Baker's Dozen

While David Cameron and Nick Clegg were having their love-in in the Downing Street rose garden yesterday, details emerged of the terms upon which their coalition was founded.

Most of the document represented a mix of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies outlined in their manifesto. Some of those – like immigration caps – are patently daft. Others are a true blend of Con-Lib policy positions – tax policy, for example. But the one issue which appears to be raising some genuine debate on blogs and Twitter this morning is the following passage on political reform:

The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement (emphasis added)

This 55% threshold would have the effect of allowing a Conservative minority administration to continue even if the coalition broke down – taking into account the fact Sinn Fein don’t take up their seats in Parliament, the Conservatives account for 47% of MPs in Parliament. This appears cynical, and out of kilter with the image of “new politics” being portrayed currently.

However, my understanding is that this rule could be amended by a simply majority in Parliament (assuming opposition parties could force a vote on the issue). So if the Government lost the confidence of a simply majority of MPs in Parliament, they may well be able to force an election, but it would require (1) a vote on the issue of the threshold required to result in a dissolution of Parliament and (2) a vote of Confidence. Simply put – it doesn’t guarantee a full fixed term, but makes it harder for opposition parties to force a minority Conservative administration from power (and even if they remained in power, they might find it hard to introduce any primary legislation).

So, while it looks bad on the face of it, I’m not quite sure what its practical impact would be.

Inevitably events like those which occurred yesterday throw up a lot of analysis and comment, most of it guff.

To avoid contributing to the guff pandemic which is sweeping Westminster, here is a very brief reflection on the speeches made by the outgoing and incoming Prime Ministers – there was a subtle but important contrast in their vision.

My main point is this: Gordon Brown yesterday articulated a better vision of what power can achieve than David Cameron managed on the steps of Number 10.

Yes, Cameron probably wanted to appear businessmanlike and, yes, maybe Brown should have shown more vision during the campaign. Nonetheless, the contrast between the individualist and collectivist approaches to goverment were evident in the speeches made yesterday by the incoming and outgoing Prime Ministers.

David Cameron, speech on steps of 10 Downing Street, 11 May 2010:

I came into politics because I love this country. I think its best days still lie ahead and I believe deeply in public service. And I think the service our country needs right now is to face up to our really big challenges, to confront our problems, to take difficult decisions, to lead people through those difficult decisions, so that together we can reach better times ahead.

….

I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don’t just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities. One where we don’t ask what am I just owed, but more what can I give. And a guide for that society – that those that can should, and those who can’t we will always help.

Gordon Brown, speech to Labour Party HQ, 11 May 2010:

We fought for the future.

And we continue to fight unceasingly because progress is not a word we just speak but a reality we have been creating where the ambit of opportunity always expands and never contracts. And we fight for progress because we know the energy and talent of the British people are boundless whenever they are released from stereotype and allowed to soar.

We know that progressive change is possible, because our very record shows it is.

POSTSCRIPT: Maybe the above is a proof of the saying that one “campaigns in poetry, but governs in prose”.