100 Days... and counting?

In the immediate aftermath of the coalition agreement, I wrote that I thought the Tory-Lib Dem partnership was liable to continue for some time - a period of years, not weeks or months.  I based that partly on the things that the Lib Dems had gotten out of the coalition (including practically half their parliamentary party in various government roles and some minor policy implementation) but also the weakness of the Labour party.

The latter part of that equation hasn't really changed in the last 100 days - Labour in no way look like a party of government in waiting - but the first part... well, there may be some movement.

I said at the time that the Lib Dem Cabinet appointments far outweighed what they were getting in terms of policy commitments.  I think that has borne out. Fixed term parliaments are likely to pass - something the Tories were happy about anyway, ditto ditching the "Mansion Tax" and inheritance tax - while they managed to get agreement to move the threshold for income tax up.  They've also got movement on Calman which, though I think it amounts to bugger all in the way of furthering devolved powers, it is an indication that the government recognises devolution - and more so that the Lib Dems are the ones pushing it.  

However, the pills they have had to swallow I think far outweigh what they've gotten out of it.  Being less pro-Euro, accepting a referendum for further transfer of power up to the EU, capping non-EU immigration (incredibly liberal that one) and, the biggie, accepting a referendum on AV.

Let me consider that last one for a second.  The Lib Dems condition of entering coalition was changing the electoral system to something more proportional.  What they've got is a commitment to hold a referendum on AV - an electoral system which is marginally (at best) better than FPTP in terms of making sure at least 50% of the electorate vote for a candidate.  And they'll be the only ones campaigning hard for it - especially given its apparent scheduling on the same day as devolved elections in Scotland and Wales.  The Tories are against it, as are Labour.  The "smaller" parties (at UK level) are grudgingly in support, but given they'll have the more important election to campaign for, won't spend too much time campaigning for it.

And what if, in spite of this, they actually get a Yes vote for AV?  It's a system the Lib Dems don't really like, and it isn't the STV that they wanted.  So how long before they demand another referendum on that voting system?  I think Dave saw Nick coming on that one - at least Dick Turpin wore a mask when he robbed people of their goods and dignity.

So, what does this mean for the coalition?  Well, 100 days in, they are still too busy dealing with Labour's deficit to focus on much else.  But soon these issues will come upon us.  In nine months time, devolved elections and a split over campaigning on the AV referendum might start to reveal tensions in the coalition.  And with the Lib Dem poll figures dropping considerably since they moved into government, the rose garden is the only thing that looks rosy for Nick Clegg at the moment.  

100 days ago, in that rose garden, when David Cameron was asked about Nick Clegg being his favourite joke, Clegg himself feigned walking away.  In nine months time he may just wish that he had kept walking.

Read more...

Five Days

Like most others who fancy themselves as an amateur politico or psephologist, I watched Nick Robinson's documentary "Five Days that Changed Britain" last night (available on iPlayer here).  On the whole, it was pretty decent fare - I mean, you can (as most people do) question Nick Robinson's politics and the choice of questions he asked, but on the whole, I thought he struck the right chord with most of the interviews.

Three things that really stuck out for me though, the first of which was Nick Robinson's conclusion that "coalition government might be here to stay".  This is something I agree with - and wrote about 2 days after the coalition was finalised.  I've gone further too, by saying that I don't think Labour will return to government for at least another 15 years.

Which brings me to the other two things that stuck out - Labour attitudes and personalities.  It was an unedifying spectacle to see Ed Balls, a man who is a potential leader of the Labour party (though probably not on that performance) almost spitting venom when discussing the coalition negotiations.  Labour's attitude towards the Liberal Democrats in particular appears to accuse them of selling out social democracy, despite the fact that wasn't quite what the country had voted for.  "Screw the country - the other lot didn't get a majority, we can still govern unless you do a deal with them".  Except, by last night's account, Balls was one of the main obstacles to an agreement, despite being part of the Labour "negotiating" team.  

It is a worrying situation for Labour when, of all the Labour figures interviewed, the two who came across best were Lords Mandelson and Adonis.  They seemed assured, smart enough to realise that Labour had to take their medicine of opposition for a while, to rebuild trust - they knew it was over.  If Labour has any sense (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Peter Mandelson will be a guy they will listen to when the rebuilding project begins under the new leadership.  Personalities play a big role in this, and his is one which will be fairly influential.  Alistair Campbell too, though he seems somewhat more entrenched and Balls-like than the Lords pair.

