Andrew Rawnsley: Queen Victoria would be amused by this Clameron coalition
[Andrew Rawnsley is the The Observer's Chief Political Commentator.]
Had Nick anticipated that he would end up in bed with David, he might have thought twice before previously saying of his new partner: "He's put the con back into Conservative." Had David foreseen that they would be spliced together, he might have bitten his tongue before he named Nick as his "favourite joke".
They had not seen this coming, but some clues were scattered before us in advance of the formation of Britain's first coalition government in 65 years. When David Cameron became Tory leader, I asked him a hackneyed question which extracted a surprising answer. Which prime minister did he most admire? The safe response would have been Churchill. To have named Thatcher or Macmillan would have identified a preference between different traditions of Toryism. The answer he came up with was Palmerston, a mid-Victorian Whig who flirted with the other side. "Lord Cupid" was noted for his gun-boat diplomacy, his predatory enthusiasm for the opposite sex, his subordination of principle to power, and the dazzling panache with which he dished opponents. Queen Victoria described him as "a source of mischief".
What mischief has been done to many people's assumptions by the Clameron coalition. The two men herald this as the birth of a "new politics", but there is a sense in which they are reviving a much older, mid-19th century politics. There is the obvious point that Victorians would not be in the least surprised to have a prime minister who is an alumnus of Oxford and Eton with a Liberal deputy who is the product of Cambridge and Westminster. Coalitions were common in the fluxing politics of the 19th century and they were lubricated by a greater fluidity of party allegiances. That was also an age when circumstances regularly made expedient allies of men who were formerly bitter rivals. No one is kidded that this Libservative coalition was a case of love at first sight. It is a marriage arranged in response to setback: the failure of the Conservatives to achieve a parliamentary majority and the inability of Labour and the Lib Dems to hold enough seats to make an alternative deal viable. Had they won an extra 20 MPs between them, then this weekend we would probably be governed by a Lab-Lib coalition. They didn't. So we aren't.
The choice was between a minority Tory government or a Conliberal coalition. What had seemed inconceivable almost overnight became rational to the principal players, though both Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg had to work hard to win round senior colleagues. When the talks opened, it was the Conservatives who were hungrier for full-blown coalition. In the late panic that the Libs might yet do a deal with Labour, the Tories probably gave away more than they strictly needed to. Had they waited a few more hours, by which time John Reid was leading a chorus of Labour voices scorning the idea of a non-Tory "rainbow coalition", the Conservatives could have struck a harder bargain. Yet Mr Cameron ought not to regret that. It is worth leaving your new partner feeling you have been generous if you are interested in a long-term relationship rather than a quick political screw.
The Tory leader has displayed great agility and flair in snatching opportunity from the jaws of disappointment. The coalition provides him with several crucial assets which the voters denied him. The government has a majority of around 80 which is useful insulation against rebellion. He can claim that well over half the country supported the two parties, though quite a lot of those voters are angry because they didn't vote Clegg to get Cameron and others will protest that they didn't vote Cameron to get Clegg. Had the Tory leader arrived at Number 10 at the head of a minority government, the return of the Conservatives after a 13-year absence from power would have received a much flatter fanfare. The media would have been less interested in the new cabinet than in speculating about the proximity of another election. The very novelty of coalition has provided Mr Cameron with what he failed to conjure up during the campaign: a sensation of exciting change...
Read entire article at Observer (UK)
Had Nick anticipated that he would end up in bed with David, he might have thought twice before previously saying of his new partner: "He's put the con back into Conservative." Had David foreseen that they would be spliced together, he might have bitten his tongue before he named Nick as his "favourite joke".
They had not seen this coming, but some clues were scattered before us in advance of the formation of Britain's first coalition government in 65 years. When David Cameron became Tory leader, I asked him a hackneyed question which extracted a surprising answer. Which prime minister did he most admire? The safe response would have been Churchill. To have named Thatcher or Macmillan would have identified a preference between different traditions of Toryism. The answer he came up with was Palmerston, a mid-Victorian Whig who flirted with the other side. "Lord Cupid" was noted for his gun-boat diplomacy, his predatory enthusiasm for the opposite sex, his subordination of principle to power, and the dazzling panache with which he dished opponents. Queen Victoria described him as "a source of mischief".
What mischief has been done to many people's assumptions by the Clameron coalition. The two men herald this as the birth of a "new politics", but there is a sense in which they are reviving a much older, mid-19th century politics. There is the obvious point that Victorians would not be in the least surprised to have a prime minister who is an alumnus of Oxford and Eton with a Liberal deputy who is the product of Cambridge and Westminster. Coalitions were common in the fluxing politics of the 19th century and they were lubricated by a greater fluidity of party allegiances. That was also an age when circumstances regularly made expedient allies of men who were formerly bitter rivals. No one is kidded that this Libservative coalition was a case of love at first sight. It is a marriage arranged in response to setback: the failure of the Conservatives to achieve a parliamentary majority and the inability of Labour and the Lib Dems to hold enough seats to make an alternative deal viable. Had they won an extra 20 MPs between them, then this weekend we would probably be governed by a Lab-Lib coalition. They didn't. So we aren't.
The choice was between a minority Tory government or a Conliberal coalition. What had seemed inconceivable almost overnight became rational to the principal players, though both Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg had to work hard to win round senior colleagues. When the talks opened, it was the Conservatives who were hungrier for full-blown coalition. In the late panic that the Libs might yet do a deal with Labour, the Tories probably gave away more than they strictly needed to. Had they waited a few more hours, by which time John Reid was leading a chorus of Labour voices scorning the idea of a non-Tory "rainbow coalition", the Conservatives could have struck a harder bargain. Yet Mr Cameron ought not to regret that. It is worth leaving your new partner feeling you have been generous if you are interested in a long-term relationship rather than a quick political screw.
The Tory leader has displayed great agility and flair in snatching opportunity from the jaws of disappointment. The coalition provides him with several crucial assets which the voters denied him. The government has a majority of around 80 which is useful insulation against rebellion. He can claim that well over half the country supported the two parties, though quite a lot of those voters are angry because they didn't vote Clegg to get Cameron and others will protest that they didn't vote Cameron to get Clegg. Had the Tory leader arrived at Number 10 at the head of a minority government, the return of the Conservatives after a 13-year absence from power would have received a much flatter fanfare. The media would have been less interested in the new cabinet than in speculating about the proximity of another election. The very novelty of coalition has provided Mr Cameron with what he failed to conjure up during the campaign: a sensation of exciting change...