Bail out Britain - all parties to the pump! - a political perspective by William Briggs

A bookmaker taking bets on what would be the main pull-quote from David Cameron’s first speech as Prime Minister would have given long odds against the phrase “This will not be a marriage of convenience” being the phrase which the media picked up and analysed at length. As inspiring opening statements by newly-elected leaders go, it doesn’t compete with minor examples of the genre such as John Major’s “I want to see us build a country that is at ease with itself”, let alone FDR’s “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, but it does acknowledge a current political reality. After four weeks of going out of his way to “agree with Nick” while also arguing that Nick’s policies on Europe and Trident would leave Britain a defenseless backwater, the sudden agreement between Liberals and Conservatives needed to be addressed in a way which disarmed cynicism.

The coalition may last the full five years or end prematurely amid calls for a snap election and accusations from each party about the other being unfit to govern. Either way, the coalition was forced on the two parties by an inconclusive election result that gave life to the theory that the electorate, disillusioned by the political class as a whole, voted the way they did because they positively wanted a two-party government. The ‘New Politics’ which began on May 11th, intended to be open-hearted and free from sleaze, was created amid great public goodwill and will need to maintain its central spirit of cooperation to maintain it. Not, then, a marriage of convenience but certainly a settling down between two singletons who had planned to remain bachelors for a lot longer. The first soundbite of the new government also meant that the headlines in the event of the coalition breaking up could be predicted years in advance - “Cameron and Clegg: the Messy Divorce”, “Clegg - ‘I’m Leaving You. It’s Over’”, etc.

Prior to his becoming Prime Minister, the debate around David Cameron centered on what kind of Conservative he would be when he took office. (And on whether he should be addressed as ‘Dave’ to remind people how matey he is or ‘David’ to remind people that he is fifth cousin to the Queen). Now, the debate centers on how his moderate conservatism will survive during a period when future short-term diagnoses for the British economy range from double-dip recession at worst to minimal growth at best.

On becoming Party leader, Cameron was widely believed to be a simple reincarnation of the worst, shallow aspects of Tony Blair, who just happened to be leading the opposing party. The Cameron persona at the time was that of a moderately handsome, moderately viewed politician, with a history in PR (to match Blair’s schooling in amateur drama and early attempts at being a rock star), with a nice young family, and an interest in the environment somewhat anomalous for a Tory. Over the course of five years he has not yet won unconditional support or affection from the public, but a more subtle political personality has emerged, as noted by both supporters and opponents.

The Labour left, and the majority of the left-wing press, welcomed Cameron’s election as leader in 2005 as the return of the Eton-educated Toff to the top of the Tory party, assuming that, in time, simple class antagonism would turn the public against him. So far that has not happened. Cartoonists may find it impossible to portray Cameron wearing anything other than top-hat and tails but so far the attack has been largely affectionate. That situation will change if the economy collapses further and the contrast between David and Samantha Cameron’s family fortune, which the Sunday Times Rich List estimates at £30 million plus, and the income of the average voter diverges even further. But for the moment the poshest Prime Minister since Sir Alec Douglas-Home appears to be safe from a class-war backlash and even to have tapped into the some of the ancient British love for the aristocracy.

The Right-wing media have had a harder time knowing what to do with their new man in Downing Street. Right-wing columnists such as Peter Hitchens have reacted to Cameronism as the final straw that has driven them away from the party altogether. Tory romantics such as Andrew Roberts have accused him of directly ripping his shtick from Harold Macmillan, i.e. using his privileged background as a cloaking device under which to push the country further to the left. To some extent this accusation is true. 2010 saw the first deliberately moderate, One Nation, Conservative election campaign in a generation. The result of this, when added to the unpopularity of the sitting government, was very nearly a full majority. In terms of social and foreign policy, Cameron has done much toward his stated aim of ‘detoxifying the Tory brand’ and in doing so has distanced himself from the more confrontational excesses of Thatcherism. Sections of his own party have offered mild rebellion over what they see as unnecessarily progressive policies on education, gay marriage and Europe. The general idea of the natural party of government sharing power with its opponents has also provoked rumbles of discontent. Far better to go it alone with in a minority government and gain support from the Ulster Unionists and whatever parts of the opposition have enough common sense to support us, say some constituency parties and members of the 1922 Committee.

