The dangers of implicit coalitions

// April 30th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

In all the talk about minority administrations and hung parliaments in the UK general election it would appear people are missing or glossing over the reality that all political parties are coalitions of sorts. In a tight voting set up, those smaller elements within parties can suddenly find themselves elevated to a position of influence they never had before. Such a position can lead to the indulgence of the temptation to overreach their influence and have the result of collapsing the government.

In 1992 John Major won the UK general election and was returned with a majority of 20 odd. It ended up being one of the more fractious governments in modern times with the PM held to ransom by his ‘bastards’ in cabinet and dogged at ever turn by a rump opposed to further integration with the EU. He even ended up being stifled in his ability to make progress on northern Ireland because of his dependency on unionist votes.

Does anyone think that David Cameron and his Conservative party would be immune from those some pressures, perhaps not on the EU but on some other issues? People for whom topic X is more important that the government or the management of the economy. The upside of explicit coalitions as we’ve seen in Ireland is that it suppresses the internal fracture lines within parties by diverting all media attention to the gap between the parties themselves.

So a small majority government would be even more precarious poised for collapse than a coalition with an explicit agreed program for government. Who knows what prices behind the doors that a rump of homophobic or xenophobic MPs might exact from David Cameron as PM?

Might the Queen call on Nick Clegg to be PM?

// April 28th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

There is a presumption that the leader of the largest party should be PM but there is nothing requiring it. True the outgoing PM gets first dibs on forming a government and the outgoing government stays in place until another one is formed. If the outgoing PM can’t form one then the leader of the opposition has the next go, however if they can’t then it is possible especially if the LibDems had won the largest number of votes (which I doubt at the moment will be the case) that the Queen might ask Nick Clegg to try and form a government. Labour might be very tempted into agreeing to this, and if they were willing to jump in that direction then so too might the Tories. Fact is that the Conservatives served under a Labour PM in the 30s, of course that was the Great Depression.

To get Nick Clegg as PM does not require the LibDems be the largest party, it merely requires that he could assemble a majority in parliament. It could even be an agreed short term government of 2 years with a platform of reform of the electoral system while cutting public spending, rising some taxes while reducing others that might get the UK economy moving again.

William Hague as PM

// April 28th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

Based on the noises from Clegg over last weekend, it sounds like he might not wish his party to serve with either Cameron or Brown as PM. So borrowing from the northern Ireland model where party leaders don’t necessarily go for the top gig, could we see Cable as Chancellor with Hague as PM?

Why would Clegg want Hague as PM? Clegg might prefer Hague because he would be electorally less popular than Cameron. Having him as PM would reduce the inclination of the Tories to cut and run too quickly from a Con-Lib agreement before the various pieces of electoral reform and items precious to the Lib-Dems have been legislated for. Cameron, under these circumstances, might well stay as party leader under what might be a time defined administration for say 2/3 years. Having Hague as PM minimises the chances of the Tories cutting and running for an overall majority before the key elements of the Lib-Dem program are passed. This merely adds to the reasons for his neither ‘Cameron nor Brown’ remarks to Marr last Sunday.

Why did Cameron agree to the debates?

// April 20th, 2010 // No Comments » // ukge2010

Many people will think at this point that David Cameron was quite mad to agree to the debates especially with the participation of the LibDems Nick Clegg but I suspect he knew that (a) the Tory support was soft and likely to fracture at some point and (b) there are many people who might still desert Labour but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the Conservatives – they are still for many people who in their 40s now Thatcher’s children. So his logic in agreeing might have been that he was good at this sort of thing – considerably more so than Gordon Brown – so why not play to his strengths and also that those who could not bring themselves to vote Conservative and were staying with the Labour party for that reason alone might desert if the LibDem leader did ok.

And then Nick Clegg went and did a lot better than ok.

Now it has happened and a lot of Labour and Tory support has shifted over to the LibDems, having the effect of removing the last of Labour’s floating voter support. I think it is very much harder for Labour to win that support back while for the Tories it should be a more straight forward task to win back most of the few % lost so far. The issue of Europe and other little Englander angles in the press will serve them well in doing so. Yes it might leave them getting only 36/37% on polling day which could be short of an overall majority but that is how it has looked for a long while now anyway with the Tories unable to consistently break the 40% barrier. Plus, the LibDems will find it hard to retain all their new support in the face of the media backlash that will come as we approach the 2nd last weekend before polling. Yet a result of say, Tories on 37%, Labour on 29% and LibDems on 26% would be a very real win for the Tories. They will be reasonably able to square away a deal with the DUP and SNP to secure a majority for a couple of years.

So what would be the most important thing Cameron would have gained from the debate? The space that would be provided by a Labour party that might tear itself apart over the next year in a messy leadership contest as it faces up to a real contest for the role of opposition. Had there been no debate and the Tories won a small majority on the back of 38% against Labour on 32%, he would have faced a new Labour leader who didn’t have to worry about a challenge from the LibDems and indeed could count on them to guard a flank as they prepared to face another election within 2/3 years. Instead, they will view as they did in the 1980s the LibDems as rivals and it is that contest which will hurt their ability to bounce back quickly. Just as it did in the 80s when it was the divided opposition which give the Tories such large majorities in parliament despite only getting barely over 40% of the vote.

A 3-way Leader’s debate in Ireland

// April 15th, 2010 // 1 Comment » // ukge2010

With the first of the series of the Uk’s three PM debates on UTV tonight it appears not to have occurred to anyone here that if the polls in Ireland were to remain remotely like they are now that we would have to host a 3-way style debate too. If Labour were over 20% and FF on about 25% with FG over 30% and were all 3 parties were running enough candidates to get an overall majority then it would be almost impossible for RTe or anyone else to refuse the right of the Labour party’s leader to participate. Hell, it could even be that FF would be in third place and we’d be treated to a head to head with just Eamonn and Enda.

At least it would see an end to the desk, and perhaps podium or high stool based delivery.