look even more ineffective than if they have no cabinet places at all.

So it's an easy choice really: turn down the offer and carry on as normal; or accept and almost certainly appear ineffectual.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

At current I can't see the Tories getting a majority. they are doing well enough to result in a hung parliment, but not a majority. This is party dwn to the factt hat Cameron still hasn't won the battle against the fringe right-wing of his party...who most likely will punish him by either going UKIP, or staying at home and eitehr not voting or not campaigning for him. Hence why it makes sense for the Lib Dems to wait for an election result and thus have more clout and influence in negotiations.

I hope you're not interpreting my statements as saying that the Tories will have a majority next term...if you are, kindly ignore the premise (but not the content!) of the remainder of the post.

What I've been saying is exactly what you're saying: the Tories will be the largest party in a hung parliament (i.e. a plurality). Because in theory the largest party can rule even if it doesn't have a majority, the Lib Dems and Labour need to work more closely together if they are to have any chance of getting hold of Parliament, because the Conservatives might use any rift between the two as an excuse to have the Queen kiss hands with Cameron rather than Brown (who would be PM under a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, let's not kid ourselves), on the (very sound, from a legal standpoint) argument that if Labour and the Lib Dems haven't signed a coalition agreement or otherwise indicated their intention to form a coalition government by the time Parliament opens, they can't rule effectively and government defaults to the largest party. That's what the Lib Dems ought to be afraid of.

 

[brennan]

I hereby predict a resurgence of Labour under Brown.