Coalition lessons from Holyrood
A market meltdown awaits Britain's party leaders if they can't deliver some statement of intent before Monday's opening.
A buffeting for sterling, the bond markets and the London stock exchange is not what they need as the background to talks that will determine the shape of British government for perhaps five years, and the fate of the public finances and public services.
The irony is, of course, that it's the operation and the failings of the markets that put the politicians in the position they're now in.
And the political calculations they're making will be dominated by their fear of taking the blame for the cuts and tax rises to come.
Media pressure
This makes the talks on coalition - or a deal to ensure a minority Tory administration is not brought down on vital votes - very different to those on which I reported in a previous life at Holyrood.
But with so little experience of coalition negotiations in the UK system, it's worth noting a few of the lessons learned, particularly those being taken by Lib Dems such as Lord (Jim) Wallace of Tankerness, who led his party into its first peacetime role in government for 80 years, and who is now advising Nick Clegg.
The deals struck in 1999 and 2003 between Labour and the Lib Dems were much easier to construct than those now facing Westminster politicians, for three main reasons. One, there was no doubt that Labour had the dominant position, and as second party, the SNP could not hope to put together an alliance.
Two, the system required parties (and the civil service) to plan for coalition, so the manifestos fitted together relatively easily. Talks only focussed on a few points of difficult disagreement, and media pressure was a factor in driving them to a conclusion very rapidly, at least by continental standards.
Disproportionate power
A major sticking point in 1999 was over student fees. One problem there was that Labour at Westminster was pressurising Labour at Holyrood not to give ground. It did, all the same.
In 2003, the problem was over voting reform for councils, and that's much closer to the position now being faced at Westminster. It was not in Labour's interest to give ground, and then leader Jack McConnell was under pressure from some MSPs and his councillors not to concede the Single Transferrable Vote system.
He did concede it to the Lib Dems, transforming the politics of local government. And some within Labour were, privately, grateful that external pressure on the party was a useful way of forcing it to modernise, removing the complacency and factionalism that built up in councils dominated by one party.
There are two lessons here for this weekend at Westminster. One is that coalitions can give cover for leaders to do things that their parties may not like. The other is that smaller parties have disproportionate power.
Nick Clegg may be disappointed with his share of votes and seats, and he may be far behind the Tories. But he does not need to concede that he only gets his way a proportionate amount of the time, or on a proportionate amount of the issues.
If he brings to the table the votes that Conservatives need for a majority, he can ask for anything he wants. And if a deal is done, he and the LibDem group will continue to wield a veto - particularly on issues that are not spelled out in any partnership agreement. There is nothing proportionate about the power he now wields.
Escape route
In the case of Scottish Lib Dems doing a deal at Holyrood, their position was weakened by their desire to do a deal. But the way things look at Westminster, there are plenty reasons why Nick Clegg might want to find an escape route.
Most notable among them is the pain and the blame that lies ahead.
He's stressed that he's up for being responsible at a time when the public finances require that. But just how responsible will he be, and how responsible will his party allow him to be?
On that money question, there lie significant differences between Holyrood and Westminster. The 1999 and 2003 deals were struck during a period of unprecedented increases in public finances. The difficult choices were over how to spend the bonanza.
And manifestos at Holyrood are much more detailed. The two partnership agreements have been likewise. But the manifestos at Westminster are less so. And the nature of the powers held there - over the economy, public spending totals, foreign affairs and defence - require much more flexibility in responding to events and external pressures.
That's true in any newly-elected parliament at Westminster. It's particularly true of this one, in which those notorious "events", of the economic and market variety, were flaring ominously on polling day itself.
It will be much more difficult to get a coalition deal when the big issues lying ahead are so unpredictable.
Stroppy Labour
On that, a lot will depend on the personal chemistry between the leaders of the coalition parties. If it's like Holyrood, they'll take up much of their time in continuously negotiating their way through differences and difficulties.
Between 1999 and 2003, that meant Jim Wallace struggling to herd the Lib Dem cats into backing Labour - or using them as leverage to get better deals out of the three Labour First Ministers with whom he worked.
The 2003 deal had more nailed down, the more wayward Lib Dems were brought into the tent, and it was Labour backbenchers that were more likely to get stroppy about demands being made by Lib Dems.
