A Faustian Bargain

After five days of post-election wrangling, Britain has a new government and, as predicted here, the Liberal Democrats have thrown in their lot with the Tories in a coalition of ideological opposites that has already drawn rumblings of discontent from the rank-and-file of both parties.

Gordon Brown surrendered office on Monday evening with consummate dignity.  It's easy to take cheap shots at a Prime Minister removed from office in the midst of a grave fiscal crisis, but he served his party and the country well, and I think in time history will judge him kindly.  He occupied the Treasury for ten years - more than any other Chancellor in modern history - and presided over a period of sustained economic growth and economic policy reform.  But he became Prime Minister at a difficult time.  Tony Blair's inexplicable obeisance to the Bush administration, and Britain's consequent participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq, had left the country divided internally and isolated internationally.  Brown's low-key and austere manner came as a welcome contrast to that of his flashy, self-righteous and self-serving predecessor, but he inherited the baggage nonetheless.

Pundits can debate why Brown lost the election, but at the end of the day Britain was simply ready for change, not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with Labour, but rather because it had been in office for too long.  British voters have traditionally seen to it that no one party becomes entrenched in office, and it was time for Labour to go.  Nonetheless, after the votes were in, I was amused to hear David Cameron proclaim that the country needed a change "after thirteen years of Labour misrule".   Possibly he used the phrase during the election too.   I am old enough (though Cameron is not) to remember first hand where the phrase came from; it was Harold Wilson, in the 1964 general election, who persuaded voters that "thirteen years of Tory misrule" was enough.  How ironic that in his moment of triumph the suave and smooth-talking Cameron had to turn to a former Labour standard-bearer for a good soundbite!

Details about the coalition negotiations are still emerging, but it seems that Labour didn't bend over backwards to try to cut a deal with the LibDems.  Gordon Brown stood down as party leader in large measure because he perceived his continued presence as a potential stumbling block to a Labour-led coalition, and in so doing he acted as one would have expected - honourably.  But many party activists opposed any deal with LibDems and,  for reasons discussed in an earlier post,  that is probably the best course for the Labour party.  Their challenge now is not just to unite around a new leader and re-tune their message, but also to rethink their fundamental values after the corrosive influence of Tony Blair.  Civil liberties would be a good place to start, but overall I think "New Labour" needs to be a little less "New" and a little more "Labour".  It will enjoy the luxury enjoyed by any opposition party during difficult times - the freedom to criticize tough decisions, without the responsibility to take them.  I hope they exercise the freedom responsibly and in the public interest, but Conservative plans to slash public spending while the country is still emerging from a severe recession provide Labour a continuing opportunity to highlight some basic policy differences between left and right.

The LibDems will have some seats at the Cabinet table for the first time in generations, and a good portion of its parliamentary party will likely land jobs in the lower tiers of government.  Leader Nick Clegg will be the "Deputy Prime Minister".  It sounds very important, but the position is an extra-constitutional one without formal responsibilities.  He will presumably also enjoy the title of  First Secretary of State, which, like the Deputy Prime Minister position, has no specific responsibilities but at least commands a salary.  As Michael Heseltine commented recently, the role of Deputy Prime Minister is whatever the Prime Minister wants it to be.  Heseltine should know; he occupied the office in John Major's government, and boasts that he was the person "through whom Major exercised power."  John Prescott, his counterpart under Blair, would doubtless tell a different story.  Cameron will need show appropriate deference to Clegg for as long as he needs to keep the coalition intact, but I believe Clegg's role will be largely symbolic.   Other LibDems will be appointed to the Cabinet, the most important portfolio going to the LibDem finance spokesman Vince Cable, who reportedly will serve as Trade and Industry Secretary.  He represents the Lib-Dems best hope to advance Lib-Dem policies from a ministerial position.

Events appear to have unfolded as Cameron had hoped.  Admittedly he has had to make some concessions on policy.  The details are still emerging, but aside from his agreement to hold a referendum on electoral reform (which he will campaign against), the most visible concession may be the shelving of plans to increase the inheritance tax threshold.  But Cameron comes out a winner there too. His administration will reap the benefit of maintaining inheritance tax revenues, but he can blame the Lib-Dems for his failure to follow through on a key campaign promise.  The Lib-Dems have signed on to the Tories' plans to slash $6 billion in public spending and appear to have abandoned the pro-Europe stance that has been a hallmark of their policy since the party's inception.

Having signed up to the pact, the Lib-Dems have struck their Faustian bargain.  Today Cameron and Clegg were the toast of the town; both proclaimed the emergence of a "new kind of politics" at a Downing Street event one pundit likened to a gay wedding.  However, it won't be long before the new politics gives way to politics as usual.  If they stick with the Tories for a full five years, as the coalition agreement reportedly envisages, the LibDems will lose all credibility as a progressive party and will share the blame for whatever unpopular measures Cameron takes to reduce the deficit.  If they withdraw from the coalition, they lose what little real influence they have, and face the unenviable choice of either precipitating an early general election by joining opposition parties to oppose major legislation (for which they would be blamed) or continuing to prop up Cameron for the duration of his mandate (for which they would also be blamed).

One can only wish Clegg the best of luck.