The one that the coalition are promoting heavily is the standard new government line that the mess we're in is all the last lot's fault. Or in other words, that we're in a financial mess because Labour ballsed things up thoroughly. Reality however, is always more complicated than spin. Yes, I'm fairly certain that Labour was guilty of some irresponsible spending, especially towards the end of their administration (and probably making some promises they knew they could never pay for in a desperate attempt to sway the election). But we shouldn't forget that it was largely the banks (nationally and globally) that created this crisis. Nor should we forget that most government since the war (of both parties, and not just in this country) have had a tendancy to spend more than they bring in (through a reluctance to either raise taxes or make cuts) and thus produced a generally steadily escalating problem to be paid for by the next generation - the current financial crisis has merely accelerated this. (Indeed, the first few years of New Labour are one of the few exceptions to this).
The second narrative is that the Lib-Dems have sold out their principles for ministerial seats in joining the coalition. For much of the time since the election Labour have focussed their attacks almost solely on the Lib-Dems as sell-outs. Partly, in doing this they come across as spurned lovers, jealous that the onject of theor affections has hoped into bed with a new partner.In the run up to the election there was a cosy assumption that the Lib-Dems were like a mini-Labour and could only ever enter coalition with them. That has proved not to be the case. But have Clegg and co sold out?
The Formation of the Coalition.
In the run up to the election, one of the things that it was clear the Lib-Dems stood for was parties working together. Clegg also made it clear that the party that came first should have the first go at forming a government. Having campaigned so long for a chance to hold the balance of power and contribute to government, the party would have lost all credibility if they had turned their back on the opportunity. Reallistically on May 7th, there were only two real alternative - Tory-Lib coalition or a Tory Minority government. Its difficult to see what the Libs would have got out of a supply and confidence arrangement with a Tory minority which would have led to Cameron having to do far more to appease the right-wing nutters on his backbenches. There's also an argument that it was in the national interest to have a stable government that the coalition provides in order to reassure the markets (although personally I'm uncomfortable with the narrative which seems to give ultimate power to unaccountable market forces, but that is a debate for another time which none of the parties seem to want to engage in). The other issue was that only the Tories could actually afford the risk of another election this year - and it would have stretched them. Labour and the Lib-Dems were left practically penniless, so nobody wanted to risk going back to the polls. Thus far, the Lib-Dems appear to have sold out less than the Tories, who actively campaigned against the idea of a hung parliament or coalition.
The Nature of Coalition Politics.
Part of the reason why the Labour narrative of Liberal sell-out works so well, is that we are unused to to coalition politics here. They necessarily entail a certain amount of compromise and concession and the larger party will inevitably be able to get more of their agenda across. Thus the tories have been able to pass free schools, which raises Lib-Dem hackles, whilst the Lib-Dem pupil premium is agreed, but will take time to deliver. Similarly it will take time for the gradual raising of the tax threshold to feed through. Partly, in all of this the Lib-Dems are losing the media war - they are seen as more subservient to a Tory agenda, whilst their achievements are overlooked and not mentioned. As a balancing point, discontent in the right-wing media and tory backbenches should also be noted. This is not the government they were hoping for either. Chris Huhne at the Deparment of Energy and Environment seems to be particularly hated by the Daily Torygraph, so he must be doing something right under the radar. Of course, there has also been anger over the VAT rise, although it should be noted that both parties rather evaded the issue throughout the campaign. "I know of no plans to raise VAT", etc... As I have blogged previously, I think the anti-progressive nature of this is over-stated and as an anti-consumption measure, I think we should wait and see. Another under-reported context to this is attempts to standardise the rate of VAT across the EU. And what figure do they want to standardise at - 20%. Hmmmm. But of course, the Euro-sceptic Tories won't want to talk about that.
Indeed, Lib-Dem influence could also be seen working in silence of the Tories on Europe and the possible delay of a decision on Trident until after the next election. The Lib-dems have clearly had to step back on immigration, much to Vince Cable's obvious dislike.
