Refusing the idea of a coalition is bone-headed tribalism
Joe Wright, 26 February 2014
Labour and the Conservatives are betting (or hoping) for a Liberal Democrat wipe-out at the next election. Both have floated the idea of ruling out coalition, whatever the outcome. Yesterday’s papers carried reports that Cameron was ‘fed-up’ of working with the Lib Dems and would opt for minority government if met with a similar situation to 2010. Labour, having flirted with a prospective coalition via kindly words between Ed Balls – perhaps the most uncompromising of Labour frontbenchers – and Nick Clegg, are now backtracking – fast.
Moreover, Labour received a warning this morning from Len McCluskey that Unite would not welcome a coalition with the Lib Dems whatever the circumstances: ‘I think [voters] are looking for people who have courage of their convictions. Labour, I hope, win the next election out-right, but if they are the biggest party then my view is that Ed should have the courage of his conviction and govern on a minority government.’
The new political strategy is go for broke, ‘voting Lib Dem is a wasted vote, choose Labour or Conservative’. Though understandably playing for votes, both are making a big mistake in simultaneously trashing the idea of coalition, especially given the real possibility of being faced with another hung parliament. McCluskey’s intervention is a good place to explain why.
For a start, governments do not ‘govern on a minority’, they go into survival mode. Seeking the support of other parties on a vote-by-vote basis politicises every piece of legislation in the worst possible way. It exposes the process to pure opportunism and the worst aspects of political nature, amounting to bad policy and economic uncertainty. And given that minority governments do not last, each vote will become an intensified campaigning opportunity.
Secondly, ruling out coalition does not show ‘the courage of one’s convictions’. There is no integrity in refusing to work with others to achieve even some of what you think is right for the country. Dismissing coalition unconditionally reeks of misplaced-pride; the only conviction in it is that only uncompromising control will do. In the event of a hung parliament, if Conservatives believe ‘we are on the right course’ they should do whatever it takes to protect it, especially if Labour really is as dangerous to economic recovery as they would like voters to believe. If Labour believe there is a cost of living crisis, then coalition would be the responsible option.
As McCluskey said himself, the real aim of minority government would be to trigger another election: “He should challenge those coalition parties to bring him down if necessary and go back to the people so that there’s a stark alternative.” Presumably the same goes for the Conservatives given the reality of minority government. Forcing a re-vote shows all the worst traits of Westminster politics: a small and introverted group of people asking the country ‘are you sure you want this? Try again’.
And what if the second vote returns a hung parliament: should Labour or the Conservatives continue to refuse coalition? If not, how can either justify refusing it in the first instance?
Parties have no place pre-empting public decisions. It is folly to do so. As the the Times(£) points out, elections have a certain unpredictability to them. They are not settled by ‘what politicians expect to happen or what they think ought to happen. They are just settled by the maths.’