By Michael Faulkner May 23, 2010
The general election resulted, as was widely predicted, in a
hung parliament. The outcome, after five days of haggling, is a coalition
government of Tories and Liberal Democrats. This is the first coalition since
the Second World War and the first ever in which the Liberals have shared
office exclusively with the Tories. At the time of writing (13th May) most of the media is in celebratory mood, fulsome in praise of the deal
struck between the two parties. The Tory tabloids have suddenly and ludicrously
abandoned their closely orchestrated splenetic rage against the Liberal
Democrats and their leader, Nick Clegg. They are now celebrating the love match
between him and David Cameron as the dawn of a new era in which, we are
expected to believe, the two leaders will put aside their differences to work
together ‘in the national interest’. Compromises have been made by both sides
and some commentators on the centre-left appear to think that the Con-Lib Dem
coalition may be the beginning of a real change in British politics, leading to
electoral reform and an end to single party government. Such expectations are
likely to be disappointed.
Until a few days ago there appeared to be a possibility that
some kind of alliance between Labor and the Liberal Democrats might have been
concluded which, with the support of some of the smaller parties, could have
produced an anti-Tory parliamentary majority. It might have been possible, but
it was never likely. Because this country is so unused to hung parliaments and
the two largest Westminster parties are so antipathetic to any form of
proportional representation, the right-wing, pro-Tory press made considerable
headway in its hysterical campaign to condemn any such alliance as a ‘coalition
of losers’. But a careful
examination of the election result indicates that the case for a Lib-Lab
agreement resting on majority support can be made as convincingly as the case
for the Con-Lib Dem coalition. Let’s consider it.
In the 2010 election the distribution of seats and
proportion of the popular vote amongst the main political parties was as
follows:
Seats Percentage
of Poll Votes
Cast
Conservatives: 306 36.1 10.706.647
Labor 258 29.0 8.604.358
Liberal Democrats 57 23.0 6.827.938
Democratic Unionists 8 0.6 168.216
Scottish Nationalists 6 1.7 491.386
Sinn Fein 5 0.6 171.942
Plaid Cymru 3 0.6 165.394
SDLP 3 0.4 110.970
Green 1 1.0 285.616
Turnout 29.653.638 65%
In Scotland, Labor won 41 seats with 42% of the vote; the
Lib Dems, 11 seats (19.9%); the SNP, 6 seats (18.9%) and the Tories 1 seat
(16.7%).
In Wales Labor won 26 seats (36%); the Tories 8 seats (26.1%)
the Lib Dems 3 seats (20.1%) and
Plaid Cymru 3 seats (11.3%).
In Northern Ireland the results were: Democratic Unionists:
8. (25%); Sinn Fein: 5 (25%) SDLP: 3. (16.5%) Alliance: 1.
In mainland Britain, despite Labor’s poor performance
nationally (29% of the poll), they fared notably better in Scotland and Wales,
with 42% and 36% respectively. In Scotland the Tories made no gains, holding on
to their only seat north of the border with just 16.7% of the vote. These poor
results are significant for the Tories, particularly in Scotland where they can
claim no mandate for the severe cuts they will shortly be introducing. It
remains to be seen whether Labor or the Scottish Nationalists will be the main
beneficiaries of the strengthened anti-Tory mood that will surely develop there.
Would it have been possible to construct an alternative
alliance involving Labor, the Lib Dems and others? In many other countries operating
under some form of PR such post-electoral deals are done routinely without
raising the phony furor that the mere hint of such a thing caused in the media
here. The Con-Lib Dem coalition has a majority of around 80 over all others. It
needs to be remembered that the Sinn Fein MPs refuse to take their Westminster
seats. In order to have put together an alliance based on Labor and the Lib
Dems, agreement would have had to be sought from the smaller parties. It could
have been forthcoming from the Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, the Social
Democratic Labor Party (N.I.) and the single Green MP, who together have
thirteen seats. Such an arrangement would have given a ‘rainbow alliance’ 328
seats against 314 the Tories could have mustered with the possible backing of
the Democratic Unionists, though their support could not have been guaranteed
given Cameron’s stated aim of implementing severe cuts in Northern Ireland. Had
there been a will to achieve it, a Labor –Lib Dem alliance might have
been achieved. It was probably the only way to hold off the draconian cuts due
to start later this year. In terms of legitimacy, based on share of the popular
vote, Labor and the Lib Dems together would have commanded 52%. With the
smaller parties this would have amounted to nearer 56%. The evidence is that at
least two thirds of Lib Dem voters prefer Labor to the Tories, so, on that
basis as well it can be argued that a Lib-Lab alliance would have been more in
accord with the sentiments of Lib Dem voters. Also, it would have been the best
guarantee for serious electoral reform, the prospects of which are now fading
fast. The idea of such an alliance did not come from the Left. It was advocated
by, amongst others, the pro-capitalist Keynesian, Will Hutton and the impeccably
moderate editorial writers of The Observer.
