Given the year that his party has had, it’s likely that all Ed Balls wanted for Christmas is for something to go right for Labour. Perhaps old St. Nick had still not forgiven the Shadow Chancellor for his Nazi costume wearing antics because he did not find a Lib-Lab coalition in his stocking – his plea to form one being firmly rebuffed. This olive branch of political peace even failed to expose any cracks within the Liberal ranks. Perhaps not quite the divide and conquer that Balls had been hoping for (which likely was his secondary if not primary objective. For the purposes of this article, I take Balls to be earnest in his request for a coalition).
It cannot be a coincidence that Ball’s request came as anti-Miliband sentiment was back on the increase within Labour ranks. The resurgence of such feelings had come off the back of Miliband’s inability to score an open goal in the last PMQs before Christmas. In the session, not only did Miliband fail to capitalise on gloomy economic forecasts and the Coalition’s split on Europe but he allowed himself to be thoroughly demolished by David Cameron. It’s little wonder that Labour MPs are once again grumbling about their leader. It is surprising however to see Labour requesting a coalition with the Lib Dems seeing that they’ve had ample opportunity to do so before but insisted on turning up their noses at the idea.
The first such opportunity presented itself to Labour in 1997. As the votes from that year’s General Election were being counted and a Labour landslide became apparent, Labour leader Tony Blair continued to give Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown strong signals that the latter’s party would be invited into a coalition – a ‘Progressive Alliance’ between Labour and the Lib Dems. Blair reassured Ashdown that Labour’s imminent huge majority would actually help and not hinder the prospect of such an arrangement. A Lib-Lab partnership would have been a fatal blow to a Conservative Party already well on the ropes. It’s likely, as Ashdown later remarked, that it would have “kept the Tories out for the best part of a generation.” However, within 24 hours of his assurances, Blair backtracked after John Prescott expressed his revulsion at the idea of working with the Liberals, whom Prescott likely holds in greater disdain than even the Conservatives (which is rather ironic seeing that the Liberal Democrats are far more working class in terms of party composition and support than the party of two-Jags, croquet playing Prescott). So the Progressive Alliance never happened and the Conservatives would live to fight (and eventually win) another election day – largely thanks to that notorious anti-Tory, Prescott.
It may have taken a long time and numerous leaders but the Conservatives did get back on their feet. Cameron’s successful emulation of Labour’s modernisation programme meant that by 2010, the Conservatives finally attained that electoral holy-grail of ‘catch-all’ status. The problem is, come the election of that year, they weren’t quite catch-all enough and as such parliament was hung. Once again, another opportunity presented itself to Labour and once again they blew it. Despite their ability to remain in government resting on their willingness to work with the Lib Dems, Labour negotiators arrived to coalition discussions with less than enthusiastic demeanours; seemingly more intent on pursuing personal ambitions than striking a deal with their would-be coalition partners. With the Conservatives making a number of generous concessions that were frankly irresistible to Clegg and his cohorts, the Lib Dems went into government with their unnatural partner whilst Labour sat back and watched.
Today the picture is different for Labour. Floundering with its uninspiring leader and unsure of which direction to take in the post-New Labour era, a Lib-Lab coalition suddenly seems like a good idea to the likes of Balls and co. With no Prescott to get in the way, why not make that crawl to Great George Street and request a coalition? Surely the Lib Dems wouldn’t mind the fact that it was Labour intransigence on such a coalition that had ensured the short-term survival of the Tories in 1997 and which helped to deliver them back to power in 2010?
One can only conclude that suggestions that Ed Balls has been over-indulging in the mulled wine this festive season are only too accurate.
This is precisely why I despise coalitions – it turns the Lib-Dems into the kingmakers of British politics, with the power to either keep the Tories in power or, potentially, put Labour in office instead – giving wholly disproportionate power to the party that came THIRD in the General Election!
All I can say is, thank God the AV referendum was defeated and we are blessed with an electoral system in which such results are mercifully rare. The sooner we return to strong, decisive (and preferably Tory) majority government, the better.
Posted by A.P. Schrader | January 10, 2012, 6:00 pmFor sure, elections that are close can hand the balance of power to a minority, although I think that in the past Conservatives have needed to rely on the support of Unionists, which is arguably some sort of coalition. In the present, with ideological differences narrowing and greater activity over the centre ground of British politics (however one cares to define it) it is probable that party strategists will have to factor into their thinking the increased likelihood of a hung parliament. But I fail to see why a single party government is stronger and/or more decisive than a two or multi party government. Decisiveness is not determined by the size of the majority, governments with a large majority can dither. This coalition has determined that deficit reduction is the number one priority, which looks pretty strong and decisive despite public sector strikes. What matters is that the government can command a majority in Parliament. Quite frankly, politics has always been about horse-trading and deal-making. It should not be beyond the wit of any party to come forward with proposals that gain majority support on the merits of the proposal rather than the enforced discipline of party whips. Indeed, I would venture that the coalition has allowed for better thought out proposals to be developed precisely because the Conservatives cannot realistically whip Lib-Dem MPs. “Just obeying orders” does not a good MP make!