On a further note, how disappointing not to have Gordon Brown interviewed.  I don't know if he was invited, but it would be pretty strange if he wasn't.  You can understand his reasons - the way it was described, he was the guy that was dragging all the negotiations, the block to any kind of Lab-Lib Dem pact; he was the loser, the vanquished.  But by not appearing, he allowed that perception to be furthered.  This was an opportunity to go in front of cameras again and say to the public "look, you voted us out, I'm sorry you didn't think we could provide the recovery this country needs but we tried."  But again, his lack of media savvy shone through.

I'm sorry if it appears that I'm having a pop at Labour at the moment, given what I said about Richard Baker a few days ago.  But I think these are worrying times for Labour I think, if Ed Balls is the standard of leadership candidate that they have.  Labour supporters better hope he is not the new leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, because if he is... well, he might not be for long, but his successors will be.

Read more...

Florence and Precious

I think I've missed the boat with the timing of this post - but the sentiment is there, so let's ignore the fact I've showed up late and embrace the fact I'm here.

Last night's vigil and blog-in supporting Florence and Precious Mhango got plenty support from Scotland's great and good in the blogosphere.  Anne and Caron led the way, ably supported by Will and Alison while Jeff and Subrosa both chipped in with their views, all saying the same thing: they've got to stay.  And I'm 100% behind them.

Each of the posts above makes the same point in slightly different ways.  Will points out we've led genocidal murderers (Pinochet) and terrorists (al-Megrahi) live freely out of compassion but we can't see fit to extend that same compassion to a mother and daughter who have made Scotland their home after suffering domestic abuse among other things.  And Jeff points out that David Cameron's warm words about a "Big Society" sound hollow when the Glasgow community to which Florence and Precious belong want them to stay and are being ignored by the political elites who think they know better.

Of course we should take immigration seriously, and the issue of asylum is a sensitive one - but this is a total no-brainer.  If we send them back to Malawi, we're condemning them to a life without each other, Precious to become the "property" of her father.  

I've never been one to call myself British, but if our government is doing this in our name... then I'm disgusted even to be associated with the concept.  Come on Dave - you banged on about compassionate Conservatism enough during the campaign - now lets see it in action.

Read more...

The First Cut is nowhere near the Deepest...

Today's Independent shows the sheer scale of debt faced by the new UK government left by their predecessors.

The six small squares in the bottom right corner indicates the inroads made by George Osborne and David Laws in their cuts yesterday.  

Savage?  Aye right... they haven't even started yet.

Looking at that image, I'm really not sure how Labour types can sleep at night.  The Labour party as a "moral crusade" for "social justice"?!  Just don't ask them to balance the books.

Read more...

(Life) time in opposition

I read with interest Jeff's post yesterday, pointing out the truthfulness in Liam Byrne's joke of a note left to his successor David Laws.  "Sorry, there's no money left" was the gist - and accurate too, as Labour left office having racked up a deficit of £163 BILLION.  

And I agree with Jeff's assessment (to an extent):  "New" (for how much longer?) Labour remains right-of-centre, talking about immigration instead of social justice.  But Labour got whacked not for being right-of-centre, but for trying to be both right-of-centre and left-of-centre at the same time, resulting in a deficit Robert Mugabe would be delighted with.

But Jeff's conclusion - that in order to re-establish themselves Labour must ditch New Labour and return to their left-wing roots - is one that I think history teaches is one which will not be overly successful.

Evidence?  Here:

• In 1979, Labour lost a general election to the Tories, the first of four consecutive election defeats.  They did so on the back of the "Winter of Discontent" - union strikes on the back of Labour economic policy.
  
  
• In 2010, Labour lost a general election (and who knows if it will be the first of four or more defeats) to a Tory (and Lib Dem) government on the back of an economic mess - partly (if I'm being fair) brought about by Labour economic policy.
  
  
• In 1979, Labour MPs believed that the party needed time in opposition in order to re-establish the party and examine what it stood for.
  
  
• In 2010, Labour MPs and former MPs - including David Blunkett, John Reid, Andy Burnham, Dianne Abbott and Tom Harris and many more besides - argued against a "progressive coalition"/ "coalition of the losers" in favour of the Labour party leaving the Tories to govern and taking time to work out where Labour could go next.
  