The silencing of the Liberals and the defeat of Labour has created the unusual possibility for the new Prime Minister that at first his most effective opposition will come from internal dissent. The two most notable features of Cameron’s first few weeks at Prime Minister's Questions were the body language between himself and Nick Clegg (supportive but cautious and tense, as one might expect), and questions from Conservative backbenchers enquiring whether the coalition would care to start acting like a right-wing government (repeal the Human Rights Act, reform the House of Lords, hold a ‘bonfire of the QUANGOs’ etc). Internal opposition is likely to dog Cameron in one form or another, as it does every party leader, and it is not yet entirely clear what his various self definitions (a "liberal Conservative", "not a deeply ideological person”, "a modern, compassionate conservative") actually mean in practice. But the fact remains that no other viable candidate for national leader currently exists and, for the time being, for any Conservative, or for that matter Liberal, serious about the idea of power, Cameron’s leadership is the only game in town.

Barring electoral reform re-emerging as a popular issue as it did during the election campaign, it is the state of the economy that is likely to dictate the amicability between the two coalition partners and the popularity of the government as a whole. At the time of writing, the program of tax-increases and public spending cuts, conceded as a necessity by all three main parties, is just beginning. (The term used to take the sting out of this is ‘fiscal adjustment’. Get used to hearing it.) The first sign of the new spirit of fiscal conservatism came with the announcement of the new Cabinet. As with Margaret Thatcher’s first government, Ministers keen on reductions in public spending were placed in key positions, such as Iain Duncan Smith at Work and Pensions and Liam Fox at Defence and, briefly, David Laws as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Vince Cable’s admission, after only three days in government, that he would in fact have to go against his party’s manifesto pledge and oversee large cuts in public spending, officially because of the effect of the Greek crisis on the European economy as a whole, also acted as handy public neutering of the leading Liberal seen as having the finest mind in the government.

The fiscal adjustment process will obviously be unpleasant but, in another contrast with early Thatcherism, the government looks set to acknowledge the potential pain they will cause. Chancellor George Osborne has set out £6.2bn of cuts on what he calls "wasteful spending"; there will also be £20bn cut in welfare and pensions over the next five years and a public sector pay freeze for those earning more than £18’000 a year which is likely to extend into 2011. Amongst the talks of painful cuts and rises in VAT to pay off spiraling national debt, the Coalition has also signaled that it will be interventionist where necessary. The earliest sign of this was the announcement that a £20 million grant awarded by the previous government to Nissan’s Sunderland plant to develop the next generation of electric cars will still be honored The early weeks of the coalition also saw the unusual sight of Conservative ministers talking about the need for government to stimulate industry and manufacturing. This may prove to be a simple political gimmick. No British politician has spoken in favour of denuding the manufacturing base but plenty have done so. It will be interesting to see what the promise amounts to, particularly in the North East and North West, traditionally anti-Conservative areas where the need for manufacturing jobs is great but support for the new government is low.

Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, meanwhile, are determined to engage in a civilized post-defeat, leadership election which will be a “chance to help shape Britain’s progressive future” according to interim Leader Harriet Harman. Four former cabinet ministers - Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and David & Ed Miliband - and one feisty backbencher - Diane Abbott - will fight for the future of the people’s party over the course of a fifteen week contest. Historically, the script for Labour leadership races consisted of a series of dirty tricks and deep ideological divides, conducted in confrontational and public way which scared many voters away from the party for a generation. Post-New Labour, lessons appear to have been learnt about keeping rows private and, so far, the atmosphere between the candidates has been competitive but collegial. The central question of the process will be how the party can reposition itself against a Coalition which now occupies much of the ground between the centre-right and centre-left of British politics. It remains to be seen whether or not for Labour 2010, like 1992, could be considered a good election to have lost, thus avoiding being in power during an inevitable period of government unpopularity. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, outgoing Chancellor Alistair Darling's prediction of 3% economic growth for 2010 were wildly optimistic and minimal or negative growth for the year is a real possibility. Far better to have created that situation than to have to deal with it. The ultimate irony, the electorate returning to Labour because the new government cannot deal with the mess that Brown and co. created, may be the best hope they have of avoiding an extended period in the wilderness.



Copyright (c) 2010, Independent News Ltd.