Brown quits so Labour can cling to power

The Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader were hammering out details of a new Labour-Lib government in a sensational twist in the nation’s hung Parliament saga.

Mr Brown ignited a political explosion yesterday by offering his own resignation as bait in a deal with the Lib Dems. And Mr Clegg was accused of pursuing his party’s “self interest” after switching from talks with Tory leader David Cameron to cosy up to Labour in the hope of winning his dream of voting reform.

Conservative veteran Lord Heseltine said: “Don’t talk about the national interest. This is party politics at its most sordid.”

Senior Tories now fear their hopes of seeing Mr Cameron enter Downing Street at the head of a Conservative-run administration have evaporated. One Tory insider admitted: “It does not look good.”

Talks between the Tories and Lib Dems foundered after Mr Clegg made clear he would settle for nothing less than Cabinet seats for senior colleagues like Vince Cable and Chris Huhne, as well as the introduction of a new electoral system that would vote in dozens more Lib Dem MPs.

It is feared that Labour and the Lib Dems are now plotting a voting overhaul that would keep the Tories out of power for good by denying hope of any party winning a majority. Last night Mr Cameron made a dramatic last-ditch offer in a 25-minute telephone call to Mr Clegg, pledging to hold a national referendum on voting reform.

But it appeared the offer had been rebuffed as the Lib Dems opened talks with Labour Cabinet ministers.

Tory frontbencher William Hague said: “On the issue of voting reform, we have now reached our bottom line.

“We believe the Prime Minister of the country should be an elected Prime Minister and a change in the voting system should be subject to a referendum of the British people.”

Mr Hague insisted Tory relations with the Lib Dems remained “amicable”.

But Tory MP were furious about Mr Clegg’s double dealing and Mr Brown’s contempt for the voters.

Tory MP Nigel Evans said: “The country passed its verdict. Gordon, they want you to go now.”

And fellow Conservative Richard Ottaway said the “numbers don’t add up” for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition.

“A Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition is only a handful more than the Conservative Party on its own and it would not be able to hold the line on this for very long,” he said.

Under Mr Brown’s plan for a so-called “progressive coalition” of Left-wing parties, he will remain Prime Minister until September while Labour chooses another leader.

As well as the support of the Lib Dems, he will also need the backing of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and possibly the single Green MP, Caroline Lucas.

Speaking in front of Number 10, Mr Brown said: “There is a progressive majority in Britain and I believe it could be in the interests of the whole country to form a progressive coalition government.

“In addition to the economic priorities, in my view, only such a progressive government could meet the demand for political and electoral change which the British people made last Thursday.

“If it becomes clear that the national interest, which is stable and principled government, can be best served by forming a coalition between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, then I believe I should discharge that duty, support that government which would, in my view, command a majority in the House of Commons in the Queen’s Speech and any other confidence votes.

“But I have no desire to stay in my position longer than is needed to ensure the path to economic growth is assured and the process of political reform we have agreed moves forward quickly.”

Mr Clegg last night risked accusations of treachery by responding positively to Mr Brown’s olive branch while still formally in talks with the Tories.

Switching effortlessly from kingmaker to assassin, he knifed Mr Cameron and the Tories in a move that stunned Westminster and also got Mr Brown’s head on a platter.

The Lib Dem leader hailed Mr Brown’s announcement as possibly an “important element” in the “smooth transition” to a stable government.

He went on to say that the Lib Dems had so far been “unable to agree a comprehensive partnership agreement” with the Tories and, as a result, the “only responsible thing to do is to open discussions with the Labour Party”.

Lord Heseltine slammed the prospect of a Labour-Lib Dem government.

He said: “The only way they could get an overall majority in the Commons is by lining up with the nationalist parties.

“The effect of that would be that the cuts that are necessary would not happen in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. That would be the price of getting that overall majority.

“It would mean that the English taxpayer, who has already subsidised those areas very substantially, would have to bear the cost to keep the Labour and Liberal parties in power.

“This is mind blowing. I don’t know how anyone could have such a bare-face nerve to put such a suggestion.”

But most Labour MPs were delighted by the move, believing Mr Brown’s plot would allow the party, which suffered its worse General Election vote since 1983, to cling on to power.

Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell said Mr Brown had offered a “viable alternative” to the Tory party.

But former Home Secretary Dr John Reid “I think it’s bad for the country. I think it will prove disastrous for both parties in it, and in fact I think it’s bad for Gordon as well.”

Such a coalition would be “inherently unstable” because it would not enjoy a majority but would require the support of other parties.

And he criticised the decision to offer voting reform as part of a deal, saying only the Lib Dems had made proportional representation an issue at the election and they had only secured 24 per cent of the vote.

Dr Reid said: “To cobble together some form of coalition in the face of the obvious animosity that was shown towards us by the electorate, and then make the fulcrum of that platform, the main stepping stone of it, an issue that was never put to the people – proportional representation – and claim that we are going to try and change a centuries-old election system, seems to me to be completely removed from any fairness.”