Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Heirs to Disraeli?
Conservative Assembly Member, David Melding has an interesting and thoughtful contribution to the debate around the new Coalition Government over on the Institute of Welsh Affairs blog that is well worth reading.
In his usual erudite way David argues that the coalition is 'a consequence of Britain’s steady shift to multi-party politics not the eccentric or treacherous choice of the Lib Dems after the fluke of a hung parliament.'
He says that Labour’s criticism of the Lib Dems that we have yielded the 'progressive ground' to them is remarkably complacent: 'Instead of reflecting on their low vote (the lowest since 1918 in Wales) they now expect all non-Conservative opinion to rally around the Labour flag. Labour may end up looking out of touch as Britain moves towards more competitive, multi-party politics.'
He continues: 'Would the Lib Dems have lost most of their appeal as a party of the centre left under all of these circumstances? Those who expect or wish for this outcome should consider the following points. The Lib Dems are set to become a party of government at the UK level. Already their cabinet members look the part and any accusation that they are bearded, sandaled dreamers is patently risible. Yes they will lose some of their purists to the Greens, but they will also pick up support from the steady middle of politics.
The expectation that the Lib Dems will either be absorbed by the Conservatives or annihilated by Labour is just the latest guise of the old fashioned two party orthodoxy. We are not there anymore!'
David's conclusion spells out why the present Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition was the only game in town: 'And finally let me spell out what centre parties do in multi-party systems. They enter coalitions! Had the Lib Dems ducked this challenge they would have consigned themselves to protest politics for ever. If not now, when? would have been the electorate’s angry question. The only coalition that had a hope of durability was one with the Conservatives. Now there is a danger of this association with the Conservatives becoming too close. But consider the consequences of the far more dangerous alternative that was open to the Lib Dems. Had they taken up Gordon Brown’s offer they would have been viewed less as an independent party of the centre and more as a variation of Labour. Centre parties are strongest when they moderate the electors’ principal choice, and weakest when they attempt to overturn the electors’ verdict on an unpopular government.'
In his usual erudite way David argues that the coalition is 'a consequence of Britain’s steady shift to multi-party politics not the eccentric or treacherous choice of the Lib Dems after the fluke of a hung parliament.'
He says that Labour’s criticism of the Lib Dems that we have yielded the 'progressive ground' to them is remarkably complacent: 'Instead of reflecting on their low vote (the lowest since 1918 in Wales) they now expect all non-Conservative opinion to rally around the Labour flag. Labour may end up looking out of touch as Britain moves towards more competitive, multi-party politics.'
He continues: 'Would the Lib Dems have lost most of their appeal as a party of the centre left under all of these circumstances? Those who expect or wish for this outcome should consider the following points. The Lib Dems are set to become a party of government at the UK level. Already their cabinet members look the part and any accusation that they are bearded, sandaled dreamers is patently risible. Yes they will lose some of their purists to the Greens, but they will also pick up support from the steady middle of politics.
The expectation that the Lib Dems will either be absorbed by the Conservatives or annihilated by Labour is just the latest guise of the old fashioned two party orthodoxy. We are not there anymore!'
David's conclusion spells out why the present Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition was the only game in town: 'And finally let me spell out what centre parties do in multi-party systems. They enter coalitions! Had the Lib Dems ducked this challenge they would have consigned themselves to protest politics for ever. If not now, when? would have been the electorate’s angry question. The only coalition that had a hope of durability was one with the Conservatives. Now there is a danger of this association with the Conservatives becoming too close. But consider the consequences of the far more dangerous alternative that was open to the Lib Dems. Had they taken up Gordon Brown’s offer they would have been viewed less as an independent party of the centre and more as a variation of Labour. Centre parties are strongest when they moderate the electors’ principal choice, and weakest when they attempt to overturn the electors’ verdict on an unpopular government.'
Comments:
<< Home
"In his usual erudite way David argues that the coalition is 'a consequence of Britain’s steady shift to multi-party politics not the eccentric or treacherous choice of the Lib Dems after the fluke of a hung parliament.'"
It's a shame you and the Welsh Lib Dems have consistently refused to see the Labour-Plaid coalition in the same terms, instead using phrases like "jumping into bed" and arguing that Plaid are propping up Labour! Short memories.
It's a shame you and the Welsh Lib Dems have consistently refused to see the Labour-Plaid coalition in the same terms, instead using phrases like "jumping into bed" and arguing that Plaid are propping up Labour! Short memories.
# posted by 
: 3:45 PM
: 3:45 PM
If nothing else the LD-Con coalition will have slayed the potential for future use of the idea that they always back Labour.
Plaid however did jump into bed with Labour here in Wales. End of!
Post a Comment
Plaid however did jump into bed with Labour here in Wales. End of!
# posted by : 10:12 PM
: 10:12 PM<< Home
