The case against coalition condemnation

As the post-election dust begins to settle, the unrest among some Lib Dem supporters over the coalition agreement is becoming increasingly apparent. It formed the main focus of discussion on Thursday's Question Time, and I have found myself involved in several discussions over the relative merits of the various feasible outcomes of the poll. One such debate has been focussed on the contempt held by the person I was talking to for the principle of Con-Lib co-operation, and the legitimacy of holding this view whilst simultaneously advocating the benefits of proportional representation, which would inevitably lead to coalition governments forever after. (The argument for a proportional electoral system is a separate one, which must be dealt with on its own terms another time.) It seems to me as if this view is outrageously and selectively undemocratic, particularly in light of the fact that the Tories gained by far the highest share of the vote: to exclude them from any sort of power agreement would have been a misrepresentation of the people's verdict. My attention was drawn to an article on the LSE website which  presents the case for Lib Dem supporters having the right to feel betrayed by the new coalition (read the full text here). The point made in the article is that because an opinion poll has indicated that Labour and Lib Dem voters are more likely to switch between each other, the two parties can be viewed as being better ideologically matched than either is with the Tories, and therefore the decision of the Lib Dems to 'get into bed' with the Tories can legitimately be condemned because it does not reflect the ideology of the nation at large. The article's argument seems tenuous in a number of respects.


Firstly, on a fundamental level, it seems dangerous to make too many sweeping assumptions on the basis of opinion polls which at best come with a severe health warning and at worst are entirely misrepresentative. Particularly, I might add, when they are on a purely-speculative subject with no grounding: the opinion poll quoted in the article is based on the hypothetical situation that voters would have the option to specify more than one preference, and it is unclear whether this preference would be one of abstract ideology, or if the questions were intrinsically based on how subjects would have chosen to vote last Thursday. As the general trend of the coalescing of mid-term opinion polls towards a much closer pre-election result demonstrates, responses to hypothetical questions (e.g., 'If there were a General Election tomorrow, how would you vote?') do not necessarily equate to equivalent answers immediately before the vote takes place.


I find it hard to understand why Lib Dems can be angry about something which has given  their policy far more influence in government than they could ever have hoped to have in any other situation, and particularly given that, when asked during the course of the election campaign how they would react in the event of a hung parliament, every single Lib Dem spokesman said that they would seek first to talk to the party with the largest mandate to govern through a combination of largest numbers of votes and seats. We all knew that it was likely that the Tories would achieve such a mandate, so voters should have known before the election that such a deal was a realistic possibility (and therefore not voted for them if they objected in theory to a Tory-Lib Dem coalition so ferociously). Furthermore, according to Lib Dem MPs commenting on the deal (e.g., Simon Hughes on QT on Thursday), the Tories were not only the party with the biggest mandate, but they were also much more willing and prepared than the Labour Party to make compromises in order to ensure security. Is it simply that some Lib Dems don't like being associated with the Tories by name? In terms of policy, this was a far better outcome for the Lib Dems than a coalition with Labour ever would have been, and the fact that the Labour Party was by all accounts unwilling to reach a reasonable compromise by definition undermines the argument that they are ideologically closer to the Lib Dems than the Tories.


It's also important not to underestimate the increased responsibility the Lib Dems found themselves with in the event of the hung parliament. As advocates of PR, the Lib Dems would expect under a reformed system to gain more seats in the Commons, which would naturally give them more responsibility in decision-making of this nature. Of course, the best application of this responsibility depends on the given situation at the time, and at the moment everyone seems to be in broad agreement that the immediate priority was to form a stable government, thus reducing the likelihood of a quick second election and increasing the power of the new government to begin tackling the pressing and serious issue of the budget deficit immediately. The electorate should be admiring of the fact that the Lib Dems sought to do this constructively, without blindly professing hatred of the Tories on the basis of connotation before first considering the offers being made to them and setting aside their differences in a bid to steer the country through a difficult time. 


Notwithstanding any of that, the fact is that a Con-Lib coalition was the only way forward. The alternatives were either an unstable minority Tory administration which wouldn't have lasted any meaningful length of time, or a slapdash left-of-centre coalition involving all the minority parties (assuming that they would have agreed in the first instance), which still would only have just scraped a Commons majority and would have been likely to collapse in even less time. 


