Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

What now?

June 10, 2017

Sorry, this is a long one.

First: congrats to everyone who campaigned for Labour. There were two things the pundits underestimated: obviously the young who were way more enthusiastic for him than Miliband. But also the perennial protest vote, which went Clegg’s way in 2010, and UKIP’s in 2015, and now finds itself back at Labour’s feet. Without the power that leads inevitably to disappointment, they ought to hold on to those votes next time around. But they need more.

A party need two qualities to win a General Election: the first is the better leader. By the end of this campaign, Corbyn had clearly caught up with May in the popularity stakes, and in my view beat her. Say what you like about his foreign policy (and leaving aside Trident, a subject I pray we never have a referendum on), it’s no worse than May’s. Which leaves him pipping her to the post thanks to his authenticity/ability to interact with the public.

But he still lost thanks to the other prerequisite: trust on the economy. The difficulty with this is that it’s as much about the incumbent government as the opposition. Governments tend to change hands only after a spectacular cock-up. It happened in 2010 when the Conservatives persuaded just enough of the British public that Labour were at fault for the recession. And it happened in 1997 thanks to the Exchange Rate Mechanism snafu which occurred mere months after the Tories were re-elected in 1992. Only after that were Labour able to convince voters they were the competent alternative.

Once you’ve burnished your economic credentials it’s a waiting game. Luckily for Corbyn and the Labour Party, the ingredients for the next cock-up – most likely a terrible Brexit deal – were measured up and laid out on the kitchen counter before the election was even called, and now they’re all over the floor. It’s now the Tories’ job to sweep up what they can and start cooking, and given their habit for fucking up the electoral equivalent of boiling an egg, I’m not looking forward to mealtime.

Labour now needs to demonstrate to the public that its leadership really is strong and it has the skills – and maturity – to manage a large economy. That will involve its MPs burying the hatchet and Corbyn bringing in a bunch of talented moderates to his Shadow Cabinet. It’s clear that for the next election much of his agenda will be staying put, but in order to win over the still-sceptical Corbys, Colchesters and Chingfords – the only route to Number 10 – the party must now draw on the whole labour movement to make a robust case for its policies, and be tenacious in its scrutiny of the government. If there’s anything the Tories have taught Labour it’s that you need both unity and ruthlessness. And to be fair, the party displayed both during the campaign.

The Tories meanwhile. Why would they call another election if Labour is on the front foot and the upshot is likely to be yet more losses? If you replace May, you’ll need a Ruth Davidson with a seat in Westminster or a Stephen Crabb with a majority larger than 300.

Another problem the Tories have is relying on the DUP. The Labour party’s attack lines are already writing themselves: “coalition of chaos”, women’s rights, LGBT rights, climate change, the basic stability of Northern Ireland.

In relation to Northern Ireland and the peace process, the Tories are already up to their navels in effluent. If I were them I’d be figuring out what to offer Sinn Fein in return for taking their seats because frankly a power-sharing arrangement out of Westminster is probably the only way this is going to work. Fuck it, if Parliament needs renovating and Stormont is empty, why not do a swap?

Two final things:

I can’t wait for Tony Blair’s next intervention.

If anyone is planning to reshuffle their frontbench teams any time soon, here’s a few suggestions.

Advertisements

Why my Fantasy Frontbench is the best one.

May 27, 2017

Fantasy front bench

After creating my Fantasy Frontbench I can’t resisting breaking it down, just to illustrate the quality of it. As well as making it good, I have also tried to give it as much political balance as I can stomach and a 50:50 gender balance.

Great Offices of State

Prime Minister – Yvette Cooper was my pick of the leadership candidates post-2015 election. She has solid Cabinet experience and gravitas, so would make a good leader of a government of the grown-ups.

Chancellor – Rachel Reeves worked at the Bank of England.

Foreign Secretary – Stella Creasy has done a huge amount of work on the refugee crisis and is a PhD in Social Psychology, which ought to be useful in diplomacy.

