Browse > Home / Labour, Liberal Democrats, Satire / Dangerous Liaisons

| Subcribe via RSS



Dangerous Liaisons

December 17th, 2010 Posted in Labour, Liberal Democrats, Satire by

Roy Hattersley, writing in today’s Guardian, captures well the confusion in Labour about how to tempt Liberal Democrats into their camp. Entitled:

“Radical Lib Dems must revolt – or lose everything”

He opines that the corporate myth of a progressive alliance on the left is dying (if only); and in order to keep it alive, the traitors to this cause or ‘so-called progressives’ within the Liberal Democrats, should prove they are not traitors, by treacherously undermining their own Leader (who apparently is a “conservative”) at every turn.

Comrades! Prove your loyalty through disloyalty!

Then, and only then, if they are lucky, might the Labour party forgive them and consider some kind of partnership.

It is somewhat reminiscent of the plot of the Dangerous Liaisons, where the Marquise de Merteuil invites her ex-lover and rival Valmont to corrupt her enemies in order to get another shot with her.

He does so, against his better judgement and finer feelings, and they all end the novel dead, disgraced or disfigured.

A modern American remake of the French book, Cruel Intentions, charmingly summed up the reward on offer as “you can put it anywhere… “. Their Valmont gets run over.

Hattersley's vision?

Hattersley’s vision?

 

Roy Hattersley and the Labour party sadly lack the more obvious charms of former Buffy star Sarah Michelle Gellar, from any angle. And the left of the Liberal Democrats are not hormonal teenage boys with troubling fantasies; well mostly not.

But the implication and outcome would be the same. Destroy what you have for the promise of a former tease who proved entirely fickle and unfulfilling for the previous 13 years they could have made your dreams come true.

Which is the root of Hattersley’s delusion. If there ever were a prospect of a genuine progressive alliance, Labour could have easily delivered it in office. Particularly in 2005 when their 35% vote share made any pretence to a mandate or future majority risible.

Instead as with the Project, the Cook-Maclennan commission, Britain in Europe, and a host of other common platform collaborations, Labour persistently used pluralism as a mechanism for marginalising opposition not delivering common goals…

But this time…. this time… it will all be different…

‘you can put it anywhere…’

Tempted?

4 Responses to “Dangerous Liaisons”

  1. Ed Joyce Says:

    The Lib Dems are not close to the Labour or the Conservative Party. If you look at the Nolan Chart they have traditionally had more in common with each other than with us. That may be changed a little recently but the fact is that we are still close to neither. Grayson may be close to Labour but he is factional and not representative of the party. It was the mathematics of the election that forced the coalition on us.

    Ed Joyce

    http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enParties.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.melstarrs.com/elemental/category/opinion/&usg=__k7X20tqps9bDU6iT_Gqc_1JkPKY=&h=497&w=500&sz=11&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=cBVut-sr-CAMqM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=144&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnolan%2Bchart%2Buk%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Dn2w%26rls%3Dcom.ubuntu:en-GB:unofficial%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D803%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=443&vpy=167&dur=271&hovh=224&hovw=225&tx=138&ty=110&ei=CHgLTfuSDZKShAeDw9y1Cw&oei=CHgLTfuSDZKShAeDw9y1Cw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0


  2. Niklas Smith Says:

    Interestingly, the 2010 edition of the Political Compass for UK political parties put Labour down as more authoritarian than the Conservatives, though also further left on economics than they were in 2008 (which is apparently the year of the image Ed links to, though I suspect it’s based on the 2005 manifestos).

    What comes out from that Nolan chart is that the Lib Dems are far removed from both other mainstream parties in their relative social libertarianism. And many activists are even more libertarian on social issues (the vertical scale) than the party. Interestingly, our manifesto is regarded as “left of Labour” on economics (if only by a small margin).


  3. Niklas Smith Says:

    Sorry, forgot to add the Political Compass 2010 link: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010


  4. Ardella Benton Says:

    Pretty nice write-up. I simply Digging your site and desired to say that I’ve actually enjoyed studying your blogpost. Any approach I’ll be signing up to your feed and I think you’ll publish as soon as more within the close to future.