Responding to the Coalition

The Queen's Speech today provided the new government with a showcase of many of the measures they had already announced.  Opposing it is difficult for Labour because the government is still in its honeymoon phase.  Getting our message across and having our message engaged with by the media will be difficult.  This period could last for a while.  However it is important for Labour to aggressively oppose where appropriate.  In particular we need to expose the fault lines and lack of principles in this Compromise Government.  Meanwhile we need to always sustain our position as a government in waiting.

 


Stephen Beer, 25/05/2010


0 Comments  |  Permalink

Spinning on tax and spend

There's a lot of spinning going on around the new Compromise Government's tax and spending plans.  Much has been made of the government finding £6bn of spending cuts and spelling these out.  Yet this £6bn figure is in addition to a reduction in discretionary government spending of over £20bn already planned by Labour in the Budget and Pre Budget Report (in fact, in effect in the figures for a year).  Given that the 2009/10 deficit was in December predicted to be £177bn but turned out to be £163bn (ie a £14bn improvement), the £6bn figure is not that substantial when compared to total government spending.  Moreover, Business Secretary Vince Cable has stated that not all of that £6bn will be used to reduce the deficit this year but will be spent elsewhere, which sounds a bit 'Yes Minister'.

 

There are two approaches being taken by the new government which contradict to some extent.  One strategy is to prepare the public for spending cuts and tax rises by highlighting how serious the fiscal situation is (including highlighting additional burdens on the taxpayer eg pensions) and comparing it to Greece and other peripheral EU countries (also claiming to find extra Labour spending commitments, all but one unspecified as yet).  The second strategy is to announce the detail of some spending cuts now to demonstrate to the world that the UK government is serious about tackling public debt (you don't need the 'extra' £6bn of cuts to do this of course).

 

The problem is that the first strategy raises fears while the second is trying to allay them, so the new Chancellor had better be sure he knows what he is doing.


Stephen Beer, 17/05/2010


0 Comments  |  Permalink

Fixing the system - to exclude Labour

Stable government - or staying in government?

Subject of discussion at a meeting of Princes branch (of Vauxhall Labour Party) and addressed in Newsnight this evening was the Tory/LibDem plans to change our democractic system.  The agreement between the two parties includes, together with a referendum on an Alternative Vote electoral system, the following:

  • Five year fixed term parliaments
  • Dissolution of parliament only if 55% of MPs vote in favour
  • Reduction in number of constituencies and changes in their size
  • Large increase in number of (unelected) peers with a change in the composition of the House of Lords

All the parties agree some form of reform to our system is required.  But this agreement does look rather like changing the rules of the game and to the detriment of one party in particular.  The coalition government plans to interfere in the independent workings of the Boundary Commission.  It also intends to make these changes without further reference to the electorate.  This is not new politics - more like a stitch up.

 


Stephen Beer, 12/05/2010


1 Comment  |  Permalink

In this state because we are not following the constitution

Following constitutional procedure might have led to a new government by now.

We seem to be in a state of confusion about the form of the next government.  This seems to be because constitutional procedure is not being followed correctly. Perhaps the participants were too tired post election to think through the implications.
 
Gordon Brown is acting properly in remaining as Prime Minister for the time being but under the constitution he should have had first shot at forming a government, forcing the LibDems to decide whether or not to accept Labour’s offer (which could have included his replacement).
 
If it became clear this wasn't a runner (as with Heath in 74), Brown would then have resigned and advised the Queen to call for David Cameron to form a government. Cameron would have a choice: either lead a minority government (with or without an arrangement with other parties to enable it to retain the confidence of the House of Commons and pass a budget) or form a coalition with the LibDems and/or others.
 
But instead Nick Clegg insisted on talking to the Tories first, on the grounds they had more seats. While initially persuasive (and advocated by many commentators) this is not the point constitutionally - first because the consideration is about commanding a majority in the House rather than the most votes or seats and second because it puts the focus on the LibDems, a relatively small party which lost seats, rather than on Brown and Cameron. The current situation is therefore potentially the most undemocratic.
 
If the Conservatives had paused for thought on Friday morning, they might have concluded that it was best to send the LibDems to Gordon Brown first and force a choice upon them.  If Labour and the LibDems made a deal, the Conservative view might be that it was vulnerable and not sustainable particularly since the Conservatives were the largest party and gained seats.  On the other hand, if the LibDems felt they could not support Labour it would have been clear that Cameron would be PM, one way or another. It could be argued that either outcome would lead to a relatively democratic and clear result after an election in which no party won even if one party gained significantly.  Arguably, Conservative impatience has prevented a clear result and even a favourable result for them.
 
As it is, the current situation, whereby the LibDems run from one party to the other trading negotiating points, would really only be appropriate if the Queen had asked Nick Clegg to form the next government.
 

Having said all that, I think it will work out one way or another.

 


Stephen Beer, 11/05/2010


0 Comments  |  Permalink

General  Election - it's been a long night

Back from the Warrington South count now and about to get some sleep.  It really has been an incredible election.  A real disappointment that Nick Bent did not win for Labour in Warrington South after a hard fought campaign from a standing start in January.  Well done to the Warrington South CLP members who put in a lot of hard work.  I hope we get a good result in the council elections here, declared later today.

 

Congratulations too to my MP, Kate Hoey, for another election win with a strong endorsement from Vauxhall constituents.  Job well done.  Lambeth Council election count begins at 4pm.

 

There's going to be a lot to think about now after this election.  The party leaders in particular have a lot of thinking and negotiating to do.  The country did not buy into Nick Clegg's change message - though it's not clear why.  Labour remains by far the major progressive force in the country.  The LibDems need to think long and hard about this and how to react.

 

Normally, the UK's constitution enforces a rapid change of power but on this occasion that is not the case.  The constitutional position is clear - the Prime Minister (ie Gordon Brown) has a duty to try to construct a government that will have the support of the newly elected House of Commons.  All concerned should get a bit of sleep and not rush to decisions.  Meanwhile, government continues.

 

And meanwhile, I intend to get some sleep myself.

 


Stephen Beer, 07/05/2010


0 Comments  |  Permalink
 
 Blog 
 Tags 
 Recent Articles 
Why Opposition is like a road trip
Labour and the economic outlook for 2012
Winning the economic argument: how to fight on Labour's own terms
'In the Black', 'Labour's Business' and 'The Credbility Deficit'
Avoiding another 1992
 Labour News 
Loading...
 Older Posts 
Polling closes
What would happen in a hung Parliament
Campaigning in Vauxhall
On the campaign trail