Two points here: the first is that from a media presentation perspective, all of the drama, and therefore the headlines, can be found within the government. In the recent European summit crisis, the absence of Clegg from the government benches was a bigger story than Miliband in opposition. In other words, a coalition demands a new approach with the media rather than simply falling back on tried and tested routines. It should be possible for a decent media operation to effectively lock the opposition out of the debate. With Ed Miliband still finding his feet, the only policy stories are from the government, the opposition stories are about party disarray and disillusion.
The second point is more of a warning. If (a big if admittedly) Labour and the Lib-Dems were to form some sort of pact, it is possible that the Conservatives would be a party of perpetual opposition. I am assuming that a long term Conservative-Lib-Dem pact is less likely, especially if the Cameron-Clegg glue is not present. Under these circumstances might it not be the Conservatives who are the losers under a first past the post system? Put another way, just because hung parliaments have been “mercifully” rare in the past does not of necessity mean that they will be equally rare in the future. And the proposed boundary changes make future predictions even less clear. First past the post is not a promise of a return to a strong, decisive Tory government.
Posted by Derek Campbell | January 10, 2012, 8:00 pmThe votes of the Ulster unionist parties in House of Commons votes have proved decisive in the past and their votes have been courted by both Tory and Labour governments to get various bits of legislation through over the years. The most notable recent example being Labour’s soliciting of DUP MPs when trying to push through the extention to pre-trial detention – an act of such brazen bribery that you’ll recall it prompted the then Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, to take the Chiltern Hundred and force a bye-election on the issue of civil liberties. Thankfully, Mr Davis was re-elected to Haltemprice & Howden and the House of Lords threw out the measure (following a magnificent speech by the recently ennobled former head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller). It’s been many, many years, however, since their influence was such that they could make or break the formation of a government but, yes, you’re quite right that a close result does make that inevitable – that doesn’t mean we should welcome it.
I think it’s probably fair to say that there has been an ideological shift within the country that means the three main parties are fighting over an increasingly crowded middle ground in an effort to speak to (and attract the votes of) as broad a demographic as possible. Hung parliaments are, unavoidably, a consequence. I still maintain, nonetheless, that they are a bad thing for the country. Of course a coalition is weaker and less decisive than a majority government. A majority government can just enact its manifesto from day one. What we saw following the 2010 General Election was a period of horse-trading between the Tories and the Lib-Dems to hash out the Coalition Agreement (admittedly, this ran a lot smoother than I thought it would and certainly a lot quicker than is the norm on the Continent, where coalition negotiations often seem to go on for weeks and months without end… That doesn’t mean that will always be the case, however). This horse-trading continues throughout government and we have already seen it throughout the life of the present coalition, where policies have been subject to internal cross-party divisions, leading to many being watered down, scrapped or subject to humiliating U-turns. While it’s certainly true that majority governments can “dither” (indeed, the Brown Ministry practically turned this into an art form), I would argue that this is far more marked in a coalition of differing parties with different agendas than in a majority government where members of the ruling party (at least notionally) share a core vision.
You rightly point out that the Coalition has stuck determinedly to their deficit reduction plan in the fact of public sector strikes and Labour agitation. Can we really say the Chancellor is cutting *enough* though? Can we say he might not have been *more* decisive and *more* bold if he wasn’t hamstrung by the presence of Lib-Dem ministers at the Treasury (though, I must confess, I think Danny Alexander has been an extraordinarily competent No 2)?
I admit that it is desirable that the government command a majority in the Commons and that is why I supported the formation of the Coalition, even though I was surprised it happened. I had suspected that there would merely be an agreement on supply and that David Cameron would ultimately lead a minority Conservative government. I do think, for all its imperfections, the Coalition was preferable to a minority government but I would still much prefer a Tory majority government and that is what we should all be rooting for in 2015.
I do take your point that there has always been an amount of horse-trading and deal-making in politics and, in ordinary times, proposals that gain majority support on the merits of the argument should be possible. I would simply counter that we are not in ‘ordinary times’, we’re in deeply extraordinary times and, like the extraordinary times that Margaret Thatcher faced in 1979, the Government cannot afford to pussyfoot around the extremely difficult financial crisis facing this country today.
Just to pick up the point you made about the media, with which I entirely concur, I think being in coalition has caused Mr Cameron to neglect the smooth operating of the party machine and party discipline is very lax. As you say, the present scenario should’ve presented the PM with an opportunity to crowd out the Opposition by managing his own internal opposition by manipulating the Lib-Dems. While he has been helped by Ed Miliband’s inept leadership, I don’t think he’s done nearly enough to capitalise on the hand he’s been dealt and I hope he sorts that out before too long because I believe it’s crucial to securing a working Tory majority in 2015.
I am not too worried about a revival of the ‘Lib-Lab pact’. I think the experience of Labour MPs facing Lib-Dems in government will make it very difficult for them to serve together in government immediately after the Tory/Lib-Dem Coalition. I don’t think the Lib-Dems would be keen either. I think it would be seen as shallow and cynical and, in any case, the way they’re haemorrhaging electoral support, I doubt they’ll have the strength to play kingmaker next time round. I would put money on another hung parliament in 2015 resulting in a minority government or a continuation of the existing coalition but not a new coalition between Labour and the Lib-Dems, unless the electoral arithmatic has changed dramatically.
Posted by A.P. Schrader | January 13, 2012, 9:10 am