Vote for Don
Bubble — By Daran Hill on July 21, 2009 7:11 am
No, not that Trump...
At the recent Bevan Foundation and Positif Politics conference on One Wales, Two Years, it was perhaps inevitable that the day would include a forward look element. The last session of the day, fronted by Vaughan Roderick and framed with the playful title Snog, Marry, Avoid: Will Labour and Plaid do it again?, it examined a serious topic in a lighthearted way and started the thought – what ingredients do you need to persuade political parties to coalition together?
It provided a theme for much of the day. There was much amusement when Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones suggested that political parties “Snog everyone.” But she had a real point – in order to find a partner it is vital to show willing. Darren Millar AM, one of the savviest of the last Assembly intake, understood this well when he gladly offered to reciprocate the show of affection later in the day.
Not even a Barack Obama-led Labour Party could deliver it a majority at the next Assembly election, and no other party is in a position to do so. The choice is therefore between a minority government or, more likely, further coalition. If we accept that coalition is the natural state of governance in the Assembly, then what can the last three Assembly elections and the governments after them teach us about the next Welsh Assembly Government after 2011?
From 1999 to 2000 there was an unstable minority Labour administration which lost its leader. From October 2000 to May 2003, a partnership government existed between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. After that there was four years of Labour alone, two with a technical majority of 30 seats to 30, and two where the defection of Peter Law put Labour once more in minority.
By May 2007, Labour was in minority again, but it accepted that such instability could not last, and so in July 2007 the One Wales agreement was set out. The dalliance between Labour and Plaid Cymru had proved to be more than a one night stand. They are currently half way through the marriage of convenience, underpinned by a hefty pre-nuptial contract. The experience of May-July 2007 is particularly instructive on how coalitions come about so, with a focus on this period but also an eye on previous arrangements, here’s a list of 10 factors which determine whether an Assembly coalition could be formed and could succeed.
Trust: The most crucial factor of all. Without trust, relationships are doomed. There must be trust to deliver between parties, and especially among the AMs in party groups that their negotiators are getting them the best deal. When the Rainbow Alliance faded from the skies in 2007 it was because the trust had gone. From the moment the Liberal Democrat executive failed to endorse the deal negotiated by their party with Plaid and the Conservatives, the trust died. There were a lot of angry people in the other two political parties involved, and the next day “trust” was the word used most regularly. Even though the Lib Dems subsequently held a special conference to revoke the Executive decision and put the deal back on the table, the trust had gone. Although Peter Black is technically right to continue to argue it was Plaid that walked away and joined with Labour, the political reality is that on that Thursday night when the Lib Dem executive said neither yes nor no (it was a tied vote), the Rainbow dream died.
Reward: A key reason half the Lib Dem executive said no was because they saw insufficient rewards for their party in the arrangement being proposed. There was not enough political gain. This was in stark contrast to 2000, when the Partnership Agreement with Labour gave them a very clear raft of policies to sell back to their membership. At the end of the day, any deals made between negotiators have to be sold back to their own parties. Labour and Plaid knew this in 2007. Without clear policy pledges and perceptions of political advantage (for both parties) they would never have got One Wales through the party meetings called to endorse the deals. Expected rewards must be clear and attainable if coalitions are there to last.
Unity: This doesn’t mean there can’t be dissent within parties once final deals are proposed. No party should enter a coalition without a full and frank debate, and any party which tries is storing up future trouble. But there does need to be unity during coalition negotiations. Possible partners need to be sure those with whom they are negotiating have the confidence of their groups to continue negotiations. That is why when four Plaid Assembly Members refused to back the Rainbow during the negotiation phase, they quite rightly earned the ire of their leadership. The four socialists could simply not stomach an agreement to bring the Conservatives into government in Wales as partners with Plaid and, by declaring so during negotiations, they delivered a devastating blow to those negotiating for the party. They were not alone. Labour and the Liberal Democrats also had open dissenters during the same period, none of which makes the path to a stable coalition easier when you’re still at negotiation phase.
Momentum: To even get into negotiations, you need political momentum. The collapse in Labour’s vote in 2007 and the failure of the Liberal Democrats once more to make a gain on their six existing seats deprived the perceived natural alliance between them of any sort of momentum. Peter Black made this view clear in his blog at the time, reflecting that it was perhaps better that they sat out of government, having performed so poorly. It is clear that any party which makes gains, and demonstrates real political momentum during an election, is in a stronger moral position to make deals and bargains once the dust settles. In 2011, if any party picks up three or more new seats overall (quite a shift in normal Assembly terms) expect it to try much harder to end up in government. Conversely, any party losing even a few seats will find itself less appealing if it cannot demonstrate momentum when it looks for a seat at the bargaining table.