  
• In 1983, the general election immediately following 1979, Labour lurched to the left under Micheal Foot, producing a manifesto dubbed "The Longest Suicide Note in History" which saw the party take a drubbing at the polls, polling just 27% of the vote - only 2% ahead of the Alliance.
  
  
• In 2015, Labour will have the opportunity to repeat that mistake.  And it would be a mistake... but what choice do they have?

Obviously this is a simplistic historical comparison, but you get the point.  As I've written before, I think the Tory-Lib Dem government is here for the foreseeable future, for several reasons:  any potential change to AV (or STV) will only increase their potential majority and the fixed term parliaments indicate an intention to work cohesively together for the long term.  But mainly, my reason for seeing this last is the lack of a real alternative.

Look at it this way.  Labour's economic plans have been discredited - who leaves office with a deficit of £163 billion for others to clear up?  (Incidentally, they did the same - though not quite to the same level - at council level in Aberdeen and Edinburgh).  And what charismatic leader do they have coming in to restore faith in the party and their goals?  Ed or David Milliband?  Ed Balls?  Andy Burnham?  Jon Cruddas?!  There's no John Smith or Tony Blair there.

No, Labour were right to prepare for opposition.  It's just not clear that they'll ever need to prepare for government again.

Read more...

Silver lining

I'm not buying the "I'm suffering a Tory government, get me out of here" hysteria, for several reasons, not least that when Labour told us in 1997 that "things can only get better" they did for a while but it's not like 2010 is much more financially stable than 1997.  In short, I'm not as scared as everyone else of the Tories being back in power.

But here's really why I'm not so bothered:

England won the FIFA World Cup in 1966.

England won the Rugby World Cup in 2003.

In 1966, Harold Wilson was the Prime Minister of a Labour government.

In 2003, Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of a Labour government.

In short, England have won World Cups - but always under a Labour government.  So when Gordon Brown got so spectacularly thumped last Thursday, he didn't just lose an election and the opportunity to govern again.  He lost England the World Cup as well.

So, even for the 84% of Scots who are mad that they didn't vote for the Tories and still got a Tory government, be comforted in the knowledge that it may just save us from 50 years of clips showing Rio Ferdinand parading the FIFA World Cup Trophy (as the new one is called).  Silver lining indeed.

(Incidentally, before the comments come saying I should be supporting England at the tournament, I'll say now - I can't be bothered with the argument.  If they win it, well done.  If they don't, too bad.  I won't really be that bothered either way.  I just wish the media would calm down some).

Read more...

A fixed term problem

A few days ago, I was discussing with Jeff & James the idea that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition (or indeed the Lib-Lab pact, as it could have been at the stage we were talking) might last only a year, and that the next election to the UK Parliament could end up being in May 2011, on the same day as the election to the Scottish Parliament - the first Thursday in May.

Both James and Jeff thought this would be a smart move by whoever was the larger party (if it had been Labour, all the better for them) for they would be able to squeeze the SNP in the Holyrood campaign by making them "irrelevant" to the UK election.  I argued that, given we've had to decouple Holyrood & Council elections because of difficulties interpreting where to put an X and where to put a number, AND ALSO that the boundaries were so different for Holyrood and Westminster elections (with the example of Edinburgh Central for Holyrood split 5 ways for Westminster) would make it near impossible, and that there was no way it could happen.

Well, while that might be the case in 2011 - assuming the Tory-LD government survives - I might not be that sure of my argument now.

The rules of the Scottish Parliament have stipulated from the very beginning that elections will take place on the first Thursday of May every four years from 1999.  That happened in 2003 and 2007, and will happen next year (2011).  It should also occur in 2015.

However, Dave & Nick's new happy band have decided that there will be 5-year fixed term parliaments for the House of Commons.  Given the election last week was on the first Thursday in May, the next election would be schedule for the first Thursday in May 2015.  The same day as the Scottish Parliament (and indeed, Welsh Assembly) election.

So, a problem on the horizon - and an example of how the new UK Government has already not taken into account the devolution dimension of UK politics.

Read more...

The future is orange (and blue)

As a follow up to my post a couple of days ago discussing how difficult the decision to take government office for the first time is, as well as yesterday's post analysing what the Lib Dems got out of the coalition agreement, I had a thought.

There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth across the UK, from the "progressive left" to the not so progressive (or left, for that matter) Labour party, from disgruntled Lib Dems unhappy with the "coalition for change" and, well, pretty much the whole of Scotland - who categorically did not vote for the Tories.  Each have valid concerns about this "frightening" new form of government.

