Conservatives on the verge of long term coalition with Lib Dems

Yesterday, following Gordon Brown’s resignation as Labour leader, the Conservatives took a calculated risk with their future by offering the Liberal Democrats a referendum on Alternative Voting (“AV”).  It was a move which was designed to prevent giving Labour anything concrete to offer the Liberal Democrats.  In a post written by me before the General Election, I indicated that the Conservatives should be prepared to make that offer.

Mathematically, it is possible for Labour to obtain a working majority with the Liberal Democrats by adding the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists.    That would take them to 324 MPs.  Bearing in mind that Sinn Fein do not take up their seats, that would be enough.  Certainly, there has been talk of Labour offering the Liberal Democrats a referendum on full proportional representation.  However, that would be a very different offer.  AV was in Labour’s manifesto.  PR was not.  The two voting systems are entirely different and there are many Labour MPs who will never accept PR.   The Conservative offer has effectively killed any chance that Labour had of remaining in power. 

The Liberal Democrats will know there are risks with entering into a coalition with the Conservatives.  Then again, there are political risks for them whatever they do.   A coalition with Labour would be without the legitimacy of an elected Prime Minister.   It would also be highly unstable and very unlikely to survive long.  That is why I am now confident that the Liberal Democrats will decide that their best position is in Government with the Conservatives.

There are those in the Conservative Party who believe that David Cameron has offered the Liberal Democrats too much.  I don’t think he has, not just for the reasons outlined above.  The Conservative objective remains to provide stable government for a minimum fixed term.  I now fully expect that term to be four years.  I also expect to see the Liberals in coalition.  That is what the majority of the Nation wants.  That is also what the Nation needs.

The future for Northern Ireland Conservatives

Jeffrey Peel has said that UCUNF is dead.  He may well be right.  In his last post before the General Election, Chekov suggested that it could not survive a bad result.

The General Election has left the United Kingdom with a hung parliament.  This could mean that instead of waiting for four years before the next general election, we may only be waiting for less than a year.  In addition, we have Assembly elections to think about next year.  If we are going to offer something attractive to the Northern Ireland electorate before these elections, important decisions need to be made now.

The UCUNF project offered something new to the Northern Ireland electorate.  It offered a chance for voters to participate in National Politics and select the next Government of the United Kingdom.  It was a worthy and noble project.  It was not the fault of the Northern Irish electorate that they did not take up that opportunity.  The handling of the project was a shambles.  Furthermore, once a deal was made for a single unionist candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the project became compromised. 

The Alliance Party and the Liberal Democrats achieved something that should have been an achievement of UCUNF.  Just before polling day, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats publicly took ownership of the Alliance Party’s election campaign.  The appeal by Nick Clegg to support Naomi Long, amplified by the report in the Belfast Telegraph, will go down in Northern Ireland’s political history as the first successful piece of campaigning in living memory by a National political party for a candidate contesting a Northern Ireland Parliamentary seat.   

The Ulster Unionist Party looks set to tear itself apart.  In one camp, there are those that want to draw the party towards a shared Unionist home with the DUP.  They will seek to influence uncertain members by telling them that the DUP has moved away from its “no compromise” days.  In another camp, there are those who would like to lead the party in the direction of a more progressive type of unionism.  There are people in first camp who will blame the UCUNF project for the party’s present position.  The reality is that those same people – some of them very senior UUP members – sabotaged the UCUNF project. 

I would like to think that the progressive camp would gain enough influence on the rank and file membership to seize control of the party.  Sadly, that is unlikely to happen.   However, even if, hypothetically, the progressive camp did seize control, there are so many senior figures in the other camp that the result would be extreme instability. A highly unstable UUP is not fit for a project like UCUNF.  This election has borne that out very clearly.  In conclusion, I can see no future for the UCUNF project on the basis of an alliance between the two parties.

Had there been some measure of success for UCUNF, I believe that eventually, it would have merged with the Northern Ireland Conservatives as part of a federal structure where the new party enjoyed autonomy over its local policies and candidate selection but still remained affiliated to the main Conservative Party.    

Northern Ireland Conservatives will appreciate that since David Cameron became our leader, our branch of the party has ceased to be neglected, as we previously were, like a forgotten outpost at the edge of the frontier.  At grass roots level, the party has benefited and membership has grown considerably in the last four years.  That is appreciated and it is hoped and expected that this support will continue.  Last year, I was very encouraged to hear that David Cameron’s commitment to bringing conservativism in Northern Ireland was a long-term one and would not be coming to an end if there were significant disappointments along the way.  I am confident that commitment will continue.