Policies: Policies as well as politics matters. When coalitions are brought together it is very much on the basis of what can be delivered, how and at what cost. The last factor will of course be even more critical in 2011 than it was in 2007. Speaking frankly, half the content of most manifestos is pretty much identical to that of the other parties contesting the Assembly elections. So half a coalition government’s programme – in sweeping terms – would be the same whoever is in government with whoever else. It is in the other half of the programme that the detail lies. And that half of a government programme needs to be a mesh of the key asks of the partners. If certain factors are not present, then negotiations will fail. Think only of Plaid’s natural insistence on furthering and deepening the constitutional settlement for the Assembly as an example. Policy matters – never forget that. It is to implement policies that political parties exist.
Track-Record: But politics is about people as well as policies, and sometimes personal relationships can count for a lot. A natural cosiness and comfortableness will exist between political parties who have worked together before and whose leading players have sat in Cabinets together. This is apparent in many countries and systems where the same pairing or arrangements exist after multiple elections. Because the Lib Dems and Labour had worked together at an Assembly level before, it was their alliance which looked the most natural in 2007. Similarly, the Rainbow makers would never have come so close to their crock of gold if they hadn’t been working openly together to destabilize the minority Labour administration during the previous two years. By 2011, the evident comfort in relations between Labour and Plaid Ministers (some of whom sometimes look more comfortable with each than with their own parties) will count a great deal. Why break up a happy relationship, you’ll hear from those opposed to an annulment? And they will have a point – better the devil you know. However, this same factor can also count against partners, too. If a referendum on a strengthened Assembly has not been held by May 2011, how will Plaid persuade their members to even think about making a deal with Labour again? Delivery and track-record matters.
Options: A key reason Ieuan Wyn Jones is Deputy First Minister and not Mike German is because he kept his options open in 2007. During the phase when both of those parties were negotiating with each other and with the Conservatives, both were also in separate talks with the Labour Party. Until one evening, when the rainbow seemed likely, the Liberal Democrats shut down their lines of communication to Labour. It is well documented that Rhodri Morgan, who was entertaining journalists that evening, was stunned at this move. A number of Liberal Democrats were gobsmacked, too. At no point did Ieuan Wyn Jones ever throw out any options for his party during the two months between Assembly election and formation of the coalition in which his party was an undoubted winner. Expect future negotiators in future coalitions to follow his example.
Westminster: The uneven pattern of political power at Assembly level means Westminster has a critical say, regardless of whether that pleases all the parties or politicians involved at an Assembly end. Devolution so far has been a process of gradual accrual which has required Westminster consent to develop and deepen. Even the referendum to move Wales to the next phase of law-making power requires a majority at Westminster as well as a two-thirds majority in the Assembly to trigger it. Westminster involvement is a reality and it matters. Until now, the existence of a Labour government in Westminster has been a significant pheromone during the coalition courtship ritual. If the Conservatives form a Westminster government in 2010, expect them to smell ever sweeter to others in 2011. Such a factor would be particularly important if Plaid perceived that Labour has reneged on its referendum commitment in One Wales. After all, power is reality in political terms. If the first year of a possible Cameron government is favourable to Welsh devolution, then Plaid may follow their noses.
Ideology: Conversely, the biggest roadblock to the Conservatives being part of an administration in Cardiff Bay is ideology. They are a centre right party, even if their Assembly grouping is substantially to the left of many of their Westminster colleagues. And ideology matters. At the recent One Wales, Two Years conference senior Welsh Assembly Government Special Adviser Mark Drakeford stressed the importance of ideology in underpinning the viability of One Wales. After all, he contended, two avowedly socialist parties were naturally drawn to work together because of the synergy of their political ideologies. The four most ardent socialist AMs in Plaid clearly shared this perception when they delivered their ultimatum in May 2007, rejecting a Plaid-Conservative deal as ideologically incompatible. Will things really have changed that much by 2011 so that ideology is collectively set aside?
Numbers: And, finally, it is a numbers game. Of course, size matters. With administrations requiring over 30 seats to be secure, coalition partners measure their virility in clear numbers beyond this threshold. So Plaid and Labour making 40 was always going to be a better prospect than a rainbow which made 33 seats. Of course too, as stated above, an Assembly needs to endorse a referendum vote by two thirds in order to trigger the ballot. Numbers count, as Johnny Ball used to say.
Based on this analysis, there are 10 key factors which can and will shape the 2011 Welsh Assembly Government. Without getting into predictions of the precise shape (there are plenty of times and columns for that), the power of these 10 factors can easily be appreciated. For the mnemonically minded amongst you, to form the next Welsh Assembly Government you need a TRUMP TO WIN.