Home Secretary – Jess Phillips has authority on this, having worked with victims of crime, but is also pragmatic and refreshingly honest, which should hopefully wrongfoot a perennially dissatisfied press.

International Affairs

Brexit Secretary – Hilary Benn. Currently chief scrutineer of the Brexit process, chairing the Commons committee on it.

Defence – Dan Jarvis. Former Army officer.

International Trade – John Woodcock. I didn’t want a Tory, who might trade away our social protections. I thought about appointing the worldly Nick Clegg until I remember one particular deal he struck in 2010 (though, to be fair, he’s probably learned some valuable lessons). I picked Woodcock because as MP for an industrial northern town he’d have a good sense of what keeps jobs in those sorts of places.

International Development – Rory Stewart. The first Tory on my list. Former diplomat who knows how warzones tick. At this Department in a junior role already.

Economy & Public Services

Business etc – Alison McGovern. One of the most impressive voices on the challenges facing the economy and the Labour Party.

Work & Pensions – Lisa Nandy. I’ve heard great things about her. Let’s see what she can do with this clusterfuck. Her background with Centrepoint should help.

Health – Sarah Wollaston. GP by trade, current chair of the Health Select Committee and respected across the House.

Education – Jon Cruddas. Both a fan of education (he has a doctorate in labour relations) and well-attuned to issues affecting the indigenous working class, so a good fit for this.

Transport – Sajid Javid. He’s in my good books because of the letting agent fees ban under his watch at DCLG. Also the son of a bus driver, so I’d like to think he’d sort out local transport.

Communities and Local Government – Caroline Lucas. In recognition of the Greens having gone furthest on regulation of the rental market.

Other stuff

Justice – Anna Soubry. Similar in lots of ways to her Nottinghamshire neighbour Ken Clarke – Barrister, Europhile, plain-speaking – I hope this also means she’s pro-prison reform.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Nick Boles. The Lincolnshire MP’s willingness to reform the green belt will be a useful counterweight to Lucas at DCLG.

Culture, Media and Sport – Chuka Umunna. An asset to any team, but I figured his love of UK Garage would make him a good fit here.

Devolved Nations

Scotland – Chi Onwurah. Initially I thought a Scot would be essential, and picked Michael Gove as a staunch defender of the union. But then I thought Newcastle Central’s MP would find some neglected-by-Westminster common ground with the Scottish Government, while also making sure devolution doesn’t damage the interests of England’s far north.

Wales – Owen Smith. His leadership challenge may have failed but he stuck his neck out and I respect that. And he’s an MP in Wales.

Northern Ireland – Ed Miliband. I think this guy wants a new challenge.

Admin

Chief Whip – Rob Halfon. Another Tory who is attuned to ordinary people’s lives, so worth having in Cabinet.

Leader of the House – Emily Thornberry. Too good a performer to have off the team and should make Thursday Business Questions entertaining.

And that’s how you sort out this country.

giphy

A new party system?

August 21, 2016

Amid the speculation about whether Labour will split in the event of another Corbyn victory, Tim Montgomerie revived his suggestion that many politicians have more in common with some members of another party than with some in their own party – and so we should have a new set of parties.

It’s a good thought experiment, and one I’m probably as qualified to carry out as Tim is, given that it involves imagining one’s own ideal party and several parties with whom one cannot agree.

Here are the parties that would exist if England’s politicians created a new party system from a veil of ignorance.

Where I agree with Tim is that there would be a left wing party (Solidarity), whose platform would involve being pro-nationalisation and anti- things like fracking and all things nuclear. Jeremy Corbyn and Caroline Lucas would both be in it. Serious question: what do they disagree on?

Tim has a National Party which would unite eurosceptics and social conservatives. Their priorities include technical education and small business. This is clearly Tim’s preference, but I don’t see much to separate them from his Patriots party, which is defined by anti-immigration and authoritarianism. The main contentious area is how anti-big business they would be.