The deal over Fermanagh and South Tyrone has altered our position as a cross-community party.  The road to achieving normal politics in Northern Ireland now looks longer and harder.  If the decision to field a compromise candidate in that constituency had been left to Northern Ireland Conservatives, it would not have happened.  The fact that it did is in no small part due to the pressure on the main Conservative Party to win as many seats as possible when a hung parliament became likely.  It was a classic conflict of interest situation and it underpins a powerful argument for changing the constitution of the Northern Ireland Conservative Party.

Today, we find ourselves damaged by the UCUNF project to the extent that Conservatives are now tainted, by association, with sectarianism.   We need something radical to change very quickly, if we are to get back on course towards our long term political aims in Northern Ireland.

The conflict of interest point, which I have outlined above and the need to build up our credibility with Catholics, in particular, both form part of a case for more power and control to be given to Northern Ireland Conservatives over matters which include regional policy, candidate selection and the development of a new brand.  Effectively, I am advocating independence for Northern Ireland Conservatives on all crucial decisions except in relation to National policymaking and funding. 

Underpinning that proposal, a more autonomously independent Northern Ireland Conservative Party would have a much greater chance of recognition as a cross-community party by entrenching certain rules within its constitution.  One such rule should be that there are no sectarian deals on seats or candidates with other unionist parties. 

I believe this is the right model for Northern Ireland Conservatives going forward.  I also believe it is right for the main Conservative Party too.

David Cameron has played a blinder to get to this position

At the General Election, the Conservatives registered a count of 307 seats.   Throughout 2009, it looked as though we would win an overall majority.   Having noted the performance of UKIP, I am now convinced that what cost the Conservatives that overall majority was in large part connected with the withdrawal of the proposal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  UKIP had always said that they would have supported the Conservatives at the General Election if they had maintained the policy.

There are some Conservatives (Lord Tebbit was one of them) who wanted the Conservatives to continue with the policy on holding a referendum.  They may have won an election outright but they would have been taking a much bigger risk with the National Interest and the party’s interest further down the line.  A referendum on the Lisbon treaty post ratification would have been a referendum on membership of the Euro.  The ultimate scenario could have spelt disaster.   Britain might have voted itself out of Europe and the Conservative Party might have fatally torn itself apart.

Looking at Conservative Policy and politics over the last four years, it is quite obvious that in appreciating the scale of the task for getting back to power, the Conservatives were planning the scenario of a hung parliament, just as they were looking at every alternative to avoid it.  Competing aggressively for the centre ground of politics was one part of the strategy.  Their green policy was not just an ethical consideration of the Environment.  Their libertarian approach to politics was not merely shaped by philosophy.  Much of the drive behind these policies was a determination to fight the ground of the Liberal Democrats.  In large part, this strategy succeeded.  There was little opportunity for the Lib Dems to advance until the TV debate during the election campaign. 

Consider also the Conservative strategy for Scotland.  The Conservatives did not win any new seats in Scotland.  However, they did buy political kudos from the Scottish Nationalists by agreeing to allow them to govern at the Scottish Assembly.  The Scottish Nationalists have six MPs.  They could, passively or actively, play a crucial part in the negotiations for a new Government in the next few days. 

Consider also the Conservative approach to Northern Ireland.  The Conservatives had hoped that the link up with the UUP would have delivered them extra seats.  Alas, by the beginning of the year, once it became obvious that the link up with the UUP was not going to deliver, the Conservatives got their hands dirty with the DUP, hence the Hatfield House talks and the Fermanagh South Tyrone deal.  The latter gamble did not pay off.  Whilst I did not agree with the deal, it was understandable.  We can at least say that it was out of Character for our leadership to agree that.  The hung parliament spectre was the driving force behind it.  In a future post, I will be setting out my proposal as to how the Conservatives in Northern Ireland should respond to the problem left behind by that deal.

Recently, it was reported that the Conservatives were promising an extra £200 million following further talks with the DUP.  That is entirely consistent with a stratagem to deal with the hung Parliament problem.  Unlike deals on representation and candidates, I do not consider that kind of deal to be pernicious.  The Government has to do what is best for the Country as a whole.  However, there are others who will criticise such a deal as pandering to sectarianism.  Indeed, Lord Ashdown yesterday was asking the question as to whether David Cameron was going to do a deal with “the Orangemen.”  

Lord Ashdown’s comments betray a fear within the Liberal Democrat camp that their hand might not quite be strong enough to push for for an unconditional committment to their holy grail of proportional representation in Parliamentary Elections. 