As advocates of a more 'democratic' system (I use inverted commas deliberately), surely the Lib Dems wouldn't suggest that it would be just or fair for the Tories, as the party with by far the largest share of the vote, to have been left out of government all together...

A Blue Dawn has broken. (With just a hint of yellow...)

Lib Dems in the Cabinet would be a price worth paying for a stable government and immediate action on deficit reduction: thus quoth the Major. That has surely to be agreed. On the basis of party politics, this was never going to be the ideal way of interpreting the election results for anyone. Boris Johnson deplored the possibility of the meat in the government sausage not being Conservative, and at some points over past days this seemed a distinct possibility - but if party politics had won out, the result of the negotiations would surely have been very different:

Undoubtedly the best outcome for Labour would have been for them to form and justify a progressive alliance with the Lib Dems under the refreshed and revitalised leadership of a fresh-faced, charismatic, inspirational young leader. A quick look at the [shadow] front-bench potentials tells us that this mythical personality is sadly absent. We await the leadership election with anticipation; in the mean time, the party is consigned to the naughty corner to think about the mess they've made. The message seems to be that they made little or no effort to reach a compromise with the Lib Dems. Well done, Lord Mandelson, and thank you for once again removing yourself from our lives. Stay away for a long time please.

The Lib Dems seem to have caused immediate (and inevitable) ructions among supporters with their decision to collude with the right. The ideal outcome for them surely would not be the risk of electoral punishment in five years' time, regardless of the immediate gains to be made, and to have stayed away from the Tories at all costs. How illogical that Lib Dem supporters who have done nothing since the coalition was made public but snipe about how they would never have voted Lib Dem if they thought it would put Cameron in No 10 are the very same people who would advocate a full PR electoral system that would command this sort of compromise and bargaining after every election. If they stopped to read the agreement before they started to encourage division within their own party, they would doubtless find that the compromise that has been reached allows for many of their most important policies to be accommodated.

Arguably, the Conservatives might have done well to make little effort with coalition talks, and to stand by and watch the Lib Dem and Labour Parties tear themselves apart over a deal (or rather, no deal) whilst lining themselves up to win an early second election by a good margin. 

So, it seems obvious, then, that this historic agreement has been reached genuinely for the good of the nation, and that party politics and tribalism have been at least temporarily consigned to the bin. How long will it last? Who knows. But it has certainly started in the most positive manner that it possibly could have done. The way forward now is to recognise the great effort that has been made on both sides to reach consensus whilst preserving key principles, and to get behind the new government so that it can start the good work that is proposed in the agreement. Further analysis of that to follow, but one thought: the raising of the income tax threshold is, apparently, to be partially funded by revenue generated from capital gains tax. Does this mean that everyone who stands to benefit from this decision owes personal thanks to Hazel Blears?

What a surprise: everyone agrees with Nick

It seems clear that the next few months are likely to demonstrate exactly why proportional representation would be an unmitigated catastrophe. The short-term deal-making and veiled attempts at self-preservation have already started, and Labour appears to have slung their idea of making politics more transparent right out of the window.  Do they really think the public is naive enough not to see straight through their offer of a referendum on electoral reform? Brown might as well have come out of No. 10 yesterday and said "we know what Clegg wants, and we also know that the Tories won't offer it, so this gives us the best chance of clinging onto power, and that's why we're doing it." We all saw his unashamed attempts to sidle up to Clegg during the first debate, and his subsequent move away from him having been criticised for it. It now seems as if he has said to himself: "Sod it: it's all I've got." The whole episode just highlights the fact that Brown is clawing onto what he has for himself, and hasn't faced up to the fact that he's lost. Face it, Gordon: at the first opportunity in three years to pass judgment on your leadership, the nation has come back with a resounding 'no'. Even Lord Mandy himself seems to have gone unnaturally quiet, which everyone concerned must count as a blessing of some sort.

Clegg's integrity would go through the floor if he turns around now and accepts a deal with Labour, having said very clearly not only that he would not help Brown squat in Downing Street, but also that the Conservatives should have the first right to try and form a government. The most important thing now isn't some abstract ideological battle over voting: it's trying to avoid an immediate second election, and trying to make a start on tackling the most immediate issues. Priorities, priorities, Nick: the first being to send Gordon packing so that work can begin.