The law of unintended consequences states that one action inevitably leads to unplanned events and actions. So it may prove with the new UK coalition government.
As attention in Scotland begins to turn to next year’s Holyrood elections it’s worth asking if two consequences of the new political arrangements at the UK level are that there will be no coalition in Scotland and thus no referendum on independence.
Coalitions and different types of government have been a feature of Scottish politics since 1999 when the first two Holyrood elections delivered a coalition and then the SNP pursued minority government in 2007.
Ahead of the 2011 elections there were always three most likely scenarios: continued SNP minority government, Labour becoming the biggest party and so forming their own minority administration or some form of coalition. SNP and Labour must surely have been considering coalition with the Liberal Democrats as a viable option.
That is however until last week when the Liberal Democrats chose to sign up with the Conservatives to form a UK government. It is very obvious that between now and next May Labour and the SNP will turn their fire on the Liberals for this decision.
And the logical result of this – unless we have an incredible volte-face – is that neither of them could then sign up with the Liberals following the election results, whatever that may mean for stable government and other plans they have.
For Labour to do such a thing would put them in bed with the party keeping the Conservatives in power across the UK, and this is surely not something they can countenance. As much as anything else it would present a huge campaigning weapon to the SNP.
And the same is true for the SNP. To side with the Liberals would allow Labour alone to stand as the non-Tory, and thus ironically, ‘Scottish’ party, defending Scotland against this (as they would portray it) right-wing alliance.
So this surely means that whatever will happen post-May it must be a minority government, something which was once almost unthinkable but is increasingly the accepted situation. The SNP’s success in this role has made it a much more attractive and realistic proposition.
And the result of this is that there is surely now no prospect of a referendum on independence during the next parliament.
The Holyrood election system makes it almost impossible for any one party to command a majority of seats. As such to get anything done there has to be agreement on an issue-by-issue basis or a coalition.
As noted above coalition is surely not possible and this was the SNP’s only chance of having such a vote take place. Even if the SNP remain a minority government following the 2011 elections they cannot expect to win support for a referendum from enough of the other parties.
All of these facts may make the 2011 elections the narrowest and most bitter elections yet between Labour and the SNP. Both parties will know that if a coalition isn’t possible then the biggest party gets to lead, which makes the need for votes all the more important.
Whilst there has been much of ‘new politics’ in these past days, this is surely a phrase or issue which we won’t have to worry about taking place in and around the upcoming Holyrood elections.
19 May 2010
17 May 2010
The prerogative of the harlot
A vital part of any vibrant democracy is that of a free media. If people are not free to write about – and thus read about – any decision those in power in make it is to all our detriment.
And that is why being a journalist is an important role, which should not be diminished for the sake of tawdry headlines and cheap, fleeting stories.
Two recent examples should lead us to question whether many of the British media are really worthy of the lofty goals espoused in this article’s first line, or whether Stanley Baldwin’s ‘power without responsibility’ quote still stands.
Yesterday the Mail on Sunday ran a story which will effectively derail England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. Whatever your opinion on this bid the manner in which the story was achieved hurts us all.
David Triesman, who is the now former head of the bid, had a private conversation with a woman that used to work for them. For her own reasons she recorded this and sold it to the Mail on Sunday.
What Lord Triesman said was in many ways peculiar and may or may not have been true. However the fact is that it was a private conversation with someone he rightly thought he could trust.
Had Lord Triesman been Defence Secretary and was giving away state secrets to his new and mysterious lover, then the story and exposure would clearly be in the public interest. As it is it’s just a fairly sad story of betrayal.
Interestingly the reaction to this story from the public appears critical and somewhat sympathetic to Triesman, if the Mail on Sunday comments section is anything to go by. Whilst the online comment community is not always the best gauge of genuine public opinion the fact it has reacted this way when it is often anti-Labour is interesting.
In some ways this has echoes of the Gordon Brown ‘bigot’ story during the recent election campaign, when the then Prime Minister was caught on microphone calling a voter he’d just met a bigot.
As with the Triesman incident the conversation Brown was having was private and – however much some journalists may like to play it – not about some aspect of impropriety which really deserved publicity.
As above newspapers have a vital role in our democracy. If politicians or those in power are breaking the law or making mistakes in the running of the country then this must be exposed.
The major problem with both of these stories – especially the Treisman World Cup one – is the effective invasion of privacy for the sake of a meaningless headline.
