Many were surprised that following the 'hung parliament' elected in the recent UK general election, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed the first British coalition government since World War II.
The surprise stems from the fundamental differences in the ideology of the two parties. Promoting social liberalism, the Liberal Democrats strongly support constitutional and electoral reform, civil liberties and rights, and higher taxes for public services. On the other hand, Conservatives believe that traditional institutions work best, and society should avoid radical change.
The question immediately arises: how comfortable is this political cohabitation? While the two parties see eye-to-eye on economic issues, they remain far apart on the European Union, defence spending, electoral reform and immigration policy.
David Cameron - Britain's youngest prime minister for two centuries - vowed a "seismic shift" in how the country is governed, insisting that the historic coalition would transform the political landscape and said he considered the record deficit as his government's "most urgent issue".
What I found most intriguing was the way the British Labour Party acted after the election results.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg justified first approaching the Conservatives for a deal by pointing out that they were the biggest party in terms of both votes and seats and therefore he was morally obliged to first seek a power sharing agreement with them.
With hindsight, it is now obvious that within Labour the day was won by those who believed the party should admit defeat and not try to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. When Gordon Brown signified his intention to quit the party leadership - seen as a condition for talks with the Lib Dems - the move prompted the Conservatives to offer a major compromise to the third party. Was this what the Labour Party really wanted to happen all along, and was Brown's two-phase resignation - from party leader and then from Prime Minister - a scripted strategy to ease Labour into opposition?
Labour then started what were obviously half-hearted discussions with the Liberal Democrats. These talks collapsed amid recriminations, less than 24 hours after Brown apparently sacrificed his job in an attempt to secure a deal. Many Labour MPs genuinely felt that, after 13 years of government, and having crashed to their heaviest election defeat in a generation, their party requires a spell in opposition to re-group and refresh.
They reasoned that rather than being doomed to an even heavier electoral defeat next time around, they should look at the prospect of winning the next general election. More so in the wake of the austerity measures that the new government would have to take and the probability that Labour voters, who were wooed by Clegg to desert their party, would regret their decision and switch loyalty again.
My feeling, therefore, is that this was a cynical calculation on Labour's part: a matter of short-term pain for long-term gain. For a party that had previously won three successive general elections - with the resultant stagnation that naturally develops in such a situation - it was time to revitalise itself through a break in opposition.
Meanwhile in Malta, our own Labour Party was playing less subtle games. It managed to 'raise' the level of parliamentary discourse to a hysterical high following a mistake by a government member during a vote on the power station extension contract. The problem is not that this sort of mistake does not happen - every human is susceptible to error - but that Labour seemed too keen to capitalise on this mistake.
As a result, Labour only managed to score a public relations own-goal because of their lack of tolerance and understanding in the circumstances when a Parliamentary Secretary inadvertently votes against the government of which he forms part. Even worse, people's attention was distracted from the real issue. Spending another sitting - lasting into the early morning hours - to bicker uselessly about the minutes of the previous sitting, made Labour look childish.
As if this were not enough, the Labour opposition whipped up another problem at the end of last Wednesday's sitting by going back on a gentleman's agreement regarding a vote that had to be taken on two opposition amendments to the so-called Mepa Reform Bill.
Again, Labour got nothing for their endeavours; except for some expected 'admiration' from the party's hard-liners who enjoy criticising ad nauseam the current administration's alleged disdain of democracy. Supporting such claims with vulgar and obscene language during parliamentary sittings does not help the Labour cause at all.
In Britain, Labour played the game in dignified fashion, oozing apparent generosity by acknowledging the people's will, even though it was playing a crafty game to move towards a renewal of the party and an eventual return to power.
In Malta, Labour played the game clumsily, moving away backwards from the road to real renewal that would secure their eventual return to power. Such a strategy should include ways to entice those who need convincing that Labour offers a better future for Malta. Childish games and gimmicks in Parliament do exactly the opposite.
micfal@maltanet.net