91Èȱ¬

What about the possibility of a Conservative/LibDem coalition after the next election? Would make for interesting government.

"and, inevitably perhaps, IT IS failure has resulted in public recriminations"

But I do enjoy this blog ^_^

I think this was inevitable. The interesting things layed out are the implications for hung parliament and who snitched to the media? Right wing lib dems or left wing labour rebels?

Had a deal happened, it would not in itself have signalled a change in British politics. That change is already happening with the apparent fading of the ideological differences between the government and opposition parties. Had a deal happened now, it would merely have been a reflection of this change.

The similarities between the Blair (and Brown?) style of premiership and that of Pitt the younger in the late 18th century seem striking to me: the 'sofa' style, formulating policy with a small close knit group, often excluding the Cabinet; the dubious approach to patronage; the courting of big business and now the attempts to poach opposition members of the House of Lords to strengthen and control a weak Cabinet. Interestingly, the party system was pretty weak back then too.

The Lib-Dems currently have the opportunity to grasp the reins of opposition by focussing on libertarian values and setting them against state control, which appears to be a major lever of Labour and the Conservatives pitch for the centre ground. If they do this, paradoxically it could be the Lib-Dems who become responsible for a renaissance in the party system!

So now we know just how devoid of talent the Labour ranks at Westminster are. The whole point of electing a party is that the party forms the government, but if the PM in waiting can't fill the government from his own MPs maybe he should call an election to try get enough talent to govern.

Agreed - How pathetic and childish have these politicians responded to what could have been a good thing.

When are they going to grow up and do something for the good of the country and not worry about their own selfish political games.

Didn't that old fox Harold Wilson pull off a similar trick in 1964 by appointing the Liberal Aubery Jones to head his Prices and Incomes Board?
Any hint of Lib-Labism will be curtains for the Liberal held Tory seats in the South of England.
In 1976-79 the Liberals propped up a Labour government that had outlasted its electoral welcome and paid a bitter price in the general election of 1979.

It is particularly sad that potential appointments are only judged within the adversarial party politics which arise from the particular democratic system played out in the west.
I have yet to see an objective assesment of what Paddy Ashdown might have brought to his not to be appointment. As a courageous and honest poitician I suspect he might have contributed a great deal to the entriguing Northern Ireland political embryo, and despite the naievete, Brown shows he is thinking outside the box, perhaps taking on board that the UK may no longer remain one of the few non coalition Governments in the EU.
Although standing on principles in the particulars of this offer, the Lib Dems may have missed out on promoting their potential electoral attraction as king makers in the next election in the event of a close contest where neither of the main parties are perceived to have an unassailable majority.

While you're busy trying to figure out this non-story...

(Why is it a non-story? Because Paddy Ashdown or any other LibDem being part of, or party to, a Labour government will not change the course of events.)

...the real story is happening in Germany. Blair is defending some red lines that were never under threat, whilst surrendering some things that the people of this country care deeply about. Wait to read the end-of-summit communique and ensuing 'altering treaty' (or whatever it's called in order to try to fool Europe's voters that it's not a new constitution) to see what was really going on this week.

This was a good day to bury a new constitution with parochial tittle-tattle of who said what to whom and when. The spin doctors have won again, with the collusion of the media.

Nick, get the right story, please.

It is possible to envisage how an English 'Government of all the talents' could be constructed.

(There is no point in wasting energy on discussing 'Gordon Brown for Nowhere Land aka Britain' when Scoland and Wales are clearly on their own political path).

It would be predicated on having many truly independent English candidates standing, who get elected.

Then an English Government of all the talents could feasibly be put together.

The English will subsequently realise that they had to take a step back to produce a giant leap forward.

I think it will happen in my lifetime and I'm getting on a bit now!

I'm amazed Gordon Brown could be so stupid as to think that this idea would fly.It suggests either an arrogant belief in his own "intellectual superiority" or political stupidity.
He is supposed to be a smart operator ,but to go ahead with this idea when he has been told "no way" by Ming Campbell, and, to ignore the Labour Party and his fellow MP's at the same time is folly.It hands to the Opposition an immediate stick with which to keep whacking him.I can imagine his first time at the Dispatch Box in a couple of weeks time could be a bit traumatic.Perhaps the first question will be "Could the PM tell us how many other people he offered places in his Cabinet of All the Talents" and how many told him to "Get Stuffed"

Apart from the stance on Iraq, Labour and Lib Dems are seen practically as the same thing under a different name. In their efforts to find some space between a Labour Party that has turned towards the right and a Conservative Party that tries to move left to the Centre, the Lib Dems have been squeezed. They have been loosing elections all over the place and it all started with the leadership crisis. The fall of Kennedy has been the fall of the Lib Dems. After Iraq and a series of scandals affecting the Labour Party the Lib Dems should be making inroads. Are they?

