Coalition policies - progressive or conservative in disguise?

The new Lib-Con coalition government has produced some thought-provoking new policies. Overall, they seem progressive and more liberal in a classical sense than conservative, and are going ahead with these policies at a time of major government spending cuts. Labour claims that the cuts are the "same old Tory" cuts which are what they would have done anyway because that is what Tories have always done.

The key problems for Labour are:

1. They are in the middle of a leadership election, in which the candidates are trying to appeal to Labour party members who, um, support Labour and like having increased government spending which is geared towards helping the poor.
2. They have just been kicked out of office after having caused a big structural defict of around 8% of GDP in 2009 (i.e. excluding the effects of the recession, government spending massively outstrips government income in the shape of taxes). This should be put in the context of the overall £90bn deficit reported in 2009.
3. It's more or less what they would have done if they had been in power. Further analysis of the parties' budget plans can be found in this presentation from the IFS from April 2010. Page 29 shows the overall cut in spending and increase in taxes planned per year being £15.8bn by Labour, £10.1bn by the Conservatives, and £19.7bn by the Lib Dems.

Further analysis of the budget deficit can be found elsewhere, including this 2008 PDF from the Institute For Fiscal Studies. The graph below (from the BBC) says it all I think:

It'll be interesting to see how the leadership election turns out and what the effect will be on Labour policy, especially given that it is very likely the coalition will not survive its full five year term, and Labour will have to have a credible set of policies in preparation for a quick return to government. It is, of course, possible the coalition will survive the 5-year term.

Some coalition policies of note are: a referendum on the AV-voting system, instead of FPTP next May (seen by Nick Robinson as a date which may make or break the coalition), Justice Secretary Ken Clarke on reform of prisons and sending fewer people to prison (aka "prisons don't work"), Education Secretary Michael Gove setting up new types of school independent of central control ("Free Schools", and a reform of the NHS which gives GPs more power, and a fixed-term parliament.

I'll explore some of these policies further in the future as they develop. All useful stuff for any essay about political parties and their policies, although there is plenty of time between now and the exam in May/June 2011, so much may change.

A final note about former new Labour spin doctor Peter Mandelson. What I've read of his book, serialised in the Times this week, has been interesting but it has not exactly said anything we didn't know already; that new Labour and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown really didn't trust eachother, and spent time arguing about power when they should have spent all their energy running the country. It is an interesting contrast to the coalition government and the trust which civil service chief Sir Gus O'Donnell said was key in cementing the agreement between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, and between Nick Clegg and David Cameron in particular.

Just watch the coalition's first joint news conference:

I agree with Nick... I agree with Nick

The general consensus is that Nick Clegg had a very good debate with Brown and Cameron for example, here and here - there is a debate to be had about how expectations can lead to a result (expectations of Clegg were by and large low so when he had a better debate than Cameron, who has been perceived as a great orator and debator, then he is the winner), or how the debate itself was hampered by a highly restrictive set of rules.

Overall, I think Clegg played the "I'm not the same as the other guys" line well. Cameron was good, but was hindered by over-cautiousness (being so concerned about making sure that he did not make a blunder that he lost most of his spontaneity and verve). Brown couldn't stop fidgeting, sounded too much like a bureacrat, and did not make eye-contact with the audience or the viewer. Better than expected then - as a result, he has been seen in some quarters as having a very good evening.

The key reason for bringing this all up is that it is unclear what impact these debates will have on the election. There is the possibility that a swing to the Lib-Dems (assuming nothing changes between now and the election - a very unlikely scenario) will impact key marginal constituencies which are Lib-Tory, but will have an uncertain effect on Lab-Lib marginals. Everything else being equal, left-leaning pro-LibDem voters will put their tick in the box of whichever party will keep out the Tories.

Brown's shameless wooing of Clegg on prime-time TV shows how concerned he is by the prospect of a hung parliament to encourage LibDem voters to help Labour by ganging up on the Conservatives. It also reminds us of how close the two parties are in many ways given their history, and recent policies (see my previous post for links).

In terms of G&P students, all useful stuff for any question asking about how minor parties can increase their support / vote / profile (go on the TV in prime-time debating with the leaders of the two biggest parties and do well).

Don't forget, of course, there are the other national TV debates too, in which the multi-party systems of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament get to face up against eachother. Again, more publicity and coverage (not to mention equal billing) for smaller and minor parties.

Nor should I ignore the BNP's invitation to appear on Question Time earlier in the year - as a result of a seat in the European elections they have become a party representing a constituency so their ideas should be tested in a public forum. Again - a minor party gains a seat that in turn helps to increase their profile, which may lead to more votes.

That's not to ignore the very serious possibility that the BNP benefited in the European elections from an anti-politics mood among voters in the UK. In this election this mood is likely to benefit UKIP too, that is if Nick Clegg can't be the anti-politician politician.