Gordon Brown has just said he's resigning as Prime Minister. David Cameron will be PM after a quick visit to the Palace to see the Queen. After several days’ of negotiating, the deal is done. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will enter into a coalition government in Britain. While many LibDems are breaking out in hives over the prospect of getting into bed with the Tories, the truth is that the Conservatives’ offer isn’t a bad one, and there never was a realistic alternative based on the number of MPs each party won on Thursday.
First, the numbers and why a Lib-Lab coalition was impossible. The Conservatives have 306 seats, Labour has 258, and the LibDems 57. A majority in Commons is 326 of the 650 seats. Allowing for the fact that Sinn Fein (the Irish Republicans who have 5 seats) never take their seats because it would require an oath of loyalty to the Queen (although they accept their salaries and expenses), a majority is really 323. Nevertheless, a Lib-Lab deal only gets them to 315. Throw away 8 votes from Ulster Unionists who will back the Tories 99.9% of the time. Now, the Scottish National Party has 6 seats and the Welsh Plaid Cymru has 3. The Social Democratic and Labour Party (progressive Northern Irish) has 3, the Alliance Party (anti-sectarian in Northern Ireland) has 1, and the Green Party has 1. This "traffic light" coalition (reds, yellows and greens) musters a whopping 329 if everyone shows up and everyone votes for the coalition. That means that just 7 MPs who decide to withhold support could bring down the government.
With those mathematical facts, there are two reasons that this arrangement wouldn’t work – even if the Labour’s offer to the Liberal Democrats were genuine. First, Labour has ruled out inviting the Scottish National Party to join the coalition. That wouldn’t stop the SNP from voting for the coalition’s bills, but it means they have no need to back it. Why does Labour not want the SNP involved? Because they are serious rivals in Scotland, with Labour believing it’s the natural party of government in Scotland, and with the SNP currently operating a minority government. So, Labour throws away 6 votes from the SNP (and probably the 3 Plaid Cymru votes, too, as they and the SNP try to work as sister Parties of Celts). So at best, this is a minority government with support from the nationalists in Scotland and Wales.
Second, the single most important issue for the LibDems is electoral reform. There is something called the "All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Continuation of First Past the Post ", and in the last parliament, there were at least 10 Labour MPs who were members of it. Other MPs, especially those backed by the unions, prefer to keep the FPTP system. A significant number (more than 7) of Labour MPs would probably vote against the coalition. That means, electoral reform legislation would fail to pass in Commons, and as a result, the government would fall. The LibDems couldn’t get what they want in coalition with Labour because Labour couldn’t muster the votes.
On the other hand, the Conservatives’ initial offer was not good enough. An all-party conference on electoral reform, the first proposal, is one of Parliament’s ways of killing an idea. The UK has had one or two of these already in the last couple of decades – and there’s been no electoral change. LibDem leader Nick Clegg and his people played their hand well and got concessions from the Tories. A referendum on the alternative vote [AV] is quite a step for the Conservatives. They are so keen on regaining Number 10 Downing Street that that’s what they offered. While a small rebellion in Tory ranks may happen, the Tories are pretty well disciplined. I expect they will pass the legislation needed to call the referendum, and then, they will campaign against it. It sounds somewhat hypocritical, but it is sort of like US Senators voting to break a filibuster to allow a bill to have an up-or-down vote and then voting against the bill itself. Anyway, that’s the deal.
Labour’s offer of AV by Act of Parliament and a referendum on further reform is much sexier, of course, but as noted, Labour couldn’t deliver on either. So what would have been the point of propping up an unpopular party that came second in seats and votes?
The Guardian reported at 2:06 local time that "The LibDems are holding a joint meeting of their MPs and their federal executive at 7.30pm tonight." And this was what proved the deal was done, even before the green van showed up to move the bags out of Downing Street and even though the meeting was put back to 8:30.
Why did this signal a Lib-Con deal? The Liberal Democrats’ constitution has something called "the triple lock." The rules say:
(i) in the event of any substantial proposal which could affect the Party's independence of political action, the consent will be required of a majority of members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons and the Federal Executive; and,
(ii) unless there is a three-quarters majority of each group in favour of the proposals, the consent of the majority of those present and voting at a Special Conference convened under clause 6.6 of the Constitution; and,
(iii) unless there is a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at that Conference in favour of the proposals, the consent of a majority of all members of the Party voting in the ballot called pursuant to clause 6.11 or 8.6 of the Constitution.
There are 57 MPs and 36 Members of the Executive, he has to get 42 MPs and 27 Members of the Executive (and there is over-lap). Rumor has it that Mr. Clegg is going ahead with the Special Conference and the party ballot for extra legitimacy, but my guess is he scheduled those just in case he loses among the big shots.
The coalition’s program will include scrapping the National ID, reducing the National Insurance Contribution (similar to payroll taxes in the US), electoral reform, green policies aimed at a low-carbon economy, and some action on immigration that doesn’t include amnesty. Defense will be a problem, as will European relations. Nevertheless, this is the only arrangement that mathematically could offer Britain a government that lasts longer than a year and a half. Now, there’s going to be fixed-term parliaments (4 years) starting with this one. No more snap elections!
Am I sickened at the idea of a Lib-Con government? Not as appalled as I would be by a Tory majority government or a Tory minority (under which the LibDems get nothing). By the way, I would be just as appalled by a Lib-Lab deal -- I am not a statist, and the Labour Party is nothing but left-wing statists (and many not so left-wing). Politics is the art of the possible, and by putting David Cameron in as Prime Minister, the LibDems secure a referendum on the AV. Mr. Cameron as PM is a matter of years. Electoral reform can be forever.
Some will say that Mr. Clegg has compromised his principles for power. My attitude is that intellectual purity is for philosophers and theologians. The Liberal Democrats (and before them, the Liberals and the Social Democrats) have been chasing electoral reform for decades because it can change British politics. A few years of Tory-led government is a small price to pay, especially after Labour has proved so unfit.