On the 5th may 2008, Unite gave the largest single cash donation received by the Rother Valley Constituency Labour Party as recorded by the Electoral Commission.
Today the leaders of Unite releasd this statement – as reported by the Guardian:
As you know Labour are now in formal talks with the Liberal Democrats to see if we can agree a stable government to secure the economic recovery and change our politics. Together we can form a progressive coalition, a coalition that would reflect that over 60% of the population rejected the Tories last week.
The argument that ‘60% of people didn’t vote for the Conservatives and therefore a government made up of the second and third place parties who together received 52% of the vote is legitimate’ is an interesting one.
I guess it’s the same as saying ‘it doesn’t matter who won, a coalition of the losers is more legitimate as long as if together they got more than 50% of the vote’
I wonder if they’re hoping we don’t notice that over 70% of the electorate didn’t vote for the Labour party?
I wonder too if either Unite, or Kevin Barron would therefore recognise the legitimacy of a coalition of those candidates for the constituency who together received more than his 41%? After all, almost 60% of the population of the Rother Valley constituency rejected Kevin Barron last week.
I’m guessing not.
Does anyone know if Kevin Barron has ever made a public statement on his views on proportional representation, by the way?
Politics in the Rother Valley 
How about a Lab-Con coalition?
A Lab-Con coalition would be by far the most legitimate two party coalition using the logic employed by Unite. One wonders why they didn’t suggest it.
Centrist senior Labour people have now scuppered any hope of a coalition with LibDem.
Labour + Tory “Government of National Unity?”
Conservatives = Shire Tories + Atlanticist Free Market Ideologues + Christian Right + Born to Rule “Toffs” + Thatcherite Poujadists with policy influenced by the right wing media and business interests in Belize.
Labour was originally Co-op Movement + Trade Unions + International Socialists.
Today it is largely Christian Socialists + Career Politicians who cranked themselves up via the National Union of Students*; with the Co-op Movement + Trade Unions picking up the bill (along with many many far more grubby and dubious others**) and thus influencing policy.
They are both rats fighting in sacks. Together, they wouldn’t be able to agree even on what year it is.
The best that can happen out of all this, over the coming years, is a slightly more fair election system and an acceleration of the regrouping on the radical left that began with the SDP and led on to the creation of the LibDems. But what really needs changing is the party funding system, and no one is talking about that.
………………..
* Think Tony/Hilary Benn; Ralph/Ed+David Milliband.
** Premiership football club ownership is far more clean hands than Political Party funding.
Whichever the coalition parties turned out to be, to me it would be a “con”. Let’s wait and see now for the squabbling to begin between this lot (shouldn’t be long) and then we can be in turmoil again over who is telling the truth about what . A dep Prime Minister who disagrees with some of the major issues of his PM – hmm…
Given the outcome of the election, what would have been your preferred outcome? A minority Tory government and uncertainty, a coalition between the second and third placed parties, another election, a confidence and supply deal between two parties, or a stable fixed term coalition?
Well ok, when you put it like that I would have to go for the coalition we have got. The fixed term coalition sounds fine – until the disagreements begin. I am sure we are all on our best behaviour at the moment, but lets be positive Lexia, and look forward to a bright new future 🙂 (Can’t see this happening in Maltby mind you -will post on MTC thead re latest)