The benefits of coalition government

As a German I have always been quite comfortable with coalition government, unlike most people in this country. Indignation about broken electoral promises never resonated with me, given that the main  benefit of coalition government seems to be a need for compromise that often weeds out the nuttier promises made in the heat of the electoral battle.

As the present coalition government edges to its final days in the UK, the 'play fights', as Andrew Rawnsley from The Observer calls them, increase. They are in essence the separation rituals of two partners that need to differentiate themselves from each other whilst at the same time trying to celebrate what they achieved.

Whatever its accomplishments, there is one advantage of coalition government that is rarely discussed. It's the fact that both partners are in a learning experience, coming into direct contact with other opinions and views on how to run the economy (and the country) without having the privilege to reject other perspectives out of hand. In other words, coalition government has a disciplining effect on all partners, forcing them to listen and to learn.

One area which demonstrates this increased capacity to learn under the conditions of a coalition government is taxation. In 2010, the Conservatives were steadfast against increasing the personal tax allowance whilst Lib Dems made it one of their most prominent electoral pledges. Two years into the coalition government and Chancellor George Osborne publicly commented that he wished this had been a Tory pledge all along. The Tory support for the increase of the personal tax allowance became so strong that Lib Dems felt miffed about it and kept pointing out to anybody who wanted to hear it that this was originally their idea.

There may be some disadvantages about lifting more than 5 million people out of tax altogether, mainly relating to the fact that modern societies are based on the contributory principle, for which taxation is the main conduit. But overall, there is now only one party that does not support a further increase in the personal tax allowance, the Labour Party. How Labour politicians square this with their avowed ambition to do good for the lowest paid is beyond me, but it seems that the two coalition partners have got it. Sometimes it may be a good thing if you are forced to share power.

What has the coalition achieved?

The coalition government under David Cameron has had a rough time recently. Surveys show that key ministers are deeply unpopular amongst the British people and the poll figures for both parties, the Conservatives and the LibDems, took a beating since the Rose Garden photo op in 2010.

Happier times! Cameron and Clegg in the Rose Garden of Number 10 in 2010

There have also been rumblings amongst Conservative members of parliament about the leadership qualities of David Cameron, prompted by a perceived advantage given to LibDems in key policy areas. Nick Clegg and his parliamentary colleagues, so the complaint goes, determine policies to a far greater extent than they should. Given the widespread disenchantment with the coalition one might be forgiven to ask: what is the point of the coalition? Has it achieved anything so far?

The most effective opponent of the coalition government is not Her Majesty's Opposition, yet perhaps time itself and the tendency of all electorates to indulge in selective memory. It is easily forgotten how radical this government actually has been, much to the consternation of some former Labour ministers who had similar plans for transformations of public services, yet either never got round to implement them or were blocked by Gordon Brown.

Just reviewing a list of recent reforms reveals the magnitude of the policy programme of the current government. Fundamental change and reforms have received legislative approval in education, health, constitutional affairs and welfare.

Take welfare for example. James Purnell was the one but last Labour Welfare Secretary and his plans for welfare reforms approximated closely those of the current postholder Ian Duncan Smith. When in power, Labour had a keen awareness that the current trajectory of welfare spending was unsustainable in the long term. Ian Duncan Smith, starting in 2010, implemented a radical shakeup of the welfare and benefits system which, for the first time in more than 30 years, involves the re-assessment of benefit recipients for payments.

Despite some criticism from disability rights organisations the reforms seem to be largely in tune with the views of the British public and there seems to be widespread consensus that benefit payments require better targeting at those in need. Ian Duncan Smith carefully built the case for reform and is about to implement it, ceaselessly reminding reform opponents that simply continuing to increase welfare expenditure is not an option and may exacerbate inbuilt injustices.

In other words, he managed to locate the current reforms in the wider context of equity and justice, as well as present them as largely continuous of previous postholder's intentions. Similar feats have been pulled off by the Education Secretary Michael Gove, who argued that his education reforms are in essence an extension of the academy programme started by Labour under Tony Blair.

Yet, how truly radical the policy agenda of this government has been is only revealed by looking at those areas that have little resonance with the British public. It is in matters such as constitutional affairs that investing political capital rarely pays off and hence little progress is often made over decades. Shortly after coming to office, the coalition legislated for fixed term parliaments which removed the prime ministerial prerogative to set the date of the general election, something not even Labour was ready to give up.

After only two years, the record of this coalition government compares positively with Tony Blair's first term, even though he always regretted not having adopted a more radical approach when coming to power. Yet as selective as collective memory might be, it is also usually arriving at a more balanced appreciation of achievements as time goes by. John Major's government, though deeply unpopular at the time, might be a case in hand. Major's term in office is now seen as laying the foundation for the unprecedented economic recovery in the second half of the 1990s creating the space for the expansion of public expenditure under Labour. In this sense, Cameron and Clegg may have their best time still ahead of them.

Delay the Lords Reform!

As the coalition government is stumbling from one mistake to another, it is hard to dispel the impression that most of its wounds are self-inflicted. To add to the list of problems, the government has opened the can of worms again that is the reform of the House of Lords. 

As many observers of constitutional affairs have noted only half-jokingly, House of Lords reform has been imminent since 1911. In that year, parliament approved the Parliament Act which established the supremacy of the House of Commons. Ever since, politicians and the British public have wondered what the role and purpose of the Lords could be in the legislative process. 

Much ink has been spilled on possible reforms for the House of Lords and many a commission’s report has come and gone. But now, the government is determined this long protracted issue should enter its final phase. In fact, it is so determined to solve the House of Lord issue, ministers will move other legislation out of the way in the House of Commons schedule to make place for reform legislation. Why the haste? 

One reason may be the desire of the Liberal Democrats to secure their legacy before the next general election. Putting in place some of the changes they promised in their election manifesto in 2010 may provide a critical stepping stone for their electoral survival. However the timing of this round of reforms of the House of Lords appears deeply flawed. While few would argue that making the Lords an elected parliamentary body would increase their legitimacy, it is the timing that is ill conceived. 

Scotland’s First Minister has announced a referendum on Scottish independence for 2014. Whether or not Scotland may secede from the Union in 2014, Britain will need a fundamental transformation of its constitutional structure as devolution for the three smaller home nations gathers pace. The obvious means for re-jigging the British constitution would be a federal upper chamber that could ensure regional and national representation and balances the power of central government.

Any precipitate House of Lords reforms however forecloses this option. Once the upper chamber is a fully elected body with the main political parties dominating its composition, any federal solution become unfeasible. Since not much has changed in the last 100 years, chances are we would have to wait another century for a federalisation of the upper chamber. The forces set in motion by devolution may not wait that long.