We are none of us righteous, no not one...

[rozk]

There is an argument, an argument which almost persuaded me yesterday, which goes like this. Yes, my friends, LibDems and their allies, said, and have gone on saying, of course Labour gave us civil partnerships, and some measure of trans rights, and spent a lot of money on the health service (much of which was well spent), and better pensions, and foreign aid, and less of a bad recession than might have been expected given their over-trust of the banks,and devolution, and peace in Northern Ireland. And all of these were part of Labour's basic mission statement of being the good party.

But, they will say, all of this, good as it is, is outweighed by their concessions to the dark side. The wars, especially the war with Iraq; the complicity in torture; ID cards; more surveillance; utterly beastly treatment of asylum seekers, and most especially of their children; the sucking up to the rich; the casual minor corruption. Some of these may have started as concessions to the Americans, and the Tory Press, but they have stained Labour irrevocably and rendered them unfit to continue in office, or to be supported by other cleaner parties even if doing so brings electoral reform and an end to the sort of parliamentary dictatorship which made this sort of thing possible.

They will say that the Labour leadership - especially Gordon Brown - are criminals and should be in jail, and not in government.

And I listened, and was persuaded of the truth of much of it. And did not vote alongside them in the end because I would rather sup with the devil I know.

I am tempted to say this - if you deal with the Tory party, you are dealing with a government which - with the sole exception of ID cards maybe will do all this and more, and do it enthusiastically rather than in the face of its better angels. If you go into coalition with the Tories, even if you get electoral reform - and my judgement is that they will string you along with promises and never actually deliver - they will have dragged you into the sort of complicity with the appalling that Tony Blair and his clique dragged Labour MPs and ministers into.

Like New Labour, you will gain power and lose your souls. And it may look like the clever thing to do, as well as the right one, but it is neither.

Remember Jeremy Thorpe, who thought he was a very clever man, and ended up being dragged to disgrace by a dead dog.

Whereas, because Labour people are not, unlike the Tory leadership and most Tory MPs, scumbags deep down to the bottom of their souls (except possibly Peter Mandelson), you might make their working their redemption the price of doing a deal and PR only the fringe benefit.

I've read posts that argue that there are areas in which the LibDems and the Tories have policies in common = the pupil premium, for example. Let's take that as an example for a moment - up to yesterday the LibDems were arguing that their version of this policy was wholly different from the Tories', which, it was claimed, would be a disaster. If that was true, it remains true, and is it really going to be possible to negotiate a compromise policy here. Or with Trident, or immigration, or Europe - Labour does bad things because they think they have to to gain office, and maintain it, and because they get impatient with people and want to make them better, dammnit, whereas the Tories do them BECAUSE IT'S WHAT TORIES DO. Along with fox-hunting and breaking glass.

The good thing about the LibDems going into coalition with the Tories, or acting as their silent accomplices, would be simply this. No more virtue - you'd be in the blood and mire with the rest of us.

Comments

[annafdd.livejournal.com]

Word fucking word.

[going-not-gone.livejournal.com]

I've spent the past thirty years of my life voting for the lesser of two evils. I've rarely voted for a candidate, as much as against hir opponent. It's wearying.

[celestialweasel.livejournal.com]

To quote Hari quoting Chomsky (allegedly), "Choosing the lesser of two evils isn't a bad thing. The cliché makes it sound bad, but it's a good thing. You get less evil."

[scien.livejournal.com]

That is why it is worth doing. That doesn't make it not wearying or saddening, or not a rubbish position for a voter to be in.

[going-not-gone.livejournal.com]

This is why I continue voting. Less evil is, well, less evil.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Great post.

