The prospects for the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition, and the future of the Labour party following the 2010 UK Elections

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Podcast: LSE: Public lectures and events
Episode Title: The prospects for the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition, and the future of the Labour party following the 2010 UK Elections
Date: May 20, 2010
Host: Justin Guest
Guest: Professor Paul Kelly

This episode explores the immediate aftermath of the 2010 UK General Election, focusing on the unprecedented Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. Professor Paul Kelly joins host Justin Guest to assess the coalition's prospects for survival, its impact on both parties' agendas, and the future direction of the Labour party now in opposition.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Will the Coalition Last?

• Professor Kelly's View:
  • Despite skepticism, Kelly predicts the coalition will survive, stating that both parties have strong reasons for making the partnership work.
  • Quote [00:27]:
    “My sense is yes. There's a lot of reasons on both sides for this to be a more permanent coalition and I suspect both parties have looked fairly carefully into all of the problems before they will have signed up to something like this.… I'm putting my head on the block and saying yes but I think that's the right answer.” – Professor Kelly

2. Impact on the Conservative Agenda

• Transformation, Not Just Convenience:
  • Kelly challenges the notion that Conservatives are simply using the coalition as a stepping stone to majority government.
  • He suggests that Prime Minister David Cameron sees “liberal conservatism” as a real project, for which partnership with the Liberal Democrats is necessary.
  • Quote [00:55]:
    “Cameron's certainly long term judgment is that this coalition is in the best interest of the Conservative Party because it allows him to finish his project of transformation.” – Professor Kelly

3. What Can the Liberal Democrats Achieve?

• Exercise of Power:
  • For the Liberal Democrats, even temporary power is an unexpected opportunity for key figures.
• Electoral Risks vs. Opportunity:
  • Kelly addresses the common belief that the Lib Dems will be “squeezed” and lose voters to Labour, but he notes that the Lib Dem electorate is more complex, with significant regional variations.
  • The coalition could help solidify their place as “a strong but small middle party.”
  • Quote [01:51]:
    “There are these regional variations and all sorts of complex reasons why people vote Liberal.… I think this could, could solidify their position as a strong but small middle party.” – Professor Kelly

4. The Labour Party's Future

• Leadership Turmoil:
  • Labour’s immediate response may be a rushed leadership election, seeking a quick fix.
• Ideological Dilemma:
  • The party must choose between shifting further left (a risk) or competing for the centre ground now occupied by the coalition.
  • Consequences:
    • Kelly warns a hasty leadership contest might obscure deeper issues about the party’s purpose.
  • Quote [03:14]:
    “They have to think long and hard what they're for, and that's not clear. And I suspect the leadership election, if it's done badly, could distort that judgment.” – Professor Kelly

5. Labour’s Tactics: Obstruction and Opportunity

• Limited Influence on Coalition’s Core Issues:
  • The coalition’s urgent focus is deficit reduction and economic reform, echoing a wartime sense of national unity.
• Potential Upside for Labour:
  • Outsourcing the “cutting and downsizing of the state” could shield Labour from public backlash if the measures prove unpopular.
  • Quote [04:31]:
    “If it really is the agenda for the next few years, it probably is to Labour's advantage…to be out of office, to let the cutting and downsizing of the state and readjustment be done by somebody else.” – Professor Kelly

6. Pain of Cuts: Who Will Suffer?

• Disproportionate Impact by Region:
  • The reductions in public expenditure will hit regions already less supportive of Conservatives—Scotland, South Wales, Northern England—while the Conservative base (South East, etc.) may be less affected.
  • Labour’s job-creation policies were focused in these vulnerable areas.
• Political Consequences:
  • Unless the pain of cuts is spread nationwide, Labour may not benefit electorally; safe Labour seats may just see bigger majorities but little Conservative loss.
  • Memorable Analysis [06:00]:
    “If the main task is to reduce significantly public expenditure, the areas of the country which are most dependent on public expenditure…are not natural Conservative heartlands anyway.” – Professor Kelly
    “It's not clear that Labour would benefit much from that unless the pain is spread across the country, which it won't be.” – Professor Kelly

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On coalition stability:
  “It is such a special occasion so I'm putting my head on the block and saying yes but I think that's the right answer.” — Paul Kelly [00:35]

• On Cameron’s motivation:
  “He’s quite serious about this idea of liberal conservatism and he needs the Liberals for that.” — Paul Kelly [01:12]

• On regional impact of cuts:
  “If you end up penalizing Scotland, South Wales, the industrial Northeast, the industrial Northwest… you’re not going to lose too many seats. You're going to do what happened in the early 80s, where you just pile up Labour majorities in seats that are already safe.” — Paul Kelly [06:03]

• On the challenge for Labour:
  “They have to think long and hard what they're for, and that's not clear.” — Paul Kelly [03:16]

• On public reaction:
  “Of course, if we have riots and so on, that's another matter. But in the large swathes of blue across the country, it's not likely that we will.” — Paul Kelly [07:23]

---

Segment Timestamps

• [00:00] Introduction, coalition formation
• [00:23] Will the coalition last?
• [00:53] Conservative Party’s agenda & motivations
• [01:41] Liberal Democrats: gains and risks
• [02:52] Labour Party’s response and future direction
• [04:17] What can Labour obstruct? What will the coalition prioritize?
• [05:55] Geographic impact of public sector cuts
• [07:41] Conclusion

---

Takeaway

This episode provides a sharply analytical yet accessible breakdown of early coalition politics in 2010 Britain. Professor Kelly challenges assumptions about party motivations, unpacks the likely effects of deficit-driven policy on the electoral map, and stresses the importance of Labour’s soul-searching as they navigate a rapidly shifting political landscape. The candor and clarity make this a must-listen snapshot of a pivotal UK political moment.