The biggest complaint many have about our politicians is the ‘robot’ factor where they don’t appear to have the same thoughts, views and passions of the country-at-large, preferring instead to hide behind PR and carefully selected public comments.
Imagine now if the politicians and public officials we are to have are not even allowed to say things they perhaps shouldn’t in private conversations; what does that realistically mean for the type and quality of people we will elect to public office in the years ahead?
In an ideal world of course everything anyone ever says could be repeated to anyone and it would not cause offence. But that’s utter nonsense. Members of the public or public servants, they will all say things they perhaps shouldn’t away from the public glare.
If what they are saying is illegal or causes some other related problem then to expose this is no bad thing. But if it’s not then it diminishes us all when the people we want to elect feel they have to retreat even further into themselves.
There is however an obvious challenge to those members of the media that feel this story is any way fair game; live up to these same standards themselves.
The day that journalists agree to their every thought and comment being recorded and published – and particularly for rival ‘papers to expose any misdemeanours – would at least be the time some respect for their actions could be achieved.
But of course they won’t do that, and nor should they. It’s ironic that the Mail on Sunday, a newspaper which often complained about the intrusive nature of the state under the previous Labour government, should be involved in this.
We should live in a country where the media are free to print whatever they wish, regardless of how stupid or irrelevant that may be. And even in the context of the World Cup story the worst thing would be to ever limit the freedom of the media to say what they wish.
But this power brings with it the responsibility that Baldwin complained about – they should not abuse this freedom in the pursuit of irrelevancies and trivia. If they do they can only blame themselves when the public simply stop paying attention to them.
And that is why being a journalist is an important role, which should not be diminished for the sake of tawdry headlines and cheap, fleeting stories.
Two recent examples should lead us to question whether many of the British media are really worthy of the lofty goals espoused in this article’s first line, or whether Stanley Baldwin’s ‘power without responsibility’ quote still stands.
Yesterday the Mail on Sunday ran a story which will effectively derail England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. Whatever your opinion on this bid the manner in which the story was achieved hurts us all.
David Triesman, who is the now former head of the bid, had a private conversation with a woman that used to work for them. For her own reasons she recorded this and sold it to the Mail on Sunday.
What Lord Triesman said was in many ways peculiar and may or may not have been true. However the fact is that it was a private conversation with someone he rightly thought he could trust.
Had Lord Triesman been Defence Secretary and was giving away state secrets to his new and mysterious lover, then the story and exposure would clearly be in the public interest. As it is it’s just a fairly sad story of betrayal.
Interestingly the reaction to this story from the public appears critical and somewhat sympathetic to Triesman, if the Mail on Sunday comments section is anything to go by. Whilst the online comment community is not always the best gauge of genuine public opinion the fact it has reacted this way when it is often anti-Labour is interesting.
In some ways this has echoes of the Gordon Brown ‘bigot’ story during the recent election campaign, when the then Prime Minister was caught on microphone calling a voter he’d just met a bigot.
As with the Triesman incident the conversation Brown was having was private and – however much some journalists may like to play it – not about some aspect of impropriety which really deserved publicity.
As above newspapers have a vital role in our democracy. If politicians or those in power are breaking the law or making mistakes in the running of the country then this must be exposed.
The major problem with both of these stories – especially the Treisman World Cup one – is the effective invasion of privacy for the sake of a meaningless headline.
The biggest complaint many have about our politicians is the ‘robot’ factor where they don’t appear to have the same thoughts, views and passions of the country-at-large, preferring instead to hide behind PR and carefully selected public comments.
Imagine now if the politicians and public officials we are to have are not even allowed to say things they perhaps shouldn’t in private conversations; what does that realistically mean for the type and quality of people we will elect to public office in the years ahead?
In an ideal world of course everything anyone ever says could be repeated to anyone and it would not cause offence. But that’s utter nonsense. Members of the public or public servants, they will all say things they perhaps shouldn’t away from the public glare.
If what they are saying is illegal or causes some other related problem then to expose this is no bad thing. But if it’s not then it diminishes us all when the people we want to elect feel they have to retreat even further into themselves.
There is however an obvious challenge to those members of the media that feel this story is any way fair game; live up to these same standards themselves.
The day that journalists agree to their every thought and comment being recorded and published – and particularly for rival ‘papers to expose any misdemeanours – would at least be the time some respect for their actions could be achieved.
But of course they won’t do that, and nor should they. It’s ironic that the Mail on Sunday, a newspaper which often complained about the intrusive nature of the state under the previous Labour government, should be involved in this.
