Rob the Gob

It’s difficult not to be cynical. The invitation to describe what happened after the election as the ‘ConDem’ alliance is irresistible. Something new and unusual has happened in Britain. For the first time since the seventies, and despite the polarisation of our electoral system, no single party has been elected to govern the UK. This placed everyone involved in an odd position – allow a minority government to rule until the next – probably very soon – general election, or negotiate some form of deal. The partisan nature of British politics means that a coalition government, though common throughout the world, was always going to be awkward. None-the-less, it happened. And finally, we have the details of the agreement.

Like a lot of people, I saw the results come in through a blur of alcohol and fatigue that culminated in a two day hangover. The hangover for politics was a little longer. I was horribly worried that the Conservative party would win outright with a clear, substantial majority. They didn’t. I knew Labour would do badly, but they actually did a little better than I thought they might. The real surprise for me was that the Lib Dems fell back. I was expecting them to do a little better than they had in previous elections, but instead they did a little worse. I’d imagine we could write that one off to last minute poll-booth panic.

But it turned out alright for Cleggy in the end, didn’t it? Well, maybe. It’s difficult not to be cynical. Because we’re unused to it, the power-play of a third party negotiating its way into a position of influence feels like some kind of coup. But it isn’t, it’s just politics.

It’s unsurprising that disgruntled Labour supporters should criticise the coalition. However, a great deal of the criticism for the coalition comes from grass-roots conservatives, who behave as if they won, and that they deserve to be in power anyway. They didn’t win anything – they simply got a few more votes than the others, leaving them as the largest minority. However, from the Liberal Democrat perspective, forming an alliance with anyone else would seem damn undemocratic. The whinging Tory faithful just feel like they won anyway, though they didn’t. You’d think they’d be grateful to Mr Clegg and his party, but no… The other dissenting voices are coming from the Liberal supporters. This warrants a little more examination.

I actually voted Liberal. I’ve found myself unable to support Labour since Iraq. I was quite afraid of similar disaffection throughout the country resulting in a Tory victory. I was hoping for a hung parliament, and I got one. I expected that the Tories would get the largest number of votes, and that some sort of deal would be struck. However, I didn’t expect a full coalition. I thought that some sort of agreement would be reached that offered them some limited support to get things moving, that in order to obtain this, the Liberals would demand a referendum on voting reform, and that subsequently, votes on individual bills would be essentially free for Liberal MPs. However, that’s not what happened.

Criticism has been levelled at the Liberals that what they did was simply a cynical play to claw some measure of direct political power. Well, of course it was. You might just as well level the same criticism at David Cameron – he didn’t have a majority either. That’s what all politicians do all the time. Anyone who thinks that politics works by some other mechanism simply isn’t recognising politics for what it is. I freely admit that at first, I thought it highly unadvisable for the Liberals to enter a full coalition. To a certain degree, I still do, but I am starting to understand the merits of it.

It’s difficult not to be cynical. Our new Home Secretary, Theresa May, no matter which way you look at it, has an appalling voting record on issues regarding homosexuality. The Cabinet is dominated once again by white men from privileged backgrounds (some of them Lib Dem). Yet it rapidly became apparent that some of the worst traditional excesses of the Tory manifesto – huge tax breaks for rich people, the immediate scrapping of the Human Rights Act and the like – were going to be curtailed by the deal. Furthermore, some of the more progressive Liberal proposals – such as raising the minimum threshold for income tax – were going to be adopted. But whatever this odd government is, we have to accept that we must judge it on the merits and problems it has in and of itself. If it’s too much for us to consider, for the next general election, which individuals and parties did the most good within the coalition, and instead judge them on the basis of some raw tribal loyalties, then that is our fault, not theirs, and if my fellow Liberal voters don’t like the idea understand this: they have acted in what they think is the most effective way to make Liberal policies a guiding influence on British politics. It may not work out, but it’s that judgment you are assessing, not some abstracted rubbish about ‘I voted Liberal and got the Tories’.