Another point: Tim is one of the Right’s biggest proponents of house building but as much as I’d like his colleagues to share his views I don’t think it likely that a National Party would have this as a priority. Many conservatives who’d be drawn to join this political alliance (though not necessarily the voters) would be keen to preserve their property wealth and pastoral views. Pro-housing policies are a much easier fit in other fictional parties. Anyway, within this alliance would be people like Theresa May, Nigel Farage and David Davis.

There are Labour and Conservative MPs who would need a new home, and that’s where the Progressives come in. It would be pro-EU, for a start, and its policy platform would be defined by “what works”. So it would recognise that the housing market is broken and needs significant state intervention, and would seek to empower workers without intervening too heavily in the market. It’d welcome migrant workers, and bring the private sector into the NHS where there was a good business case. It would support renewables but wouldn’t rule out fracking or nuclear. A less ideologically rigid New Labour, basically, but one where I could imagine Robert Halfon and Anna Soubry would be comfortable.

Finally, there are the socially liberal, economically neoliberal Tories who couldn’t stomach the Nationals or the Progressives. They’ll have the Freedom Party. Douglas Carswell will be there. George Osborne too, I reckon. They’ll also want more houses, but instead of investing in new council houses, they’ll tear up planning rules and have developers let rip. Aside from that, and their pro-immigration stance, they’d be terrible, eroding workers’ rights and starving public services of investment.

What’s missing in all of this is the Lib Dems. Could they join the Progressives if “what works” is snooping on people’s email records? Could they join the Freedom Party if there is a fundamental disagreement around the EU?

The truth is, there are good reasons for the party system to exist as it does. Conservatives’ raison d’etre is to govern the best way they can while conserving what the Haves have – and the Haves often disagree (hence the Brexit fiasco). Labour’s is to improve living standards for the Have Nots, but they disagree on the best path to this. The Lib Dems’ priority is individual rights. I think. And UKIP’s is sovereignty – either over immigration or as a end in itself. All politicians make compromises with their fellow party members in pursuit of their overarching goal.

Of course, it is also true that decades of baggage stops them making compromises with would-be allies in other parties.

I suspect that parties won’t stretch to breaking point over their purpose, but because of foreign policy – not just on the EU but, in the case of Labour, NATO and Trident. The cause of conflict is the position of Britain in the world, something even more fundamental.

Anyway, try to guess which fictional party I like best.

Whatever you’re about to do, Labour…

July 2, 2016

Here are some things I hope you’ll consider. Above all, stick to your values, have courage in your convictions and give the 48% an alternative to the Conservatives.

There’s no point in seeking a mulligan on the referendum. The people have spoken, but the mandate they gave is pretty weak. Labour needs to say the UK will leave, but pursue the strongest damage limitation exercise possible.

I realise that there’s a lot of anti-immigration feeling and it’s probably tempting to read into the referendum result the need to cut it. Please don’t. Although it sounds like most Leave voters want to limit immigration, there is clearly a sizeable minority who don’t (18% of Leavers, says Ipsos; around 15% says Ashcroft). We can assume that The 48% preferred the status quo too, so that leaves 55-57% who are not going to be won over if Labour starts talking about immigration controls. And are the rest really going to consider voting Labour?

Instead, Labour needs to make the case for immigration. Don’t say things you don’t believe, and don’t try and avoid the subject, because those are the two mistakes Labour has made in recent years. Immigration is essential to the economic health of the country. Without it, we won’t have nearly as much tax revenue to spend on the health service and pensions. Most Britons are pragmatic people – they’ll won’t buy into the cuddly cosmopolitan stuff, but they would accept a case for the benefits if made with enough conviction.

A corollary to this is the need to address genuine social pressures in certain parts of the country (particularly where Labour is losing traditional voters). If people say immigration is a problem, I would guess (and I would welcome another view) that most of the time the real problem is low wages, health care, schools or housing. If Labour sets out an action plan to address all these things (and I read about one before the General Election, but it was at the end of an article in the Guardian) then makes that a central part of their manifesto, they ought to be able to win round the heartlands. And guess what, we won’t have a functional NHS or enough new homes without Italian doctors and Polish builders. There’ll obviously be a few Send ‘Em Backers who’ll reject even this, but any efforts to appease them will only alienate The 48%.