[deborah_c]

with the sole exception of ID cards

I'm firmly convinced that the Conservatives are against ID cards (this week) solely because it's a Labour policy, and All Labour Policies Are Wrong. Their instincts, though, are every bit as authoritarian; they merely didn't have a good opportunity to ram them through last time round, and as soon as one presents, it will be resurrected. Maybe in a mildly different shape, but still.

string you along with promises

A inter-party committee to think about the prospect of electoral reform (and then vote it down out of self-interest of the two current main parties) doesn't even get that far, to be honest, but yes, it's more or less what I expect too. If the rest of the MPs even let it get that far, which (from reports) is by no means clear.

in the blood and mire

Collective Cabinet responsibility would, I think, result in the LibDems having sold their souls, and I don't think their grassroots would like this one little bit...

I do think that civil liberties also comes under the heading of "what they do", though, although the other way round: the LibDems really believe in them, whereas "civil partnerships, and some measure of trans rights" happened after being beaten around the head with a large stick by the European Court.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

IIRC there were ID card proposals floating around when Tories were in power.

[rozk.livejournal.com]

That's also my recollection of the Michael Howard era.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I still can't believe the party will allow Clegg to do this. Surely they'll depose him first.

If for no other reason than an alliance with the Tories loses the LIb Dems all of their seats in Scotland. Which includes Ming. And a full, what, 20% of their seats?

[shutters-i.livejournal.com]

Exactly. The LibDems structurally would almost certainly not sanction a deal, and in practice it would split the party and thus sink it. I'm almost entirely sure that Nick Clegg is not so stupid as to risk going down in history as the man who went within a week from breaking the mould of two-party politics to recasting it in imperishable titanium.

ALMOST entirely sure. He may be so stupid as to think he is so clever that he could bring the party along in a part-way deal.

At that point, his example would need to be nothing from mainstream politics, but rather the caution and astuteness with which the Adams/McGuinness faction repositioned Sinn Féin in the 1980s and '90s. Now, it didn't take them that long just because the people they needed to persuade were armed.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

At least I believe there are several stages of convincing his party that he has to complete before launching down this path of assured moral destruction. Including a party conference where delegates have to vote for it. If I understand the rules correctly.

So either he has no awareness of what I imagine will be a very strong grass roots opposition to this, (Unless the lib dems are so desperate for a whiff of power that they really are prepared to sell their souls for a short-term illusionary gain?) or he's playing some sort of game to string Call-me-Dave along...

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

There are no good options for Clegg:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=19393

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If only they'd gotten enough votes to win a few more seats.

[debg.livejournal.com]

Yes. And yes. And what's that old saying: if you sup with the devil, be sure you bring a long spoon...?

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

You say it so eloquently that I have nothing to add but, "Hear! Hear!"

First-past-the-post is the problem, of course; along with the lack of any kind of run-off, instant or otherwise. Take a look at the analysis on my latest LJ post.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

I'd be VERY surprised if the party isn't telling Clegg pretty much the same thing.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Very well put. Clegg's instincts are way to the right of much of his party in my opinion. He's a bit like Blair really.

[(Anonymous)]

VERY Like Blair .. as, oddly enough, is David Cameron ..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/08/david-cameron-faces-tory-anger

The Coalition of the Willing ..on the Left .. is all very well and Noble But .. your/their opinions are as the Stuff that Dreams are Made Of ..and this here after quoted is the reality ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8669991.stm

Cleg is not going to do a swift demo of walking on water and then producing Loves and Fishes ...this latter fishy stuff from Green resources and definitely not Dolphin related oh Dear Me No!

So what will the Lib Dems do beyond bewailing the unfairness of it all ... and that there were only a 1000 or so people Wailing and a Gnashing of Teeth ...

" About a thousand protesters demanding electoral reform have gathered outside the building where senior Liberal Democrats were meeting in Westminster....

The demonstrators were from groups seeking proportional representation. "

Note ' groups ' which groups could only muster a bit above a thousand of the Riotously Indignant. And further note that they were Addressed by Young Nick who ..Politician that he is ... did use their Opinions as a platform from which to address the Masses ...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8670060.stm

Ah, well ..somthing will turn up, and that something that is applied to tax reform will maybe have more immediate effect upon the people who earn below £10,000 a year than will electoral reforms of sometime never ..very tempting for young Nick who will want to achieve something in return for all this Lib Dem effort.