The aftermath of the Cleggmania bubble bursting leaves Nick Clegg with a very tricky dilemma. He heads into negotiations hardly in a strong position, having a reduced number of seats (albeit on a raised number of votes). He basically has three options: (1) an agreement with the tories; (2) an agreement with Labour and others; (3) standing aside and letting the tories govern as a minority.
(1) An agreement with the tories. This is the only solution where the numbers really produce a stable government for the UK. There are certain areas of common ground where things could be achieved - scrapping ID cards, a compromise policy on education might be possible scrapping some of the tories less palatable ideas. I also think that genuine dialogue between the two parties on dealing with the deficit could lead to better solutions than the tories would produce by themselves and there's a chance we wouldn't get Osbourne as chancellor. But there's pressure from both sides. Clegg would need to get enough visible concessions to convince his own party and the electorate that the deal was worthwhile. Electoral reform will be the sticking point. Meanwhile Cameron is under pressure not to give too much away. The other consideration for Clegg is that if the tories do govern and make the cutbacks they believe are necessary to cut the deficit, the governor of the Bank of England's prediction may come true and they will be out of government again for a generation. Does Clegg want to tie his party to this?
(2) An agreement with Labour and others. This would give Clegg electoral reform, but you wonder how long any possible PM could hold together a coaltion or agreement between so many disparate elements and could well lead to another election this year (see below). I think its also true that on a personal level, Clegg has no love for Labour. Further there is the question of how well this would play with an English electorate who have largely rejected Labour, whereas in Scotland the lib-dems need to be finding grounds to oppose labour without supporting the tories.
Then there's the West Lothian question - such a broad centre-left alliance would be dependant on around 100 MPs from the devolved regions, legislating on a number of areas that are purely English concerns. I think that the tensions involved in that would bring the government down before the end of the year and we'd be looking at another election.
(3) Letting the tories govern as a minority. Has the advantage of not tying the Lib-dems to another party, both of whom might soon be seen as failures, but would also mean giving up on the chance of getting any of their agenda through. Furthermore it would hugely increase the chances of another election this year. Another election this year would be bad for Britain, prolonging the uncetainty around the economy. It would also probably be bad for the Lib-Dems, leading to an even greater squeeze on their vote and ther seats. At the very least it would be a huge gamble on Clegg's part to believe that they could come out of it well, and he would be open to accusations of putting party before country if the Lib-dems helped vote down a tory minority.
So, the challenge for Clegg is to try and deliver a deal which is first good for the stability and government of the country, whilst simultaneously getting enough out of it to convince his party and voters that it was worth it. If he can manage that it will be a truly statesmanlike performance.
Through gritted teeth, at the moment I am forced to admit that option 1 might be the best course at the moment, if there could be compromise on tax and education, genuine joint working on tackling the deficit and an agreement that Lib-Dems would be free to pursue electoral reform with the other parties with the tories free to oppose. This would very much depend on a disappointed and defeated Labour party's willingness to play ball. But if they didn't. it might not be in their interest either. Personally I can't see either Cameron or Brown being willing to make that work, but Brown's days are numbered. Whereas Cameron, with the tensions in his own party already starting to show, might need support from outside more than he currently realises.
Personally, at the moment, I wouldn't bet against another election later this year, with Labour under a new leader, producing an almost dead heat between the big two and very few seats for lib-Dems or others. Oh, and Scottish independance in about 10 years time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Tony, I've enjoyed your election blogging and fear you may be right about the tory/lib-dem pact coming. I'm not sure I agree quite with your summary of the vote in England - you need to look at the hexagons map rather than the geographical one to see we're not quite as overwhelmingly blue. Although the tories got a significant majority of seats in England they still only got 39% of the vote, and only really stormed it in the southern regions (not London). Most places with a good university did not vote tory. Most cities did not vote tory. The tory party have the suburban and rural south sewn up but we in Birmingham and other regions further north are not in favour of a tory Government. Sharon
Thanks for the comment Sharon. I take your point to some extent, but a vote of under 30% and around 90 seats lost across England can hardly be seen as a ringing endorsement of Labour. I'm also not sure that you can see it as a purely southern phenomenom - there were very strong tory gains across Yorkshire and in places like Carlisle, although the inner cities did largely remain red. Outside these areas the only part that really didn't go with the tories was the North East. However, my main point is more around the dependancy of the centre-left on devolved regions in any attempt to form a government. At the very least this would finally force some kind if resolution of the West Lothian question.
Post a Comment