The "progressive left" argue that the majority of the electorate really voted for them - and still got lumped with a Tory-led government.  Well, maybe if the "progressive left" were one party instead of seven, there may be a case.  Labourites are mad because, although they got thumped in the election, the Tories didn't win outright but the Lib Dems picked them anyway - it's almost like they got ditched for what they see as an uglier member of the opposite sex - and are incredibly bitter about it.  Disgruntled Lib Dems are, well, disgruntled - they didn't vote for a Tory government either, but they've got some of their own stuff in there... though it could be interesting to see how much of it passes.  And then there's Scotland who, granted, did not vote Tory. But until Scotland is independent, a UK government with little mandate in Scotland is something that will have to be suffered from time to time.  Just think how England would have felt if Labour had managed to form a coalition - the Tories managed a majority of English seats.  So yes, it's unfair - but it's the way the system works.  Scottish Labour MPs may need to realise this sooner rather than later.

But, I digress.  There's something more important that has struck me.  It may not matter how annoyed people are at the moment - and the wailing and gnashing of teeth may continue for some time yet.  And then when it is finished, it may continue even longer.  And though yesterday I was picking holes and arguing, perhaps harshly (and I did say that at the time) that the Lib Dems were only in it for the office jobs, I think this could be a long-term thing, for two reasons.

Firstly, the five year fixed-term parliaments.  This is an indication that the coalition is in it for the long-haul.  Fixed-term parliaments are much fairer - it means the election is not called when the sitting PM thinks he can win, and for this reason there is no real objection.  But it is an indication that the Tories & Lib Dems are looking long-term - for a five-year term of office at least.  Secondly, the proposal to change a vote of no confidence from a simple majority to 55% of the Commons voting in favour - which is more controversial (see Mr Harris this morning for a scathing post on the subject) but not less indicative of a government set on working together for the long term.

Together, these two changes to the Commons set-up - plus the potential for reform to the House of Lords, incorporating a PR electoral system for all members in a House that currently also has a Tory-Liberal/Lib Dem majority - suggest that Labour may be out of office for a considerable period of time.

Now I know I should let the dust settle - the election was only one week ago after all - but look at this the way I am.  Yes, we still have to wait and see how this coalition holds up, how the policies fall, how agreements hold, personality clashes etc etc.  But the plan is that they will still be there heading into the election in 2015.  If they change the electoral system in anyway, it is likely (depending, of course, on how the electorate feel about them) to increase the number of Lib Dems, always maintaining a Tory + Lib Dem majority though unlikely to provide any single party with a majority.  Which means the parties could form an electoral pact, as seen in Germany with the CDU/CSU & FDP, and the SDP & Greens previously - a notion that would have been unthinkable a week ago.

Obviously I'm getting ahead of myself a little.  But there is some logic there - for both parties.  The world will change much in the next five (10?) years.  Tory policy on the EU may soften.  The economy may (hopefully!) recover.  The two parties may find themselves agreeing on more and disagreeing on less.  An agreement to keep both in power - at the expense of Labour - for the foreseeable future would be in both parties interests.

I wonder if that is playing on the mind of any future candidates for the leadership of the Labour party.


UPDATE - I just read Alex Massie of the Spectator on the very issue, and it seems he's equally speculative regarding the future - but paints an equally bleak picture for Labour.

Read more...

Bought & sold for Lib Dem Gold

With the coalition now agreed and the government posts being handed out like sweets, there's some analysis of the Lib Dem position to be made.

Firstly, the list of Cabinet (and sub-Cabinet) posts they have gotten.  Five Cabinet seats and FIFTEEN junior ministerial roles, if rumours are to believed.  Those announced thus far:

Nick Clegg - Deputy Prime Minister

Vince Cable - Business Secretary

Chris Huhne - Energy/ Climate Change Secretary

Danny Alexander - Secretary of State for Scotland

David Laws - Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Plus the junior positions too.

Secondly, policy.  According to the BBC, as part of the deal the Lib Dems have:

• Secured fixed term parliaments - for 5 and not 4 year terms.
• Dropped plans for mansion tax.
• Got Tories to drop changes to inheritance tax.
• Changes to threshold for income tax in line with LD policy.