I totally agree with you Nick. The Lib Dems can afford to wait for what looks like being a hung parliament after the next election. It would be extremely unlikely that Labour and the Conservatives would co-operate with each other in a coalition government, which suddenly catapults the Lib Dems into a very powerful bargaining position.

This must surely be their long-term strategy. Thus, it would do them little good to flirt with Brown's administration for the next 2 years, while they would stand to lose a lot - as you astutely note.

Your newslog is fantastic Nick! I subscribe to the feed and check it everyday. Keep it coming!!

I see nothing wrong with bringing an element of Liberal Democrats or Conservatives into government. The argument that they wouldn't have any control over the agenda and take all the blame for failure is, merely, an egotistical perspective. They fail to see the opportunity of helping achieve higher goals and working with others because they are trapped by illusions of control and self-promotion. This gap between reality and ambition must hurt the little darlings. Better to smile, be serene, open minded, and flexible. It would achieve more with less effort.

Knowledge and skill are useful but attitude is also a key factor in success. Most people tend to continue acquiring knowledge and skill but rarely change attitudes once they get into adulthood. In chaotic and difficult situations they fall back on lower and lower brain functions. Lack of understanding and fear do this, which is why politics, business, and the media can be described as feral. Too much competition, or rats fighting in a cage, reduces quality and slows progress. Holding on only makes this worse. Letting go would help alleviate this suffering.

I have my doubts but am generally satisfied with Gordon Brown. I'm sure he will bring a necessary focus and flexibility to government, and raise the standard of pillars such as education, science, and business and community. I expect this is going to happen with or without cooperation from the opposition parties. They may froth and rave on the sidelines but it's all comment. Nothing important, merely, egotistical posturing. Marginal. The only way I see the opposition parties getting their chance is to focus on self-improvement and play the long game.

The master strategist favours no tool. They pick up, use, and drop whatever is at hand, using whatever is best suited to achieving the goal. Their actions are natural, flowing with events as they happen. With little effort success arises of its own accord. No need to strain, no need to sweat. Gordon Brown's personality type and policy leanings show he is a natural strategist. He may well be as key a figure in British history as Ieyasu Tokugawa was in Japan's history. Fighting him is a vain and useless exercise. Best accept it and enjoy the ride.

Me? Couldn't be happier. Suck on it.

The Lib. Dems. lost the chance of their life to prove that they mean what they say when it comes to doing something good for the country. Instead they have shown that, they are in parliament for the money only, cause ALL THE WORLD knows the Lib. Dems. will never ever be in Govt. on their own.
This problem with the opposition parties in UK is coming from the fact that the present leaders are gamblers of old politics.
SO WHAT WILL OLD MENZIES SAY WHEN HE IS BOOTED OFF AS A LEADER IN A FEW MONTHS TIME?

Re post 15, Charles E Hardwidge:

"Knowledge and skill are useful but attitude is also a key factor in success."

Are you seriously implying that attitude is more important than knowledge and skill? I guess you like Bush and Blair then - they both have a great attitude. Shame about the lack of skill.

Re the story, people who are suggesting this was a serious offer to work together are wrong. The system would have to be changed before this could work, and at present this would be a bad thing for the country by destroying one of the 3 main parties.

Surely Gordon Brown is attempting to discredit the LibDems as the party of consensus politics and offer Labour as the true source of egalaterianism and reason and the LibDems as in reality unable to put thier own rhetoric into practice. I do feel that Ming is once again shown to be unable to master his post. Time for a change before we get too close to the next general election???

Actually Nick, this issue of bringing in natural enemies only to be rejected has nothing to do with with the attempt being audacious or being inept. Ir's a well travelled Machiavellian tactic of neutralising the opposition; ie bring them into the tent and then they can't complain. Really, it's so obvious, it's embarrassing. The last time I recall this happening to any great effect was when Tony showered Iain Duncan-Smith with stuff on Iraq; Duncan-Smith was so overwhelemed with a sense of self-importance that he fell for the lot - hook, line and sinker. The rest is history.

