Tom Harris has launched another attack on the Coalition for doing things in a way that does not approve of. This is not a mere policy disagreement (after all, Mr Harris is one of the most tribal Scottish politicians who disagrees with a lot of members of his party). No, this is a very real case of doing things not as Mr Harris (and Labour) has done things in the past, but his palpable anger at things not being done the way he thinks they should. He confesses to this anger by proudly stating he is one of those House of Commons Shouters that makes the Salmon Seals in the Scottish Parliament seem like the embodiment of civilised debating technique. He even makes an unwelcome reference to his own backside (talking out of perhaps……).
His complaint this time is that since the Coalition Agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories was agreed after the election, it is not a valid document from which to launch a programme for Government and the associated legislation that the Government brings forward. Mr Harris clearly believes that pre-election manifestos are the only programme that a Government can put forward. This is a remarkable position to take and does not stand up to even the most rudimentary examination.
Firstly, it should be pointed out that Scotland was governed between 1999 and 2007 by a Coalition that had an agreement. That Coalition was led by the Labour Party. I don’t recall Mr Harris standing for Labour in 2001 denouncing the Coalition and being a MP elected to end this evil devolution idea that offered stable two-party Government. If Mr Harris is so utterly sincere in his dislike of Coalition Governments due to the development of Coalition Agreements then he should have the courage of his convictions and stand as a candidate on that topic – follow David Daviswho resigned and stood again on the issue of Civil Liberties. Make a stand Mr Harris and seek re-election as an anti-coalition Candidate. Doing it at the elections for Holyrood next year would give a clear mandate for him to oppose a Labour led coalition (if that were an option available after the election).
If the UK had a tradition of parties only ever governing and legislating on their manifesto contents then I could see his point. If every MP (remember for Westminster its MPs who are elected, not Parties) tried as hard as they could to deliver the manifesto that they stood on after winning their election then he may have a further point. However, Mr Harris is firmly of the opinion that manifestos are only valid if the party wins power, not the candidate. So, when the next General Election occurs and a voter asks Mr Harris how hard he worked to get that manifesto delivered he is happy to say he ditched on May 7th (give or take a few days for the Coalition to reach its agreement). If Mr Harris does not need his manifesto then why do either the Liberal Democrats or the Tories? After all, according to Harrisian logic, they didnt win either. The electorate did not grant sole power to any one party or empower any one manifesto. Who should the Queen have asked to form a stable Government?
Secondly, between 1997 and 2010, the Labour Government brought forward many pieces of legislation and enacted various policy ideas that were not in their Manifestos. Just four days after being elected into Government in 1997 Labour granted the Bank of England its independence. Where was the manifesto commitment for that? Where was the democratic mandate for that Mr Harris? What about tuition fees? What about removing the 10p tax rate and increasing the taxes of the lowest earners? Which manifesto will I find that in? Which Labour Manifesto can I read about the ID Card legislation? Why is it that only Labour is allowed to enact for things that were not in their manifesto?
Thirdly, lets address Mr Harris’ belief in the strange power of the Coalition Agreement. He lambasted the Cabinet Office Minister Mark Harper for stating that the Tories were voting for this legislation even where their Manifesto offered a different version and that the Coalition Agreement had suppressed the Tory manifesto. Here is can be seen that Mr Harris is very wrong. There is nothing stopping a voter asking a Tory MP about this and the Tory MP stating that he felt that it was best to agree to an alternative in return for getting agreement for other parts of the Manifesto. It is then up to that MP and that voter to agree or disagree that the deviations from the manifesto were worth it. The manifesto is still the primary MP/Voter accountability document – despite Mr Harris’ indecent haste in dropping his manifesto. This same conversation will be the same for every Lib Dem MP (only Charles Kennedy MP can state he abstained from ditching parts of the Lib Dem Manifesto).
That is the key to Coalition Agreements. They are an amalgamation of manifesto commitments and party policy positions. Each MP in the Coalition Parties will have to go back to their voters and persuade them that the Coalition Agreement, with its manifesto gains and manifesto loses, was worth it. That is the democratic process Mr Harris.