Had such a deal
been secured earlier this week, it would have been met with a howl of outrage
from the rabid and desperate right-wing press in Britain. These angry and frustrated
propagandists, whose readers number many millions, dislike being outmaneuvered and,
as with shoddy and mendacious rags such as The Sun and the Daily Mail, are
delighted to plumb the depths of scurrility to achieve their political ends.
Every effort would have been made to derail such an alliance and pave the way
for another election to secure a Tory majority. It may have succeeded, but we
shall never know.
Given what we now have, what are the prospects? Predictions
must always be made with caution, but those liberal commentators who are
inclined to put an optimistic gloss on this Tory dominated deal are likely soon
to be disabused of their optimism. Cameron and his friends are very unlikely to
undergo a conversion to enlightened liberalism. They will do everything they
can to prevent serious reform of the electoral system. A commission of enquiry
will look into the possibility of some form of AV and try to kick the issue
into the long grass. The main concern will be to ensure that the Tories are
able to secure an overall majority at the next election. Cameron and Co. know
that the majority of the nearly seven million Lib Dem voters are not enamored
of this marriage and are unlikely to forgive Clegg when things start to go
badly wrong. An early straw in the wind is the down-grading of Vince Cable. Of
the five Lib Dems in the Tory- dominated cabinet, he enjoys most credibility
with the electorate, largely due to his prescience over the financial crisis
and the tough stand he took towards the bankers. But he has been removed from
any decisive role in dealing with the banks and it already looks extremely
doubtful that his demand to separate commercial from investment banking will be
heeded. The Lib Dems’ greatest asset could finish up as an emasculated puppet.
That is to say nothing of the more glaring divide between these two co-alition
parties – Europhilia and Europhobia. It will all be put to the test very
soon when George Osborne replaces Alasdair Darling at the European Economic and
Financial Affairs meeting in Brussels.
During the election campaign all the candidates studiously
avoided confronting the most serious issues facing the country and the wider
world. The 750billion euro ‘shock and awe’ package put together to save
eurozone countries’ economies from collapse may not work, but if it does,
Britain will not be a beneficiary as this country has not signed up to the
deal. Osborne will be less enthusiastic about it than Darling. What will the
Lib Dems do? If, as is possible, the Con-Lib Dem government’s austerity
measures plunge the economy into a double-dip recession, they will have to take
the blame along with their Tory partners. Will they be prepared to push for the
cancellation of the Trident project to which they were committed in their
election manifesto? During the campaign there was no mention of Afghanistan
where an increasingly unpopular war drags on with no end in sight. Will the
party that opposed the invasion of Iraq become a willing accomplice in
prolonging this senseless conflict?
And what of Labor? New Labor is dead. Only if the party in
opposition rejects once and for all its disastrous flirtation with Blairite
neo-liberalism will there be any hope of a revival. This means that in the
forthcoming battle for the leadership any candidate tainted with that association
should be rejected. A rediscovery of the social-democratic heart of the party
is the best that can be hoped for. The challenges that lie ahead will
necessitate a re-activated labor movement capable of providing leadership in
defense of public services and resistance to the planned attacks on the living
standards of those who are expected to pay for a crisis not of their making. At
the moment very few voices are raised in their defense. It seems to be taken
for granted that the austerity measures must, in the interests of ‘recovery’
be accepted passively by those
upon whom they will fall most heavily. Those whose privileged position in
society guarantees that they will be well cushioned from the cuts are usually
the ones who tell us that ‘we are all in this together’. We are not. Building a
real, popular opposition to the measures in store for us needs to begin now.