No More Games

Earlier this week I wrote a post criticising the Labour leadership for playing election games that risk allowing no deal. I would like to extend that criticism to the Liberal Democrats.

Jo Swinson has said she would rule out supporting atemporary Unity government headed by Corbyn in the event of a successful voteof no confidence. Such a government would have to be headed by a backbencher like Yvette Cooper to gain Lib Dem support.

I am no Corbynista, but this is pretty preposterous. So long as the Labour leadership does not budge on their current position, that any administration would have to be led by the Labour front bench, the Lib Dems are effectively throwing away what may be the only means of preventing no deal. Their argument, that they could not countenance putting someone like Corbyn into Downing Street does not even make sense on its own terms. The governing coalition would likely only exist for a few weeks, with the sole purpose of negotiating an article 50 extension. It would have neither the time nor ability to pass any other legislation, and any hint of an executive overstep of the coalition agreement could immediately be met with a withdrawal of support and a vote of no confidence.

Their real motivation is surely just another electoral game. Most of the Lib Dems target seats are Tory marginals, and they do not want to be associated with a government that has Corbyn in Downing Street, even if just for a few weeks. This is dangerously cynical.  

It’s true that the Labour leadership is playing cynical games too. But that does not negate collective responsibility. Trying to force the Labour leadership to change their position is just irresponsbile at this stage. What's more, it is unlikely to work. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, the Labour leadership is intensely (perhaps primarily) worried about losing control of the party. It has woken up to the fact that Brexit poses an existential threat to this, and they believe that a government of national unity headed by a backbencher would provide a locus around which a leadership challenge could be mounted. For many figures around Corbyn, this may be more important than any other considerations.

Secondly, the leadership likely has ambivalent attitudes to the political consequences of no deal. It is quite possible they see themselves as the likely beneficiaries as the consequences of no deal fuel backlash against the government. The main fear that they too would be blamed if they did not form or support a unity government is more or less neutralised if the Liberal Democrats make the same mistake.

Finally, some may even see the economic consequences of no deal as offering an opportunity for Labour to remodel the UK. It is quite possible that large parts of the British economy will effectively have to be operated as a command economy if supply chains break down; nationalisation and the introduction of price controls would be much easier to justify in such an environment.

The main strength of the Lib Dems at the moment is that if they are willing to support a Corbyn led temporary government, the Labour leadership is not in a position to refuse. This, in the long term, I think, would offer actually offer a better electoral strategy for the Lib Dems anyway, as it would put distance between the party and their role in the Cameron’s coalition government.

There is a big opening for a Europhile party of the centre left, particularly one that embraced expansionary fiscal policy. This seems to offer more of an opportunity than mopping up the relatively small number of disaffected Cameroons. But there is no room for that strategy if the Liberal Democrats become yet another appendage to the political culture that brought about a no deal Brexit. And even if that's wrong, at this stage, who cares. Now is not the time for electoral games.