Cuts, Cuts, Cuts
But, of course, the main grounds for accusing the Lib-Dems of selling out is over cuts. During the election, Clegg sided with Brown in saying that the economy should be given more chance to grow before cuts are enacted. There was of course a whole heap of disingenuousness all round in this debate. The parties chose to argue almost solely about £6bn in National Insurance, Labour hiding the deep divisions between Brown and Darling and the possible impact of the cuts they had already made (the job lossses currently being announced are from Labour cuts - the Con-Dem ones are yet to come). The Tories swerved admitting the scale of the cuts that would be made and Clegg has since said that he changed his mind on the timing of cuts before the election, but neglected to tell voters until afterwards. So amidst this positive storm of pots calling kettles black, what's going on.
To address the deficit, any government has three basic strategies - spending cuts, tax rises and economic growth (bringing in more revenue from existing taxes and hopefully reducing the welfare bill). Labour's strategy incorporated all three, but centred on fiscal stimulus to try and grow the economy. The economic figures since the election show that this was working to some extent. However, it does seem to me a strategy built on levels of consumer spending which are neither desirable nor sustainable and possibly feeds into perpetuating a boom and bust cycle.
The other issue is that on the election day itself, the EU was plunging into economic crisis. The markets, and particularly the credit-rating agencies demanded a new government that would take a tougher line with the deficit. The consequences otherwise would be a reduction in the UK's credit-rating, higher interest rates on our debt and a spiral that it would have been much harder to get out. So, the coalition's plan is what the markets wanted (as mentioned above, I'm uncomfortable with this particular argument). There is of course counter-exanmples like Ireland, who did all the credit-agencies asked and still had their rating reduced.
Personally, I think that, whilst some cuts needed to happen and the way some services are delivered needs to be looked, the current government's cuts probably go too far and would have liked to have seen a balance slightly less cuts heavy in a way that possibly does threaten continued growth and will cause a lot of pain to a lot of people (and I'm not convinced that the effects will be felt equally by all). That said, it remains to be seen how much spin there is in advance of the reality. I still suspect that the 40% figure is put out there to make the 25% seem less bad. I also think that Osbourne is aiming to eliminate the deficit in order to make sure he meets Labour's target of halving it in this parliament - cuts being harder and more expensive to implement than to plan. So, to a certain extent I am disappointed in this aspect of the Lib-Dems involvement, but not to the extent of buying the Labour spin of selling out.
What has this meant in political terms?
In opinion polls since the elections there has been a steady decline in Lib-Dem support from 24% at the election to about 14% now. The main beneficiaries are Labour (who are benefitting from not having a leader or direction at the moment - they are "not-the-coalition" without having anything fixed to be shot at in return), but also gains for the Conservatives and Greens. In part, the Libs always fall back in-between elections, there might also be a slight over-compensation in polling companies methods and weightings from the general election where they all over-predicted the Lib-Dem share.
However, this isn't being totally born out in real results at the polls yet. Local council by-elections are bad predictors for the national picture, but they are all we have to go on at the moment. Since the election, the main gainers have been Labour, who are up something like 10 or 11 seats. Surprisingly the Libs are also up by 3 or 4 seats, whilst the Tories are down by around 10, the Greens holding steady (1 gain, 1 loss, 1 hold) and independants and the continuing Liberal party making up the other losses. What is slightly surprising is where the Libs have been making gains - you would expect them maybe to make progress against Labour with tactical support from newly reassured Tories, but here they have been losing seats and gaining against the Tories where you would have expected them to lose Labour tactical support. To a large extent this can be explained by the fact that the last few sets of local elections (to which these by-elections are compared) were exceptionally good for the Tories and bad for Labour, so there is a certain normality being restored (independants and smaller parties usually do worse in by-elections as the big parties are free to target more resources there), but as much as there is a pattern it is that the Libs are falling back in the North of England, but making slight gains in the South. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few years - Clegg is clearly playing a long game and won't be overly troubled by current polls. The Lib-Dems have been this low before in recent years and recovered. Will they this time? The jury is still out...
No comments:
Post a Comment