New Politics: the Tory/Whig Alliance
Matthew Davies looks at how the coalition government might operate in practice
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government is up and walking, if not quite yet running.
That it was possible to go from a hung parliament to a reasonably detailed coalition agreement in four days and then to a fuller agreement in just over a week, and then a reasonably full legislative programme in the Queen’s Speech a week later, says as much about the quietly effective preparation the civil service had done behind the scenes as it does about the ability of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to bring their parties together.
Clearly a great deal is going to depend upon the personalities and strengths of character of David Cameron and Nick Clegg – and the personal chemistry between them – if these arrangements are to work for several years. The evidence from the first press conference was of two men who get on well personally and who are determined to make the Coalition work.
They have to; the stakes are high for both of them personally, particularly for Clegg, who jumped the first hurdle the following weekend and despite warnings of trouble ahead, secured his party’s ratification of the coalition agreement. Political parties are themselves coalitions and the coalition arrangements could not be better designed to stress-test the internal cohesion of both.
The state we’re in
The proposal for five-year fixed parliaments, combined with the ‘super majority’ 55 percent threshold for early dissolution, is under fire from all angles: from Liberal Democrats who fear being inescapably tied to an unpopular government; from Conservatives who fear being held to ransom by a Liberal Democrat minority that will inevitably want to cut and run; and from many others for placing the long-term stability of the Coalition ahead of constitutional precedent and, in the process, restricting the ability of Parliament to hold the Government to account.
Of course, a demonstration of ‘success’ or at least progress will calm nerves in both governing parties. The challenge for the new Government is how to move quickly from the simple rhetoric of an election campaign (‘Labour’s jobs tax’ etc) to a more authoritative position whilst at the same time preserving the ability to blame the outgoing government for everything. A delicate balance must be struck between selling the fear as well as the hope.
The ‘state we’re in’ is going to be the central narrative for this Government and the appointment of Will Hutton himself as a ‘fair pay czar’ emphasises the point. Hutton joins a diverse range of figures from within and outside the political realm given jobs by the Coalition. These include: senior Labour backbench MP and former welfare minister Frank Field as a ‘poverty czar’ reporting to Iain Duncan Smith at the Department for Work and Pensions; the former McKinsey consultant and founder of Teach First Nat Wei who will be made a Peer and advise the Government on the Big Society project; and the former banker and adviser to the Labour Government, Sir James Sassoon, who will also go to the Lords and has been appointed as Commercial Secretary to the Treasury where he will work with both the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on issues around the financial services industry.
Echoing Gordon Brown’s attempts in 2007 to broaden the political base of his Government with the appointment of non-Labour figures, these appointments are a clear attempt by Cameron and Clegg to demonstrate an inclusive approach and a broad base of support.
Coalition agreement
The initial 11 May 2010 agreement which launched the Coalition was followed up on 20 May with the more detailed The Coalition: our programme for government1. The agreement is an impressive achievement, particularly given the short time in which it has been prepared when compared to the months it sometimes takes for coalitions to be formed in other EU member states which are more used to that form of government. The agreement highlights areas of common ground and skims over the more controversial areas of difference, giving each leader enough ‘victories’ to sell to their rank and file.
Similarly, most of the Cabinet appointments have been deftly made to avoid obvious and immediate confrontation. An admirable tight-rope act in its own right, the process of making the agreement would have been strangely cathartic for the inner circles of both parties – allowing them to jettison or at least postpone some policy positions ‘for the good of the country’ (the Inheritance Tax cut for the Conservatives, the ‘Mansion tax’ for the Liberal Democrats, amongst many others).
Everybody has had to make ‘compromises’ and the process of coalition has allowed both manifestos to be cherry-picked to form a reasonably consistent high-level programme for government. The challenge for Clegg and Cameron is to present it as such, rather than as a lowest common denominator which satisfies no-one.
Whether the programme withstands closer scrutiny will be fascinating. For example, the prospect of hundreds of new Peers being appointed to ensure that the House of Lords reflects the share of the popular vote on 6 May is proving to be a trickier proposition to sell, even as just an ‘interim’ reform. It would be a drastic step for a coalition promising a new kind of politics and, if taken literally, it would also mean that around 20 BNP Peers should be appointed, for instance.
Matthew Davies is a Public Affairs Consultant at Bircham Dyson Bell LLP
This briefing is not meant as a substitute for advice on particular issues and is written in general terms. You should seek specific advice before taking any action based on the information that this briefing contains.
Related articles