Tags: 2011 Assembly elections, Assembly, coalition, leadership, Plaid Cymru, Welsh Conservatives, Welsh Labour, Welsh Liberal Democrats
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
14 Comments
Interesting post. It’s likely that the Tory decision to create some clear blue water by talking of scrapping prescription charges will mean the ideological differences are sharper next time round.
Really interesting article Daran. As was evident at the conference, coalitions will be the norm in Welsh politics and therefore politics will be very different here compared to what we’re used to seeing on a ‘British’ level. This type of consensual politics will benefit Wales greatly in my view, and should prove to be far more democratic in the long term. Political parties will have to adapt though and be realistic in their manifesto commitments/ pledges from now on as there is undoubtedly an element of compromise attached to any coalition deal. I think the personality of leaders count a lot as well – will be interesting to see what direction Labour take depending on who they select as their new leader in Wales and what impact, if any, that will have on their relationship with Plaid.
Marc – I agree with what you write, and penned a column on that theme for this site a few weeks ago. The other key factor not mentioned re Conservative appeal would be the ideological impact of a Conservative government cutting public spending on a UK level and whether that would, 80s style, propel everyone else to work together down here.
Heledd – agree with realism in manifesto making (there’s a future article in me re changing styles so far over 3 Assembly elections!) But not sure how “hard labelled” options will be. Personality and pre-disposition of leaders is bound to be a factor, but so will be personal relationships. Can think of scenarios where this would really matter.
Thanks for the feedback, twittering etc on this article.
Excellent post, Daran. I think the debate is possibly about the weightings given to the various “trump” cards set out in your thoroughly absorbing article., I think, for instance, the point made by marc jones, about ideological gaps widening viz Plaid as Tories. perhaps, try to create clear blue water, will be less of a factor if there is a pro devolution (or at least opening minded on the issue) Conservative Government in Westminster. From my perspective, you certainly set out a the grounds for a scenario that could easily see the Conservatives break through to government in Wales…a case also made very strongly by Nick Bourne at the “One Wales, Two years” Conference.
I don’t need to add to you incisive commentary re the nature and behaviour of the LibDems, my comments would hold no sway on that aspect of your post, suffice to say, they have a long way to go to build up trust.
I think that, not unsurprisingly, you’re being harsh on the Lib Dems here. My point re trust was based on the fateful executive meeting, and not their general negotiating position. Though I do think, as I state, that closing down negotiations with Labour was an unnecessary and limiting action.
I fully expect Kirsty and her team to be working toward being part of the next Welsh Assembly Government. There will be plenty of other trust issues between parties between now and then, making a Thursday night meeting in 2007 seem a long way away.
A superb analysis of coalition government, in my view, benefits from the approach you take to viewing this subject, namely the focus on personal history which brings the subject alive. It is tempting for political analysts to sometimes hide behind structural factors and ignore the very prominent role of human agency, and this article greatly benefits from this human-centric approach.
What is interesting is that despite Wales’ short democratic history of coalition government, we are still constitutionally unprepared for what might happen. We have no rules or processes to govern the outcome and our politicians, especially after fighting negative campaigns for weeks, and are therefore are even less likely to provide the required direction and leadership needed to make a coalition work.
The power and influence of individuals is critical in shaping Welsh politics. When four Plaid AMs rejected the rainbow, remember they were almost a third of the group. Similarly, as Mark Drakeford stressed at the conference, the personalities and style of negotiators was critical in bringing One Wales about.
There is of course no formal structure to help bring coalitions into being. Indeed, my recollection of May 2007 is of many people being completely unprepared for the urgency and practicality of negotiation.
Perhaps the Assembly way – and – I’ve only just thought of this – is to have non-coalitions immediately after elections while the dust settles. This happened after all 3 elections, with coalitions following afterward in 2 cases.
Just a random thought, but should the biggest party automatically take the lead after every election as a matter of course and form a minority government while also conducting open negotiation? This approach certainly brought stability and direction during June 2007.
Really interesting post but my experience (and for what it matters my judgement in how I voted on the NEC) suggests there was a bit more to this. Taking your points to 12 or bludgeoning it in elsewhere…
The policy/trust point is about deliverability of policies too. If you have a good agreement to work from which is likely to come under strain. If the cost of a policy or policies is highly uncertain inevitably that will put a strain on elsewhere. Of course in government there will always be changes as an economic situation changes and there are unanticipated items of expenditure/saving but having a good trustworthy base to work from was to my mind essential.
