Why a Liberal-Labour Coalition Could Not Work
Some of you seem to be up in arms about the fact that a Liberal-Labour coalition did not materialise. I shall now explain why such a coalition would not be possible in the current situation.
I'll start with a bit of imagery to try to introduce you to the general idea. Imagine that there are two sets of boys. Two of the boys took the other two's marbles. One boy from the two who have had their marbles taken wants to get into a fight to get the marbles whilst one bot from the two who have taken the marbles wants to beat up the other pair so that they can keep the marbles. One boy from the two with the marbles wants to politely and peacefully explain why he and his friend would like to keep the marbles without things developing into a fight. Likewise, one boy of the two who have had the marbles taken would like to politely explain why he would like the marbles returned.
Now, the two more polite boys might be able to negotiate with eachother much better. They could even perhaps agree to split the marbles. But they would much rather work together with their own friend and try to keep the marbles in the hands of the people they like.
So, if there was
no other option and if tensions were not so high it would not be impossible to see an agreement or a coalition between the two more polite boys and between the Liberals and Labour. But only
after the boys and the parties have found it impossible to come together with their own friends who share an opinion on who should have the marbles.
That's a basic idea, but lets go into more detail.
Why would the Liberals want the NCP?
The Liberals left the coalition with the NCP which caused this election, why would they ever want to go back into coalition?
The Liberals left the NCP because they thought that the German Method being proposed by the party was far too harsh and they didn't want these radicals in the driving seat in the crisis. Now the NCP have had a battering at the polls and had the Liberals got those few extra seats to give the right the lead it would have been the Liberals who would have dominated the coalition – thus preventing the NCP from their worst excesses. It would have been a tactical coup for the Liberals. They would have been totally dominant in that coalition.
Next we have to mention ideology – both the NCP and the Liberals don't want the dissidents to get anything. Not just because of their association with the other side in the class conflict but also due to that idea that a government should not have its arm twisted by militants. But in a tense situation ideology would have certainly become a lesser factor.
The Liberals have never shown an aversion to violent response to rebellion – indeed they mentioned in their manifesto and made it quite clear that any rebels would be forcefully and mercilessly put down. This is something they share with the NCP. As we mentioned before, the primary difference between the Liberals and NCP on violence is whether the government should strike first and how hard it should strike. If the Liberals were in the position of dominance they would have had the government wait until the rebels moved first and would have hit back to a much lesser degree that if the NCP had been in the driving seat.
There is also the tactical matter of Napier and the army. Napier is an influencial person with the army. He is very aggressive. So too are many NCP members and supporters. These are people who can cause trouble. Would have been much better to have these people in the tent pissing out that out the tent pissing in. The Liberals might have been in a bit of trouble had they formed an unwilling alliance with an unwilling Labour party and proceded to leave these angry, powerful, men on the outside.
Main points for this bit.
How could Labour ever form an alliance with the Socialists?
The Socialists are indeed much more radical than Labour. But in the end both parties have a shared goal – they want to create a more equitable, socialist society with much greater power for the workingmen of the country. They both stand on the same side of the conflict between the workers and the government and have both been disgusted by the government response to the growing workers' agitation over the past two years. Moreover the old problems of personality (Burt) have gone and since then the parties have come much closer in ideology. Indeed, I wrote more than once that the two parties had been drifting closer together – hinting that the alliance that would have been rather strained under Burt would be something both would leap on under Arch.
The main problems in forming a coalition between this lot is getting an agreeable deal on the rate of reform and just how sweeping they should be. Labour would obviously want a slower, shall we say more 'Fabian' approach to reforms in the new government whilst the Socialists would want to move towards socialism immediately. In they end the reform programme will obviously be more sweeping than Labour had first proposed but with the IPP in the coalition to support Labour's position as well the Socialists are going to be leashed on their more outlandish demands.
If Labour and the Socialists didn't form an alliance then confidence in the two parties would pretty much collapse. If the two parties who supposedly represent the workers had been divided without any obvious reason other that a desire for moderation it probably would have been the death of both or at the very least one of the parties. Either Labour would be forced out into the abyss of progressive social liberalism (didn't work out under Burt and he was still left of this position) or the Socialists would collapse as some sort of impossibilist party. It would be in the interests of both parties to find unity.
The two parties are on the same side and want roughly the same thing. Indeed, the Socialist Party has never even openly called for violent action so even the pacifist opposition is hard to swallow as a major barrier.
Why can't the Liberals and Labour just get along?
Even if we ignore all the reasons that parties would want to align with their ideological allies there are reasons why they would not want to come together.
They are ideological enemies. I think its pretty clear that those standing on the picket lines and those wanting to break the strikes with force are not on the same side in a conflict.
A sense of being 'tainted' by association with government forces. In a situation in which the government in hated by a wide portion of the population, aligning one's self with the government is a sure fire way to piss those people off. Labour would not want hatred at the Liberals to brush off onto them.
Different goals. The Liberals want no reform, Labour want lots of reform.
Different methods for dealing with the crisis. I'm not sure a Labour party would survive very long in coalition if the government started rolling out the troops. If the crisis did erupt into violence then there is no way the Liberals would turn around and negotiate with the rebels – therefore making a violent response inevitable.
Coalition politics. In alliance with the Socialists and IPP the Labour party is in an alliance of equals and indeed gets the Premiership. Even better, with the IPP being much more friendly to them above the Socialists they are the strongest chain in the coalition. In alliance with the Liberals the Liberals would hold 2/3s of the seat, would have the Premiership and would be the dominant party. So from this position its clear which coalition offers more to Labour.
The left coalition has a majority of 7, a Lib-Lab coalition would have a majority of 27. This is probably the best thing the Lib-Lab coalition has going for it. Been even still, that remains a very slim majority and 20 additional seats in the majority might not be enough to convince Labour. Considering all the other reason.
The main thing that the Lib-Lab coalition would have going for it is the cry that ''they are both moderate''. But are they? The Liberals are far more right wing that the conservatives of old (pre-NCP) ever were. Labour are approaching the position they occupied in the days of Harney. They have a huge ideological chasm between themselves. Makes the hop over to their fellow left or right parties seem oh so very small and oh so comfortable.
That's a rather lengthy explanation of most of my thinking. I know I'll have forgotten something but after writing fifteen hundred words I think it might be time to pack it in.
