Why I'm backing a Lib Dem - Conservative coalition

Five days have passed since last Thursday's election in which the Conservatives won the most seats and the most votes of any party, but failed to obtain the necessary majority to form a government by themselves. The result of this was a hung parliament in which the Liberal Democrats hold the balance of power. The only question that remains now is with whom should they side; Labour or the Tories?

I fully expect to be invited to a special conference, as a member of the Liberal Democrats, in the next few days to be asked to vote on this question and after giving it quite some thought, I have now decided on the answer I plan to give.

How much weight that answer carries depends on the reaction of the parliamentary party and the Federal Executive to whatever Nick Clegg proposes. This is due to the 'triple lock' mechanism drawn up at 1998 Southport conference which decrees that any coalition deal must be approved by at least 3/4 of the party's MPs and Federal Executive. If it is not, a special conference is called in which 2/3 of voting members (that's me) must give their support. If it is not given, a full ballot of the entire party membership must be called in which only a simple majority is required to approve the proposed deal.

Still with me? Good.

As for my answer: I am in favour of a partnership with the Conservatives. I am opposed to a partnership with the Labour party.

Ideally, I would prefer my party to retain its independence and work with a minority government on a case by case basis in return for co-operation on passing the reforms expected of it by the 23% of the electorate that voted Liberal Democrat at the election. However, minority governments don't tend to last long in the UK and at a time when stable government is crucial to maintaining this country's tentative economic recovery, a more long-term agreement is necessary.

Of course that's only half the question answered. The other half is what kind of partnership and under what conditions?

Naturally, the numbers game is a key consideration in assessing the viability of any prospective coalition and indeed one of my main reasons for opposing one with the Labour party is that even a full Lib-Lab coalition would have to operate as a minority government, relying on the support of a wide range of other parties each with their own demands. A Lib-Con calition, on the other hand, would not.

However, my opposition to a partnership of any sort with the Labour party is more fundamental than that. As hard as it is to admit, it cannot be denied that Labour and the Liberal Democrats were the losers of this election and the Conservatives the winners. They just didn't win by enough. If, as the party of proportional representation, the Liberal Democrats intend to use this opportunity to sell the desireability of coalition government in the UK to the electorate, I am certain that using their new found power to freeze out the party that received the most votes and seats would have precisely the opposite effect.

I am also bemused by those who suggest we have a moral imperative to join up with the Labour party in what is billed as a progressive alliance. How a party that used its 13 years in government to empower the banks that brought this country to its knees - just as it empowered the unions to do exactly the same over 30 years ago - to double the tax rate for some of this country's poorest earners with the abolition of the 10p tax band, and to launch the illegal invasion of Iraq can call itself progressive is beyond me.

Instead, let us call a spade a spade and work pro-actively in coalition with the Conservatives to deliver as many of our campaign pledges as possible and minimise what would otherwise be the sizeable influence of the right-wing Tory backbenchers whose support David Cameron would need to rely on to pass any legislation if ours was not available. After all, it would not take much for the Conservative press to convince the voters that our refusal to play ball was jeopardising the country's welfare, resulting in another election being called in which Cameron would almost certainly be awarded the majority he craves.

In other words: lose Labour, tame the Tories.

So, what would be the conditions of this tentative alliance? Needless to say, both parties are right to prioritise an agreement on tackling the defecit, but after that: proportional representation, the big society, fair taxes, national insurance? If any issue should take priority once the defecit is addressed, it should indeed be political reform. However, I'm not talking about people's petitions to sack their MPs, democratising the House of Lords, or even electoral reform. I'm talking about fixed parliaments.

The simple reason for this is that no coalition will ever stand the test of time as long as the Prime Minister is free to call an election, within the maximum five year period, whenever he likes. What purpose would David Cameron have to stick to a coalition if the polls consistently pointed to a Tory majority 6 months from now? What incentive would the Liberal Democrats have to work with the Conservatives if they suspected they were merely being used to spread the responsibility for the painful cuts on the way only to be ditched and blamed for the failure of the coalition when it came to implementing their key pledges?

The latest reports from the ongoing negotiations between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats suggest that an offer of fixed parliaments is very much on the table as one of the several concessions being made to Nick Clegg. If it is, he should take it and I would support him in doing so.