James Forsyth
Already a subscriber? Log in
Labour wants the public to believe that the Liberal Democrats pimped their principles for power, that thousands of public sector workers will lose their jobs so five Lib Dems can have Cabinet jobs. This is why Labour has put so much time into trying to establish a narrative that the third party were intent on going with Mr Cameron regardless of what other offers they received.
By contrast, the Liberal Democrats need to persuade their own left-leaning voters and activists that they had no alternative than to do a deal with the Tories. So they talk about Ed Balls’s ‘sneering attitude’ in the coalition negotiations and claim that Labour was never really serious about coming to any agreement. They also must trash Labour’s record to justify the cuts that are coming. It is no coincidence that it was the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury who revealed that his Labour predecessor had left him a letter saying ‘sorry, there’s no money left’.
That the Liberal Democrats realise how much is at risk is demonstrated by their behaviour in the Chamber. On Tuesday, one looked like he would burst a blood vessel as he jumped off the green benches to scream ‘five more years’ in response to Labour taunts.
For the Tory leadership, the easiest way to cheer up the troops, many of whom have been rather discombobulated by this whole new politics thing, is by attacking Labour. In this changing world, there is something deeply reassuring for Tories in seeing Cameron ripping into the old enemy. In his reply to Harriet Harman in the Queen’s Speech debate, Cameron immediately went on the partisan offensive; criticising Harman for not having apologised for Labour’s record. The Tory benches roared their delight. They had little intention of heeding Churchill’s dictum about magnanimity in victory.
One also imagines that Cameron rather enjoys putting a bit of stick about. When the Tories were in opposition, I asked one member of his team why the attempts to have the leader rise above yah-boo politics lasted such a short time. He replied, ‘Dave essentially thinks that politics is about arguments, showing why your opponent is wrong.’
Of course, what is happening in the Chamber is very different from what is happening in Downing Street and across Whitehall. The introduction to the coalition’s programme for government, published last week, contained this remarkable statement from Cameron and Clegg: ‘We have found that a combination of our parties’ best ideas and attitudes has produced a programme for government that is more radical and comprehensive than our individual manifestos.’
This admission that the two leaders consider coalition government better than majority rule by either of their parties is quite remarkable. Followed to its conclusion, it suggests that rather than fight each other at the next election the two parties should merge.
Certainly, the campaign will be very different next time if the coalition does go the distance. Cameron and Clegg can hardly tear lumps out of each other in the leaders’ debates if they have spent the past five years implementing a joint programme. Equally, it would be rather odd for Mr Cameron to turn up in the Tory/Lib Dem marginal of Eastleigh and urge voters to throw out a member of his Cabinet.
At the last election, Tory candidates who were to fight Lib Dem-held target seats were selected early — generally three and a half years ago — to give them as much time as possible to bed in and try to outcampaign the incumbent. It’ll be fascinating to see if that happens again. If it doesn’t, it’ll indicate that — at the very least — an informal agreement to go easy on each other’s MPs is under consideration. Some senior Liberal Democrats will be in need of such help. Take Chris Huhne, who won in Eastleigh with a majority of 3,864 in large part because the Labour vote dropped by more than 5,000. A large portion of that fall must be attributed to Huhne stressing that a vote for Labour would only help let the Tories in. One has to assume that nearly all these voters will not be lending the Liberal Democrats their support again.
But again, a product of the coalition could be a more aggressive politics. Imagine that the coalition does govern successfully for five years but that the two parties decide to stand against each other everywhere anyway. With attacks on the policy record removed from their arsenal, challengers are likely to ramp up the personal attacks. This last campaign won’t be the last in which expenses claims are plastered across election leaflets.
All this, though, is nothing compared to what will happen if the coalition fails. Then, the most almighty blame game will be unleashed. Both parties in the marriage will be determined to blame the other for the divorce.
If you want to cheer up a Tory MP who seems rather uncomfortable with his leader’s partner, you should ask them about this scenario. Their eyes light up as they denounce the Liberal Democrats as a fundamentally unserious party who shouldn’t be trusted with power. The Liberal Democrats will, of course, have to say that they tried heroically to moderate the Tories, but it just turned out to be an impossible task. Meanwhile, Labour will be graffiti-ing the coalition’s tomb.
If this coalition succeeds, then it will prove that hung parliaments need not bring chaos or weak government and that — contrary to historical precedence — parties can govern together. But if it fails, then British politics will be even more adversarial than before.
Also in Politics
Also by James Forsyth
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in