With the option of governing on the basis of a minority government, the Conservatives, just as they threw away the referendum policy on Europe, have to consider the National interest in their approach to forming a Government.  The Country has a debt mountain to deal with.  We have a war in Afghanistan.  The Country needs the strongest possible Government.  It is absolutely right that the Conservatives should give priority to trying to make a deal with the Liberal Democrats.  

Yesterday, David Cameron set out the Conservative position.  He made a momentous speech setting out bullet point terms for the Lib Dems joining in partnership.  He outlined the issues on which there would not be negotiation, such as the policy on immigration.  In proposing an all party committee on electoral reform, with a promise to implement legislation on the basis of its recommendations, David Cameron has effectively made it almost impossible for the Lib Dems to become involved in a grand coalition with Gordon Brown.  Indeed, I proposed in one of my recent posts that David Cameron should make some sort of offer on elections for precisely that reason.  David Cameron has now shot Gordon Brown’s Fox. 

Taking together everything that has happened, David Cameron has played a blinder for the Conservatives since the moment he became our leader.  Yes, he makes mistakes but he always manages to adjust very quickly.  It is hard not to look at his performance with a certain amount of awe.  He may yet turn out to be one of Britain’s greatest ever politicians.

David Cameron’s TV debate victory gives his troops the boost they needed

Last night, Conservative supporters were willing and wishing David Cameron to come out on top of the party leader’s TV debate.  David Cameron did not disappoint. 

Gordon Brown, having yesterday badly handled his “bigot” gaffe looked like a man whose confidence had been shot to pieces.  Indeed, he referred to it again. 

“There is a lot to this job and, as you saw yesterday, I don’t get all of it right.”

David Cameron managed to put clear blue water between the Conservatives and Labour on policy by highlighting the socialist tendancy to rely on the State to solve the nation’s problems. 

Cameron made two notable low blows against Gordon Brown.  He told the audience that Gordon Brown was unable to distinguish between the State and the Economy.  The nastiest punch of all came near the end when he accused Labour of regarding anybody earning more than £20,000 a year as being rich.

David Cameron needed to do more than just beat Gordon Brown.  He needed to come out on top of Nick Clegg.  He did not disappoint here either.  He shot two massive torpedoes into Nick Clegg’s cruiser on the Euro and Immigration. 

Commenting on the Lib Dem’s unstinting support for joining the Euro, David Cameron said this: 

“If we were in the euro now, your taxes and your National Insurance wouldn’t be going to schools and hospitals and police officers, they would be going to bail out Greece”, said David Cameron

Mr. Cameron also landed another blow on Nick Clegg over an amnesty proposal for some existing illegal immigrants.  The offending part of the Lib Dem manifesto says this

“We will allow people in Britain who have been in Britain without the correct papers for 10 years, but speak English, have a clean record and want to live long term to earn their citizenship”         [Lib-Dem Manifesto p.76]

Nick Clegg was caught in denial.  “I’m not advocating an amnesty,” he said.

It appears that Conservative prospects have gone up a couple of notches after last night but I would still not bet on a winning lead emerging in the opinion polls.  One thing is for sure. The outcome of the debate will sap Labour morale just as it will energise Conservative activists will go into the final week of the campaign.

Gambling first-past-the-post may be the best way to save it

David Milliband - Britain's next Prime Minister?

The prospect of a hung parliament has already started to bring out the worst in our politicians.  In particular, we are seeing how politicians are prepared to breach political ethics in order to advance personal or party self-interest.  Of course, they will argue, at the end of the day that their self-interest and the interest of the nation are inseparable.  

Just to give examples, we have already had our own local one in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  David Cameron has effectively torn up the Memorandum of Understanding, reached with the UUP.  I don’t think that would have happened if the deteriorating position of Conservative electoral prospects had not loomed so large in the background.    

A few weeks ago, I highlighted the policy of the Labour Party to hold a referendum on a change of the system of voting.  It is a policy which Labour would never have concocted when it was in the ascendancy.   There are many Labour politicians who still believe, like the Conservatives, that the first past the post system is the one which is most likely to lead to strong elected Government.  Alas, the thinking behind the policy has little to do with the National interest.  It is Gordon Brown’s pure self ambition to remain as Prime Minister. 

If I was a novel writer, I would now be weaving a conspiracy theory into the facts.  It is February 2010.  Gordon Brown has just launched Labour’s green paper on changing the voting system.  The Conservative position is weakening.  Opportunities are knocking and two men, hungry for power, meet in the middle of the night at a secret location.  One of them is Nick Clegg.  The other is David Milliband. 

