In yesterday’s Independent Mary Dejevsky asks what is all the fuss about with regards to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats? What on earth has Nick done wrong?
The fact that a coalition government is a novelty for most British voters may offer a partial explanation for the ferocity of current attacks. As may the bitterness of the left, which believed – and still believes – that if there was going to be a coalition, it should be their coalition. Hell hath no fury like establishment left-wingers scorned.
But there really should be no excuses. What we are watching is not the normal cut and thrust of politics; it is a type of after-the-fact combat that reflects the refusal of the losers to accept their loss and a wilful denial that there might be another way of doing politics.
There is another way, though, and we are looking at it. To accuse the Liberal Democrats of treachery is to misunderstand how coalitions work and what they are for. A coalition presupposes compromise. And the reason this coalition has the complexion it does – to the right of centre – is that this is how the country voted.
Nor was anyone misled. During the campaign, Nick Clegg said he would talk first to whichever party gained most seats; this was always likely to be the Conservatives, and any rational voter knew that. In the event, however, Mr Clegg’s decision was made for him. The numbers did not add up any other way. Some Lib Dems might feel that, to save their honour, their party should have stayed aloof. Some Conservatives might have preferred David Cameron to form a minority government. But anyone who denounces the coalition as undemocratic must recognise that the alternatives were even more so.
In the unlikely event that the Lib Dems’ detractors can accept that coalition means compromise, they have then to address a new question. Were the Lib Dems inept in their coalition negotiations? Could they have extracted from the Conservatives much more than they did? The answer is surely No. To be sure, there are points that need clarification: the timetable for the proposed referendum on a new voting system, for a start. But a pretty comprehensive rollback of illiberal late-Labour legislation is not nothing.
As for the Budget that has been the subject of such venom, critics have to ask what this Budget would have looked like without the contribution of the Liberal Democrats. Would the threshold for the basic rate of income tax have been raised? By so much? Would child benefit and pensioners’ one-off benefits have been retained? Would the capital spending programme have been largely spared? Would there have been such an emphasis on the regions? Would the 50 per cent top rate of income tax have survived?
Nor is a tally of 22 ministers, with at least one in each major government department, to be sneezed at. (It is not the Tories’ fault that one resigned and another’s effectiveness may have been compromised by a newly messy private life.) Would, let’s say, Ken Clarke have become Justice Secretary in a Conservative-only government? And, even if he had been given a Cabinet post, would he have been in a position to suggest not only that the prison population was too large, but that something should be done about it – something that, in the short term at least, might cost money?
Then take foreign policy. It is hard to envisage that William Hague would have given the foreign policy speech he gave yesterday had he represented a Conservative-only government. His promise to send more high-flying diplomats to Brussels can be read two ways, but the cordial reception that he and the Prime Minister have received in European capitals would have been improbable if Nick Clegg, who is fluent in “European”, as well as all his other languages, had not been around to smooth the way. And if those first meetings in Europe had gone badly, might Mr Cameron have found himself looking less like a national leader in his own right at last weekend’s Canada summits and more like President Obama’s very junior partner?
It is early days. But in their first efforts at coalition government, Nick Clegg and his small troupe of Liberal Democrats have nothing to be ashamed of – nor, indeed, does Mr Cameron. Both are being punctilious about looking and sounding collegiate. And the proof that all is not going so badly is the – so far – narrowly predictable provenance of the attacks. A leaderless Labour is talking “fig-leaves”; there are lobbyists whose job is to exaggerate their causes; there are militant trade unionists shouting “fiscal fascism”, and there are hyperbolic chatterers on the left. Helped along, perhaps, by the distractions of the World Cup and Wimbledon, the warm weather and the hope of holidays, the voters are keeping calm. To their credit, they still agree with Nick.
Related posts:
To be fair the Indy is stuck in an awkward situation as it told it’s readers to vote for Nick and will have to wait a respectable amount of time before changing sides (The Lib Dems left us not us the Lib dems).
But the idea that the budget would have been tougher if the Lib dems had not joined the coalition is rubbish. A minority Tory administration would have needed the Lib Dems to abstain if they wanted to get their budget through and without the cabinet places the Libs would have demanded more.
As for getting the best deal, I am reminded of all the times that Lib Dems have said that a hung parliament and coalition would lead to a complete change of the system and the bringing in of STV. I don’t ever remember them saying that a “once in 30yrs” event would be used to bring in AV which is simply a stepping stone to what the Libs really want.
In 4 years time you will be stuck as a right of centre party, with much fewer councillors and a low number of AMs and MSPs. the next general election will be a disaster and it will take another 30 yrs to get to another opportunity like this one.