The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

After we hung ’em

Twelve immediate reflections on the coalition.

1. David Cameron is the adroit driver of the coalition. He proposed an offer that the weakened Lib Dems couldn't refuse. His own strategy is to replace Tory nationalism with a 21st-century version of One-Nation "Whig" Conservatism, one that can appeal to urban and suburban multicultural Britain. (See my article "The end of Thatcherism" at OurKingdom.) Don't blame Nick; Labour wasn't interested in changing.

2. Nick Clegg's speech today confirms his commitment to the "modern liberty" agenda of rolling back the intrusive, database state. It is a tremendously positive outcome of the coalition agreement and a framework of principle that helps bind it together. Tragically, Labour were positive enemies of progress in this respect and don't understand what has hit them. Just because the BBC refuses to cover an issue doesn't mean it is not important.

3. But the coalition smacks of an attempt to create a new establishment (male, public school, enlightened) to replace the turpitude of New Labour's political class. While it is wonderful on liberty, noises about appointing swarms of new lords suggest an underlying attempt to preserve the old order. The expenses scandal isn't over yet.

4. The Tory aim is to win the next election outright. The Lib Dems need a strategy that will leave them stronger not weaker when they leave the coalition. If, as he told James Macintyre, Nick Clegg wants to be prime minister, he has to be better at playing chess than David Cameron.

5. The Tories will be stupid to tell voters we can decide on our electoral system and then refuse to permit us the choice of a significantly different one. They can't "restore trust" by spending millions on a referendum designed not to trust us. The Lib Dems will be hammered, too, if they go along with this. A proportional choice should be included in the referendum. Liberty can only be safeguarded by democracy but democracy is the coalition's political fault line.

6. A new generation that grew up under the spin of New Labour, and for which the wit and facility of the web are second nature, is starting to mobilise against being fitted up by half-measures that preserve the old regime. The demand for fair votes has taken to the streets under the colour of suffrage and added a new dimension to UK politics. The purple revolution may pause for breath but it is likely to grow -- it is an irresistible claim, not a protest.

7. Britain is much better in many ways thanks to New Labour, but the new leaders will need not just to admit they were wrong on Iraq, but explain why they persisted in being wrong when so many of us, including the Lib Dems, were right. A dishonest electoral system gave them many more seats than they deserved, but this will be corrected and they have no chance of expanding the support they need until they rethink what kind of a state they offer voters, and how we can be sure it will be both politically and economically honest, as well as creating policies that don't need borrowed money. If, like the Compass "A New Hope" conference sponsored by the New Statesman, Labour ignores the implications of its database state, then its cause is already hopeless and it will lose the next election.

8. The desire to preserve the Union and prevent a boost for the SNP in Scotland was an important motive for Cameron's offer of a coalition. Otherwise, the government would have had one MP, rather than 12, from north of the border. But its effect might be to destroy the Lib Dems in the Scottish Parliament elections next year. The national question is a burning fuse that might be slowed but can't be extinguished.

9. The coalition agreement stipulates that there will be a report on what to do about the West Lothian Question, that is to say, the unfairness of the present arrangements for the English (England returned a Tory majority). The official answer to the West Lothian Question has always been not to ask it. Once England enters the mix as an acknowledged grievance, stand back!

10. The row over whether parliament can be forced to rewrite the fundamental rule that if a government loses the confidence of the House it has to resign shows that the British constitution's famed flexibility has been tested to destruction. To put it politely, the UK's uncodified constitution is broken beyond repair. The coalition won't whistle it back together again. This could provide a way for Labour to be more democratic in its strategy than the Liberal-Conservative government.

11. The "Portillo moment" of election night, signalling that something historic had happened, was Caroline Lucas's victory. The Greens have a politics of the totality, linking the economy and our environment to our democracy. If "new politics" means anything, it means green. The Greens need to grow.

12. Will the dire state of the deficit and the coming cuts be used to preserve the dominance of the City and its economic system? Or is that system so obviously dysfunctional and deep cuts so likely to provoke rioting that the Conservatives (for such they are) will seek a "fair" way out of the mess to preserve the social order? No one understands what is going to happen to capitalism on a world scale. All we know is that the UK is exceptionally exposed, not least thanks to the policies of Brown and Balls, and there is a fear that something dreadful awaits us just over the horizon.

Anthony Barnett is co-founder of openDemocracy and co-edits its British blog, OurKingdom. Read his original article for the New Statesman, "Hang 'em high with this election", here.

20 comments

VerDawbroar's picture

Амфетами и винт, синтез на кухне, советы от наркоманов http://tor4.su/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=35

VerDawbroar's picture

Амфетами и винт, синтез на кухне, советы от наркоманов http://tor4.su/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=35

VerDawbroar's picture

Амфетами и винт, синтез на кухне, советы от наркоманов http://tor4.su/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=35

VerDawbroar's picture

Амфетами и винт, синтез на кухне, советы от наркоманов http://tor4.su/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=35

VerDawbroar's picture

Амфетами и винт, синтез на кухне, советы от наркоманов http://tor4.su/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=35

VerDawbroar's picture

Амфетами и винт, синтез на кухне, советы от наркоманов http://tor4.su/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=35

VerDawbroar's picture

Амфетами и винт, синтез на кухне, советы от наркоманов http://tor4.su/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=35

VerDawbroar's picture

Амфетами и винт, синтез на кухне, советы от наркоманов http://tor4.su/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=35

Stephen Gash's picture

The West Lothian Question was asked by a Scot from a Scottish perspective, when Tam Dalyell whined about not being able to vote on matters affecting his own constituents in Scotland.

