Over on his work’s blog, The Voice’s co-editor Mark Pack has been giving seven reasons why he expects the Coalition Government will last the distance. His list includes,
5. The Labour Party is not acting like a party that is seriously trying to get back into power before the next general election. Ed Miliband’s call for a widespread policy review is a sensible move for a party voted out after such a long period in power, but it also is based on an assumption that Labour does not need to have a program for government for a good few years yet. Moreover, Labour’s style of opposition – such as over the changes to Parliamentary constituency boundaries – has far more often been of a style that drives the coalition partners together, rather than apart.
6. The least popular Coalition partner is not talking of pulling out: the Liberal Democrats’ poll rating may have been most hit by going into coalition, but at the party’s spring conference in Sheffield, talk of Coalition having been a mistake or something that should be ended was absent. Even during the debate on the NHS, when a centrepiece government policy was repeatedly and heavily criticised, not one speaker suggested either that Coalition was wrong or should be ended. Nor did any speaker during the party’s lengthy strategy debate
Mark concludes,
As I’ve said before, the public has a habit of making fools of those who make political predictions, and the combination of election and referendum results in May could provide the coaltion’s toughest period so far. But given the powerful factors supporting a long-lastiong coaltion, even bad results for both coalition parties won’t break the coalition.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Geoff Reid
Tom Bailey
Leonora Scipio
Kira Collins
Daniel Walker
20 Comments
The only reason the coalition will last the parliament is because the Conservatives decide they want to keep it. You see, they might just take a risk sooner rather than later as it’ll probably be better for them that way. They’ve certainly got the cash and Maxwell.
We can’t contemplate pulling out as polls indicate that we’ll get hammered, we have to cling to this Pollyanna belief that what the Tories have imposed will not get worse, much much worse.
All I know about Labour is Ipsos Mori’s poll shows attitudes shifting: 45% say Osborne is not doing a good job, only 36% satisfied. Labour is catching up on who has the best economic polices, at 28% compared with the Tories’ 31%. Balls level-pegs as best chancellor at 36% to Osborne’s 35%. Few think the private sector will make up for public job losses. Few think “we’re all in this together”, with 71% saying the poorest are hardest hit. A majority now think such deep cuts are too high a price for paying off the deficit – 48% to 41%, while 70% say the cuts are too fast. This is a rapid turnaround.
Sure, there are lots of personal, all subjective opinions on what state Labour’s in but I’m sure they’d like to go straight into government now.
I would make three observations
1) I’d agree that the Coalition will probably last, on the Lib Dem side at least. Too much has been invested.
2) ‘Labour’s style of opposition – such as over the changes to Parliamentary constituency boundaries – has far more often been of a style that drives the coalition partners together, rather than apart.’ Well, maybe, but that was more because of the way that boundaries and the AV referendum were (disgracefully) tied together than any great consensus.
3) ‘The least popular Coalition partner is not talking of pulling out’ Problem is though that any anti-coalitionists in the Lib Dems are not really that big a part of the calculation. Anti-coalitionists in the Conservative Party very much are. The moment the 1922 Committee thinks there is a single party majority to cash in, they would leave the Lib Dems in a heartbeat. Paradoxically, Labour’s polling is probably discouraging the tories from rolling the dice. I don’t know what sort of a trigger would make the tories look to go it alone, but plainly results like Barnsley give an impression that the tories could be being weighed down by their partners. I would bet that following Barnsley the tories got their calculators out and took a good look at the polling numbers.
In the short term, the big unknown is the AV referendum. Win or lose, it is difficult to see something acting to hold the Coalition together in quite the same way once the referendum has gone. The other big question that really has been overlooked is about cabinet reshuffles. Vince Cable looks lame duck – would Cameron (or those around him) perhaps feel like reducing some of the Lib Dem numbers in government, and if so how would that affect the Coalition. To be clear, this is not to suggest that the Conservatives have been great in office (Pickles and Shapps – where to begin?), but just to say that reshuffles look like they could cause tension.
@Duncan
“….would Cameron (or those around him) perhaps feel like reducing some of the Lib Dem numbers in government….”
We’re actually quite powerful here, Duncan, Cameron can’t afford to have too many LibDem backbenchers in case there’s a rebellion.
