ConVinced or ConDemned?

Thursday May 6th 2010 was a big adventure for all of us who took part in, or watched the General Election unfold. The exit poll turned out be be almost correct, by complete accident. The Conservatives were easily the biggest party, but far short of a majority, and Labour lost nearly 100 seats. The Liberal Democrat poll figures failed to translate into votes, although they did see a slight increase on 2005, but lost seats.

But this provided the supreme irony. Despite their diminished representation in parliament, Nick Clegg did find himself 'kingmaker.' After many days of tooing and froing, and fluttering his eyelashes at Labour, but showing a bit of leg to the Tories, Cameron and Clegg decided to enter a civil partnership.

This was then consummated at the door to number ten Downing Street, with a public kiss...sorry shaking of hands. Less than twenty-four hours previously, Gordon Brown had accepted the inevitable, stood down, and gone to tender his resignation to the Queen. The former Prime Minister left office with dignity having fulfilled his final constitutional role, and stayed in place until it became obvious the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would reach an agreement of some sort. As he left Downing Street with his wife and children, he must have felt many regrets, not least that he was never able to secure his own mandate. But, perhaps even more so, that he was leaving with a reputation that many feel he does not deserve. History will now have to be the judge of Gordon Brown's time in office.

When David Cameron made his first appearance as Prime Minister (a shiver went down my spine as I wrote that), he paid a tribute to the previous thirteen years, as Britain being, "(M)ore open at home and more compassionate abroad." A sentence which seems to be contrary to his mantra that British society was broken, which he repeated often during the campaign. However, he then went on to say that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had decided to create a formal coalition, and today, as they stood in the rose garden, a joint document was released with detail of the agreement.

The big issue of deficit reduction seems to be an unhappy medium, whilst though no parties policies on this would have been welcomed, they seem to have just split the difference here. Perhaps not altogether a bad thing, as they will be attempting to cut more quickly, but nowhere near as radically as the Tories would have done on their own. However, I believe that any cuts in services now will be to the detriment of the economic recovery. We'll have to see on this, but the likelihood is that there will be large cuts in jobs and services, which will just push up unemployment. They boast that they have stopped the 'jobs tax' is only partly true, as missing from the document is an explanation that it will still apply to employees.

On schools, NHS and defence there is no detail, other than trident will be retained whilst Liberal Democrats, "(C)ontinue to make the case for alternatives." This is a disarming fudge, which basically means, "Make as much fuss as you like Nick, we're sticking to it!" Some of the policies on pupil premiums seem to have been agreed, but no mention on how the 'free schools' the Tories are so determined to introduce, will impact the budget. NHS funding will apparently increase, though no amount mentioned, and defence will get a full review, which all three parties had in their manifestos.

The tax measures are a real hotch potch of ideas, taken from both parties. Whilst this would be inevitable in a coalition, they should at least lead to a coherent whole. To start with, "(P)rovision will be made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to this coalition agreement." It doesn't strike me as much of a coalition if one of the partners will abstain on certain issues. Will they be free to vote against if they feel strongly enough? There are proposals to increase employee thresholds on national insurance, which sounds good on the face of it, but they can't cut taxes, and tackle the deficit. There is no focus in these plans, and any plans to start dealing with the deficit, and debt, will fall disproportionately on public spending, with the inevitable lose of jobs.

When it comes to banking, in all honesty I can't really disagree with what is in the document. It seems that they agree that greater regulation is needed, and that a levy should be imposed. I would however, be cautious on introducing it before an international agreement is completed, as it could lead to some banks leaving our shores. The banks have asked for a lot of what is proposed for them, but the only real concern I have is that no detail has been worked out yet, which means we don't know exactly what we're getting.

The Conservative quotas on immigration have been accepted lock, stock and barrel, but the ending of detention for children for 'immigration purposes' is a welcome one, if carried through quickly. I'm a bit surprised that the Liberal Democrats have signed up to this, as throughout the campaign, they were aware that immigration has brought many benefits, and that quotas are not the correct way to deal with the issue. I feel this will prove a sticking point when they get down to detail.

Political reform is one of the most important things the new government will deal with, although spun as superficial by the Conservatives before an agreement was reached. A referendum on the alternative vote will be passed by the house, probably without the need for whipping unless Labour suddenly start opposing it under the new leader. However, it's not in the house that there will be an issue, it's that almost certainly both parties will be campaigning for different outcomes. This can only make the coalition look divided, and it is preposterous for a government to introduce legislation for something they intend to campaign against. Reform of the upper house is now in flux, as it is not now certain it will be wholly elected, and the system used will be proportional representation. However, I fully expect Liberal Democrats and Labour to vote in favour of the wholly elected option, so should still go through.

