In just four and a half hours today, between 10:30 and 3:00, the question of who would head Britain’s government got pretty well sorted out: it would be Conservative party leader David Cameron. On the election night broadcasts Labour’s Peter Mandelson in effect made an offer to the Liberal Democrats: enter a coalition with Labour and we will support “electoral reform,” i.e., changing Britain’s first-past-the-post single-member-district electoral system (which benefits Labour) to proportional representation. The current system enabled Labour to win 258 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons with 29% of the popular vote, while Liberal Democrats won only 57 seats with 23% of the popular vote. (The Conservatives won 307 seats with 36% of the popular vote.) Prime Minister Gordon Brown seemed to endorse the Mandelson deal in his victory speech in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
There were a few problems with the deal. The exit poll projection, which various commentators on television (and I) disparaged but which turned out to be uncannily accurate, showed that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition would fall short of a 326-seat majority. Second, Clegg campaigned as a candidate of change and it would be ludicrous for him to play a critical role in keeping an unpopular incumbent prime minister in office. Third, Clegg had said on the campaign trail that he would ally with Labour only if someone other than Brown were prime minister. But the Labour party process to choose another leader takes weeks to complete.
In any case this morning at 10:30 Clegg effectively rejected the Mandelson deal. Speaking outside Liberal Democrat headquarters in Westminster, he reiterated what he had said on the campaign trail, that the party that won the most votes and the most seats should “has the first right to form a government.” He would talk with Conservatives before talking to Labour. In effect this meant giving up proportional representation. The Conservatives would never accept it, and if he tried to make a deal with Labour after failing to get one from the Conservatives he would have lost crucial leverage.
It was announced soon afterwards that Cameron would make a statement at 2:30. Gordon Brown decided to step outside Number 10 Downing Street first, at 2:00. He said that he “respected” Clegg’s decision to approach Cameron first and that they were entitled to take as much time as necessary. He said that if the Cameron-Clegg talks “came to nothing,” he would be willing to talk with Clegg. He called for some sort of electoral reform to be presented to voters in a referendum and mentioned some areas where Labour agreed with Liberal Democrats. It was a dignified statement, leaving the Mandelson deal on offer. But he didn’t sound like a man who believed anything would come of it.
Only a few minutes later Cameron arrived and read his statement in St. Stephen’s Club in Westminster, in front of a window through which pedestrians could be seen walking. After mentioning how many seats Conservative had won, he raised the possibility of a “confidence and supply” arrangement, giving other parties certain assurances on policy in return for their agreement not to bring a Conservative minority government down. But he said he preferred “to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats.” He would insist, he said, on maintaining Conservative policy on the European Union, immigration and defense, and would expect to put in place most of the policies in the Conservatives’ election manifesto. Then he staked out areas where Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were close to agreement: education (endorsing the Liberal Democrats’ pupil premium), “achievement of a low-carbon economy,” taxes and identity cards (both parties oppose them). On electoral reform, he said, “The Liberal Democrats have their ideas, we have our ideas, for example that all seats should be of equal size so that votes can have equal value in a first past the post system, and other parties have constructive proposals to put forward as well. So I believe we will need an all-party committee of enquiry on political and electoral reform.” That sure doesn’t sound like a commitment to proportional representation. Cameron spoke, as he usually does, with great assurance. He lobbed attacks on “the outgoing Labour government” and said “the best thing for Britain now is a new government that works together in [the] national interest.”
It was an offer that made relatively few concessions to the Liberal Democrats. Nevertheless, Cameron and Clegg talked on the telephone for a quarter hour after 4:00 and the Liberal Democrats issued a positive statement endorsing “economic and political reform that would take place in due course.” And it has been reported that several leaders of the two parties, but not Cameron and Clegg, will be talking this evening. My prediction: the two parties will reach agreement over the weekend and Cameron will be installed as prime minister on Monday. Gordon Brown will leave Number 10 Downing Street in the prime minister’s car for Buckingham Palace and will leave in a smaller car; David Cameron will head there in his own vehicle and emerge in the prime minister’s car.
Why has Nick Clegg thrown away his party’s only chance in decades to change the representation system to its advantage? Because he has a weak hand. His party lost seats rather than gain them, as everyone expected. A candidate of change cannot keep the same person in Number Ten. Labour and Lib Dems don’t have a majority between them. And finally, Cameron can probably govern with 308 Conservatives in Parliament (the election was postponed because of the death of a candidate in the seat of Thirsk and Malton, which voted 53% Conservative, 25% Labour and 18% Liberal Democrat in 2005). The 5 Sinn Fein members are not expected to take their seats, which puts the majority down from 326 to 323. The 8 Democratic Unionists from Northern Ireland will probably vote with Conservatives on votes of confidence. The Speaker does not vote. That puts Cameron very close to a majority. And both Labour and Liberal Democrats are not in a good financial position to fight another general election, which would be necessary if Cameron lost a vote of confidence. I don’t expect this government to last four or five years, as British governments with solid absolute majorities do, and another election this fall is possible. More likely, I think, is another election in a year or two.
Note to faithful readers: I will be participant in a panel on the British election and what it means for America at American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday, May 11, from 9:00 to 11:00am. Also on the panel will be pollster Stanley Greenberg and CNN’s William Schneider.