This, which ever way you look at it, is something of a small victory for Liberal voters. Being able to directly influence the decisions of the government will allow the Liberal party to push the Tories towards pursuing the ground common to both parties – notably, so far, some important proposals from Nick Clegg regarding civil liberties. Make no mistake – this would have not been pursued in any meaningful way by the Tories alone (‘call me Dave’ pretty much admits this in the foreword to the coalition agreement I’ve linked in below). You’ve got a party you didn’t want in power. But you were going to have that anyway – at least now they are tempered by the very party you did vote for.

So to that agreement. I won’t go through the whole thing, but you should read it. Here’s a link. http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/files/2010/05/coalition-programme.pdf It’s difficult not to be cynical. But I’m going to try, which is why I’m going to go start with something I like from the agreement – civil liberties.

This is, by far, the most impressive section of the document. Acting against individual freedom was a huge reason why many people fell out with the Labour party (second only, I’d think, to Iraq). Thanks, largely, to Lib Dem influence, if all of the goals they have brought to this coalition are achieved with regard to civil liberties – and the rest of it isn’t too disastrous – it will entirely justify their involvement in the coalition in the first place. If it is done well, it could be extremely important.

The problem is, it plays against many traditional Conservative concerns, and I worry that there may be something of a back-bench rebellion against it. If they act quickly enough they might just get this legislation through in a way that could be actually effective. However, this is the kind of thing that only a new government will get through without some serious dilution – it must be passed whilst principal remains high above jaded political realism. The proposals defined in this document could easily be squeezed into tokenism, or overwhelmed by new legislation. I hope for swift, definite action on the part of Mr Clegg.

The commission to investigate changing the Human Rights Act to a specifically British bill of rights is the most worrying aspect of this document. There’s been a lot of talk about rights ‘coming from responsibilities’, which, frankly sounds like a terrible excuse to remove peoples’ human rights under certain circumstances. Let us be clear – there are no circumstances under which a human being should ever cease to be classified anything other than a human being. Human rights have to be universally applied – it is the mark of a civilised society that, even in the case of the most despicable individual, we rise above our anger and hatred, so that we do not become that which we seek to protect ourselves from. The Conservative party wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act entirely – now it will be subject to a review. Not ideal, but better, certainly. I’m sad to see that the silly mass-appeal policies regarding further protection of ‘people’ from prosecution when dealing with ‘criminals’ and ‘intruders’ – something I’ve talked about before – did not meet the axe.

There is one extra little gem in there, though – the renegotiation of the extradition treaty between the UK and the US.

With Tory intransigence on Trident and, despite proposed savings in running costs, it seems to me that the defence budget is going to be far too tight for all the (admittedly often quite admirable) proposals in this agreement. Laudable, if slightly vague targets are also evident on environmental issues, which, again, give wiggle room on funding. You get the feeling on this issue that there isn’t going to be much done immediately, which is a shame, but it should at least provide some structural (and infrastructural) steps in the right direction. Quite a lot of these things, however, are clearly composed of programs that would have been done anyway, regardless of who was in charge, and, in fact, spring pretty directly from the measures taken by the previous government.

Transport is similarly well-handled, though the proposals rather more sober than previous manifesto claims. Where the funding comes from is, again, something of a mystery. There’s some nice, if thin and rather unadventurous stuff on equalities (a vast amount of which was achieved by the last government anyway) and a few sensible measures on justice.

In the ‘culture, Olympics, media and sport section’ there is little of any real interest or substance. Notably, though, it offers to ‘maintain the independence of the BBC’ without saying anything at all about protecting its budget or reneging the deal between Murdoch and Cameron to downsize it.

International development stuff is reasonable – in as much as it protects and tweaks what we’ve been doing already. Though some in the Tory party would have us slash it, I’d say that it is more than arguable that what we invest in this way in the world more than pays for itself in increased political stability, and therefore world economic and industrial stability, and consequently, our economy.

A similar attitude, (though with a bit more wiggle-room) is taken to families and children – essentially a few tweaks here and there to the (admittedly pretty reasonable) legacy of Labour.

