Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 8 February 2012

Do the Deal, Dave

Friday, 7th May 2010

Tories are supposed to be pragmatists. That's why they're the traditional party of coalition in this country. On that front, it is interesting to see that John Major is suggesting that, to advance the cause of stability, Cameron should offer Clegg a number of cabinet seats. This seems sensible and, happily, would also improve the quality of the cabinet since, lord knows, there are a good number of Tories who ought to be kept well away from the Red Boxes.

More interestingly still, it was notable today how both Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell were warm on the idea of a coalition and even, if necessary, some kind of electoral reform. Of course, they're both liberals, not social conservatives and as such are less tribal, perhaps, than some. Nevertheless, since it seems to me that Cameron doesn't need to offer much on electoral reform, the costs of going for a real deal are tiny when set beside the potential benefits of such an arrangement.

As we've noted here before on matters such as tax reform, spending restraint, civil liberties, pupil premiums and education reform, localism, decentralisation and much of the rest of the "Big Society" agenda there's an awful lot of common ground between the parties and more than enough to form a pretty robust Programme for Government.

So why not go for it? Power is power and if the Lib Dems show they're not interested in it purely because they don't get everything they wnt on an issue as comparatively esoteric as changing the voting system then that's their choice and their lookout. But it won't end well for them and I suspect that unless they do a deal with the Conservatives the Liberal Democrats will be squeezed viciously in the next election.

It's advantage Cameron: he can gain a reasonably stable coalition and spread the political cost of painful spending cuts without, I think, having to give very much up that is very or even terribly significant. And if Clegg refuses then he looks small and cameron looks the bigger, more generous, even statesmanlike candidate.

Again, it's Clegg, not Cameron that's in the most difficult position.

UPDATE: Seems Tom Clougherty and Guido are also in the liberal Let's Do a Deal camp. So is Charlotte Gore.

UPDATE: Danny Finkelstein has an ingenious offer for the Lib Dems too.

Filed under: Britain (677 more articles) , Cameron (208 more articles) , Clegg (60 more articles) , Election 2010 (598 more articles) , Lib Dems (97 more articles) , Tories (264 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (8)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

THX1138

May 7th, 2010 4:29pm Report this comment

The outcome I always wanted!

Ben G

May 7th, 2010 4:49pm Report this comment

Fraser tweets, on a possible enquiry into electoral reform, "the Spectator cannot support this".

How pompous can you be? Its just a magazine!

RichardB

May 7th, 2010 5:43pm Report this comment

A great excuse to dump George Osborne in order to accommodate Vince Cable - perfect!

Leo McKinstry

May 7th, 2010 6:27pm Report this comment

Well put Alex. I think a coalition would actually strengthen the Tories. Moreover, I think the Conservatives should fully embrace voting reform, not only on democratic grounds but also on pragmatic ones. Far from undermining the centre-right, PR is the best way to loosen Labour's grotesque tribalist grip on the north and Scotland. It could be offered as a part of a wholesale package of constitutional reforms: a democratic upper house, decentralisation, elected police chiefs, abolition of the quangos, more consistent electoral boundaries, and restoring integrity to the voting system. Seize the moment and show who are the real progressives.

Duncan

May 7th, 2010 6:51pm Report this comment

As Alex wrote a few days ago, everyone thinks a ConLib arrangement is impossible and everyone is wrong.

I may be reading their body language wrong, but I get the impression Cameron and Clegg are almost energised about the possibility of working together - I won't say pleased. They're not so far apart politically (despite the delusions of many Spectator readers who see all this as a cunning Liberal feint before the inevitable LibLab "stitch up").

The question is what can Cameron realistically offer the LibDems? No compromise on Defence, Europe and immigration (Clegg should be relieved, to be honest). Cameron can't offer much on Electoral Reform without being accused of betrayal by his own side. The Tory policy on Education, Health, Civil Liberties and deficit reduction is not so wildly different from the LibDems that it can be seen as giving up much (though both men, I think, will be interested in some real progress in these areas of agreement).

So it must be a more liberal take on such things as tax cuts (directed to low-income earners), the environment and transport. This could be part of an interesting "Green Security" program (reducing dependence on foreign oil), but it would sadly be very hard to achieve under present economic circumstances. So it may well come done to smaller efforts and some kind of compromise on electoral reform. Would Clegg be well advised, if he really wants to look like a shrewd statesman, to go for policy wins rather than token positions at the cabinet table? We'll see.

Nevertheless I think Alex is still right. Clegg and Cameron want to work together. But they will be constrained by many things: their parties, who will view any such compromise as confirming their worst fears of these leaders; the lack of strength in depth in the new ministerial ranks ("there are a good number of Tories whou ought to be kept well away from the Red Boxes"); and most of all, by economic circumstance. These negotiations may be the easy part.

Willie de Peepul

May 7th, 2010 7:42pm Report this comment

@RichardB
5:43pm

But why would you want to?
St. Vincent of Cable didn't have a great election campaign. Short of his claim to have forecast the credit crunch (which many over the age of 50 had already done) when the debates held up the possibility that the LibDems might have a say on economic policy for the whole of the UK and not just the banking sector he was exposed as an empty windbag.

Snowman

May 7th, 2010 9:33pm Report this comment

How does it work to be pragmatic with a suicide, and what does one actually do? The way I read it, you commit it, and you’re gone whether in a pragmatic way or not matters bugger all.

paulg

May 7th, 2010 9:35pm Report this comment

I think D.F ideas are a step forward for parliament, I don't like the idea of an overmighty executive. I think a legislature should have independence.

However, I like the idea of PR for the upper chamber, as we can see how it will work in practice. But people of a certain age and experience in religion, science and industry, law etc, should be a requirement for parties to put them forward.

Moreover, Scotland NI and Wales should be able to elect their westminster MP's through PR and this could be done pretty soon. Its an incremental step and we could test the water with it.

Post comment