As election fever - or, depending on your perspective, election fatigue - grows in the UK, the prospect that no single party will have an overall majority after the 6 May General Election is dominating political discussion and media comment.
Following the first-ever televised leaders’ debate, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg won viewers’ acclaim for his performance. And, in these ‘instant fame’ times of The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent, his party’s prospects rose dramatically – at least according to the post-debate opinion polls. That surge in potential support has been halted to a degree, following the second debate in the series. But the Lib Dems still appear to be running a close second to the Conservatives in voter popularity.
Overall, then, this promises to be one of the most interesting election nights of modern times. But why are politicians and commentators so exercised by the thought of the Nation waking up on 7 May to what – in UK terms – has traditionally been viewed as a weak, indecisive result?
Well, a so-called "hung parliament" (or "balanced parliament" as those in favour of a ‘no overall majority’ outcome prefer to call it) means that the politics of coalition government would come to the fore. And that seems to generate love, hate and ridicule in equal measure.
The Final Word in the Comment column of yesterday’s Sunday Times, reflects the last of these three perspectives. It was a short, tongue-in-cheek piece entitled "Watch out, these coalitions are catching." Using icons of British life to illustrate the point, the writer combines these in imaginary ways to suggest that coalitions are unlikely to work because "As in politics, it’s the grassroots support that’s the problem…". So, instead of B&Q and Marks & Spencer, we have the unlikely Marks & Q and B & Spencer. Even more unlikely, perhaps, would be the speculative combination of Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur football clubs to form North London’s very own Arsenal Hotspur (the Spooners, perhaps!). In other words, the message that we are supposed to take from this is that it wouldn’t work ‘on the ground’. This is despite the fact that, so far as I can recall, there have never been any problems with rival players from Arsenal, ‘Spurs, Manchester United, Liverpool and the rest playing together for their country. Or with rival fans joining forces to follow the national team. Different agenda. Different goal. Different response.
In the intro to the piece, the writer states:
"We’ve had no real experience of so-called unity government since the second world war …".
It’s true that it’s more than 60 years since there was a formal "unity" government in the UK. But that’s not what coalition is about. It doesn’t mean agreeing on everything. Nor necessarily sharing the same values. It means people coming together, for a period of time, to pursue a specific agenda; to work to achieve a particular goal; or to bring about a jointly desired change. And, far from being an unusual practice, people do this all of the time, as part of everyday life. That is, they coalesce around particular ‘themes’ or stories that make sense to them and which resonate with their own experience, perceptions and aspirations. In this way, people are able to go on together and navigate their way through an uncertain and emerging future – contributing to what emerges whilst, at the same time, being shaped by it. The only difference is that we don’t think of these natural social dynamics of everyday life in these terms. It’s just ‘what you do’.
As regards the democratic process, it’s important to realize that coalition government is far from being the exception. In fact, it’s the rule. The current Labour Government is itself a coalition of different interest groups. And so is the Conservative Opposition. For example, Labour is still talked of as being peopled by "Brownites" and "Blairites", despite the fact that Tony Blair left Parliament a couple of years ago. The nature of Government policy and the form of Labour’s current election manifesto is the product of informal coalitions of these – and many other - diverse interest groups within the Party. And the same can be said for the policy stances and manifesto promises of the other parties. Even the "Iron Lady" of the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher, could not afford to ignore the interests and behind-the-scenes demands of the so-called "Wets" in the Tory Party of the time. Similarly today, current Conservative leader David Cameron has to handle differences arising from the presence in his party of "Europhiles" and "Euro sceptics"; those who are instinctively "tax cutters" and others who prioritize investment in public services; and right-wing traditionalists together with more centrist "One Nation" Tories. And so it goes on.
All of this means that, however people might choose to cast their votes on 6 May, the policies that the governing party (or parties) eventually puts before Parliament will be the result of coalitional activity. And so will the social, economic, environmental, political and other outcomes that ultimately emerge. The only difference will be that, in the event of a ‘hung’ parliament, some of the formal decision-making arrangements and ‘trade-offs’ between the politicians will be visible and openly acknowledged.
In all cases, though, the most significant interactions and exchanges will take place informally and behind the scenes, as influential players work to build active coalitions of support for their favoured policies, programmes and personalities.
And this is how things have happened since time immemorial.
Comments