In politics, parties have to accept each
other as equal Adults in order to develop productive relationships. In general,
the Liberals/Lib Dems and the Conservatives have managed to do this most of the
time. The Conservatives and the Liberals have a long history (over 150 years)
of dealing with each other as worthy opponents.
However, the relationship between the
Liberals and the Labour Party is more problematic, in part due to their
history. Between 1903 and the First World War, the Liberal Party essentially
acted as a nurturing Parent to the Labour Party, through the
Gladstone-MacDonald Pact which helped Labour achieve a foothold in Parliament.
Very quickly after the First World War the Labour Party overtook the squabbling
Liberals and assumed a dominant position in Parliament.
So, between 1914 and 1922, positions
reversed from the Liberals as the Parent and Labour as the Child to the opposite
dynamic. This is not an easy background from which to negotiate. There have been brief interludes when the
Liberals/Lib Dems and Labour have treated each other as equal Adults (the Grimond
and Gaitskell era and Ashdown and Blair could be considered to be examples).
However, in the aftermath of the 2010 election, Gordon Brown essentially took
the position of a strict Parent treating Nick Clegg as a Child, while in many
ways Nick Clegg attempted to do exactly the same to Gordon Brown, having to
tell Brown that he would have to step aside, as a pre-condition for any
LibDem/Labour coalition. (Incidentally, it is debateable whether Brown’s
departure was really just a LibDem pre-condition, or if it was also a Labour
pre-condition.)
Viewed through the prism of Transactional
Analysis, it is no surprise that the LibDem-Labour coalition negotiations failed,
but the Conservatives and the LibDems managed to strike a business-like
agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment