NICK CLEGG, UK deputy prime minister, presented several hostages to fortune this week with a promise that his “power revolution” of democratic change in the next five years will be the biggest since the 1832 Reform Act. His pledges to restore civil liberties taken away from citizens, reform politics and roll back the centralised state are certainly welcome for their ambition and radicalism. But if he fails to deliver on them because of overriding economic imperatives or coalition difficulties the expectations raised by such rhetoric will be dashed and current low levels of political trust in Britain eroded further. Since that would destroy his party too, his plans are politically daring.
They are an important key to understanding the political dynamics of the UK’s new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. Prime minister David Cameron’s aim to create a modern conservatism capable of surviving in the 21st century requires that he draw his party decisively towards the centre right. The coalition gives him programmatic cover to do that by demonstrating support for a liberal reforming agenda of the British state. Mr Cameron’s unionist credibility is boosted by bringing the coalition’s number of Scottish MPs from the Conservatives’ one to the coalition’s 12 – despite the failure of his alliance with the Ulster Unionist Party. Pioneering the first such coalition in modern British politics will give the party a decided advantage – if the experiment succeeds.
It is very much in Mr Clegg’s interest that it does, but this will be so only if his gamble on electoral reform succeeds. He intends to hold a referendum on the alternative vote (in which voters express a preference between candidates, who must secure 50 per cent to be elected) as a first step in the transition to a more proportional system. He is relaxed about expected Conservative opposition in the referendum, but may underestimate the fact that many Labour MPs oppose change too. His promise to transform the House of Lords into a chamber directly elected by proportional representation was immediately clouded by reports that 100 more of its members are to be appointed under pressure from the Conservatives. There was a similar political ambiguity about whether the Human Rights Act is to be replaced.
But Mr Clegg’s plans go well beyond electoral reform to encompass abandoning Labour’s plans for national identity cards and second generation biometric passports; curbing plans to keep internet and e-mail records; restricting CCTV cameras; wresting control of schools and hospitals away from Westminster; giving MPs more control of parliamentary business, investigating lobbying and party funding and restoring taxation powers to local authorities; and rolling back intrusive anti-terrorist legislation.
British society may well be ready for such change and Mr Clegg’s programme gives it a definite liberal dimension. But his agenda must be very focussed if he is to deliver on these promises, especially if the coalition’s agenda becomes overwhelmed by budgetary cuts and economic difficulty.