The English Question is about the English not having their own parliament (60%+ of those polled consistently want one), but having regions imposed upon them (84%+ of those polled reject them).

The Tory policy of English Votes on English Laws seems to have been dropped. Even the media refuse to mention it, despite repeated requests from English nationalists.

Proportional representation and alternative voting will do nothing to stop MPs outside of England meddling in English affairs.

Devolution is the the elephant-dump the media walked around during the election campaign and they are still doing so.

How they let Gordon Brown talk about "fairness" and "cancer treatment" in the same sentence without ripping him apart was disgraceful, when Scots get 15 cancer drugs denied patients in England and all cancer screening has a wider age range in Scotland compared to England.

The madia is institutionally Anglophobic, and merely mirrors the BRITISH establishment.

Geoffrey Payne's picture

Diane Abbott is a Labour tribalist who still supports first past the post.

clem the gem's picture

There is much here I agree with. and also in Cleggs speech.
The devil is in the detail however, for example, less MPs mean less chance for the greens to grow, less independant minded MPs, and more control for executive power.The same goes for the 55% confidence measure. By this standard, Chaimberlain would have been safe as PM in 1940 - as would Thatcher in 1990. Enfranchising and empowerment are key, but look out for the party managers.
As a rough yardstick, if the Sun is for it, it may be suspect, if The Sun is against it, it is probably worthwhile.
Anthony, as you well know, there have been those in the Labour Movement who for decades have supported this kind of libertarian and electoral reform. Unfortunatel we have been in a minority, and were hobbled by New Labour (always seemed a bit like Morrisons vision to me).
These proposals give us the chance to take the democratic agenda further than ever before. Especially since we now have a proper race for leader, with Dianne Abbot standing.

9xzulug's picture

we are a weakened nation and until we except that the emerging 3rd world countries who now hold the upper hand on the fiscal/monetary stage,IE foreign owned companies which which the taxpayer paid for and built is nomore.we have sold ALL our jewels in our crowns who seen how the west embarked on its ideological game plan has truly been worked out and that they are building their infrastructure taking in mind how not to do what we did.tinkering here and there is not going to fix our system by floating OUR MANGNA CARTA/CONSTITITION if they(elite)don't stop changing the rules to suit the daylight robbery of the country's finances HELL knows where we all will end up.HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY WE WERE TAUGHT BUT IT SEEMS THE ELITE SAY BUT NEVER DO WHAT THEY PREACH

yoctobarryc's picture

These aren't 12 lessons. There's nothing to learn here.

What it is, is just Anthony Barnett's biased view of the last 12 weeks and 12 years.

Zech's picture

To be fair, no-one said they were lessons, but 'reflections' - one person's opinion.

Anthony Barnett's picture

Tks Zech - My guess is that if yoctobarryc had himself achieved the karmic state of having unbiased views he'd not be commenting in Staggers :-)

Huw Spanner's picture

I find that I agree with almost all of this.

I feel very apprehensive about the referendum on a new voting system, because I think the British public is often not very well informed and is prone to being manipulated by unscrupulous media. I would much prefer a televised citizens' convention. My fear is that if the electorate is offered the choice of FPTP and AV and it rejects AV, we will thereafter be told that the matter is now closed - and if it accepts AV we will be told that it would be absurd then to start demanding something different again. Either way, with FPTP or AV, the two largest parties will come out much stronger than their actual electoral support merits.

I believe that if we had STV or even AV+, not only would the number of seats the Tories and Labour got in future fall dramatically but the number of votes they got would also fall. Lots of people - maybe hundreds of thousands - vote Labour, for example, because there is currently simply no point voting Green or Lib Dem.

James Graham's picture

"noises about appointing swarms of new lords suggest an underlying attempt to preserve the old order"

Nick Clegg categorically denied today that he intends to stuff the Lords and said that the Times article suggesting he would was wrong.

Anthony Barnett's picture

That's a relief Graham. The Agreement permits a load of appointments though. Let's see. The key thing, in my view, is to strongly support the very important and progressive set of reforms rolling back the database state and not to let New (now old) Labour spin this as just about 'ID Cards' or 'civil liberties' while staying cool on the democratic front where the signs of a dysfunctional compromise are evident.

Walter Houston's picture

I agree with most of Anthony Barnett's reflections. But I should like to put right, if possible, a misapprehension that seems to have got firmly rooted in some minds, that the 55% rule floated in the agreement means that the government cannot be forced to resign on a simple majority. What it says is that Parliament can only be dissolved on a 55% vote. The government would have to resign if defeated on a vote of confidence. It is perfectly possible for the government to resign and be replaced by another without Parliament being dissolved. This is precisely what happened in 1940, and with a change of governing party in 1923.

Referendum For A New Democracy's picture

Do we need a Referendum For A New Democracy?

Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less?

Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns?

The world's first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the cofounder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? ...the extremely wealthy?

What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today's world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? ...the people?

Latest tweets