Why should anybody vote labour when their new leader doesn't have enough confidence in his own parties elected people? I like the idea of having a cabinet full of the best talent, but it is not applicable under the current electoral process. We do not have a presidential system. The separation between legislative and executive branches are not so clear cut as to permit it.

All this shows is How Gordon Brown devalues his own craven and gutless MP's (who will absorb any level of humiliation) and seeks to humiliate them, whilst showing the country that he is politically inept and gives us a clear reason not to vote labour.

How this is viewed depends on what you think government is for.

If we assume that the country should be run like a business, where basically a few senior executives take decisions and everyone else follows, then it makes perfect sense. The chief exec (Brown) simply picks the most talented people to do any particular job, sets the paramenters and tells them to get on with it. If a Lib Dem or Tory is best for the job, why should this be a bar?

The problem with this view is that it overlooks the other primary purpose of government in a democracy: the exercise of choice in politics. If the cabinet is to be a genuine discussion forum about which direction the country should take, then having parties of (in some cases) diametrically opposed views within that cabinet clearly would not work, and the Lib Dems are quite right to reject this idea for that reason.

Unfortunately I suspect that Blair, Brown and the rest of the senior New Labour project have forgotten what politics is about. Like the establishment tories of old, they believe they are almost 'apolitical' - in that the choices they make are simply 'whatever is best for the country', and that there is simply no alternative to the capitalist, pro-security, pro-business, pro-middle England small-c conservatism that prevails at the centre. Those who accuse Brown of duplicity are quite wrong. What he is up to here is simply a continuation of the corporate-style government that has been exercised by Blair for at least the last 5 years.

What a joke.
It's a complete non-job anyway (like SS for Scotland and Wales), thanks to devolution in its various forms. Do Labour really have to turn to a Lib Dem peer to fill the post (who won't be accountable in the Commons anyway).
This is not New Brown, New Government. This is typical Brown playing dirty and underhand to destabilise all rivalry and divert from another agenda.

Don't you all get it,whatever he says it was spin again.He was in a win-win situation whatever.
By offering the post he shows himself to be different to Blair.
If the Lib-Dems take the bait they lose credibility with the electorate.
If they don't he still looks different with no stain to his character.
More bluster,the media has frenzy,lots of good old Gordo but still nothing at the end of the day.

I interpret this fiasco as a sure sign that Gordon Brown is very worried that after the next election (whenever that may be) Labour will have a minority of MP's in England. He is already in the farcical position of shortly being a prime minister who, when he talks about "national" policies for health, education, transport and law and order, has no influence over such matters in his own constituency. If on top of that he finds that most English seats are not Labour the position will be untenable. The English voters are not stupid; they have noticed how unpopular measures are already being foisted upon them using Scottish MP's votes at Westminster on all these matters, secure in the knowledge that it won't cost them any votes at home. Using the Lib Dems to give him a fig leaf of apparently greater support in England probably seemed like a good idea, but has only served to draw even more attention to the currently offensive constitutional arrangement which he helped to devise.

Of course he is now rather painted into a corner. If he does nothing to redress the balance for England by restricting the right of Scottish MP's to vote on purely English affairs, the anger south of the border will grow, particularly now that the SNP are spoiling for a fight by rubbing English noses in the largesse with which residents in Scotland are being treated at English taxpayers expense. But if he does the right thing and brings in such restrictions, he will be unable himself to vote on devolved matters north or south of the border, and how absurd will that be? Like so much else during the last decade, matters were simply not thought through properly before being enacted. Ironic indeed.

I'd personally be worried about Lib Dems teaming up with Labour. They did so in Scotland and were partly responsible for letting the SNP in. of course they have now teamed up with them.

Paddy Ashdown at least comes across professionally to me, and he does not have the usual law background like most politicians.

Why not use him as a special envoy? Would be better than the grinning Blair.

Re Gordon Brown's offer to Paddy Ashdown - do we know how many Labour cabinet wannabees turned down the Northern Ireland Secretary job before Ashdown?
Northern Ireland Secretary should be a breeze now, surely? What do they know that we don't?

Closest election in 2 decades! Not if Cameron keeps on imploding. The continuous cry from Conservative spokespersons that they are formulating plans seems to go on for ever. Except for policies that they change and prevaricate over, such as Grammar Schools. The Tory revival was more a Labour decline largely because of Blair's identification with Iraq. Now Blair has gone probably so have Tory chances of even getting close.