James understands the dynamics of coalition government rather better than Simon Heffer. This may not surprise you. Mr Heffer complains that by letting Vince Cable survive - albeit in gelded form - while dumping the likes of Lord Young for other more trivial indiscretions, the Prime Minister is guilty of setting double standards.
One would be appalled if this were not the case. And the double standard - for such there certainly is since Lib Dems may, indeed must, be opposed to at least some parts of coalition policy - reminds us that this is a Tory government leavened by the Liberal Democrats, not a Liberal Democrat government with added bits of light blue. For 80% of the country this is not news. Most people, spying Mr Cameron, have no difficulty identifying the Prime Minister as a Conservative.
Which is why he can appear to be generous to poor old Cable. Appear, I say, since Cable's influence is shot to pieces. But Cameron appreciates, I think, that the intricacies of coalition are such that the junior partner must be permitted the occasional piece of freelancing or grandstanding if the greater enterprise is to survive.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the coalition depends upon Tory goodwill much more than it does on the Liberal Democrats' continued enthusiasm for government. Coalitions fall when the senior partner makes life too miserable for the junior player. In that sense, then, the Prime Minister does need to heed the rumblings of discontent within the Conservative party, if only because they threaten him rather more than Liberal Democrat disgruntlement does.
Or, to put it another way, the Liberal Democrat leadership is painfully aware that their survival depends upon the coalition lasting and, rather importantly, eventually being seen as a success. An election next year is not likely to produce much good news for the Liberal Democrats. Their self-interest is fixed to the coalition's own interest. It is, however, less obvious that the Conservative party appreciates that its interest is also tied to the success or failure of the government.
That is, there is little evidence or reason to suppose that the Conservatives would necessarily benefit from the collapse of the coalition. Would the country really see the fall of a government that is 80% Tory as grounds for electing a 100% Conservative government? It's not obvious to me that the public would take this view.
As a general rule, elections are best avoided until the moment is propitious or unavoidable. There's no good reason for this government to fall, far less to thrust another election upon a public that has no particular desire for such a contest. (A minority Tory ministry is, I suppose, theoretically possible but, surely, would only be a poor and short-lived thing.) That does mean that the survival of the coalition is both an end in itself and means to another end: a second term for Prime Minister Cameron.
In turn that requires a certain generosity and tolerance for dissent. It may appear as though the minor partner has the whip hand but in fact real power is retained by the majority. The Lib Dems face regular trials of fortitude; the Tory leadership very few. It can scarcely be otherwise when, as I say, 80% of the power is concentrated in Tory hands. But precisely because the arrangement is so lop-sided concessions to the Lib Dems must receive much more publicity (because they are relatively rare) than should the implementation of Tory policies.
Keeping the Lib Dems reasonably content is an important part of managing the coalition; so too however is reminding the Tory party that a) it gets most of what it wants anyway, b) its own interests (that is, a second term) depend upon the success of the Dave and Nick Show. Like it or not, the parties stand together which also rather means that they can fall together too.
Filed under: Cable (4 more articles) , Cameron (227 more articles) , ConLib (132 more articles) , Lib Dems (101 more articles) , Tories (273 more articles)
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
1 The unions versus the Department for Education — continued - Peter Hoskin
2 Why reason doesn’t apply to the Eurozone - Fraser Nelson
3 Cameron can no longer laugh off Ed - James Forsyth
4 The unions' lazy opposition to schools reform - Peter Hoskin
5 The strains on the Cameron-Hilton relationship - James Forsyth
Andrew Sullivan
Ben Smith
Charles Crawford
Chris Dillow
Claudia Massie
Dan Drezner
Daniel Larison
Dave Weigel
Ezra Klein
French Politics
Global Guerrilas (John Robb)
Henry Porter
James Fallows
Julian Sanchez
Kerry Howley
Kevin Drum
League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Marc Ambinder
Matt Zeitlin
Matthew Yglesias
Megan McArdle
More than Mind Games
Mr Eugenides
Norm Geras
Our Kingdom
Outside the Beltway
Radley Balko
Reason: Hit&Run
Rod Dreher
Samizdata
Scottish Unionist
SNP Tactical Voting
The American Scene
The Plank
Tim Worstall
Toby Harnden
Will Wilkinson
Charlotte Gore
Iain Martin
Hopi Sen
Liberal Vision
Left Back in the Changing Room
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Rhoda Klapp
December 22nd, 2010 1:05pm Report this commentYeah, if a minister has it in for a businessman, in what seems to be a personal way, that is fine. No double standard, because Young (and Flight) did not do anything wrong, but Cable did, or at least said he would.
Pettros
December 22nd, 2010 1:18pm Report this commentDisagree with this. The only reason that Vince Cable (barely) towed the coalition line was because he enjoyed having influence and power. Leave him in a diminished position and he will do his upmost to bring down the coalition from within. Cam should have got shot of him quickly. While this would have destabilised in the short term, leaving the infecting cable to kick his heels will have worse long term damage.
adrian harper
December 22nd, 2010 1:31pm Report this commentit also doesn't surprise me alex that you try and spin this as a great triumph for cameron.yeah right !
normanc
December 22nd, 2010 2:11pm Report this commentTime to put the mulled wine back in the cupboard.
John
December 22nd, 2010 3:20pm Report this commentGreat analysis. Spot on.
Ben G
December 22nd, 2010 6:19pm Report this commentI would much rather have disagreement and dissent in government than ranks of platitudinous politicians speaking like robots.
I do not understand why the Telegraph think it is ok to go round bugging politicians private views during unguarded moments, when talking to pretty girls.
Tiberius
December 22nd, 2010 7:26pm Report this commentI agree with you, Alex, and even now I find it tragic that man such as Heffer (whom you once defended against a critical post of mine) refuses to give any credit at all to Cameron for his success.
Back to top