With the UK general election on 7 May 2015, the coalition will have served a full term. However, subsequent to the last election and the coalition being formed, I, like many, doubted it would last. In fact, I was sure of it. Fast forward five years and I need to eat a slice of humble pie as the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats managed to make their relationship of convenience work when many said it'd never last. But how did they manage it?
Prior to and during this Parliament, the signs have been there for the wheels to fall off the coalition. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats have certainly been the abused partner in a relationship that they've been determined to make work no matter how much they're derided by the Conservatives. Many would opine that to be a case of more fool them as the Liberal Democrat vote is likely to take a shellacking in this election. Yet they're arguably the glue that held the coalition together.
The referendum on AV (alternative vote) was a stipulation of the coalition put forward by the Liberal Democrats but was a compromise for the Liberal Democrats from their preference for proportional representation. Then, to rub salt in the wound, the referendum campaign saw the Conservatives mock their coalition partners for their pursuit of a more equitable distribution of seats before, during and after. During the campaign, Tory rhetoric became even more akin to a private school playground than it usually is. David Cameron further resembled the school yard bully, with his Bullingdon goons in the background mocking and jeering Nick Clegg, as if he was about to give him a wedgie while his good chum Gideon captured it on his phone and uploaded it to a social network. No wonder the coalition gave rise to the ‘Nick Clegg looking sad’ photos.
Similarly, the tuition fee hike saw another dark period for the Liberal Democrats during the coalition as they supported a move that went directly against one of their own manifesto promises. Angry protests from students, a sizeable bloc of the Liberal Democrat vote, should have told them it might not be the relationship for them. Though perhaps by then the damage was done and Nick Clegg sought to make the best of a bad situation by opting to stay put for the long haul until 2015.
Despite the hallmarks of a failed relationship, the persistence of the Liberal Democrats wasn't the only factor that preserved the coalition for a full parliament. And in retrospect, perhaps I and others were too hasty to sound the death knell for the coalition from the get-go.
Prior to the 2010 election, many commentators foresaw a hung parliament but that can be traced back to Tony Blair's resignation as Labour party leader and Prime Minister. Regardless of his transgressions over Iraq and his blinkered attempts to preserve the special relationship by supporting President Bush, it's difficult to argue that Blair didn't have the look and feel of a Prime Minister. Statesmen-like and gifted with a special quality, Blair never looked as if he was punching above his weight in office. That's putting aside any personal views of him. The same went for Margaret Thatcher, whose politics, ideology and policies certainly weren't in line with mine. She had the same prime ministerial aura about her. That meant the electorate saw her as such and duly voted for the Conservatives – just as in 1997 they voted for Labour in seeking Blair as their Prime Minister. He and the Labour Party were ready to govern and it was apparent to the electorate.
Though since Blair, no party leader from any party has had that special quality about them. To lead a party and to show potential to govern a country requires a special quality that isn't always tangible. But during the 2010 election, it was absent from all three party leaders.
Without being presented with a leader who has that special quality, the electorate has no credible alternative from the status quo and it’s little surprise that widespread public pressure against the coalition hasn’t been seen. If the coalition ran aground, what was the alternative? There wasn't one so the electorate settled for what they perceived to be the best of a mediocre situation.
A further argument for the coalition’s success has been voter apathy. As voter apathy has increased in recent years, it’s been compounded by a perception of all politicians and political parties being a homogeneous group. Consequently, the electorate hasn’t really had the motivation to push for a change in government let alone voice their desire for one.
Similarly to the public not perceiving any leader as befitting of the role of Prime Minister, Labour, as the main opposition party, hasn’t shown itself as ready to govern effectively, and more importantly differently, either. The Conservative-led coalition government has been responsible for some of the least egalitarian social and economic policies since Thatcher. Therefore the electorate, the wider public and the political landscape is arguably ripe for a refreshing brand of politics that seeks to facilitate a fairer society. The platform is there for Labour to showcase an alternative. But alas, they’ve struggled to rise to the challenge and they seemingly lack the chutzpah to dare to be different in promoting a new political agenda.
The opportunity has been there for Labour to seize over the last five years of being in opposition. Subsequent to the financial crisis, a strong voice articulating the frustrations, anger and solutions to the problems caused by the financial sector has been lacking from mainstream politics (the financial sector is also home to some of the Conservative party’s biggest donors, essentially bankrolling polices that serve their own interests while they continue with their transgressions). We’re also in the midst of a housing crisis where there is an extreme paucity of affordable and social housing. Meanwhile, the middle classes are in receipt of £9 billion of housing benefit as they swell the buy-to-let to let housing market and take advantage of low-income private renters. Now is the time for Labour or indeed any party to show there is another way but for the past five years it sadly hasn’t been forthcoming. Hence the coalition has managed to find its way to 2015 without any major mishaps due to a lack of credible alternatives.
