Divining the entrails
The political commentators in Britain are beside themselves, they are having conniptions, twisting themselves into political contortions that they have never experienced before. They have never in their lifetime experienced the formation of a governing coalition. In this area they could learn a lot from Israel, where coalitions are a way of life.
One primary aspect of coalition building are secret agreements, at least secret for some time because eventually everything leaks out. The reason for the secrecy is that formation of a coalition agreement requires compromise, requires the jettisoning of strongly held principles and commitments that have been enshrined in weeks and months of campaiging as well as being written in black and white in party platforms. Some leaders do not want it known to what extent they have compromised themselves in order to attain power. Sometimes it also involves payoffs, oh, no nothing as crude as actual transfer of envelopes full of money, but maybe large payoffs to the favorite charity of a particular party, such as its religious school system. Of course, this should be banned, but if that is what it takes in order for a party leader to form a coalition and become PM, then a lot is tolerated. Now, of course, nothing so underhand would be tolerated in Britain, the home of fair-play, but nevertheless many are very concerned to what extent the Cons and the LibDems leaders will discard deeply held policy positions in order to forma coalition. This is why the leaders are now in the process of persuading their MPs that they are really doing this for the stability of the country and the long-term good of their party, rather than for their own short term desire for power.
When Bibi Netanyahu made his current governing coalition he was, of course, widely criticized by elements of the British press. They labelled him "extreme right-wing" etc. However, the fact that the Labor Party under Ehud Barak joined the coalition tended to undermine their biased and superficial analysis. Of course, Barak wanted to join so that he could be reappointed Defense Minister (power!), although some of his members of the Knesset (MKs) have been against it from the start. Netanyahu was also able to include the religious (Shas) and the right wing (Israel Beitanu) in his coalition. This shows a degree of political manipulation far beyond the range of any puny British political leader. They should send representatives over to learn from him. Meanwhile the current stage is that PM Gordon Brown (yes, he is still PM) made public his ploy to negotiate with the LibDems. Certainly the LibDems are using this to try to extract more concessions from the Cons. So they are playing the game.
Another minor glitch is that the Irish Republican Party Sinn Fein obtained three seats in the British Parliament. But, since they refuse to take the oath of loyalty to the Queen they are not able to vote in the House of Commons. So as a consequence to obtain a majority requires 324 votes and not 326.
Ironically, now that Gordon Brown has announced that he will resign soon, removing one of the main barriers to a Labor-LibDem coalition with some other smaller parties forming a so-called Progressive Coalition, that would exclude the Conservatives who actually gained the most seats. That would be very similar to the Israeli situation, where the Kadima party under Tzipi Livni which has the largest number of MKs is in the opposition. But then who would want to make a shaky coalition agreement with a leader who was decisively rejected by the electorate, has already announced his resignation and is on his way out. At this point it remains to be seen whether Britain will be ruled by a Progressive or a Con-LibDem coalition or neither.
One primary aspect of coalition building are secret agreements, at least secret for some time because eventually everything leaks out. The reason for the secrecy is that formation of a coalition agreement requires compromise, requires the jettisoning of strongly held principles and commitments that have been enshrined in weeks and months of campaiging as well as being written in black and white in party platforms. Some leaders do not want it known to what extent they have compromised themselves in order to attain power. Sometimes it also involves payoffs, oh, no nothing as crude as actual transfer of envelopes full of money, but maybe large payoffs to the favorite charity of a particular party, such as its religious school system. Of course, this should be banned, but if that is what it takes in order for a party leader to form a coalition and become PM, then a lot is tolerated. Now, of course, nothing so underhand would be tolerated in Britain, the home of fair-play, but nevertheless many are very concerned to what extent the Cons and the LibDems leaders will discard deeply held policy positions in order to forma coalition. This is why the leaders are now in the process of persuading their MPs that they are really doing this for the stability of the country and the long-term good of their party, rather than for their own short term desire for power.
When Bibi Netanyahu made his current governing coalition he was, of course, widely criticized by elements of the British press. They labelled him "extreme right-wing" etc. However, the fact that the Labor Party under Ehud Barak joined the coalition tended to undermine their biased and superficial analysis. Of course, Barak wanted to join so that he could be reappointed Defense Minister (power!), although some of his members of the Knesset (MKs) have been against it from the start. Netanyahu was also able to include the religious (Shas) and the right wing (Israel Beitanu) in his coalition. This shows a degree of political manipulation far beyond the range of any puny British political leader. They should send representatives over to learn from him. Meanwhile the current stage is that PM Gordon Brown (yes, he is still PM) made public his ploy to negotiate with the LibDems. Certainly the LibDems are using this to try to extract more concessions from the Cons. So they are playing the game.
Another minor glitch is that the Irish Republican Party Sinn Fein obtained three seats in the British Parliament. But, since they refuse to take the oath of loyalty to the Queen they are not able to vote in the House of Commons. So as a consequence to obtain a majority requires 324 votes and not 326.
Ironically, now that Gordon Brown has announced that he will resign soon, removing one of the main barriers to a Labor-LibDem coalition with some other smaller parties forming a so-called Progressive Coalition, that would exclude the Conservatives who actually gained the most seats. That would be very similar to the Israeli situation, where the Kadima party under Tzipi Livni which has the largest number of MKs is in the opposition. But then who would want to make a shaky coalition agreement with a leader who was decisively rejected by the electorate, has already announced his resignation and is on his way out. At this point it remains to be seen whether Britain will be ruled by a Progressive or a Con-LibDem coalition or neither.
posted by Jack Cohen at 5:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home