David Laws was one of their key negotiators and he has relied on detailed contemporaneous notes on the meetings with both parties which led to the deal with the Tories.
‘We are in danger of shackling ourselves to a decaying corpse,’ Laws assesses at a key moment in the discussions with Labour’s team. When Nick Clegg insists upon another Labour meeting, he reports: ‘The four of us all groaned, like a group of children being asked to spend not only Christmas day, but Boxing day too, with a particularly disagreeable aunt. “Do we really have to?” was the nature of our response.’
His cynical attempt to portray Ed Miliband as the ‘tea boy’ in post-election talks, when Ed was simply being courteous, proves that this is nothing more than a partisan, self-serving account. Indeed, it is the Liberal Democrats who are the Tories’ tea boys now.
Laws claims Liberal Democrats were put off by doubts over Labour MPs backing the Alternative Vote. Yet this commitment was in the party’s election manifesto which every Labour MP stood upon, and the Tories remained deeply hostile to AV.
The only explanation for wanting a Tory deal must be ideological. Laws, along with Clegg and other key Liberal Democrat leaders, co-authored the Orange Book, which explicitly rejects social democracy in favour of the unfettered 19th century free market liberalism the coalition government is now implementing.
Throughout the book, Laws repeatedly shows total disdain for his own party members, who will almost certainly be even more angry after reading it.
I was not at the negotiating table, but throughout I was in touch with senior Liberal Democrats who were desperate for a deal with Labour. Maybe it wouldn’t have worked, simply because we had lost the election, even though no other party had won it. Moreover, a coalition with Labour would still have been just short of an overall government majority, whereas a deal with the Tories delivered one.
However, Labour was right to try and secure a progressive coalition. Laws demonstrates conclusively that he worked to prevent it.
Photo: Biteback Publishing
Did I read a different edition of this book to Peter Hain or something? I was left with a clear impression that the Lib Dems made significant attempts to negotiate with Labour and it was Labour, with their divided negotiating team, that was the problem. I also find it interesting that Peter Hain declares that “only explanation for wanting a Tory deal must be ideological” whilst accepting that a deal with Labour may not have worked and regardless, a Lab-Lib coalition wouldn’t have a majority. Having a stable government at a time when the UK could have been heading the same way as Greece seems like a very good explanation for wanting a Tory deal in preference to a deal with Labour.
Dear Peter may I borrow your copy? I think we were reading different books.
This really is an appalling review, and I have to wonder whether Peter Hain actually read the whole book or just a few paragraphs he was pointed to by some mates. In particular, he cites David Laws and the other Lib Dem negotiators as groaning upon being asked for another meeting with the Labour negotiators. What he doesn’t mention is that this is due to absolutely no preparation from their two elected negotiators – Ed Balls and Ed Miliband (and occasionally Harriet Harman), their lack of respect for the Lib Dem team, reflected in their repeated demands to refer the discussion to someone outside their negotiating team and their inability to turn any discussions into anything resembling an agreement. Would anyone else negotiate the future government of a country without at least reading the manifesto of the party you are about to meet, discussing negotiating positions in advance, or having the ability to actually commit to something? David Laws book shows the desire for Nick Clegg, the negotiating team and the Lib Dem parliamentary party to engage in good faith with the Labour party, something far from reciprocated. That Peter Hain cannot understand this shows his lack of regard for pluralistic politics.
Did Peter Hain read the same book as me? Rather than cherry-picking the scenery, why not address the policies. Where is Labour’s proposal for a credible liberal centre-left government? If such a thing existed it really would split the Lib Dems and Labour would be rubbing our faces in it daily.
During the long dark teatime of the soul more commonly known as the Thatcher/ Major years, some progressives flirted with the idea of voting reform and some kind of Lab-Lib pact. This strand of thought was killed stone dead by the Blair landslide victories. Now that the LDs have joined the Cons in Government there is absolutely no hope of reviving this idea. No progressive is going to vote for electoral reform if it simply means more Con-Dem governments. Furthermore, it seems very likely that the LDs will be ground into absolute oblivion by their big adventure – 23% of the vote in the May General Election, just 8% in the December opinion polls!
Heading the same way as Greece are we? What right-wing rag do you read? But it might be true, quick we must do something about: cancel all pensions immediately! People will have to work until they drop but won’t that…oh, never mind. Dumped the Lib Dems after a landslide election victory did we? So rumours of inviting Paddy Pantsdown into the Cabinet was something started by a feral press in an attempt to annoy us Lib Dem loathers?