Labour choose the safety of opposition ?

[olddutch]

Alex Salmond says “The Labour Party of course had the prospect of leading a progressive alliance, but instead have chosen the safety of opposition. And I think their role in not grasping that opportunity, the opportunity which the prime minister, the past Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, seemed to open the door to yesterday. Instead of grasping the opportunity, with a lot of semi-retired Labour grandees out to say it was a ridiculous idea. They seem to want to go into opposition. Well that will be remembered as well.”

Did Labour really choose the safety of Opposition as a way of playing the Long Game in the context of Mervyn Kings “whoever wins this election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be." ?


Will Old Labour or New New Labour eventually emerge as the Long Term Political Winners?

[jake-the-peg]

No Blunkett was completely right - they would have crucified for "a coailition of losers" and have lost at the following election hands down - especially after changing leader again.

I think Mandelsons political nous deserted him in thinking it was a goer.

Not sure that Clegg's made the right move though - difficult to see where he goes from here especially if the PR referrendum delivers a No

[MatydaLover]

Labour had little choice - the electorate had the say. Interesting that three of Labour's main negotiators had as many votes as I did last Thursday. Says a bit about their arrogance.

[AB Editor]

Gordon Brown's Last Moments:
http://www.guardian.c...re=362535527&morepage

The Government always changes boundaries to entrench their position - We can assume Labour will receive a mighty wollop in terms of votes needed per seat, and the Liberals a gain. We can assume Labour will be squeezed into a 3rd party - if FPTP begins to work for the liberals, will they change their minds about PR systems? Possibly - it is very hard to hobble oneself!

[jake-the-peg]

No Ed we can't assume that at all.

Check out what AV would probably have done in past elections:

http://news.bbc.co.uk..._politics/8506306.stm

You'll see why the Tories are so opposed to it

[Davethedog]

That was Alex Salmonds grab for glory. Imagine it well Gordon (or whoever) so you need our votes to get tax/eductaion/war policy through OK but we need independance for Scotland by Friday and no referendum.

Or something like that.

Labour 3rd party maybe but not in your life time

[youngmafbog]

It is of course impossible to know how AV would work out. The british public is a fickle beast.

where will Cleg go next? Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see, far too early on to guess that sort of thing.

[olddutch]

"if FPTP begins to work for the liberals, will they change their minds about PR systems? "

certainly hope not !

[ludwig]

I think it would have been madness for Labour to go down the 'coalition of losers' route, and they came to their senses. Just think what a nightmare it would have been to keep that coalition in line with all the little 'rainbow' parties holding them to ransom on every vote - which is of course why Alex Salmond is so upset.
It would have been the most hated government in years, far from the stability that everyone agrees we need right now.

They need to regroup in opposition, elect a decent leader, and give themselves a chance of winning the next one.

[IggyB]

Salmond knows that cuts are coming and that is going to cut into the money presently given to scotland - he must have been hoping he could strong arm more and more concessions for north of the border but it looks like he will feel the pinch when it comes like everyone else.