I’m minded to contemplate the eminently imaginable but completely overlooked possibility of that monster/saviour, the grand coalition.
Let’s look at the principal plus points:
There is little or no difference between Conservative and Labour policies as evidenced by the desperate attempt to fabricate some clear water around the edges of policy. In essence both parties would do the same things in pretty much the same way and with a similar level of incompetence and self interest.
- It guarantees a 5 year parliament which would be stable.
- There would be a greater pool of people from which to choose ministers. This might make for a better executive though in the last coalition, because it was with a small party, it worked the other way with even the dummies getting important jobs.
- It metaphorically inserts a hot poker up the SNP’s bottom.
- Similarly any influence by UKIP or the Liberal Democrats and the also ran’s would be nullified in this parliament.
- The grand coalition could amend the voting system to ensure that the SNP never again could command so much influence.
- A colossal majority could drive legislation quickly but it’s not at all certain if that would be a good or a bad thing.
- More of the electorate get what they want.
- Whilst influence would be limited for UKIP that’s likely to be the case anyway and it would make for a great campaign message in 2020.
- It might, actually, work quite well, for all the wrong reasons.
The minuses:
- Long term damage would be done to the Labour party whilst the Conservatives would most likely get away with this. Such an arrangement could be seen as pragmatic and sensible from a rational viewpoint.
- The electorate are sidelined completely because of the massive majority.
- Some important matters may be lost in the negotiations, most significantly the EU referendum. Neither of the main party leaders wants a referendum so it does represent a great and plausible opportunity for Mr Cameron to welch on his commitment. No change there!
- Smaller parties with significant support will be sidelined even though the platform is still there to make some noise.
The obstacles:
- The biggest by far is satisfying massive egos. Mr. Milliband, who ran over his own brother, is quite ruthless when it comes to his personal ambitions and Mr. Cameron is not far behind.
- The electorate, but then again when did they every worry about us? The tired old platitudes will be wheeled out; for the good of the country; working together; stable government etc, etc .Yawn….
- I want to be foreign secretary, chancellor, or whatever, so plenty of bickering on sharing out the important jobs.
- Of least importance will be the damage to the parties in the future. Typically prime ministerial ambitions aren’t what they were and a couple of years, maximum 5 may be all anyone will ever get.
The solutions:
- My guess is that during the five year parliament Mr Cameron will be Prime Minister for the first year, two years or two and a half years and Mr Milliband after that. Mr Cameron has already indicated that he’ll go sometime during the next parliament so he’s not at all bothered about party or country damage beyond that as long as he gets his place in the Lords.
- Mr Milliband will definitely get his dream without the help of the SNP and with a stable government he has an opportunity to impress, or otherwise, so it is an attractive carrot. Guaranteed power is enticing. We’ve already seen the Liberal Democrats be seduced by it. They couldn’t drop their tuition fees pledge fast enough by playing ‘If the price is right’? Any obstacle can be overcome if the rewards/bribes are sufficient.
A summary:
Whilst nobody at all is talking about this I see it as a real possibility. If I were in their positions I would definitely give it a go. I can’t be sure about how much Mr Milliband wants to realise his ambition but it may be too much to consider sharing and that could be the deal breaker. It all depends, I suppose, on whether or not he is as bright as he is geeky and if he has more patience than Gordon Brown.
One thing is for sure and that is, if such a coalition can be formed politics will suddenly become uninteresting and even more detached. However, Grand coalitions can work as has been shown in Germany and as our two main parties have come kissing close in policy terms it makes quite a lot of sense if one can get over the initial abhorrence, shock and disbelief, but don’t expect either of them to admit this possibility before you’ve voted.
As for us (UKIP) we’ll continue to press for what is right and the one thing that will help would be the disenchantment of traditional Labour supporters and with the absence of a Labour alternative to the government they may well flock to UKIP in their droves.
That can only be good for UKIP in the medium and long term
I wrote about the possibility of a Con-lab coalition in a recent article (April 12th). Since writing that article, I’ve read a biography of Ed Miliband and I don’t think it’s very likely to happen if he remains the leader of the Labour Party.
Mike,
what was it in this biography that led you to form this view?
I should have read it before I wrote the article. Miliband is a very intelligent, very ambitious and very determined man who wants to be Prime Minister for a long time. He is in touch with voter attitudes through focus groups and he knows, I personally feel sure, that he would do very serious long-term damage to his voter base by any coalition with the Tories. If Cameron asks him, he will say No. If he himself has the chance to form a government, he will look for a partner. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is already talking to Nigel. What about that for an idea?
Did you explore the background of the biographer? I’m assuming it was a authorised biography which immediately flags up a degree of bias. I agree with your assesment of intelligence ambition and determination but I’m not so sure about integrity, honesty and servitude. After all ambition and integrity are rarely seen together.
We’ll soon know.
I didn’t mention integrity or honesty. Servitude?
I just wondered if you knew anything of the biographer and, oh yes, servitude, with a touch of irony, alluding to an idealistic but oft presented concept that polititians are the servants of the people.
Authorised biographies are usually glossy adverts for the subject, but it does depend on the writer as to how sycophantic it gets.
Fair comment, Ed. The book is called Ed, the authors McIntyre and Hassan. As well as reading the book, I’ve also researched Miliband a bit more on the internet, so my impression of him isn’t just based on the book. For example, interestingly, he’s Jewish of course and pro-Israel, but he addressed a Knesset audience in Jerusalem strongly against their action in Gaza. I don’t think he fancies working with the SNP much (don’t blame him!) and I think he will explore a Ukip alliance if we have enough seats. If a referendum is the price, why not, especially if he thinks it would go his way. Whether Ukip should agree is another thing, but probably better to work with him than slippery Cameron, especially if he moves away from Cameron’s slavish pro-American line. Also if we make them independent of the SNP, we might save the Union. As Ukip has discovered in the Eu, politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows – temporarily.
His public persona is quite different.
His election strategy is so superficial, price freezes and caps, mansion tax, much of which they wont collect until the owner dies or the property is sold. It is not in keeping with the alternative you speak of.
If his election strategy is being guided than that doesn’t say much for independence of thought.
I’m sure you’re right that he will take any deal that gives him his ambition, including the SNP if it comes to that and we could expect the real terms of the arrangement to be a closely guarded secret much like his leadership deal with McClusky, now becoming aparrent.
You wouldn’t think we are throwing 4bn a month away on interest repayments set to rise to 5bn + by 2016/17.
We are fast running out of time to leave the EU and the longer the delay the more excuses Cameron etc. can pile up for not being able to leave.
Let us hope for a good enough showing from UKIP to prevent any coalition which excludes them from forming.
Would a Grand Coalition really last 5 years? It seems to me that it would end as soon as one of the parties thinks it would be able to squarely beat the other party at the polls.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act which makes it much more difficult to end a government early and, of course, the guarantee of becoming prime minister anyway. Why bother with an election?
The problem with a grand coalition of LabCon is that laws could be passed without opposition that could virtually ban all parties other than LabCon. Boundaries could be set allowing LabCon to rule forever
Didn’t the other parties in Sweden do this to shut out the one party that was anti-mass immigration? I fear we may be going the same way at this rate.