Labour still has to contemplate places like Hartlepool, where 70% of voters backed Leave. But 64% of Hartlepool’s voters didn’t vote Labour in 2015. A further swing against them would hand the seat to UKIP, but how likely is that? Is there not a case that the revolt against Labour there has peaked and a message more attuned to the town’s problems would bring them back? For fuck’s sake, non-UK born residents represent 2.3% of the local population, the lowest in the North East.

If Labour accepts the need for free movement, then it’s a hell of a lot easier to consequently retain the Single Market and protect the City – both things that the Conservatives seem set to gamble with. Labour can be the sensible grown-ups, speaking for the rational majority, and winning round business (especially if enough investment was made in infrastructure too). Under the circumstances, a plan to get a Norwayesque deal counts as a long-term economic plan. Nick that, and start banging on about it. (I’m half joking.)

Furthermore, the UK faces its biggest crisis since the war, and division within the progressive movement could really impair its chances. Labour should seriously consider a pact with the Lib Dems (who’d probably win Cornwall back), the Greens and even the SNP.

If we’re going to “take back control” then maybe it’s time the people started electing their upper house. A deal to reform the Lords and introduce an element of PR could be part of a pact.

You may therefore end up with the next General Election being effectively another referendum between complete divorce and Single Market, between closing the borders and supporting the economy, between tyranny of a minority and broad consensus.

 

Cutting off our nose to spite our face

June 22, 2016

The EU referendum has been fought by two tribes of idealists. There’s Leave, who see Britain as a plucky outsider who needs to shake off the bureaucratic shackles of Brussels. There’s Remain, who see Britain as a lynchpin of international affairs and whose leadership within the EU is essential to make the world a better place.

They’re both valid viewpoints, but only a minority cares that much to hold one of them. I mean, the latter is the reason I’m voting In, but then I’m a nerd. The fact is most voters who haven’t made up their mind yet either sympathise with both positions or don’t care either way. They’re going to vote on practical grounds –asking themselves, will I benefit by leaving?

My gut says the majority of the UK will have something to lose and won’t want to risk leaving the EU. They have a job that could disappear, a mortgage that could become more expensive, or a pension pot that could take a battering.

But my head, after looking at polls, media coverage, social media etc, says that there are enough people with either no chance of losing what they have – gold-plated pensions, more than one house – or nothing to lose in the first place, to feel at ease in taking a risk.

It’s that second group, living in safe seats, who have got angrier at politicians after decades of failure to benefit from wider growth with no way to change things. This referendum is the first real outlet for their anger – an opportunity to cast a protest vote that will actually do something. The politicians leading the Leave campaign have long invited these voters to blame immigrants for their problems and, now we have this referendum, offered them some cheap soundbites about taking back control.

They’re going to be disappointed.

Whether or not a Leave victory causes an immediate recession, no one will really know how our relationship with Europe will look for years. Businesses will just stop investing until we figure that out. That means no new private sector jobs for all those disenfranchised voters toying with Leave.

On immigration, we’ll either retain freedom of movement, which will piss off much of Leave’s constituency, or we shut the borders and starve the UK of workers.

This is the thing about immigration. It’s good. Immigrants pay taxes, which helps fund the NHS, pensions and schools that most Leave-leaning voters rely on. As more indigenous Britons retire, then subsequently live for another thirty years, immigrants will become even more essential.

The reason for the widespread resentment is the failure of the UK government to build enough homes and fund the NHS and schools properly. With the supply of workers cut off, we won’t be able to build all the homes we need or staff our hospitals adequately. We’ll have fewer taxpayers supporting our ageing population, creating greater pressure on the public purse and our communities.

As Osborne’s mate Danny Finkelstein points out in the Times today, a government shut off from the Single Market will slash regulation in order to entice investment. That means making it easier to exploit workers and sell shitty merchandise. That’s the Race to the Bottom that Remain tentatively used as their catchphrase for, like, one night.

