WSJ Blogs

Real-time commentary and analysis from The Wall Street Journal

Up Pops John Reid With a Torpedo Aimed at Brown’s Coalition Plans

    • "John Reid has waited a long time for this: the chance to really stick it to Gordon Brown."

      Hmmm... I'm not sure that is the case. It would be the case had Brown not also offered to stand down today.

      I think this was aimed as much at the likes of Alistair Campbell, Charlie Whelan and Peter Mandelson as anyone else.

    • Why would Cameron ever agree to AV? The BBC said that if AV was in place this yr, the Conservatives would have ended up with 281 seats instead of 307. Given that even this year in their best shot in decades, the Tories still maxed out at 30, and they'll need 326 to form a majority, it would seem that under AV they would NEVER be able to reach a majority and forever be dependent on the lib dems to do anything if they were to win a plurality at an election.

      At least with FPTP there still appears to be a chance they could win a majority in a furture election, but under AV they will need at least 42% in a future election to win even a bare majority and close to 50% or higher to reach the majorities that Thatcher had in the 80s. Given that they got 36% this year, that's pretty much impossible.

      It seems that agreeing to AV would spell the death knell for the Tories in any future election.

      I can understand why Clegg wants it. Under AV or PR the lib dems will likely always hold the balance of power and basically be able to determine what the govt will be, even though they have no chance of ever winning a majority themselves.

      Cameron's in a bind though. If he walks away and Labour steps in, the Tories are finished and will never again be in the govt. They'll be condemned to permanent opposition.

      His best bet is to offer the AV referendum, hope it fails, and go from there. I don't see how can lose Clegg and watch Labour push AV/PR through and still hope to maintain any viability for his party.

    • That should be the Tories maxed out at 307, not 30

    • What a disgrace John Reid is - no loyalty to his party, prepared to allow a Tory government to gain power and bring in a set of policies that will not be good for 'traditional' Labour voters, the working class, single parent families, older people, people with chronic health problems - and public services decimated. Clearly his loyalty and his memory have gone. What an embarrassment he has become. And his motivation - bile - never a good cocktail for objective or sensible commentary. What a relief he's no longer a politician. Still he'll be all over the Tory press, their new pin up boy, the bulldog turned Tory poodle.

    • This from an article in The Times:

      “Clearly you get a better deal when you have the prospect of competing deals,” [a senior LD MP] said. “The markets will know we’re in the end game on this. We’ve forced both parties into a clear stance. They’ll all be wearing ‘I agree with Nick’ T-shirts soon.”

      One of the disadvantages of a political group with too many people that haven't actually run anything is that they say remarkably stupid things like this. The catch is that, stupid as it is, for a re-run of Cleggmania, this time the audience isn't the electorate, ultimately so sceptical the LD vote hardly increased, but fellow politicians who buy into this guff. They ought to be treated like a sole trader who thinks he's going to dictate terms to Willie Walsh, but Tories seem to be scampering through the airwaves pleading for a second chance.

    • I think that FPTP supporters lack imagination. It is sooo last century to think, Schmitt style, that ya gotta have one leader and one party IMPOSING unity to make effective decisions. When will people get over that military dictatorship style of thinking and learn that other styles are not only fairer but have been shown to work more effectively? IMHO politics (and political commentators) need to get out of the formaldehyde solution and realise that they can follow the lead of corporations, and any collective organisation in society you care to name, who have been moving on from that model at an accelerated pace for at least 40 years now. They've had to because a) leader-dictator styles too often fail to deliver the goods and b) because people have been disengaging from totalising groupisms, and demanding that authorities better recognise their inherent limitations and bias' as well as demonstrate more respect for the plurality of perspectives and interests affected by decisions. I can see no good reason why political realm can't follow suit and learn to be more plural, respectful and cooperative in style. But just as the Taliban couldn't function in a democracy, so committed FPTP'ers/Schmittian-stylers couldn't work in a plural democracy. So the transition will be far smoother if you get rid of those with old-fogey thinking who are not prepared to transform the way they understand leadership and they way they engage in politics.

    • If I were David Cameron, I would walk away from this one.

      What the last few days has exposed is that the Lib Dems are about as trustworthy as new Labour. Given the state of the economy and the no doubt many financial land mines that labour laid when they thought they were about to lose power David's best bet is to let these 2 cobble together a coalition.

      It is highly unlikely that such a coalition would be in a position to force through legislation to change the FPTP system and the Liberals will have to expose the malpractises of the previous administration in an attemp to save their own skin. After limping along shambolically and fighting like ferrets in a sack for a couple of months we will have a new election resulting in a workable Conservative majority so that the financial mess Labour have created can be sorted out.

Add a Comment