Frank – Yes, but….
That holds right upto the point where Cameron feels he can call the bluff. I can hear the speech on that now – ‘Our junior partners feel that they can no longer take the difficult decisons to reduce the deficit. We have seen tonight that their votes have been cast to bring down the Coalition – now we ask the voters for a mandate to continue our work as a responsible, single party. Increasingly deficit denial yada yada yada’
At the moment, that is a loose risk, but I’m less convinced that there is a permanent bluff there.
“But given the powerful factors supporting a long-lasting coalition, even bad results for both coalition parties won’t break the coalition.”
Very much agreed with that statement.
Frank
We can’t contemplate pulling out as polls indicate that we’ll get hammered, we have to cling to this Pollyanna belief that what the Tories have imposed will not get worse, much much worse.
I disagree with this. We are getting a hammering because we are seen (incorrectly) as uncritically supporting a Conservative government, and (even more incorrectly) as if we had a choice in that matter and could have put something else in its place. So why should it be assumed we would still get a hammering if we said “Sorry, we tried, but it isn’t working”? If the general public really did think this government was going wrong and there was a feasible alternative, why should we not win some plaudits from the people for saying “Yes, we agree” and bringing it down?
It is essential that we hold this open as a possibility. It doesn’t mean we have to use it, just that we show we can see situations where we would use it. If we don’t do that, we have thrown away our negotiating strength on the coalition. There is a movement in the Liberal Democrats right now to call on the government to slow down and reconsider is large-scale top-down restructuring of the NHS. Anyone who supports this move, it seems to me, MUST also support the position that there may be circumstances where we pull out of the coalition. Otherwise, we risk being made to look very stupid – if we run a big campaign to get the government to change on something, say “this is our sticking point, we have accepted much for the sake of coalition, but we won’t accept this”, and then the government does nothing to change it and we say “oh well, it doesn’t matter” we can be sure they will never listen to us again. Rule 2 of politics is don’t make a threat unless you are prepared to use it, even if you hope the situation where you have to use it will not come about. I am not at all saying any LibDem who calls on the government to reconsider its NHS policy must adopt a position of “end the coalition now”, just that such a person ought not to sign up to any absolute “we’re in this for five years, come what may” pledge.
I quite agree with Mark Pack that the Labour Party is “not acting like a party that is seriously trying to get back into power before the next general election”. Right now, though I hate much of what the coalition is doing and my instincts are to the left, not the right, I see nothing worth working with in the Labour Party. I am very disappointed in Ed Miliband, who I thought was the best of the leadership contenders. The reality is that Labour’s economic policies – a bizarre combination of the worst of the left and the worst of the right – got us into this mess, and there is no sign whatsoever that they recognise this and have anything different to offer. I’d feel much more positive about Labour if instead of moaning about “the cuts” but giving no real alternative they’d say “Sorry for selling the country out to the bankers and getting the country into this mess, we’re a changed party now”. Labour’s real position is that if they were in government now they’d be doing much the same as the coalition, so they’re bloody glad they aren’t and we’re there to get the blame instead.
There IS an alternative thoroughly left-wing way of dealing with the current economic crisis, and I’d love it (but I won’t hold my breath) if there was a Labour Party who would dare propose it. The problem is that it holds just as much hurt and anguish as the current right-wing way of dealing with it. The hurt and anguish of the left-wing way out are on people who could better cope than those most hurt by the right-wing way out, but they are on people who have a political voice.
The left-wing way out is a big enough increase in property taxes to cut the deficit in the same time-frame that the expenditure cuts would. Actually, it would work much better because it wouldn’t wreck the economy, instead it would inspire enterprise as investment flew from and and housing into work. To me, those who own property are enjoying the benefits in terms of capital gains and dollops of cash handed down the generations which were made at the expense of the economic wreckage of an unsustainable boom caused by this mad belief our entire country could run on the basis of people selling their houses to each other instead of doing real work. To me there is a HUGE degree of hypocrisy in the typical Guardian reader – owner of a home in a north London borough worth not much short of a million – moaning and moaning about “the cuts” and joining demos against them, but NOT being willing to envisage capital gains taxes on owner occupied housing, much greater inheritance tax, land values taxation,and similar remedies. And let’s include the children of the home-owner in this as well – kids, if you aren’t willing to see a big chunk of what you would inherit get taxed, just shut up about the cuts and shut up about tuition fees, you’re nothing but hypocrites.
