Saturday, May 08, 2010

Will they do the deal?

Usually, it’s all over bar the shouting by 3am, sometimes even earlier if it is clear that one party has achieved a landslide. But this has been no ordinary election, and this was never going to be an ordinary election night.

With each hour that came and went, the picture appeared to grow more and more confused as those of us watching on telly struggled to make sense of it all.

At various points in the evening, it seemed as though the Tories would either get a small majority, or at the very least come close enough to the winning post to govern as a minority administration.

But in the end, they fell 20 seats short, paving the way for one of the most dramatic days of political wheeler-dealing in recent electoral history and the prospect of the first Lib-Con coalition since the days of David Lloyd George.

David Cameron’s offer of a deal with Nick Clegg which could extent to a formal coalition was nothing if not bold, and demonstrated the Tory leader’s ability to seize the agenda.

As I write, the two men have agreed to explore the idea further, and fresh developments over the course of the weekend seem very likely.

But although Mr Cameron in his St Stephen’s Club speech yesterday was at pains to point out the potential areas of policy agreement with the Lib Dems, he was not entirely convincing on this score.

The Lib Dems’ opposition to the Trident nuclear deterrent and support for electoral reform are likely to be the big sticking points, although on the latter point, it has been suggested that the Tories could concede a referendum in which they would then campaign for a “no” vote.

Of course, it could easily have been very different. Another 30 seats for the Lib Dems and a handful more for Labour, and we could have been talking much more seriously about a Lib-Lab deal instead.

But although Prime Minister Gordon Brown is playing a patient waiting game in Number 10 in the hope that the Clegg-Cameron talks fail, his position is exceptionally weak.

The option of a Lib-Lab pact has least two big drawbacks. Firstly, it would not provide a “strong and stable government,” because the combined forces of the two parties do not in fact add up to a parliamentary majority.

Secondly, both parties performed so poorly in the election that a Lib-Lab alliance would be too easily portrayed by the Tories and the media as a “coalition of losers.”

Mr Brown is pinning his hopes on the fact that he has already offered a referendum on proportional representation, while Mr Cameron has so far talked only of an “all-party inquiry” into voting reform - but this is a chimera.

The fact is, I doubt that an electoral reform referendum could actually be won in those circumstances, as the public would simply see it as two defeated parties teaming up to change the system for their mutual benefit.

In any case, as I wrote last week, a Lib-Con coalition would be the outcome that probably best reflects the will of the public as expressed in this election – a desire for change, coupled with a desire to deny any one party a majority.

There are still formidable obstacles to a deal, not least the views of Mr Clegg’s own MPs. But the public’s evident desire for one is the biggest single reason why it just might happen.

free web site hit counter

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree almost entirely from the perspectives of the Lib Dems. The bit I think that is being missed a lot in all this is the pressures the Tories and particularly Cameron are under. If Cameron wants to achieve anything as PM, he desperately needs a stable deal. I think I heard Philip Blonde talking about it yesterday, describing a coalition as an opportunity for Cameron to deliver a Disreali style great reforming Parliament. That may be overplaying it. But people shouldn't lose sight of how high the stakes are for Cameron. He may come under heavy fire for a coalition. But he's stuffed without one too. Under these circumstances, a commentator-surprising shift towards something reasonably substantive on electoral/political reform could be his Clause 4-cum-independence of the BoE, and enough to give him serious capital to do a lot of other reforming stuff.

Also, if I hear Ben Bradshaw et al trying to annexe the entire 6.75m LibDem electorate as some kind of adjunct to a failed Labour party under a so-called "progressive" banner one more time, I think I'm going to scream. Didn't see any sign of a progressive alliance over the last 13 years. Shameless, desperate, hypocritical grasping to hang on to power. Its time for real change now.

Rob

Anonymous said...

I agree almost entirely from the perspectives of the Lib Dems. The bit I think that is being missed a lot in all this is the pressures the Tories and particularly Cameron are under. If Cameron wants to achieve anything as PM, he desperately needs a stable deal. I think I heard Philip Blonde talking about it yesterday, describing a coalition as an opportunity for Cameron to deliver a Disreali style great reforming Parliament. That may be overplaying it. But people shouldn't lose sight of how high the stakes are for Cameron. He may come under heavy fire for a coalition. But he's stuffed without one too. Under these circumstances, a commentator-surprising shift towards something reasonably substantive on electoral/political reform could be his Clause 4-cum-independence of the BoE, and enough to give him serious capital to do a lot of other reforming stuff.

Also, if I hear Ben Bradshaw et al trying to annexe the entire 6.75m LibDem electorate as some kind of adjunct to a failed Labour party under a so-called "progressive" banner one more time, I think I'm going to scream. Didn't see any sign of a progressive alliance over the last 13 years. Shameless, desperate, hypocritical grasping to hang on to power. Its time for real change now.

Rob

Pete said...

"a Lib-Con coalition would be the outcome that probably best reflects the will of the public as expressed in this election"

What?

Whilst I have always appreciated that you lean to the left, I didn't realize how utterly brainwashed you are...

Stephen Rouse said...

It would be entertaining were the stakes not quite so high. The public have rather inconveniently refused to deliver the Conservative majority that the media and the markets were demanding (and I personally was expecting).

So the right-wing press (and our friend above) are pretending that it happened anyway. And tomorrow, market traders will throw the mother of all hissy fits, jeopardising our economic stability in a bid to force the Lib Dems to sign up to an inequitable, socially regressive, slash-and-burn programme. I fear Clegg will not be strong enough to hold out, and the Osborne vision, rather than the Cable alternative, will dominate this new coalition.

Nevertheless, the right is in denial about this result. Paul called it exactly right a week ago when he said the Conservatives cannot be trusted to govern on their own. The electorate has agreed - despite the recession, the Ashcroft millions, the Murdoch support, and a Labour leader clearly unsuited to a 21st Century election campaign. The nagging question must be at the back of every Conservative mind - "What if this is as good as it gets for us?"