We should live in a country where the media are free to print whatever they wish, regardless of how stupid or irrelevant that may be. And even in the context of the World Cup story the worst thing would be to ever limit the freedom of the media to say what they wish.
But this power brings with it the responsibility that Baldwin complained about – they should not abuse this freedom in the pursuit of irrelevancies and trivia. If they do they can only blame themselves when the public simply stop paying attention to them.
14 May 2010
Uncharted territory - the Scottish dimension
Changes to the UK government obviously have an impact across the whole country, including Scotland. However with a Scottish Parliament election less than 12 months away the new coalition may have a special impact here.
In recent times the Liberals have done well in Scotland partly because they were seen as an alternative to the ‘Punch and Judy’ option of Labour and the Conservatives whilst also rejecting the nationalist option.
This is now emphatically not the case. The downside of government – especially coalition government – is that they will inevitably have to take and defend decisions that they and their voters don’t agree with.
The rationale for this is of course that it will benefit them in the long-term; the prospects of limiting the excesses of a Conservative government and also introducing Proportional Representation into the UK electoral system are very tempting, indeed clearly too tempting to resist.
However as the 2011 Holyrood race hots up that isn’t going to help the Scottish Liberal Democrats. The focus next year was always going to be on the race between the SNP and Labour; now the Liberals main role is surely to be cannon fodder between the two major warring parties.
It raises a question about where the Liberals votes could go, assuming of course that they do lose votes. In this regard the biggest winners in a Scottish electoral sense from yesterday’s coalition may prove to be the Scottish Green Party.
Current Liberal voters put off by Labour, the SNP and Conservatives may now have a reason to add the Liberal Democrats to this list; if so the most obvious alternative for them could be the Greens. Given the Greens see-saw political performance across the 1999, 2003 and 2007 elections, this could be a chance for them to bounce back.
However none of this is to say that it is guaranteed the Liberals will struggle. For example it could be the case that having the experience of UK government may encourage some people to vote for them, as well as the obvious recognition that the same party in power in Holyrood and Westminster may be positive.
It also depends how the new Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander performs. He has a dual role; not only to sell UK government decisions in Scotland but also to help the Liberals maintain their separate identity from their larger coalition partners.
Nevertheless it is hard to see the coalition is being of comfort to Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott as he begins to shape his party’s campaign ahead of next May.
Any worries the Conservatives in Holyrood have are surely much less than those of the Liberals. Scottish Conservatives are used to being a minority and this new government surely will not change this.
It may be that the Conservatives attracted some extra support (which didn’t translate into seats) from people that wanted a change at the UK level but next year will surely see a return to their core support.
In a more general sense the impact of being in power across the UK could go one of two ways. It may cost them votes if they make unpopular decisions, again reinforcing the anti-Scottish perception many people have of them. However there is an outside chance they could also benefit from people wanting the same government north and south of the border.
The other person that may now have some worries this morning is Alex Salmond. Ahead of next year’s elections he will now be in the incumbent faced with a Labour Party that no longer has the burden of power almost anywhere across Scotland or the UK.
Given the closeness of the last election the First Minister faces two obvious strategies – point to the competent job his government have performed or portray the SNP as the only party that can protect Scotland from cuts; he may even try both of these strategies jointly.
It remains to be seen how effective it will be though. If people in Scotland begin to look at the divergence between Scottish and English politics and believe the only solution is separation then obviously the SNP benefit. However if they don’t then it increasingly isolates the SNP as a worthwhile choice.
Iain Gray thus is the main winner of the new coalition between the two major parties however this is not to say that the election is now automatically his; quite the opposite in fact. The SNP still enjoy a positive public perception and Labour cannot play the ‘keep the Tories out’ card in a Holyrood election.
Thus Labour have to begin to positively articulate what they would do with power, and how they would mount effective opposition against what they will see as potential Conservative-Liberal excesses. This has to be more than merely sniping at any SNP mistakes, or the type of general cuts all parties will have to face.
So for those people in Scotland, glad at least that politics is now off the menu and elections are a thing of the past, enjoy it while you can. There will be a quiet period as the new UK government settles in and Holyrood goes into recess, but from September onwards we are back in full-time election mode.
Democracy in action is a wonderful thing!
NOTE: An earlier version wrongly - and bizarrely! - referred to the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader being Nicol Stephen. It is of course Tavish Scott.