That's a reminder of a vital point in any coalition negotiations, particularly ones taking place where all the party leaders start from a position of weakness and disappointment.
Parties are, themselves, coalitions of interests and factions. From 1990 to 1997, the Conservative government led by John Major was a coalition of moderates and Thatcherite Eurosceptics.
From 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair's government was an extraordinary coalition of Blairite and Brownite factions, absorbing much of its energy in internal fighting and negotiations.
Ministerial Mondeos
And of course, much of that came down to arguments about jobs. The golden rule applied by Scottish Lib Dems about coalition talks is to leave the ministerial jobs, and who gets them, to the last stage of talks.
In 1999 and 2003, the jobs seemed quite attractive. In the media, there was much talk of the perks including ministerial Mondeos.
The jobs seem much less attractive now, even if they have a chauffeur and something much bigger than a Mondeo - and particularly if the Lib Dems' Vince Cable is to be offered anything involving the wielding of an axe in the Treasury.
Hullo, I'm Douglas Fraser, and I'm business and economy editor at ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland. Welcome to my blog, where you can read my take on money matters, viewed from a Scottish perspective.
Comment number 1.
At 9th May 2010, LondonHarris wrote:With everything at Westminister up in the Air, along with whatever any Political outcomes we will in the UK be seeing in due course, there will ba a Fiscal - Meltdown of Sterling.
Add into this Toxic mix the fact that should the Conservatives be heading the next Westminister Government in any shape or form, along with the fact that in Scotland the Conservatives have been totally rejected by the Scottish electrate, than as much as today the Lib - Dems are requiring as a minority grouping that PR should should be upon the Political Agenda, then again equally given the complete lack of any overall Political Control at Westminister, then indeed NOW is the right time for a "New" Politics in Scotland for a Vote upon full Scottish Independence, whereby the People can choose which Scottish Political Party shoud be running Scotland away from the un-elected Conservatives at Westminister.
It would appear to me now to be the best time for Alex Salmon and Others to seek a full Scottish Mandate to ensure that the People of Scotland have returned into an Independent Scottish Parliament the Groupings of the Candidates that they have chosen, rather than to have a Conservative Government at Westminister imposed upon them.
The problem is, that while other Countries are awaiting the back - room deals to surface because of the Fiscal Crisis in Europe, any Fiscal Crisis will simply have to wait untill some out-come is known as to where the Political make-up of Britain stands, for there is no doubting that there will have to be another General Election in the UK again at some time sooner rather than later.
PR now, along with Full Scottish Independence is today now a must for the future.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 9th May 2010, FishFingers wrote:LondonHarris - if independence were to happen, who is going to plug the hole left when half the companies operating in Scotland leave as a result of the country not being in the EU?
Who is going to pay for the new currency, new defence system and new stock exchange needed to come anywhere close to the prosperity it has now?
Sorry, but drawing a line along Hadrian's wall and claiming that because some people did not vote Conservative above it means it needs to be cut out of the UK completely is ridiculous. The UK voted for a Conservative government, including over 400,000 people in Scotland.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 9th May 2010, sid_ts63 wrote:how ironic- less than 3 days since we went to the polls and the real power brokers are flexing their muscles and demanding that a decision of this magnitude be rushed by their lackeys in Parliament just to protect their investments and their bonuses. who's in charge of GB PLC ? well it's certainly not the politicians now is it !!
Sid
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 9th May 2010, LondonHarris wrote:2. At 8:40pm on 09 May 2010, FishFingers wrote:
LondonHarris - if independence were to happen, who is going to plug the hole left when half the companies operating in Scotland leave as a result of the country not being in the EU?
Who is going to pay for the new currency, new defence system and new stock exchange needed to come anywhere close to the prosperity it has now?
Sorry, but drawing a line along Hadrian's wall and claiming that because some people did not vote Conservative above it means it needs to be cut out of the UK completely is ridiculous. The UK voted for a Conservative government, including over 400,000 people in Scotland.
------------------------------------------------------------
Its very fishy to suggest that 400,000 People in Scotland voted for the Conservatives while upwards to 4.0 Million more did not.