Transcript

[A]

Well, they are the strangest of bedfellows. A Liberal Conservative coalition. Hi, I'm Justin Guest, welcome to the Government Department Hot seat. With us today to examine the prospects of this extraordinary partnership is Professor Paul Kelly. Thanks very much for being here.

[B]

Thank you Justin, Nice to see you.

[A]

Nice to see you. Let's get started. So is this coalition even going to last?

[B]

It's a difficult question to answer. My sense is yes. There's a lot of reasons on both sides for this to be a more permanent coalition and I suspect both parties have looked fairly carefully into all of the problems before they will have signed up to something like this. It is such a special occasion so I'm putting my head on the block and saying yes but I think that's the right answer.

[A]

So if this is going to last, how does this change the Tories agenda going forward?

[B]

Well, most of the coverage presents the coalition as being an advantage for the Conservatives to get them into office and as soon as they can dump the Liberals and go for a majority government that's what they'll do. I think actually their long term Cameron's certainly long term judgment is that this coalition is in the best interest of the Conservative Party because it allows him to finish his project of transformation. I think he's quite serious about this idea of liberal conservatism and he needs the Liberals for that. So that's one reason why I think the setup probably leads itself to a stable coalition. Both parties need this.

[A]

So then what can the Liberal Democrats achieve through this coalition?

[B]

Well, there's two ways of answering that. I mean, I suppose for some of the senior figures this is an opportunity that they didn't expect in their careers to exercise power. That's enormously attractive. That's why people go into politics. So some of them will have taken a calculation that if this all ends in tears they've had a chance. The received opinion tends to be now that the Liberal Democrats will be squeezed as a result of this. This will force people to flock back to labor which is a natural home for the Progressive vote. But of course that assumes that everybody who voted for the Liberals are potential Labour voters, which is not the case. There are these regional variations and all sorts of complex reasons why people vote Liberal. There will be some movement back to Labour but it isn't obvious that this thing called the Progressive vote will just shift back to the Progressive Party. So it's quite difficult to see how the Liberals will be in five years time. I think this could, could solidify their position as a strong but small Middle party.

[A]

And if you are Labour, what can you go from here? Where can you go from here?

[B]

Well, the danger for Labour is that, and there's some sense, and this is where they're going, is that they have a snap leadership election and think that in the short run all will be resolved and be back to politics as usual. Liberals will be out of it, squeezed, and it'll be Labour versus Conservative if the coalition arrangement works. And more importantly, the sort of distribution of the vote in the election is the settled will of the British electorate. You know, not quite sure how to divide between these three parties. They have to think long and hard what they're for, and that's not clear. And I suspect the leadership election, if it's done badly, could distort that judgment. So where do they go? If the Liberals and the Conservatives colonize a centre right ground, but with a strong centre part to that, the only way for them to go is either to try and colonize the same ground, which is very difficult, or move left, which is a disaster, unless they can be confident that there's this large progressive vote out there and that they can't be.

[A]

And in their obstructionist attempts, because obviously one of the main options will be obstruction, what will they have the chance to obstruct? Exactly. What do you see being the primary agenda of a Liberal Conservative coalition?

[B]

Well, the primary agenda is clearly deficit reduction and the economy. That's, I mean, one reason perhaps we will never know until the titular memoirs are published, but one reason perhaps for a formal coalition is it does echo. The last formal coalition government was wartime. So a signal is sent out. We're serious, we understand this is really important. Party advantage has to give way, at least in the first instance, to the major economic problems that the country is facing. That's part of the signal. If that is the case. I mean, if it really is the agenda for the next few years, it probably is to Labour's advantage, although they wouldn't, they wouldn't own up to this to be out of office, to let the cutting and downsizing of the state and readjustment be done by somebody else. So the question then is, does it happen quickly, does it happen relatively painlessly going forward, in which case the Conservatives and Liberals might benefit from it, or does it leave a sort of seething resentment in the British people, which might be something that a revitalized Labour Party could pick up on three, four years down the road?

[A]

Well, it's interesting that you suggest that perhaps the cutting and slashing can be done quite painlessly for many people, they believe that this coalition business is perhaps the. It makes decisiveness basically impossible in very decisive times. For others, it's the best thing to happen to British democracy since BBC 24 are purported competitors. Tell us, where do you stand on this?

[B]

Well, it can't be done easily and it can't be done painlessly. But if the main task is to reduce significantly public expenditure, the areas of the country which are most dependent on public expenditure for maintaining jobs and so on, are not natural Conservative heartlands anyway. So if you end up penalizing Scotland, South Wales, the industrial Northeast, the industrial North West, Manchester, Liverpool and so on, you're not going to lose too many seats. You're going to do what happened in the early 80s, where you just pile up Labour majorities in seats that are already safe. It's not clear that that sort of restructuring of the economy is going to impact severely on the Southeast and the areas where the Conservative vote is strongest. So from the Conservative point of view, it might be relatively painless. It's not obviously going to hit their core constituencies if it is targeted like that. Northern Ireland is another one that comes into play. As Cameron has already suggested. These are areas where, in a sense, Labour's policy of public expenditure was part of a full employment strategy. It was about keeping jobs in areas. If those are the target areas, it's not clear that Labour would benefit much from that unless the pain is spread across the country, which it won't be because of the ways in which different aspects of our economy are dependent on public expenditure. It's not obvious that they will gain greatly by this, however painful it is. Of course, if we have riots and so on, that's another matter. But in the large swathes of blue across the country, it's not likely that we will.

[A]

All right, well, that'll do it. Professor Paul Kelly, thank you very much for being with us. You are off the hot seat and thank you for being with us. Do stay tuned for next month's edition.