The inconclusive general election of May 6, 2010 has resulted in the first elected British coalition government since 1931 (a National Government was convened for World War II). The Conservatives, led by David Cameron, have reached agreement with Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats, and their combined strength in the House of Commons will give them an overall majority of 77 seats. The negotiations, which lasted five days, involved the LibDems in talks with both the Tories and Gordon Brown's defeated Labour Party. Mr. Cameron, the new Prime Minister, will have Mr. Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister; the Liberal Democrats are to get four other Cabinet posts and, at least, one junior ministership in each of 20 ministries. The coalition has decided on a fixed five-year term, a LibDem wish. Both parties have made other concessions. Mr. Cameron has dropped plans to cut the inheritance tax, and will take steps to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000 a year. Mr. Clegg accepts that there will be £6 billion of public spending cuts this year, but has won a commitment to making the House of Lords a mainly elected chamber.
The new government will face tensions over several issues, and both party leaders encounter internal dissent. The economy will clearly be Problem Number One. With a 2009-10 budget deficit at 10.9 per cent of GDP, there are likely to be sharp disagreements over where the cuts will fall, despite the Prime Minister's promise to protect frontline public services. Secondly, the Eurosceptic faction in the generally hard-Right Tory party is very suspicious of Mr. Clegg's openly pro-EU party, even though the coalition has ruled out any further transfer of domestic powers to the EU. Thirdly, centre-left opinion on the LibDem side may resist Conservative welfare reform plans, and in the U.K. domestic elections the party will probably lose a big chunk of ex-Labour voters for sharing power with the Conservatives. The new government's biggest constitutional problem, however, will be over the electoral system for general elections. The Tories have always opposed reforming the current Simple Majority system, but Mr. Cameron has agreed to a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) system. The LibDems' acceptance of this amounts to the abandonment of one of their greatest strengths, the demand for a fully proportional system, and Mr. Cameron has gained far more than he has conceded. This goes far beyond questions of a fair share of seats for all parties. A parliament that represented British public opinion with reasonable accuracy would never have allowed the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Keywords: U.K. elections, Cameron
The best strategy for the Liberal Democrats would have been to have stayed out of office and support the government of whatever colour on a selective basis.
Apart from the tensions between the parties you have discussed, there is the likelihood of fracturing of the Liberal Democratic Party, with those of idealistic convictions on poverty, environment etc., deserting the party altogether. The next general elections whenever it comes, may very well, therefore, witness the demise of the Liberal Democratic Party as a political force.
While the Tories have agreed to a referendum on the alternative voting system, they have also indicated that they are free to campaign against it. Eventhough the Labour's manifesto promised a similar referendum, they may now be lukewarm in supporting a LibDemCon initiative in this regard and the Liberal Democrats may not be able to achieve even this minimum objective of their electoral reforms package.
The LibDemCon project envisages a fixed term parliament of five years and some appear to assume that the coalition is also for a fixed period of five years. This, however, is far from certain - a fixed term parliament does not necessarily imply a fixed term government as well. The coalition may collapse before then; there could be defections from the parties - from the right of the Conservative Party as well as from the left of the Liberal Democrats.
The pact also contains a provision for a 55% majority to pass a no-confidence resolution in Parliament. Then why not 60% or 70% or 90%? Could it not lead to a British Hitler, on a minority popular vote, enter a coalition, and retain power for ever. This could very well be the first step on a slippery slope from democracy to dictatorship.
Please Email the Editor