Who will Leave voters blame for their problems once our divorce is complete? What will be the next outlet for their anger? The Johnsons, the Goves and the Farages? Or their neighbours? I’d rather not find out.

Instead, we should stay, keep the economy on track and elect a government who will actually do something to ease the pressure on public services and the housing market. Funnily enough, there isn’t a single EU Directive that is stopping this.

Now, if that doesn’t convince you to vote Remain, then here’s another reason: we won’t be talking about Brexit in a few weeks’ time. If we vote Leave, we’ll hear that fucking word every day for a decade.

Will the SNP spend the next parliament abstaining?

April 18, 2015

Last night on Radio 4’s Any Questions, the SNP’s Humza Yousaf spelled out what kind of Labour government his party would support in the likely event of a hung Parliament. Fiscal policy aside, which I think is pretty negotiable, he said the SNP could not support a government that renews Trident. The Nats want to ditch it and that’s non-negotiable. With the nuclear deterrent popular in the UK as a whole (according to a January YouGov poll), this is not something Labour should be contemplating.

The two parties are therefore at an impasse.

But the previous night, Nicola Sturgeon implored Ed Miliband to work with the SNP to keep the Tories out. Ed told her that whom the SNP supports is up to her – he won’t be dictated to. That leaves the question of what is most important to the Nats.

Do they stick to their principles and vote against Trident, even though they can’t win, or do they do everything to keep the Tories out even if that would improve the case for keeping the Union together?

By voting against a Labour government on the basis of Trident, the SNP would thereby usher in a Tory minority, who, with Labour, would renew Trident anyway. That Tory government might then further alienate Scotland and lay the groundwork for a second referendum.

The massive risk with this is that it will backfire and the Scots will start associating the SNP with another five years of Tories, and precipitate a loss of support that would wreck prospects for independence.

The safer route for the SNP is just to abstain on the budget and Queen’s Speech. Labour, with a confidence and supply arrangement with a Lib Dem rump, ought to have a workable number of votes (unless we see a late surprise surge in the Tory vote that takes them over the edge).

An SNP still enjoying a honeymoon period could still make a Tory government work for them, so Labour can still make the case that you can’t trust the SNP to deliver a progressive government. At the same time the Nats have a pretty strong pitch to voters: you could vote for a Labour MP in hock to the Westminster whips or you could vote for someone who actually cares about Scotland.

The SNP have huge political capital. The most responsible thing could be not to use it.

Scotland’s Manifest Destiny

September 6, 2014

Dear Scotland,

Look, I know it’s not my place, as someone living in London, to tell you how to vote on the 18th of September. But fuck it: I’m feeling pretty impotent right now, so humour me. I’m terrified that my country is going to be ripped apart in a couple of weeks’ time.

While I can’t say Scotland is my country, I can’t say England is either. I’ve lived in the latter my whole life, but my parents were both born in Scotland, half my extended family lives there and I’ve spent most of my holidays north of the border. Thank God for the Union because it gives me one single country that I feel 100% happy about calling my own. I feel British more than anything, and if you vote Yes, I won’t be able to say that. I’ll still have a state but I’ll no longer have a nation.

That’s enough dewy-eyed sentiment from me. When I’m completely objective about independence, I reckon Scotland could go it alone. There’ll be enough energy and excitement to sustain things until you find your feet. Alex Salmond’s mistake was to pledge to keep Sterling, immediately shackling an “independent” Scotland to a Semi-United Kingdom’s monetary policy. Even if he manages to land a currency union, Westminster will still surely dominate and impose fiscal conditions that make a mockery of Scottish autonomy.

True independence can only come with a separate currency. Establishing a new Pound Scots will have its risks, and Yes voters are clearly comfortable with risks already. If Scotland is going to sever ties, it ought to make sure those ties won’t just be reattached through the back door.