No surprises in the short section on foreign affairs, although a nice commitment at the end to ‘never condone the use of torture.’ Awful that this has to be stated, but it must.

On banking, the document proposes generally agreeable (and voter-pleasing) policies making (admittedly vague) promises regarding further levies and regulations imposed upon the banking sector. It’s important to note that Vince Cable has been placed in charge of this, and although he isn’t getting it entirely his own way, the agreement goes far further that the Tories alone would ever have gone.

The section on further and higher education is almost unreadable due to the interference of text between the lines read ‘WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO PAY FOR THIS’ in overlapping ten-foot high block caps. If they choose to restrict student visas – one of the Tory thoughts on limiting immigration – this problem will only double as huge proportion of our university funding will vanish. With indications that top-up fees for the best universities will sky-rocket, I predict a turbulent future for higher education, especially in terms of the diversity of students in the better institutions. In part, the rest of the education policy is pretty uninspiring stuff. The idea that almost any group can get together and set up a school is a rather preposterous and obvious attempt to help eek out the education budget. It might well produce some rather odd situations – and almost certainly some rather undesirable educational environments.

The jobs and welfare stuff is dangerous territory too, and its vagaries still allow for the adoption of the most ridiculous Tory strategy to essentially withdraw benefits from people – a bullying tactic that could only ever be justified in the most extreme cases, but will doubtless be used ubiquitously should it pass, not least due to the financial pressures.

The section on social action is particularly intriguing. When reading it, you can’t help but think that it aims to get people to fill in for what is going to be cut from public services by doing much the same stuff but for no money – possible in communities with wealth and a time on their hands, not so clever in more modest situations.  The thought of creating a sort of non-military ‘national citizens’ service’ for school-leavers is intriguing. I wonder how it will be funded, and what it actually hopes to achieve; or if it’s just a way to get work out of teenagers for nothing without the inconvenience of having to send them to prison; or, if it’s just a way to bring down unemployment figures with what amounts to a glorified ‘Duke of Edinburgh Award’ scheme. I await details, but you can bet your life that it won’t be being applied with any seriousness to ‘nice’ children on the private school fast-track to university.

This all smacks a bit of a classic Tory theme – trying to eliminate the perceived ‘burden’ of the poor. Despite the fact that for every pound they ‘scam’ there’s ten lost to tax-dodging – which gets a couple of mentions, but in non-specific terms that make me worry that any real crack-down will be slow to come. This would doubtless upset a certain proportion of the core Tory vote – a group of people who seem to see tax avoidance as a duty. The ‘review’ on non-doms is a case in point of this wobbly attitude, although the raising of capital gains tax is a reasonable policy. In fact, thanks largely to LibDem influence, there is a massive improvement in proposed tax policies when compared to the Tory proposals. In particular, the dropping of the inheritance tax threshold rise and the raising, instead, of the base income tax threshold is an extremely welcome change. Annoyingly the silly, archaic married couple’s allowance is still in there – and the Lib Dem

’s abstaining won’t be enough to stop it going through. Notably, no mention is made of VAT, and other forms of taxation are likewise given a wide berth ahead of the upcoming budget, with the exception of the NI issues, which are in line with the Tory pledges. Unsurprisingly so, given the drum-beating – though that hasn’t prevented them from entirely ruling out a ‘death tax’ or some related form of funding for care of the elderly. Likewise, forget any long-term freezing of council tax beyond the next year, or any continuation of reduced stamp duty – I’d say they just can’t afford it. Indeed, reducing debt, they say ‘takes precedence over any of the other measures in this agreement’. So quite a lot of this document may well just be thrown away in few weeks time.

Funding for the NHS is an odd issue. Due to new treatments always coming through, the NHS budget always soars way above the rate of inflation. In this case, we could see the maintenance of the budget actually as a squeeze. On the other hand, there seems little else to do, and I’m not inclined to argue that anything substantially better could be done, considering the deficit.