But they have also agreed:

• Not to push to adopt Euro.
• To accept a referendum on transfer of power to EU.
• A cap on non-EU immigration.
• Tory recognition of marriage in tax system.
• To DROP OPPOSITION to Trident.
• To accept a referendum on Alternative Vote - a non-proportional electoral system to replace FPTP, a non-proportional electoral system.

As I mentioned yesterday, a decision to take power - particularly for the first time - is a difficult one to take.  Basing it, as Muller & Strom did, on the Policy-Office-Votes triumvirate, there are some conclusions to be drawn.  We can't evaluate it on votes yet, since that will come at the end of the parliamentary term/ fall of the coalition - and the electorate will deliver that judgement.  But from what has emerged of the coalition agreement (policies) marked against the rumoured Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions (office) we can (or at least I can) see a clear winner.

If you asked someone in the immediate aftermath of the TV debates to tell you what the Lib Dems stood for, you'd probably get an answer that resembled "pro-Europe, pro-immigration, pro-political (electoral) reform and anti-Trident". And yet, in the coalition agreement, they've accepted limits on non-EU immigration, a referendum (which would likely respond negatively) to any future transfer of powers upwards to the EU, a referendum on a new electoral system that is no more proportional than the current one and will accept the Tory plan to renew Trident while they drop opposition to it.  Sure, they've got some policy concessions, but those were KEY policies and they've been ditched or watered down.  So, policy considerations for taking office look rather weak.

On the other hand, the Tories were so keen to form a government that they've allowed the Lib Dems to have a large hand in running departments, replacing five Tories who had been shadowing departments in opposition with Lib Dem Cabinet Secretaries and giving plenty of junior portfolios to the Lib Dems.  In other (and perhaps rather harsh) words, the Lib Dems have put the spoils of office ahead of policy concerns.  

If that is indeed how it transpires, how will the electorate respond after five years (or, indeed, five months - however long this lasts!) to these Lib Dem considerations of how to form a coalition government?

Read more...

Questions answered: Questions remain

So, it looks will be a Tory-Lib Dem coalition.  David Cameron will be PM.  And Nick Clegg will be Deputy PM, while the Lib Dems have FIVE seats in the Cabinet and another FIFTEEN Ministerial jobs.  Still rumoured, but if so - that's some impressive negotiating by the Lib Dems.

But with the answer to one question (that is, who will be running the country, and the form of government it will take) several more arise.

One of the most prominent:  whither the nations of the UK?  For the first time since devolution was delivered no party that is in government at Westminster will be in power in any of the devolved institutions.  A CON-LD coalition at UK level is added to a LAB-PLAID deal in Cardiff Bay, an SNP minority administration at Holyrood and an all-party power-sharing deal at Stormont.  How will partisan clashes shape the future of devolution in the UK?  And will how will each nation react to what look like huge cuts from Westminster to their funding settlement?

This is particularly relevant for Wales, where the two parties in opposition in Cardiff - a distinct minority in the National Assembly - will now have an effective veto over Legislative Competence Orders from the NAW on devolving further powers, given that they are now the UK government.  This may bring forward the need for a referendum on extending devolution to Wales or it may scupper it entirely.

For Scotland, how will the (yet to be confirmed) appointment of Danny Alexander as Secretary of State impact on Holyrood-Westminster relations?  Previously we talked of the Tories taking the position from their sole Scottish MP David Mundell, but handing it to "Lord" McLetchie.  And it does appear that PM Cameron doesn't think Mundell was up to the job - either personally or due to the fact that the Tories only have one seat in Scotland.  But - here's the kicker - WHY would the Lib Dems accept the position, knowing how unpopular the Tories are in Scotland, and knowing that they will have to defend an unpopular Tory-led government?  Even stranger... why put Alistair Carmichael up for the Scottish "leader" debates then ignore him when you get the corresponding Cabinet seat?

Another, how much has each party compromised in their negotiations?  William Hague says it is "the bulk of the Tory manifesto and the best of the Lib Dem one".  But is it secure?  Can a party who supports more integration into the EU really back a party who is primarily sceptical about Europe?  Can a party who wants an amnesty on EU immigration stay quiet when the coalition puts a cap on these figures?  Can a party resolutely opposed to renewing Trident actually sit on its hands while its coalition partner votes through legislation on that subject?

There are plenty more questions, but this is long enough already.  Where do we go from here?  Time will tell... we will (apparently) have a fixed five year term to see how it pans out.

Read more...