Lord Baker has called for a Grand Coalition between Labour and the Conservatives after the general election to prevent the Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power in parliament and using that position to demand more control for Scotland.
This is an extraordinary suggestion. What it really says are three things.
The first is that the differences between Labour and Conservatives are not that big. Many of us might have been saying that for some time but for a major politician to confirm it says that politics in the UK has, in the opinion of some, for all practical purposes come to an end.
Second, it says that some politicians really do have contempt for the electorate. It shows that Cameron was never serious about the Scottish referendum and is wholly unable to accept the result.
And third, what this shows is that some in Westminster really do think that politics is the exercise of power irrespective of the consequence. So, Scotland must be controlled come what may, and that is more important than any other issue.
No wonder people are alienated from much of politics.
No wonder the people of Scotland now look to be rejecting everything to do with Westminster.
And no wonder that no party in the rest of the UK looks likely to be trusted with a majority (because that is a fact, with or without Scotland at present).
I am in Scotland for much of next week and am looking forward to learning a lot more of the current mood. But the feedback I am already getting is that Scotland has moved on. The question is, when will the rest of the UK?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If Labour goes along with this then they are lost – truly, truly lost. I for one was hoping that the SNP might reignite some of the Labour’s social justice leanings from the days of yore.
Then again……..I’m going Green at this election.
Mark, I agree Labour would be utterly lost if it did this, but Ed Milliband has made it crystal clear that this is not absolutely out of the question.
How could ANY Party go into coalition with either of the Parties making up the current Government – easily the most deceitful (lied about the NHS pre-2010 General Election), dishonest (has increased the debt by 50% and borrowed more in 5 years than ALL Labour Chancellors combined), cruel (IDS’s vandalistic rampaging through the Welfare jungle, spreading misery, death and suicide, and wasting more on his scams than the £1.8billion pa lost in fraud) and corrupt (NUMEROUS examples of Tory donors being raised to the bloated Lords, which now has nearly as many members as the People’s Assembly of Red China, for a population of over a billion) of the last 200 years.
However, this is particularly true of Labour, whose policies are light years away from those of the Tories – don’t fall for the Crosby scam that “they’re all the same”; they simply are not.
Labour may – does – have its faults, but a Government under Ed M, who stood up to Murdoch, the Daily Fail, influenced Levespn, prevented us from bombing and invading Syria, stood up to the energy companies and promises a root and branch rethinking of HMRC, will certainly NOT be re-run of “Cluck cluck” Cameron’s truly shameful administration. And only Labour – withvall its
Sorry – pressed wrong button – Only Labour, with all is accepted faults – can turf out the Tories. Every voter for the progressive majority that DOES exist, and which IS a majority, should bear thatvin mind as they come to vote.
Where I live I’m afraid, they have returned a Tory for the last 30 years if I am correct. Voting Labour is almost as a big a wasted vote here as is going with the Greens so it doesn’t make much difference (except giving me a hollow feeling of some sorts).
Nationally, I would welcome the SNP and Labour joining up if it keeps the Tories out. But an appeal to Labour by the Tories against the Scots will have traction in some in the Labour party because they have that ‘club’ mentality which Richard speaks of (and of which we have seen many examples of over the years).
I tend to favour stronger regional Government anyway so I have no problems with the SNP wanting to increase Scotland’s say in how it is governed.
In the first place this PM is a total numptie and pathological liar. He has no clear idea of the meaning of words in the English language. He often refers to, “The Country”, when talking of the United Kingdom and just as frequently speaks of, “Britain”, when he also speaking of the United Kingdom.
So what country is it that the English PM so often speaks about?
Last time I looked, (ten seconds ago), there were four distinct COUNTRIES in the bipartite United KINGDOM, (SIC), and another additional four distinct non-United KINGDOM Countries in the British ISLES. Now, when I attended school, some considerable time ago, that makes a grand total of eight COUNTRIES in the BRITISH isles and only four of them are parts of the United KINGDOM. Does that PM actually know what the word TRUTH means?
Now consider this – What began as a bipartite United KINGDOM composed of four distinct COUNTRIES morphed from that bipartite United Kingdom into a quadratic union of four distinct COUNTRIES when the Establishment decide to devolve powers to the other Non-English COUNTRIES but retained the United Kingdom Parliament as the de Facto Parliament of the COUNTRY of England.