The other point is around numbers/momentum. If you increase your numbers and get the big ‘mo’ then your leader can just ask your to trust their judgement. A judgement that will have been bourne out correctly by more wins. I don’t think I let this overly effect my decisions but there is no doubt it did some other Lib Dems. A leader has got to have the points in the bank to ask the party to take a leap of faith.
Good article.. can I time warp back to May 07 with it please?
(apols for taking so long to respond.. IE wouldn’t give me a submit button but Chrome does.. another reminder to avoid Microsoft)
I would add a further factor, “Vision” although it could arguably be included under Ideology.
For me, what killed off the Lib Dem chances of entering a coalition in 2007 was the fact that everyone was so obsessed with the process of coalition, the party had forgotten to communicate what they actually wanted for Wales. The manifesto was insidery and wonky and, notwithstanding your point about keeping options open, at no point was there any debate internally or externally about what the party’s red lines should be.
The result was a process with lots of checks and balances to ensure that no-one got screwed over, but nothing to engender party unity. With people on the assembly with as differing views on coalition as Mike German and Peter Black that was always going to be fatal.
In short, if you don’t ask yourself what you want out of a coalition at the start of the process, you can’t be surprised if lots of people are going in different directions at the end of it.
Ali, if you ever get your hands on a time machine, you need to go back slightly further than that. The last Welsh autumn conference probably.
Interesting piece, Daran. I don’t agree with one or two aspects of your interpretation of events last time round, but that’s a story for another day!
I think though that are are two other factors which I’d add to your list, even if it spoils the nice mnemonic. A bit long for a comment, so I’ve posted some thoughts of may own here
Ali – As you keep telling me, deliverability and costings are critical. Wish I’d referenced that more fully under Policy.
James – maybe add that under Ideology to keep the mnemonic? You make a telling point about manifesto construction.
John – thanks for your comments here and over on Borthlas. Accept both the points that you make. Preparation is a critical factor, and the issue of whether red lines (or any other colour for that matter) was indeed a feature at the conference which inspired the article. With regard to the commitment of the “Wider Party” I’d be tempted to incorporate my W (Westminster) in with this new heading, and discuss both in that context. Still can’t see what to do with the additional P though, if I want to keep the mnemonic
To be honest, I think that another factor will be how the Uk parties federalise (as put forward by Adam H on here) will be an important factor here.
Senedd Labour is far more comfortable with the notion of increased devolution, and in all of the potential contenders to replace Rhodri Morgan this will be borne out. Generationally, you will see a passing of the ‘devo-dinosaurs’ in the Welsh Labour MPs, and they will be replaced by a set of MPs at least more comfortable of the notion of entrenched devolution.
Even the most positive Labour member will accept they face a potential decade out of power in Westminster. This will be the final passing of the centrifugal power force in Welsh Labour – from Welsh Labour MPs to Welsh Labour AMs. That certainly was the feeling i got when i attended the One Wales ratification conference when i was a member of Welsh Labour.
Now in time i would imagine that the federalising of Labour will happen in time – it has to because of the wider federalising of the UK as a body politic.
It seems very apparent that all the UK parties will have to respond to these changes more formally.
My belief is that the Welsh Conservatives are less rampantly right wing than UK, this is a product of the limited devolutionary settlement. Any talk of Wales truly forging its own distinctly ideological path is premature – the real proof is when the assembly has to raise revenue and spend it. Cut spending in a Welsh Assembly context seems rather superflous given the block grant doesnt it? The miss cog in that ideological wheel is lowering taxes – something the Welsh Conservatives cannot do.
We also must take account of the fact that a Cameron victory will deliver a devolution era precedent – a Westminster Government that is not in power in ANY of the devolved institutions. This represents a massive challenge for the Welsh Conservatives, particularly given they do seem to have a different policy agenda to the Westminster Conservatives.
We should also never forget that politicians have an in built self preservation mechanism! haha
“Just a random thought, but should the biggest party automatically take the lead after every election as a matter of course and form a minority government while also conducting open negotiation? ”
In my view there should be an obligation for the biggest party to seek to build a coalition. However, the sea change needs to happen pre-election in my view. If, as we are told by AMs, we are seeking a more inclusive, less punch and judy politics in Wales, then they should be willing to talk pre-election in detail.
Of course these are preliminary talks, but they at least lessen the time needed to conduct them post-vote.
I also think the time has come for parties to be more willing to talk about their second vote being used tactically. It would be great if in time votes used their two votes to almost put forward their coalition option (given we accept they are always likely to happen).
For example, you would imagine had Labour voters voted Lib Dem on their second vote, then the Lib Dems might have got more seats, thus making the coalition more numerically sound.
Perhaps that is perhaps naive.