So what of 7 May? I expect another hung parliament, probably with a confidence and supply arrangement instead of a formal coalition. Although regardless of the arrangement, unless there’s a meaningful shift in what the parties are able to offer in differentiating themselves from each other, this election will see the continued hiatus or indeed the end of the British two-party political system. If so, British politics could be experiencing political déjà vu in another five years.
Prior to and during this Parliament, the signs have been there for the wheels to fall off the coalition. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats have certainly been the abused partner in a relationship that they've been determined to make work no matter how much they're derided by the Conservatives. Many would opine that to be a case of more fool them as the Liberal Democrat vote is likely to take a shellacking in this election. Yet they're arguably the glue that held the coalition together.
 |
Similarly, the tuition fee hike saw another dark period for the Liberal Democrats during the coalition as they supported a move that went directly against one of their own manifesto promises. Angry protests from students, a sizeable bloc of the Liberal Democrat vote, should have told them it might not be the relationship for them. Though perhaps by then the damage was done and Nick Clegg sought to make the best of a bad situation by opting to stay put for the long haul until 2015.
Despite the hallmarks of a failed relationship, the persistence of the Liberal Democrats wasn't the only factor that preserved the coalition for a full parliament. And in retrospect, perhaps I and others were too hasty to sound the death knell for the coalition from the get-go.
Prior to the 2010 election, many commentators foresaw a hung parliament but that can be traced back to Tony Blair's resignation as Labour party leader and Prime Minister. Regardless of his transgressions over Iraq and his blinkered attempts to preserve the special relationship by supporting President Bush, it's difficult to argue that Blair didn't have the look and feel of a Prime Minister. Statesmen-like and gifted with a special quality, Blair never looked as if he was punching above his weight in office. That's putting aside any personal views of him. The same went for Margaret Thatcher, whose politics, ideology and policies certainly weren't in line with mine. She had the same prime ministerial aura about her. That meant the electorate saw her as such and duly voted for the Conservatives – just as in 1997 they voted for Labour in seeking Blair as their Prime Minister. He and the Labour Party were ready to govern and it was apparent to the electorate.
Though since Blair, no party leader from any party has had that special quality about them. To lead a party and to show potential to govern a country requires a special quality that isn't always tangible. But during the 2010 election, it was absent from all three party leaders.
Without being presented with a leader who has that special quality, the electorate has no credible alternative from the status quo and it’s little surprise that widespread public pressure against the coalition hasn’t been seen. If the coalition ran aground, what was the alternative? There wasn't one so the electorate settled for what they perceived to be the best of a mediocre situation.
A further argument for the coalition’s success has been voter apathy. As voter apathy has increased in recent years, it’s been compounded by a perception of all politicians and political parties being a homogeneous group. Consequently, the electorate hasn’t really had the motivation to push for a change in government let alone voice their desire for one.
Similarly to the public not perceiving any leader as befitting of the role of Prime Minister, Labour, as the main opposition party, hasn’t shown itself as ready to govern effectively, and more importantly differently, either. The Conservative-led coalition government has been responsible for some of the least egalitarian social and economic policies since Thatcher. Therefore the electorate, the wider public and the political landscape is arguably ripe for a refreshing brand of politics that seeks to facilitate a fairer society. The platform is there for Labour to showcase an alternative. But alas, they’ve struggled to rise to the challenge and they seemingly lack the chutzpah to dare to be different in promoting a new political agenda.
The opportunity has been there for Labour to seize over the last five years of being in opposition. Subsequent to the financial crisis, a strong voice articulating the frustrations, anger and solutions to the problems caused by the financial sector has been lacking from mainstream politics (the financial sector is also home to some of the Conservative party’s biggest donors, essentially bankrolling polices that serve their own interests while they continue with their transgressions). We’re also in the midst of a housing crisis where there is an extreme paucity of affordable and social housing. Meanwhile, the middle classes are in receipt of £9 billion of housing benefit as they swell the buy-to-let to let housing market and take advantage of low-income private renters. Now is the time for Labour or indeed any party to show there is another way but for the past five years it sadly hasn’t been forthcoming. Hence the coalition has managed to find its way to 2015 without any major mishaps due to a lack of credible alternatives.
So what of 7 May? I expect another hung parliament, probably with a confidence and supply arrangement instead of a formal coalition. Although regardless of the arrangement, unless there’s a meaningful shift in what the parties are able to offer in differentiating themselves from each other, this election will see the continued hiatus or indeed the end of the British two-party political system. If so, British politics could be experiencing political déjà vu in another five years.
