This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/radical-lib-lab-coalition-next-month

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
A radical Lib-Lab coalition could begin next month A radical Lib-Lab coalition could begin next month
(6 months later)
Back in 2010, when the Guardian was comparing him to Barack Obama, Nick Clegg said this of Gordon Brown and David Cameron: "The more they attack each other, the more they sound the same." A few weeks later, the deal hurriedly sealed with the Conservatives, Clegg began the work of explaining compromise as a radical departure. His task was hardly made easier at a time of economic crisis and an increasingly strident rightwing political partner.Back in 2010, when the Guardian was comparing him to Barack Obama, Nick Clegg said this of Gordon Brown and David Cameron: "The more they attack each other, the more they sound the same." A few weeks later, the deal hurriedly sealed with the Conservatives, Clegg began the work of explaining compromise as a radical departure. His task was hardly made easier at a time of economic crisis and an increasingly strident rightwing political partner.
Now, with the Tories staring down a barrel at the forthcoming local elections, and with a rapprochement starting, albeit hesitantly and suspiciously, between the Lib Dems and Labour, how do the party leaders prepare for a possible further round of celebrity bed hopping – aka coalition building – in 2015?Now, with the Tories staring down a barrel at the forthcoming local elections, and with a rapprochement starting, albeit hesitantly and suspiciously, between the Lib Dems and Labour, how do the party leaders prepare for a possible further round of celebrity bed hopping – aka coalition building – in 2015?
This, of course, may not happen. Ultimately it is down to arithmetic. Ed Miliband could still win outright. It seems hard to imagine Cameron improving on his party's unimpressive performance last time, but all options remain open.This, of course, may not happen. Ultimately it is down to arithmetic. Ed Miliband could still win outright. It seems hard to imagine Cameron improving on his party's unimpressive performance last time, but all options remain open.
Britain is still learning how to do coalition government. There is no shortage of mistakes over the past three years to throw into the manual. Part of the problem was procedural. More time must be taken next time to come to an agreement; this should include the provision of a formal renewal of the process halfway through the parliament. It is no wonder that the coalition can now find so little to work on together, as they long ago used up their small number of joint policies.Britain is still learning how to do coalition government. There is no shortage of mistakes over the past three years to throw into the manual. Part of the problem was procedural. More time must be taken next time to come to an agreement; this should include the provision of a formal renewal of the process halfway through the parliament. It is no wonder that the coalition can now find so little to work on together, as they long ago used up their small number of joint policies.
But there is a far bigger lesson, and it goes to the heart of the disconnect between the Westminster village and the rest of the country. The demographics of British politics are bad enough, but what happens when all the parties cleave towards similar policies and a small voting pool? On immigration, the three leaders find themselves dancing to Ukip's tune. On criminal justice, drugs policy, Europe and elsewhere the recipes on offer, for all the rhetorical positioning that goes on, sometimes vary only at the margins.But there is a far bigger lesson, and it goes to the heart of the disconnect between the Westminster village and the rest of the country. The demographics of British politics are bad enough, but what happens when all the parties cleave towards similar policies and a small voting pool? On immigration, the three leaders find themselves dancing to Ukip's tune. On criminal justice, drugs policy, Europe and elsewhere the recipes on offer, for all the rhetorical positioning that goes on, sometimes vary only at the margins.
Even on the burning issues of the moment – welfare, NHS reform and economic cuts – when it comes to the general election, how different will they sound when they are probed on the specifics of their commitments, and what these would commitments?Even on the burning issues of the moment – welfare, NHS reform and economic cuts – when it comes to the general election, how different will they sound when they are probed on the specifics of their commitments, and what these would commitments?