Ultimately, Scotland will do fine because Scotland is what makes Britain Great. And I’m annoyed that the Yes campaign wants to deprive the rest of the country of that. Scotland has been an indispensible outward-looking force for civilisation since we fused together 300 years ago. Following that union, Britain became the first country to industrialise, it democratised, and created the welfare state and the NHS. Scotland should be proud of being a cornerstone of progress in all of that.

Creating a country that treats people fairly has not been easy – there are many people in Britain who don’t have that social solidarity and open, compassionate outlook on the world that define Scotland. And this is one of the times in the country’s history where they are in the ascendancy and the rest of us need Scotland more than ever. The state support that will be a given in an independent Scotland is now under threat in England. Ideologically driven reforms are pulling the rug out from under people’s feet. But as long as Scotland remains in the union, we have a chance of turning the tide.  

Faced with a struggle like this, the easy thing for Scots to do is to retreat into the cocoon that independence offers, where they can insulate themselves from an intensified political turmoil south of the border. That would leave millions of like-minded people stranded in a Semi-United Kingdom where the heartless would now hold the balance of power. There is no doubt that the poor and disadvantaged growing up in a Scotland-less Britain would face a grimmer existence. Would Scots really want to see their nieces and nephews in England face decline towards a hostile state of nature, or would they rather accept their destiny as a partner in a mostly progressive union that is more than the sum of its parts?

The struggle to keep Britain Great and fight the forces of inequality might be the harder option for you, but it would continue Scotland’s tradition of punching above its weight and civilising less enlightened parts of the world.

That’s my plea, then. If you do vote No, don’t do it for you. Do it for the kids.

And if you ignore me then I guess I’ll just try to resurrect the campaign for North East devolution. But look what happened to that last time.

Cheerie-bye,

Dan

 

Fair Workfare?

February 18, 2012

This week several objections to the government’s Work Programme have been bandied about. This wheeze gives job seekers an unpaid work experience placement. If they drop out then they lose their benefits.

I don’t want to get into the philosophical arguments about whether the principle behind losing benefits is right or wrong; the way the Coalition sees it is that if you get Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), you don’t get it for free so you’re expected to take work that is given to you. I should imagine Labour would broadly agree.

Instead I want to look at the relative merits of these objections to the Work Programme and suggest that it could be resolved by actually paying people.

Here are the objections outlined in this article:

  1. There are “complaints that jobseekers are being used as taxpayer-subsidised labour”. I’m not sure whose complaints the Guardian are referring to here, but I don’t think it’s the same majority of public opinion who support welfare reform and oppose taxpayer-subsidised indolence. If we’re going to have subsidies, it’s probably better that they support labour.
  2. Private sector employers get to profit from the unemployed. Surprisingly (to me), until recently only public sector and charity organisations took people on under the programme. Having the private sector involved is surely essential: if you want the private sector to deliver economic growth you have to prepare the unemployed to fill private sector jobs – whenever they actually get created. However, it does look a bit shabby if corporations are using free labour as a way to enrich themselves. You might call it predatory capitalism.
  3. It’s not actually voluntary if people lose their benefits. Tesco feels uncomfortable with the work experience being compulsory and sold as voluntary (Work Minister Chris Grayling: “Our work experience scheme is voluntary”) and suggests removing the threat of benefit withdrawal. Without wishing to get into a discussion of whether there should be unconditional social security, my interpretation of JSA is that when you sign on you accept its conditions, and you are therefore compelled to take work experience.
  4. It’s slave labour. If you help out an organisation for free because you enjoy doing so and you agree with its objectives and it was entirely your decision to do so, then it’s voluntary. If the activity is anything else – and especially if it was arranged by the JobCentre or whichever contractor is doing it in your area – then it’s work, and you should expect to be paid at least the National Minimum Wage for it. If an unscrupulous retailer finds that they’re able to get a kid on JSA to perform a menial job that requires no training for free rather than actually employ someone then that does nothing for the unemployment rate and undermines the concept of the minimum wage.