!Sure, there are lots of personal, all subjective opinions on what state Labour’s in but I’m sure they’d like to go straight into government now.”
It’d be almost worth it to see them try to sort out their own mess – it’d certainly hasten their demise.
Not good for the country though …
Matthew – a shift of taxation form earned to unearned income is Liberal rather than Left-Wing. Unfortunately too many on the left are bought into the “income tax is the only fair tax” shibboleth.
Matthew Huntbach – Well and good to a point, but surely what you are saying there works on the premise that Lib Dems (and Conservatives – I do not direct this at one party) were all running about in 2002 telling us all how house-price hyperinflation was A Bad Thing. Look, I’m not a Brown fan any more than the next man, but the stark reality is that if William Hague had won the 2001 election we would have had, in all probability, even looser control on banks and even more house-price ramping. And I don’t really remember any Lib Dem getting all full-throated on the issues either.
That is where your argument seems weaker. Labour were in government, but you are inviting me to believe that an alternative government would have pulled levers to reduce house prices, and taken on the entire media establishment in doing so. It seems very fanciful, and I suspect that deep down you know it.
Your analysis is probably correct – that too many have grown fat on rent-seeking rather than labour and that we have had a property market in the big crack where the real economy should have been. I’d agree but you will never sell it to the BTL in-crowd, many of whom genuinely believe that house price inflation constitutes some sort of hard-earned wage.
Duncan – Vince Cable was warning about a house-price fuelled boom in the early noughties.
Tabman – Cable did speak on it, and as I remember he even went as far as suggesting that second homes might be a problem for some people being priced out. Problem with Vince Cable is that he also predicted nine of the last three recessions. He may have spoken, but would you call it full-throated? Was it really any sort of hard, believable commitment?
You might think so – fair enough – I’m not going to tell you what to think. I have to admit though I am doubtful and one can only wonder what his constitutents made of house price inflation.
@Matthew
Thanks for your response, I agree with what you say particularly in paragraph one and am really glad to have read your post.
Sorry not to give a longer response.
Two things seem to have been forgotten when the Coalition was negotiated 1) It is very difficult to win a referendum aimed at major change without a lengthy campaign and an electorate that understands the issues involved. I have taken part in both devolution referendums in Scotland and various referendums in Ireland, compared to the Irish and Scottish electorates we simply have not made the case for AV, a debate over at least two years would be necessary to provide a high turnout and a strong manadate. At present this level of interest does not exist over the the AV referendum. 2) Our Parliamentarians should instead have gone for STV for local elections in England and Wales – as there is in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. This would have ended single-party control in most Councils and would have decisively strengthened local democracy and enabled Libdems to be elected in areas we have not represented since the 1920s. Unfortunately our local government base is going to be lost and with it the capacity to retain Parliamentary seats.
Interestingly it is Mark’s first reason, that Cameron and Clegg keep saying it is for five years and have invested so much political capital in it being so, that makes the Lib Dem bargaining position so weak. In a couple of month’s time Lansley is likely to come back to parliament with a few superficial changes (a slightly longer timescale and the addition of councillors to commissioning boards) to his ‘reforms’. Essentially the Lib Dems will have to roll over, in which case (as Matthew points out above) trust will be completely destroyed or must threaten to break the coalition. Clegg’s commitment to five years means that options are very limited.
When the coalition was formed it was the Tories that needed the Liberal-Democrats to form a government as Nick Clegg held the balance of power in an incredibly strong position.
Now that balance of power has shifted, and the lib-dems are in an incredibly weak situation, having no choice but to hold on to Conservative TailCoats for the ride.
If an election were called now – what do you think would happen to the party?
I look forward to being able to rate poitical parties under AV on a pro to anti UK membership of the EU spectrum. The Liberal Democrats had better change their EU-fanatic spots by then, or they will be sunk.
Duncan
Matthew Huntbach – Well and good to a point, but surely what you are saying there works on the premise that Lib Dems (and Conservatives – I do not direct this at one party) were all running about in 2002 telling us all how house-price hyperinflation was A Bad Thing.