Back to the facts.  The Conservatives have declared, rightly, that they will not compromise on the first past the post system.  Unfortunately, it is not likely that the system will survive.  It is the one issue which shortens the odds of a Liberal – Labour coalition, rather than a Conservative – Liberal one. 

Nick Clegg - Probably Britain's next "King maker"

Nick Clegg appears to have put obstacles in the way of a Lib/Lab coalition.   He has said that the party with the Largest number of votes is the one which should have the primary right to be in power.  

So, assuming that the Conservatives have the largest number of votes, he will be talking, firstly, with David Cameron.  His next pre-condition, a change in the electoral system, has already been ruled out by the Conservatives, appearing to make a Con/Lib coalition inconceivable. 

The other pre-condition that Nick Clegg has laid down is the demise of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.  How does he expect to achieve that?   As a conspiracy theorist, I might have suggested that the path to power had already been mapped out for him.  

Actually, my desire for a conspiracy is probably a back-door way of trying to underrate Nick Clegg.  I will admit here that I did underrate him.   A few weeks ago, it looked as though he would be a leader in charge of a party that lost a third of its seats to the Conservatives.  Now he is on the verge of having some power.   There are parallels between his position and the Earl of Warwick (“the King Maker”) during the Wars of the Roses.  

It is possible for Clegg to generate a coup within Labour simply by positioning himself in the way he has just done.  This could turn out to be one of the most brilliant political gambits of modern times.   Once there is a hung parliament, the electorate will expect the Liberals to reach some sort of a deal and compromise.  The Liberals will not get total PR from Labour but they will see the referendum as an opportunity to advance their policy.  However, they will need to extract something from Labour to remain credible.  Gordon Brown’s head on a platter will become the compromise. 

There will be resistance to that scenario.  Supporters of Gordon Brown will complain that they would be dancing to the tune of Nick Clegg.   

However, there is much attraction in this scenario for Labour.  They will have had renewal of their leadership without losing power.  The acceptable and much more electable face of David Milliband will appear as Prime Minister.  He will open the Olympic Games.  The memory will be etched in the Public mind.  By the time of the next election, the economy will have strengthened and the bad times will be well and truly over. 

There are two apparent problems with that but I think they would be ignored.  David Cameron has made the point that if there is an unelected Prime Minister, there has to be another General Election within 6 months.   He can say that but there is really no precedent for this situation.  Perhaps a more difficult problem for Labour is their internal rules.  Gordon Brown will have to co-operate with the coup, to a certain extent.  He would have to remain party leader for a couple of months until the new Prime Minister is officially elected.  I believe, however, that Gordon Brown could be persuaded to go.  There is something in it for him too.  He can proudly proclaim himself as the man who led Labour and the country through the worst recession since the War.  He would have his own legacy.  As he sails off into the sunset, he might even manage a real smile. 

Can Cameron do anything to stop this?  He can win the election, of course but I am assuming that the Conservatives will not have enough seats to form a Government without a coalition.  

David Cameron - Gambling first past the post may be the best way to try and save it

Perhaps there is one way that he can make it very awkward for Clegg.  He can offer a referendum changing the voting system to AV, just as Labour has done.  This is a risk with the system which he may have to take as being the lesser of two evils.  

Some Conservatives would find this very difficult to swallow.  It is not in their manifesto and they might balk at having to explain this apparent “u” turn to the public.  However, Cameron has the communication skills to deal with that. 

If they did such a deal, the Conservatives would be in a stronger position to campaign against the change while in power.  Furthermore, Labour MPs in opposition, particularly those who were reluctant will not feel so bound by their own policy and be more likely to campaign against it.

 We have never had so much uncertainty in British Politics.  It is now looking increasingly certain, firstly, that Nick Clegg will be the “Kingmaker” and secondly, that we will still not know Britain’s next Prime Minister by May 7^th.

Election 2010: the Northern Ireland seats really do count

Writing in the Sunday Times today, Michael Portillo forecasts that David Cameron will be Prime Minister “whatever the Maths.”  In other words, even if there is a hung Parliament which gives Labour a larger number of seats, Labour will not be allowed to be the Party of Government.

If the Conservatives are the largest party in Parliament, then there is no doubt that David Cameron will form the next Government.  The scenario that I have trouble with is where Labour has the largest number of seats in a hung parliament but where that number is still significantly ahead of the Conservatives. 

