Home > The Magazine > The Week

Friday 4 July 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Liz Anderson

Liz suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

Watch the Tories sidling up to the Lib Dems: the foundations for a post-election pact

Fraser Nelson

Wednesday, 2nd April 2008

Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics

The Tories’ belief is that any pact would be temporary. One shadow minister puts it thus: ‘We would need them for about a year, to get through the first Queen’s Speech, and we can only do what we both agree on. Sooner or later they’ll refuse to work with us, and we could say, “They’ve driven us to call an election” — which the public would not thank them for. The odds are that, after a second election in 2011 or 2012, we’d get a majority.’ This view is common: a hung parliament would last a couple of years as most. It would be a staging post to a full majority — or so the Tories hope.

There are other options available to the Tories. The five Scottish National Party MPs (or however many there are after the election) might well take the Cameron shilling in return for granting Holyrood power over all tax and spending — a plan David Davis has long supported. Then there are the nine DUP members to consider. And let us not forget that if the Tories do their job properly at the next election, there will be far fewer Lib Dem MPs with whom to strike a deal. If the current polls are a guide, Mr Clegg’s strength in the Commons will almost halve from 63 to 32 MPs.

If there are talks about a Con–Lib pact, we can expect to hear little about them. As the Lib Dems were told at their secret seminar about ‘balanced parliament options’ in Henley in March last year, ‘such speculation is a near fatal third-party disadvantage’. Yet this has become integral to the thinking and strategy of many senior Cameroons including George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, who has long believed in the need for both tactical and strategic co-operation with the third party.

But, in these heady times, victory rather than coalition remains the goal. Those around Mr Cameron say privately, as well as publicly, that the required 7 per cent swing is eminently achievable. The party is starting from a lower base, runs the argument, and will benefit from tactical voting by those unwilling to take another five years of Gordon Brown. And, after all, Mr Cameron won the party leadership against the odds. He recovered from a dire summer and emerged stronger than ever from the cancelled election against the odds. The Tory strategy for winning a majority next time is — at heart — rooted in a faith that their man can defy the odds once again.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)

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

Richard Jenkins

April 3rd, 2008 10:35am

It's all very well for the Tories to talk about localism - I'm all for it - but in practice it will never happen for two reasons:
(1) the deeply ingrained culture in Whitehall of implementing (ill thought out) national policies by imposing "a duty on local authorities"; and
(2) related to (1), the volume and burden of legislation coming from the EU, compliance with which is only achieved by the aforementioned duty on loacl authorities.

The burden on local authorities has reached the level where local government is neither local nor government. It is driven by the local "civil service" (paid extraordinary salaries) with little scope for influnce from local electors.

It is just a dream to think that a Conservative government would be able to do much to change that, even if they really wanted to.

Blue Porcupine

April 3rd, 2008 12:52pm

All very interesting, but the discussion founders on one basic truth: the Tories are simply not natural liberals. DC keeps saying he is, but the whole premise of social conservatism is that those who decide what the correct "moral standards" should be are entitled to interfere in people's lives via legislation to uphold them. This is diametrically opposed to the Lib Dem position.

However, the real stumbling blocks to any true coalition will be that the Tories still hold extremely retrograde positions on some of the things dearest to the Liberal Democrat heart - Europe, the environment and welfare. Even on tax, they are less progressive. The current Lib Dem tax package seeks to move the brunt of taxation from employment income to accumulations of wealth, which will benefit lower earners and provide, in effect, the tax cut for the majority of the population that Cameron claims is impossible.

There is much closer ground on education (largely because Gove has nicked a lot of Laws' best bits!) but the Tory grassroots, from the discussions I've seen, still have a tremendous paternalist urge to micro-manage schooling which again is antithetical to the liberal way of thinking.

@Richard Jenkins, I agree with the diagnosis, but am (slightly) less pessimistic. There is a way of tipping the balance in favour of localism, which is to gradually devolve taxation. But somehow I can't see Cameron's Tories concurring with the Lib Dems on that.

Neil

April 3rd, 2008 5:24pm

Fraser, you should read all the comments to James Forsyth piece on Coffee House entitled 'The insiders give the Tories the edge' from Wed 2nd April, where he mentions this article you have written about a Lib Con coalition, the reaction is very very interesting!

David Lindsay

April 3rd, 2008 5:49pm

If there's a coalition next time, then it will be between Labour and the Tories.

There is now no political difference whatever. The idea that they hate each other is at least a generation out of date, if it was ever true at front bench level.

And neither the Southern Tories nor Scottish, Welsh and especially Northern Labour would remain in any party that went into coalition with the Lib Dems, whom they really do hate.

john problem

April 3rd, 2008 6:25pm

But there is no raison d'etre for the Lib Dems unless they team up with somebody. Pratting about on under 20% of the vote, year in , year out, is a dead loss. And no use to the public. What is wrong with these people - don't they want power? Were I Clegg I would be spending the night hours figuring out how to get the Tories to be my pals. Were I Cameron, I would spend the night hours figuring out how to get the DimLebs to be my pals. How can it be so difficult? They have a duty to Joe Public to get in!