With regard to funding constraints, I find it rather odd that they’ve proposed what amount to extra tiers of government in certain areas – more mayors, increased power to local councils, an elected official in charge of the police and such. These measures are going to be expensive and require careful, well-supported and well-planned implementation. Likewise, with regard to policing, the document makes many proposals that seem almost custom-designed to soak up funds. But budgets are going to be cut, it’s a simple as that, and ‘efficiency savings’ are not going to help much. Add to this the creation of a ‘border police force’, and I find myself becoming highly suspicious. There would seem to be only one easy solution to this – the one used the last time the Conservatives had anything to do with policing – increase police power. Let me get something straight, the police have enough power – they just don’t have the resources they need, and increasing their power doesn’t compensate for this, (whether it’s focussed on ‘border’ issues or otherwise).

Which brings us nicely round to immigration. They’ve kept the ridiculous notion of a ‘cap’ on immigration – despite the fact that it will hardly be able to control anything at all. I’ve discussed this elsewhere, but, suffice to say that I’m massively disappointed by its inclusion.

Then there’s Europe – a section that screams ‘Whoa! Hold on there!’ There is nothing here that addresses the Conservative party’s increasingly isolated position on the right of… well, everybody else in the EU.  This was always going to be a contentious issue between the two parties, and it seems that the Tories have got their own way. I do not believe that they have taken the right attitude towards Europe, and are, in fact, endangering our relationship with what is, under any analysis, the most valuable economic and social relationship we have. I will explore this more thoroughly another time, as the British isolationist attitude is, frankly, a disturbing and rather reactionary quality within our national psychology.

The section on Parliamentary reform is one of the most interesting, and I may consider some of it at greater length later – I certainly don’t have the time or space here. I like the idea of the public having a more direct influence on bills and debates through petitions, and the referendum on the alternative vote is going to prove most interesting indeed. The idea of ‘primaries’ is odd, and requires a little more thought, I feel.

But there are a few obvious problems; and, once again, it’s difficult not to be cynical.

Having a fix-term Parliament for the sake of the coalition is a sensible way to arrange the deal. It allows them to set specific goals and policies with an established end in mind. But the contentious raising of no-confidence votes from 51% of parliament to 55% is an odd one. It’s so obviously in the interests of the incumbent party that I wonder if it’s the first clue to the actual tenacity and authoritarianism of David Cameron’s ambitions. Couple this with his attack on the 1922 committee, and you might start to get suspicious of just how secure he wants to make himself.

Reducing the number of MPs is, to my mind, something that has its merits if it is slight, and makes each constituency more equal. But I strongly suspect that its actual goal is to fiddle with the boundaries of constituencies so as to return more Conservative MPs. Most parties have done this to a greater or lesser extent in the past, but that’s hardly a justification- no matter how many wrongs you add up, they still don’t make a right.

The aim to (FINALLY) have an elected second house is an important one, and should be welcomed, but the short-term ‘fix’ of appointing a mass of new Conservative and Liberal peers to enable the upper house to more accurately reflect the proportional vote is surely a mistake. Potentially a very expensive and controversial one if further reform to the Lords is slow to come.

So there you have it. The fact is, the upcoming budget is going to set the real tone for this Parliament. I only hope that we can get something good out of it before the axe descends. But, regardless of how it works out, in principle, I am very glad, for now, that this is the ConDemNation rather than one suffering under a purely Conservative government. I only wish that this co-operative precedent could be set in a less difficult economic climate. And that it hadn’t worked out that, the position the Liberals had to negotiate from was the Conservative one – the view, lest we forget, of a generally pretty selfish, moralising and traditionalist minority. If they come to dominate, and all goes horribly wrong, I only hope that people can see the action of the Liberals for what it was – a cynical power-play, yes, but one that might have prevented the Tories riding roughshod over us all. And if I goes really wrong, I do hope that the British public are intelligent enough not to forever blame the Liberals for what might well turn out to be one of the most unpopular governments in decades. And at this point, it really is difficult not to be cynical.  I’ll try – it’s going to be bad, but not as bad as it might have been.

There – that was almost hopeful, wasn’t it?