In recent times the Liberals have done well in Scotland partly because they were seen as an alternative to the ‘Punch and Judy’ option of Labour and the Conservatives whilst also rejecting the nationalist option.
This is now emphatically not the case. The downside of government – especially coalition government – is that they will inevitably have to take and defend decisions that they and their voters don’t agree with.
The rationale for this is of course that it will benefit them in the long-term; the prospects of limiting the excesses of a Conservative government and also introducing Proportional Representation into the UK electoral system are very tempting, indeed clearly too tempting to resist.
However as the 2011 Holyrood race hots up that isn’t going to help the Scottish Liberal Democrats. The focus next year was always going to be on the race between the SNP and Labour; now the Liberals main role is surely to be cannon fodder between the two major warring parties.
It raises a question about where the Liberals votes could go, assuming of course that they do lose votes. In this regard the biggest winners in a Scottish electoral sense from yesterday’s coalition may prove to be the Scottish Green Party.
Current Liberal voters put off by Labour, the SNP and Conservatives may now have a reason to add the Liberal Democrats to this list; if so the most obvious alternative for them could be the Greens. Given the Greens see-saw political performance across the 1999, 2003 and 2007 elections, this could be a chance for them to bounce back.
However none of this is to say that it is guaranteed the Liberals will struggle. For example it could be the case that having the experience of UK government may encourage some people to vote for them, as well as the obvious recognition that the same party in power in Holyrood and Westminster may be positive.
It also depends how the new Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander performs. He has a dual role; not only to sell UK government decisions in Scotland but also to help the Liberals maintain their separate identity from their larger coalition partners.
Nevertheless it is hard to see the coalition is being of comfort to Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott as he begins to shape his party’s campaign ahead of next May.
Any worries the Conservatives in Holyrood have are surely much less than those of the Liberals. Scottish Conservatives are used to being a minority and this new government surely will not change this.
It may be that the Conservatives attracted some extra support (which didn’t translate into seats) from people that wanted a change at the UK level but next year will surely see a return to their core support.
In a more general sense the impact of being in power across the UK could go one of two ways. It may cost them votes if they make unpopular decisions, again reinforcing the anti-Scottish perception many people have of them. However there is an outside chance they could also benefit from people wanting the same government north and south of the border.
The other person that may now have some worries this morning is Alex Salmond. Ahead of next year’s elections he will now be in the incumbent faced with a Labour Party that no longer has the burden of power almost anywhere across Scotland or the UK.
Given the closeness of the last election the First Minister faces two obvious strategies – point to the competent job his government have performed or portray the SNP as the only party that can protect Scotland from cuts; he may even try both of these strategies jointly.
It remains to be seen how effective it will be though. If people in Scotland begin to look at the divergence between Scottish and English politics and believe the only solution is separation then obviously the SNP benefit. However if they don’t then it increasingly isolates the SNP as a worthwhile choice.
Iain Gray thus is the main winner of the new coalition between the two major parties however this is not to say that the election is now automatically his; quite the opposite in fact. The SNP still enjoy a positive public perception and Labour cannot play the ‘keep the Tories out’ card in a Holyrood election.
Thus Labour have to begin to positively articulate what they would do with power, and how they would mount effective opposition against what they will see as potential Conservative-Liberal excesses. This has to be more than merely sniping at any SNP mistakes, or the type of general cuts all parties will have to face.
So for those people in Scotland, glad at least that politics is now off the menu and elections are a thing of the past, enjoy it while you can. There will be a quiet period as the new UK government settles in and Holyrood goes into recess, but from September onwards we are back in full-time election mode.
Democracy in action is a wonderful thing!
NOTE: An earlier version wrongly - and bizarrely! - referred to the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader being Nicol Stephen. It is of course Tavish Scott.
12 May 2010
Uncharted territory
To the record of famous Liberals that have occupied the great offices of state, such as David Lloyd George and Herbert Henry Asquith, can now be added a new name: Nicholas William Peter Clegg.
The agreement reached between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government contains in it a number of historical events.
It obviously returns the Conservatives – the most successful UK party throughout the twentieth century – to power 13 years after they first held it, and in fact for the first time this century and millennium. The coalition also sees the return of the Liberals to Downing Street in a meaningful sense for the first time since the post-first world war period.
This potentially has the makings of the most secure coalition government seen in this country (meaning the UK as a whole) since the Second World War; Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg should expect to remain in power for their full term of office.
The new partnership brings with it a total of 363 MPs, easily more than the 326 needed to form a majority government. Thus there is even some flexibility to guard against any potential rebellions shown by MPs from either party.