What is totally ridiculous is to expect David Cameron to be delivering Proportional Representation to make the 400.000 lost Tory votes in Scotland count at all never mind the Ideas that a Hung Parliament at Westminister is also some how good for Scotland.
And, as for this forever complete nonsense about Hadrian's Wall, well I don't know of any Wall's left in Europe since the demise of the Berlin Wall, and anyway all the Countries in Europe still exist, both in Name and Culture.
So why should anyone living in Scotland be treated any different, or have they got to do what England tells them what is good for them always from Westminister forever.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 9th May 2010, Robin Ruisseaux wrote:The Scottish Lib Dems: A Warning from History.
Are the Scottish Liberal Democrats a "progressive" party?
In 2007 their "progressive" principles meant they couldn't bare to discuss a democratic referendum the Scots on their constitutional future. Dropping the referendum (including the Lib Dems option) was a precondition on talks with the SNP. We've not forgotten.
When it came to the Calman Commission they ditched their federal Devo Max solution and put the hand brake on progressing devolution. We've not forgotten.
Now they are talking to the Tories with no preconditions on the principle of PR - News 24 won't allow me to forget. I suspect we won't forget the Lib Dems being the fig leaf for Tory rule over Scotland.
They might as well drop 'Scottish' and 'Democrats' from their name. How about an old new name - Liberal Unionists.
Mind you, the Liberal Unionists weren't the progressive wing of Gladstone's party - they couldn't bare progressing Irish Home Rule. They became the Tories in Scotland.
It is nice to see old friends reunited, but can anyone remember what happened to the Tories in Scotland? We've not forgotten. The 'Scottish' Lib Dems shouldn't either.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 9th May 2010, Robin Ruisseaux wrote:From Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest:
LADY BRACKNELL : [Sternly]... What are your politics?
JACK: Well, I am afraid I really have none. I am a Liberal Unionist.
LADY BRACKNELL: Oh, they count as Tories. They dine with us.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 10th May 2010, LondonHarris wrote:Just what did the Cons and David Cameron means by CHANGE, since CHANGE was all over every Tory Banner during the General Election.
Now, just what so far is there that has CHANGED in the Conservative approach to letting the PEOPLE have more say about the running of Parliament, or even perhap that well long spung out claim by Cameron to advance into a NEW ERA in Politics, except by instead meaning: Business as usual.
But so far what has the Tories wanted to give - up for any real Re-newal in British Politics?
Well, as it comes as no surprise I'm afraid the Answer is - NOTHING, is what DC has in mind, since he will find quite simply that his Party won't let him, but then again Cameron knew this BEFORE the General Election, since Hair - Brush Dave was only pushed - out to Win Control of Parliament so that the Conservative Party machine could take over again the running down of the UK.
Do you now ALL want a Re-run of the General Election: I bet you do, for if by any chance so far you don't, well give it another Week and you will soon change your minds.
New Conservatives = same Old Policies, and this will NEVER change.
Therefore, what is this NEW Conservative Marching - Tune, that goe's like this: What do WE WANT, WE DON'T KNOW, and when do we want it - NOW.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 10th May 2010, redrobb wrote:Money Speaks! certainly before and certainly well after this election! Even if the wider populace scream foul the mechanisims of the state will continue, always does. The whole point of ones civic duty is meaningless when the democratic process goes from one extreme to the other!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 10th May 2010, invernevis wrote:To get a Tory Government possibly now in the future and all that implies for Scotland, don't vote Tory, (why would you after seeing Sally Magnusson's documentary last night?), just vote Lib Dem!
Do yout think that all those voters in Scotland who voted Lib Dem last week know they could actually have voted for the Tories? What "spin" will Tavish Scott put on this one?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 10th May 2010, CComment wrote:Yesterday you said : "A market meltdown awaits Britain's party leaders if they can't deliver some statement of intent before Monday's opening".
Oh yes ? As events this Monday morning have shown, alarmist doom-mongering nonsense, trying to implant the notion that "the markets", which are nothing more than glorified bookmakers, are somehow more important than our democratic processes. It really is high time all you guys in 24/7 news started reporting news instead of trying to spook people with your "expert opinions" which are nearly always part of the problem, not the solution.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)