What I don’t understand is why people on the Work Programme do not get their benefit topped up to the minimum wage by the employer for the work they do. I think this solution would address all the objections we’ve heard:

  1. Taxpayer’s money is still used to subsidise work not indolence
  2. Employers still get benefits but not at the benefit recipient’s expense
  3. With the minimum wage carrot now complementing the stick of losing benefits, the scheme would still be compulsory, but the DWP would not lose any more friends by saying so – to suggest that the current system is otherwise is disingenuous
  4. While it may still be forced, it isn’t slave labour

There is an issue in that economic theory suggests that you won’t get as many placements as you do under the scheme to date, but at least participating companies won’t be embarrassed into withdrawing completely, thus reducing the number of placements anyway.

Labour should sit this one out – Why a Tory-Lib Dem coalition might benefit Labour

May 8, 2010

What I’m about to suggest might well be unpopular with everyone who voted but I’ve given this so much thought I decided to write a blog. And I don’t write many blogs.

Just for the record, being in power is great – in the past thirteen years the Labour government have achieved things that wouldn’t have been achieved under the Tories: the minimum wage, public service investment, redistributive tax credits and reducing crime.

But government inevitably makes a party unpopular – being forced into unnecessary wars, pressurised into knee-jerk reactions by the press, making difficult decisions that end up backfiring. In Thursday’s election, Labour have done very well, seat-wise, given the amount of damage they’ve sustained over the past few years and the fury that they’ve faced from the press.

Sadly, Gordon Brown hasn’t done enough to keep the public on side. He has been very strong on the economy compared with the other two party leaders, but he just couldn’t communicate it well during the debates. Although he managed to shake off Andrew Rawnsley’s bullying allegations and the Gillian Duffy disaster (incredibly Labour retook Rochdale), he has still come across as a difficult person to work with. He simply cannot last as Prime Minister or, indeed, leader of the Labour Party.

There is the chance that should Liberal Democrats and Tories not reach a deal, Brown, or at any rate the Labour Party, could form a coalition. Given the combined vote share of the parties stands at 52%, this would be popular in the country at large and I’m sure a lot of natural Labour voters would be happy to compromise with the Liberal Democrats on things like civil liberties, Trident and Heathrow.

The trouble is they’d need the support of the nationalist parties – that could leave the door open for costly deals to keep support for the government and I cannot see this lasting. The more parties Labour relies on, the more volatile every major Commons vote will be.

If a Labour-Liberal Democrat government fell apart, it would be enough to put the Tories into power at the ensuing General Election – and of course, the majority of the public doesn’t want this.

Furthermore, Labour doesn’t want another election so soon given its precarious finances and relatively good number of MPs, which could fall if the Conservatives gain popularity from a faltering coalition government.

Under the circumstances, Nick Clegg is right to enter negotiations with the Conservatives with their mandate in the public and Parliament. Who knows how well a coalition between the Tories and Liberal Democrats will do. But while it wouldn’t have the power to carry out its policies, Labour would benefit in several ways.

Firstly, it wouldn’t risk haemorrhaging any support by being part of an unstable coalition with the Liberal Democrats and nationalists.

Secondly, it would stand to benefit electorally from any blunders committed by a Tories and Lib Dems, who, of course, would have to make the difficult decisions given the present state of the economy. One caveat to this is that the Tories and Lib Dems would have some ammo to use against Labour.

Thirdly it would give Labour a chance to regroup and figure out what it stands for and then hopefully regain some ground at the next general election, assuming the coalition holds.

As Chris Addison said at his show on the eve of the election, trying to figure out who the next Labour leader should be is like interviewing people for a job and then realising at the end there’s no one left and thinking “we’re screwed”. Most of the candidates, several of whom would make a good future Prime Minister, have never been in opposition so a stint on the Speaker’s left will give them some perspective and a chance to develop some mettle.

No one knows how a Lib-Con coalition would affect voting intention but Labour could be in a good position to enter government again, albeit as part of a coalition, especially if Clegg secures some electoral reform. This is the reality Labour will have to come to terms with over the coming weeks.