And in some ways that should be the end of it; the two leaders have reached a deal, their numbers are relatively strong and they should be able to hold off any complaints and attacks they may face from within their parties. The only challenge remaining is actually running the country.
The lure of power on both sides – particularly the Conservatives – means that this coalition should face no substantial short-term challenges. Given that the main theme of the election was that whoever wins there will be financial cuts in the public sector this will not be devastating when it actually occurs.
However that’s not to say that there won’t be protests against this, quite the opposite. The first test for the partnership is how Liberal MPs that have been used to perpetual opposition react to being blamed when trouble arises. In the longer term it’s impossible to say how this pans out, Harold Macmillan’s “events, dear boy” quote most readily springing to mind when asking if there could be problems in store.
The promise of a referendum on Proportional Representation (even if the Alternative Vote system may not be exactly what the Liberals most covet) is the key attraction here though, whatever the negotiators may say in public.
Nick Clegg’s position as Deputy Prime Minister will mean little if it’s for part of one term and not repeated again in future; the Liberals key goal is obviously long-term success and regular (if not perpetual) parts in the UK government.
PR that ends two party rule would appear to put the Liberal Democrats in pole position when it comes to governing, although this would ultimately change. Having a parliament that more closely comprises the amount of votes parties receive will help the Liberals but in the long run will also assist other parties; Caroline Lucas may not be long in getting extra Green colleagues, for instance.
There is a question about the effect of this on the Tories. There has always been a feeling amongst many of their MPs that PR would see them cast into the political wilderness as Labour and the Liberals permanently carved up government. However the fact that they have signed this coalition deal may limit the possibility of this; after all the Liberals cannot be seen as people prepared to constantly 'bed hop', not without attracting electoral criticism anyway.
For all the challenges that they will face and complaints from within that is what the Liberals clearly most prize. And for David Cameron the chance to lead and return his party to power was also impossible to turn down.
The agreement reached between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government contains in it a number of historical events.
It obviously returns the Conservatives – the most successful UK party throughout the twentieth century – to power 13 years after they first held it, and in fact for the first time this century and millennium. The coalition also sees the return of the Liberals to Downing Street in a meaningful sense for the first time since the post-first world war period.
This potentially has the makings of the most secure coalition government seen in this country (meaning the UK as a whole) since the Second World War; Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg should expect to remain in power for their full term of office.
The new partnership brings with it a total of 363 MPs, easily more than the 326 needed to form a majority government. Thus there is even some flexibility to guard against any potential rebellions shown by MPs from either party.
And in some ways that should be the end of it; the two leaders have reached a deal, their numbers are relatively strong and they should be able to hold off any complaints and attacks they may face from within their parties. The only challenge remaining is actually running the country.
The lure of power on both sides – particularly the Conservatives – means that this coalition should face no substantial short-term challenges. Given that the main theme of the election was that whoever wins there will be financial cuts in the public sector this will not be devastating when it actually occurs.
However that’s not to say that there won’t be protests against this, quite the opposite. The first test for the partnership is how Liberal MPs that have been used to perpetual opposition react to being blamed when trouble arises. In the longer term it’s impossible to say how this pans out, Harold Macmillan’s “events, dear boy” quote most readily springing to mind when asking if there could be problems in store.
The promise of a referendum on Proportional Representation (even if the Alternative Vote system may not be exactly what the Liberals most covet) is the key attraction here though, whatever the negotiators may say in public.
Nick Clegg’s position as Deputy Prime Minister will mean little if it’s for part of one term and not repeated again in future; the Liberals key goal is obviously long-term success and regular (if not perpetual) parts in the UK government.
PR that ends two party rule would appear to put the Liberal Democrats in pole position when it comes to governing, although this would ultimately change. Having a parliament that more closely comprises the amount of votes parties receive will help the Liberals but in the long run will also assist other parties; Caroline Lucas may not be long in getting extra Green colleagues, for instance.
There is a question about the effect of this on the Tories. There has always been a feeling amongst many of their MPs that PR would see them cast into the political wilderness as Labour and the Liberals permanently carved up government. However the fact that they have signed this coalition deal may limit the possibility of this; after all the Liberals cannot be seen as people prepared to constantly 'bed hop', not without attracting electoral criticism anyway.
For all the challenges that they will face and complaints from within that is what the Liberals clearly most prize. And for David Cameron the chance to lead and return his party to power was also impossible to turn down.