None of this should come as a surprise. Our rarefied political class is uniformly obsessed with the legacy of Tony Blair. The former prime minister bequeathed the art of triangulation – find out where your opponents are on any issue, and plonk yourself right in the middle. This is usually called "being on the side of the hard-working family". It should be called the politics of caution. The hard worker/non-shirker/squeezed middle is a construct of wonks who don't get out much. Voters have more variety, and are best served when given a choice.None of this should come as a surprise. Our rarefied political class is uniformly obsessed with the legacy of Tony Blair. The former prime minister bequeathed the art of triangulation – find out where your opponents are on any issue, and plonk yourself right in the middle. This is usually called "being on the side of the hard-working family". It should be called the politics of caution. The hard worker/non-shirker/squeezed middle is a construct of wonks who don't get out much. Voters have more variety, and are best served when given a choice.
Coalitions, far from limiting that choice, could – if done properly next time around – increase the options available. Parties could be required to set out before the election, as during any negotiations that take place afterwards, what they would be prepared to trade and what they would stick to: their "red lines".Coalitions, far from limiting that choice, could – if done properly next time around – increase the options available. Parties could be required to set out before the election, as during any negotiations that take place afterwards, what they would be prepared to trade and what they would stick to: their "red lines".
Imagine a future Lib-Lab government: both parties would have the right, proportionate to the outcome of the election – should it be decided on the number of votes cast or seats won? – to select a few key policies that matter most. The other side can object, and either stop or alter the plans, but only on a limited number of occasions.Imagine a future Lib-Lab government: both parties would have the right, proportionate to the outcome of the election – should it be decided on the number of votes cast or seats won? – to select a few key policies that matter most. The other side can object, and either stop or alter the plans, but only on a limited number of occasions.
One can already see a number of radical positions both parties could take, from tackling climate change and tax avoidance to, dare I say, constitutional reform. This would encourage what I would I call positive compromise, rather than the negative compromise of now, in which a coalition is characterised by what one side has done to trim the other's sails, rather than by pushing ahead with cherished goals.One can already see a number of radical positions both parties could take, from tackling climate change and tax avoidance to, dare I say, constitutional reform. This would encourage what I would I call positive compromise, rather than the negative compromise of now, in which a coalition is characterised by what one side has done to trim the other's sails, rather than by pushing ahead with cherished goals.
The Lib Dems, the beneficiary of coalitions, should rediscover some of their old radicalism, both for their own prospects and to reintroduce greater political choice. Clegg is correct when he juxtaposes the responsibilities of office against what he calls the empty wish lists of opposition.The Lib Dems, the beneficiary of coalitions, should rediscover some of their old radicalism, both for their own prospects and to reintroduce greater political choice. Clegg is correct when he juxtaposes the responsibilities of office against what he calls the empty wish lists of opposition.
Like any party, Clegg's cannot and should not get all it wants. But the triangulation of the Blair era was little more than managerialism and safety first. It was the politics of a small minority of floating voters, and it was based in closing down areas of controversy. Paradoxically it was the Lib Dems who offered something different. Within Labour, the signals are mixed. Does the party think electoral success resides in an electorally self-selecting straitjacket, or does it have the courage to present something more galvanising?Like any party, Clegg's cannot and should not get all it wants. But the triangulation of the Blair era was little more than managerialism and safety first. It was the politics of a small minority of floating voters, and it was based in closing down areas of controversy. Paradoxically it was the Lib Dems who offered something different. Within Labour, the signals are mixed. Does the party think electoral success resides in an electorally self-selecting straitjacket, or does it have the courage to present something more galvanising?
Now, tragically, the only party that is refusing to play the game of cautious consensus is Ukip. Meanwhile, regarding the biggest issues of the moment – such as the failings of the financial system that led to the crash, the global shifts to the east and the rise of a new authoritarian model – mainstream politics is largely silent.Now, tragically, the only party that is refusing to play the game of cautious consensus is Ukip. Meanwhile, regarding the biggest issues of the moment – such as the failings of the financial system that led to the crash, the global shifts to the east and the rise of a new authoritarian model – mainstream politics is largely silent.
This economic crisis, confined largely to Europe and what used to be called the "west", requires radical minds and brave politics. What happens when they all attack each other and yet they all, eerily, start to sound the same?This economic crisis, confined largely to Europe and what used to be called the "west", requires radical minds and brave politics. What happens when they all attack each other and yet they all, eerily, start to sound the same?
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.