A view from the Liberal Democrats.
| Author | Hall-Matthews, David |
| Position | Features |
Coalition politics has proved surprisingly surprising. It is not new to the UK: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and numerous councils have long been familiar with parties collaborating. True, there has not been a Westminster coalition for sixty-five years, but the current balanced parliament was hardly unexpected. Psephologists were pointing out its statistical likelihood as soon as the dust had settled after the 2005 election.
The Liberal Democrats have always believed in coalition government--not just out of necessity, but also on principle. You cannot believe in proportional representation without thinking that rule by consensus is inherently desirable. Perhaps less obviously, if you believe that coalitions make for good politics, you have to be willing to try and find common ground with parties who may not seem to be natural allies. A party that is only willing to form alliances in one direction would have few bargaining chips--and would quickly become an adjunct.
So we shouldn't really have been surprised that the 2010 election result required a coalition government, nor even that the outcome was a Tory-Lib Dem one. Yet most of us were.
In addition, the process of negotiating a possible coalition itself threw up all manner of surprises. It forced all party leaders to reveal intriguing things about their beliefs and ambitions--as well as their capacities to take their supporters with them--that had not been evident. In that respect, coalition politics has already proved itself to be very good for British democracy. Activists of all parties, in reacting to events, also had to examine what their priorities were. Close political friends suddenly realised that the basis of their allegiance was not certain--that they had different motivations and different taboos. Even more uncomfortably, some long-standing enemies were forced to look beyond the easy demonisation of each other and recognise common ideals.
The process of realignment looks set to last for months, if not years. It is far more complex than how far left or right each party--or individual--is willing to shift. It might take more than one coalition parliament for British politics to re-find its feet. Indeed there will have to be at least one more for it to be established that a coalition government is not the same as a permanent alliance (obvious though that is in many other countries). Strategically, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats should be making quiet efforts throughout this parliament to ensure that a coalition between them is at least possible after the next election. But that will not be easy.
What we have learned about the Conservatives and Labour
What we have learned about all parties concerns the nature of their internal coalitions; how their broad churches fit together.
Least surprising, perhaps, were the Tories--of whom it has long been said that they will be willing to swallow anything from a leader who delivers power. The unexpected twist was the positive enthusiasm with which David Cameron embraced the possibility of cooperation. His 'liberal conservatism' had always seemed acquisitive if not outright phoney, but his stance since the election has been genuinely open-minded in many areas. If he remains the right-wing wolf who wrote the thoroughly nasty 2005 Tory manifesto, he has somehow found a very impressive ovine tailor. His may still turn out to be sheep's clothing, but it should be acknowledged that it may not. He seems genuinely pleased to be able to use the need to keep Lib Dems onside to face down the far right of his party--which can only be a good thing for the country.
As for Labour, it was not a surprise that they lacked the energy to try and make a difficult 'progressive' coalition work, with the arithmetic and media stacked against them, after thirteen increasingly bruising years in government. But there was a more general sense of unwillingness to stay in power too. Unlike the Tories, and despite three extra days, their negotiators went in to meet the Lib Dems almost unprepared.
It was as if they felt defeated by their own lacklustre election campaign--perhaps by the failure to replace an unpopular leader--in spite of the fact that the actual election result was not nearly as bad as they had feared. Labour's late surge in the polls suggested that they had won many of the arguments about the financial crisis--but they did not care deeply enough about the pace and depth of cuts to stand and fight for their gradual approach. Maybe, as Alistair Darling suggested by talking of cuts worse than Thatcher, they did not believe in their own programme.
Perhaps they thought it would be a good time to be in opposition. In the 'Conservative twentieth century' it was argued that the Tories were the natural party of government, letting Labour in when necessary for a single term of social reform. Have Labour become so confident that they can allow the Tories a single term of fiscal tightening before returning to what is now their rightful place? There is no doubt that the chance to paint the Lib Dems as no longer progressive was seen as an additional opportunity. But Labour should beware--they had similar hopes when they last lost power, in...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