Portillo says

“If Labour fails to secure a majority — even if it wins more seats than the Conservatives — it ought to be booted out and in all likelihood would be.”

Portillo’s argument centres on the attitude of the minority parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats.  He says

“It would be especially difficult for the Liberal Democrats to support Labour if it had lost to the Tories in terms of the popular vote — the number of actual votes cast — which seems all but certain.”

Thre is little doubt that Clegg would not support Labour if the Conservatives were the largest party in Parliament.  Clegg partly declared his position on this scenario more than 18 months ago.  Clegg would support the setting of a budget but reserve the right to oppose public non-financial measures taken by the Government.  In the first year of the new parliament (at least), Cameron would effectively have a free hand to govern.

What is Clegg’s position if Labour is the largest party?  

The Conservatives only need a (uniform) swing of 1.5% against Labour to become the largest party in terms of the number of votes cast.  However, because the Conservatives pile up their supporters in the safe seats, they would need a (uniform) swing of 4.4% to become the party in Parliament with the largest number of seats (source: UK polling report swing calculator).   

Speaking to the BBC on the Andrew Marr show, Nick Clegg recently said

“Whichever party has the strongest mandate from the British people, it seems to me obvious in a democracy they have the first right to seek to try and govern, either on their own or with others “ 

What does “strongest mandate” mean – the largest number of MPs or the largest number of votes cast?  Unfortunately, the point was not properly “nailed” in that interview. 

If it means the largest number of votes cast, then on a 1.5% uniform swing, the Conservatives could end up with just 234 seats compared with Labour’s 324.  Labour would only be 2 seats short of an overall majority in Parliament.  In practice, with Sinn Fein winning 5 seats and not sitting in parliament, they would effectively have an overall majority. 

Let us now suppose that there is a uniform swing against Labour of 4.39%.  In that scenario, the Conservatives are just short of being the largest party in Parliament.  Labour would be the largest party in Parliament with 282 seats but with only 31.8% of the votes cast.  The Conservatives would have 37.66% of the vote and 281 seats.  Labour would be 44 seats short of an overall majority.  There is no way that Labour could effectively govern without the support of the Lib Dems.  The Conservatives might be able to form a Government with the forbearance of the Lib Dems but it would be highly unstable.  It would not be possible for the Conservatives to legislate the most controversial aspects of their manifesto.  A further General Election (perhaps within 2 years) would seem likely.

In between the two extremes of Labour having the largest number of seats in a hung parliament, there is a grey area where the smaller minority parties could make the difference.   In such a scenario, MPs from the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the DUP could extract concessions from Labour to keep them in power.  For example, they could agree not to alter the Barnett formula.  Such a strategy would not be without considerable risk for Labour in the medium and longer term. 

In the end, the onus is on the Prime Minister to offer his resignation to the Queen.  If Labour is still the largest parliamentary party, they would be within their rights to review the possibility of continuing in Government.  There is already some historical precedent.

In February 1974, Labour won the largest number of seats (301 against 297 for the Conservatives) but fell short of an overall majority by 19 seats.  The outgoing Prime Minister, Ted Heath, did not resign immediately.  He only did so after attempting to form a coalition Government with the Liberals, led by Jeremy Thorpe.  In theory Ted Heath could have tried to form a coalition with the Ulster Unionists (then 11 MPs) but the price would have been the dismantling of Sunningdale.  Harold Wilson became prime minister for the second time but his Government did not have the stability that it needed.  After some of its bills were voted down in the Commons, Wilson called another general election later that year.  Labour won the October 1974 election with a slim overall majority.  They held power until May 1979.

In theory, even if Labour is the largest party in a hung Parliament, they could continue in Government so long as they are not too far short of an overall majority.  It is hard to say what the “tipping” point would be here. Labour could probably just about continue in power 20 short of an overall majority with the sort of deal that I have suggested. Labour would be in this position with a uniform swing against them of about 2.7%. The likelihood?

In their worst opinion poll this year (November 15), the Conservative lead was only 6%.  (Con 37%, Lab 31%, L.Dem 17%) Even on those figures, the Conservatives would still (just) be the largest party in Parliament. 

The bookies will not take your bet on David Cameron becoming Prime Minister.  However, the events of 1974 demonstrate how difficult it is for the party in power to govern efficiently and securely without a sufficient number of MPs.  It also is a reminder to all of us in the Conservative Party and the UUP that the votes cast for the Northern Ireland Parliamentary seats will play a crucial part in determining the strength of the next UK Government.