Both parties have agreed on raising the retirement age, and will end all current 'welfare to work' programmes, to be replaced by a single programme. This sounds fine, but how would it be designed to cope with different needs at varying levels? For instance, someone in the 18-24 age bracket will have very different needs to an ex-professional with years of management experience. It always dangerous to treat everyone as the same, because nobody ends up satisfied.

Unfortunately the Liberal Democrats seem to be going along with the introduction of 'free' or 'charter' schools. It is dressed up as, "(T)hat new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand," but what it means is taking money out of the state system, including the schools building fund, to the detriment of the system. If parents wish to establish these schools, they should be privately funded, and not take funding away from the majority of children.

There will be referenda on any new European Union treaties, and no new transfer of powers. The Liberal Democrats have completely subsumed their European credentials to the Tories. It doesn't matter what they say about understanding they have differences, the Liberal Democrats have signed up to the Conservative view, including it appears the 'nutters' grouping. If the Lib Dems in the EU parliament join up here, then there could be a large number of defections.

Many of the proposals on civil liberties appear to be sensible and workable, but we'll have to see what they really do, and if they replace them with other legislation that performs the same task. I didn't have a problem with ID cards, but it appears they will be scrapped, which will be popular with many, but they aren't removing the DNA database, just remodelling it. Unfortunately the woolly language gets worse when they say good reason needs to be shown for storing of internet and email records, and there is no indication of criteria, so presumably they will act on police advice, the same advice that led to the ID card scheme etc, in the first place. However, I do like the relaxing of non-violent protest legislation, especially if it means I can make mine in Parliament Square this Saturday.

Many of the environmental plans are ones that most people will accept. The only opposition will come from climate change deniers, though there could be conflict over nuclear energy. The liberal Democrats have given the Tories a free run on this whilst being allowed to, "(M)aintain their opposition to nuclear power." This will probably include abstaining on the planning statement, even if they can speak against it. This is a derogation of duty on their part, unless they've got an agreement for Tories to abstain during the referendum, then this 'coalition' is all one way.

So as we enter a new era of British politics, it is impossible to know where it will end. But this document just appears to show how much the Liberal Democrats have given away, to a few sops on electoral reform, and agreements to abstain in areas of disagreement. This will not impress Liberal Democrat members much, and many voters now feel betrayed by their leadership. Many grassroots Conservatives will also be unhappy, especially with the concession on the AV referendum.

What the long term consequences for both parties, and leaders, will be is impossible to know at this early stage. There appears to be evidence that quite a few Liberal Democrats have been joining the Labour Party, though it is only if this is sustained will we be able to gauge the real feeling.

The big question is whether or not the coalition can survive for a full parliament. There are many differences in outlook between the partners. and the strains will begin to show very quickly. Quite a few Liberal Democrat MPs are ex-Labour Party members, especially Vince Cable the new Business Secretary. He may well find it too difficult to maintain working closely with the Tories, and is the candidate most likely to provide the 'Heseltine moment' of this administration.

Some of you may consider this event unlikely, but those of you who remember the mid-eighties, will recall how difficult it was for the more leftish Conservatives to live with the agenda of the Thatcher government. I can see Cable getting more and more frustrated with policy as the Conservatives attempt to implement much deeper cuts than he believes is right for the economy, and will eventually resign his post. Whether this has further consequences is far in the future, but I believe this coalition is very unstable, and I can't see it lasting the full term, regardless of what pieces of paper are signed.

As they stood in the rose garden at Downing Street this afternoon, (I suspect this will become a regular occurrence as the joint presidents become the focus of this alliance), there was a real love-in going on. Finishing each others sentences, they might have been twins who had grown up together. All the back biting and arguing of the campaign was gone, and I expected them to walk off holding hands.

But, in my opinion, whatever the relationship between the leaders, and the sops that have been offered, the fundamental differences will tear this coalition apart, which will bring it to an end much earlier than intended. The Labour Party is currently undergoing a leadership contest, and whoever replaces Gordon Brown will not have long to work out the direction they wish to take the party in.

Naturally I wish the new government well, and that they will go some way to solving some of our problems, but I fear that they will take us in the wrong direction, and that many people will lose their jobs, and that schools and other public services will suffer. All this is for the future, for the time being, good luck to them, because they are going to need it.