Tories

Over at Liberal Conspiracy our old friend Sunny Hundal calls out Tony Blair: It was always obvious that Tony Blair hated the left. His recently published book said nothing new on that front. What’s staggering is how easily he dismisses even close Labour colleagues and ministers. [...] What does it say about Tony Blair’s loyalty to the party and the movement? What does it say about his committment to pluralism within the party? What it says is that Tony Blair was interested in winning elections. This is not rocket science. We may not like this aspect of British politics but, at the moment anyway, the public is extremely wary of political parties. That's one reason, aming many, why the combined Tory-Labour share of the vote has fallen from 90% of voters to 65%.

A terrific Five Books discussion about conservatism, liberalism and libertarianism with Cato's Brink Lindsey in which BL quotes a few essential lines from JS Mill: ‘In politics, again, it is almost a commonplace, that a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life; until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away. Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.

Tim Montgomerie has some recommendations for how David Cameron can bolster relations with the Tory right. He should be more polite and conciliatory, throw the right the occasional bone or opportunity to head a policy review, offer a way back for some of those, such as David Davis, who are no longer part of the fold, have better relations with the wider Tory family, consult a bit more outside his own circle and so on. It's all perfectly sensible even if one's also left feeling that even if Cameron did all Montgomerie recommends, it would only be a matter of time before the Right grew restless anyway. As Tim puts it: The Cameron-Tory relationship may look good at the moment.

My word, the Daily Mail is a tender, easily-startled fawn. Here's James Chapman today: The Prime Minister raised the extraordinary possibility of a non-aggression pact between the Tories and the Lib Dems at the next election as he mounted his strongest defence yet of the coalition. Well, the Daily Mail may consider this "extraordinary"; readers of this blog should not. This is both a logical and necessary step along the road to a second term. This, mind, will be difficult to achieve even with Liberal Democrat support for a second coalition: it will require nerve and guts and luck. But, perhaps, it can be done.

Tim Montgomerie makes a prediction: Call it Montgomerie's Law of the Coalition (launched in The Times (£)). This Coalition is heading for breakdown or it's heading Leftwards. The Left of the Liberal Democrats will demand an end to the Coalition if Nick Clegg doesn't get more and more concessions from David Cameron. If the Coalition fails it will be broken by Liberal Democrats in left-leaning constituencies. Think Scotland, Wales, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield, Liverpool. Think Ming Campbell, Charles Kennedy, Simon Hughes. Well, maybe. And, sure, the government is not likely to tilt to the right. But that doesn't mean it can't maintain its current, moderate course.

I'm far from being an enthusiast for electoral reform not least because, as I've said, I don't think electoral systems matter much. But, my word, the defenders of First Past The Post are doing their utmost to convince me that the Alternative Vote can't possibly put more fools in parliament than FPTP. Here, for instance is Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski, co-chairman of the "All Parliamentary Group for the promotion of first-past-the-post": First-past-the-post is tried and tested, simple, it brings about quick results, is relatively cheap, which given the economic mess left by Labour is an important consideration, and it allows voters to clearly demonstrate which party they feel should form the Government.

Welcome to the Liberal Unionist club, Fraser! It won't surprise regular readers that I think your latest post is spot-on. While we're taking names, let's also add John Rentoul to the list. His Independent on Sunday column this week concludes: This is where I think that Cameron is misunderstood. It seems to be generally assumed that, for him, the coalition is flag of convenience, hoisted to help navigate out of the tricky situation produced by the election. I think not. I think he sees it as a chance for a permanent change in favour of liberal conservatism, a label he has always been happy to apply to himself. The coalition is not merely an expedient to get him through to the next election, when the Tories can try again to win outright.

David Aaronovitch's column today is excellent. He makes a case for David Cameron coming out and supporting the switch to the Alternative Vote. The key bit: The pessimism that Conservatives invariably express about their fortunes under electoral reform is based on a particular assumption about the British electorate — an assumption that belies their constant invocation of “the great ignored” or the silent majority. The assumption is that there is a natural majority for the Centre Centre Left in Britain, a majority that only the division of the two centre-left parties within the first-past-the-post system neutralises. So the current system operates (in Tory eyes) as a perpetual pro-Tory gerrymander. I don’t think this is true, and I never really have.

When Jeremy Paxman grilled Danny Alexander on Newsnight yesterday he spent most of his time on politics, not economics. Fair enough. That's what the media does and one wouldn't expect it any other way. But it was the type of attack Paxman employed that was both mildly interesting and futile. This was because Paxman decided to tear into Alexander and attack him for all the things in the budget that weren't in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Some of them, as Paxo pointed out time and time again, were actively opposed by the Lib Dems. Gotcha! Hypocrites! Why, he sneered, should anyone ever listen to anything you have to say in the future, far less take it seriously? In as far as it went it was effective. Unfortunately it didn't go very far.

Backbenchers are invariably a motley crew. That's the nature of the beast. And I think it's right that backbenchers have a proper forum for airing their passions, concerns and grievances. Which is why I also think it right that the 1922 Committee has survived the Tory leadership's misguided attempt to all but abolish it. Nevertheless, the list of candidates for the Committee's Executive Iain Dale published was interesting and instructive. A dozen of the new intake stood for election and there were also a dozen old lags putting themselves forward. Among that latter grouping: Peter Bottomley, Philip Davies, Bernard Jenkin, David Amess and David Tredinnick.

Over at ConservativeHome Paul Goodman suggests that Nick Clegg be invited to address the Conservative Party Conference this year and, in general, that the Tories need to do more to get to know their colleagues in government. He's right. And here, via John Rentoul, is John Curtice to help explain why. Professor Curtice suggests that this most recent election ought not to be considered a freakish result and that even if the voting system remains unaltered hung parliaments are probably as likely as not for the foreseeable future.

Norm does a good job pointing out the sillyness of this silly Johann Hari column in which Hari complains that the Liberal Democrats have betrayed themselves, their voters and the country by agreeing to advance Liberal Democrat goals from government. How shocking! Nevertheless, Hari complains that "the British people have not got what they voted for". Well nor have BNP voters but I doubt that Hari is bothered by that. Nor should he be. In any case, no-one votes for a government of any stripe. All anyone gets to do is endorse a given candidate in their local constituency. After that  it's a case of letting the national chips fall where they may.

One of my favourite bloggers, Sunder Katwala, has a typically fine post asking if this coalition really is, as some of us think, Dave's "Clause 4 Moment". He makes a number of pertinent point, not the least of which is his contention that, actually, it's Nick Clegg who has imposed such a choice upon his party. True, Cameron has forced change upon his party and, if it holds and works, the coalition may see some perceptions of the Tory party change but, in this instance anyway, that change has in turn been forced upon him even if I do think that Dave is happier with this arrangement than he would be with, say, having a majority of nine. But, yes, it's Clegg who has demanded a "Come to Jesus" moment of his party.

So will it work? I'm more optimistic than Fraser and, unlike him, think that this really could, for reasons I'll get to in a minute, be a "new era". Of course, Fraser is not alone in questioning the long-term viability of the coalition. The excellent Steve Richards also thinks it cannae last. The sceptics may yet be proved right. Nevertheless, it strikes me that viewing this government as an awkward marriage of convenience between a left-wing party and a right-wing party is a mistaken or less than wholly useful approach. Is opposing ID cards a left-wing or right-wing position? Is the localism agenda owned by the right or by the left? Is placing a greater emphasis on the environment and conservation a left-wing or a right-wing issue (especially for younger voters)?