Not at all. All I am saying is that if one wants a realistic and workable alternative to what we have now, this is it. I am not even saying it would be saleable, in fact I am sure it would be very difficult to sell it. However, if we are told we must face up to reality and therefore go for unpopular policies and policies that will hurt some people and cause screams of anguish, let’s at least consider the full range of policies that will hurt some people and cause screams of anguish. The problem now is that we are taking it for granted that only one set of such policies exists – swing the axe and cut away. It might at least be the case that the horror of this causes some to be willing to consider the other.
I fully agree that the Conservatives did nothing to stop us getting into this mess, indeed we got into it essentially because Labour adopted Conservative economic policies wholesale. Those Liberal Democrats who were concerned only whispered their concern. I at least have form, having been saying this since the mid 1980s, I said it in the1986 Liberal Party assembly, I was told “shut up, your losing us votes” when I said it while campaigning as part of Brighton and Hove Young Liberals back then. But I didn’t say it much myself too loud, though I still thought it when I was relying on the votes of constituents who had bought their council houses and read THE Sun.
This is a second attempt, the first was picked up by LDV’s rudeness censorship machinery. Now LDV might let it go on human intervention, as this time I’m not being rude about Mr Clegg, but let’s see if I can get it through anyway.
Tabman
Matthew – a shift of taxation from earned to unearned income is Liberal rather than Left-Wing. Unfortunately too many on the left are bought into the “income tax is the only fair tax” shibboleth.
It’s “left” in the proper meaning of the word. It’s a mark of the total and utter uselessness of the conventional left, the complete and utter failure of almost all of them, the reason why I have nothing but contempt for anyone who ever went on any of those marches where the SWP hand out the placards, that they have been unable, even in the wreckage of the economy caused largely by the absence of a decent land taxation policy, to make the case for a shift to taxation on wealth and unearned income. They’d rather march on yawn-making foreign policy stuff (yes, I know, but the people who need a real left-wing alternative don’t give a (deleted) for Iraq, Palestine etc) than establish a clear workable alternative to what we have now as our economic system. The consequence is that it’s almost impossible to fight for the shift in taxation that is needed because those who would most benefit from it have been primed by the Sun, Daily Mail etc to resist it. The (deleted) in the SWP etc would rather go on their (deleted) marches and set up their (deleted) peace camps etc than argue the case with the people for the reforms the people need.
Apologies for being rude, this marks the strength of my feeling on this topic.
The difficulty of even making a start on this is shown by the way even the tiniest weeniest consideration of a move this way, in the shape of Vince Cable’s “Mansion Tax” get Guardian readers and well-meaning but well-heeled Liberal Democrats saying “Ooh dear, I don’t think I like that one”. Well, if you don’t, cut away, swing the axe, because that’s the only alternative.
Ah, it got through, but I missed a close italics, it’s my words apart from the first two lines under “Tabman”.
@Matthew Huntbach
Good post. Vince Cable’s “Mansion Tax” is a little fairer, a little more redistributional, a little more economically rational in that it signals a preference for earned income rather than rents, but it generates opposition that is disproportional to the scale of any actual proposals.
Naturally, the Sun will inform its readers that it is the first step towards world communism, and the Guardian will post some snarky opinion piece – just in time to prevent a revolt in Islington – intimating that LD policy has always been divorced from practical politics.
I would be gobsmacked if VC were able to implement any sort of land tax that was anything but token. If he does, hats off to the man.
As for foreign policy, there is next to no point in the UK having a position wrt the Palestinian conflict, as the UK has absolutely zero influence over either the politics or the peoples of Israel or Palestine. If Britain were to take a side, then there are plenty of relevant states who would take the opposite side. [btw. the FCO should repatriate Blair, as he is (a) ridiculously expensive (b) has no credibility even in his own country (c) annoys the heck out of almost everyone in Britain (d) has even less credibility abroad (except amongst Republican hardliners in the USA).] Britain should be guided in all its policies, foreign or otherwise, by feasibility as well as by ethical concerns. And if a policy is not made in any degree more likely by government support, then it is should be ignored.
As for the SWP, just a bunch of posers, most of whom will go on to become stockbrokers when they grow up.