Thus the real situation now is a de facto Parliament of the COUNTRY of England at Westminster, funding itself as the United KINGDOM devolving English Powers to the other three subservient COUNTRIES and legislating for the Country of England under English laws but tagging wee bits onto bills to accommodate the other three countries. The Establishment thought it had achieved what a succession of English Kings could not achieve – the defeat of the Scots and the subjugation of the British Isles. Did they imagine we would just accept such treatment?
The electoral system should have been sorted out in the 1960’s but then and since neither major party got on with it for the usual reasons. It has produced some odd results and moreover has meant large tracts of the UK having grossly unbalanced representation. Worse, it has always been a nasty accident waiting to happen and like such accidents at very much the wrong time economically and socially. Scotland could be represented by one party with barely any of their other interests winning seats. In England some areas will be much the same. This is not democracy by any standard especially if turnout goes any lower.
There is no doubt we need STV
But we have to live with what we get in the meantime
Yes – but please – not a Lab-Con alliance against the SNP!! It’s a potential nightmare.
Agreed
Richard, you say “It shows that Cameron was never serious about the Scottish referendum and is wholly unable to accept the result”.
We know the result of course – is it not fair to say that David Cameron has a responsibility to the wishes of the majority of those in Scotland?
But of course, the result of the referendum was not unacceptable to some. It looks like an SNP push through Westminster will get them what they want. And hey, who needs to bother with another referendum.
Cameron’s comments the morning after the referendum were contemptuous and created the current crisis, in my opinion.
“It shows that Cameron was never serious about the Scottish referendum and is wholly unable to accept the result.”
The result was that the No vote won. As far as I am aware, Cameron accepts that result. The only party which seems to be struggling with as far as I can tell is the SNP.
Your comments are getting very boring
Aren’t you being a little partisan there?
Are you saying I should try harder?
Surely the real issue is whether voters have a right to know who the parties they are voting for are most likely to make a coalition with and what the costs of coalition are likely to be. In 2010, most people assumed that the LibDems were more likely to make a coalition with Labour and as a result people who think of themselves as “progressive” voted in a way they would not have done had they realised they would end up propping up Cameron.
The Libdems were are least a party throughout the UK, and thus could influence policies made by the coalition generally: we can of course argue about whether they did so effectively, but that was what they were trying to do. The same cannot be said of a nationalist party whose interests are limited to one part of the union.
Don’t voters have a right to know what price Labour and the Tories would be willing to pay for SNP support to prop them up? If it is another referendum fair enough. But if, after the election, either Labour or the Tories can govern and the “winner” will be the size of the cheque signed for Scotland, the size of that cheque should be discussed now?
Anyone knows the Tories will not be doing a deal with the SNP
And anyone reading data now knows that means the Tories can’t be in power
So only a Labour SNP or Labour Tory deal is possible
There is no other prospect of stablish government
Good point Roger as regards the Lib Dems, but aren’t you missing the possibility that the Conservatives may get into a coalition with Ukip, or the DUP? Suppose they rely on one or both of these parties to make up a governing coalition? Neither of these parties has, or is likely to get as many seats as the SNP will (I assume) get, so by your argument don’t we have a right to know the sie of the cheque they’ll be wanting?
The maths does not add up on current seat forecasts
“No wonder the people of Scotland now look to be rejecting everything to do with Westminster”
Didn’t the referendum say otherwise?
Have you noticed things may have changed since then?
The Yes vote in Scotland was 45% in 2014. The Conservative vote at the last General Election was 36%. Cameron wasn’t too fussy about fair representation then. His arrogance worries me.
The no vote in Scotland was 55% in 2014. The Labour vote in the last General Election was 29%. What is the precise point you are trying to make?
It seems most wholly understand so I will not repeat myself
A grand coalition is unlikely in the UK, but we have done something similar before – the national governments in wartime (I know, we are not at war, yet anyway). Grand coalitions seem to work in other European countries – Germany, for example, from time to time; indeed, currently. Are their grand coalitions never in the public interest?
To pick a different example, Syriza is working with the right-wing Independent Greeks – is that in the public interest?
This time around, there is a good chance that no two parties will be able to form a coalition with a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, and it looks like we might end up with a minority government. If so, I expect another general election in the following year, after whatever minority government we end up with fails a confidence motion (or amends the Fixed-term Parliaments Act). Or perhaps we should try to survive without a government, like Belgium.
Cameron has the box seat to establish a government as he is already the Prime Minister, but may have to resign if he does not lead the largest block of MPs and/or get the largest share of the popular vote. Also note that the day after the general election is the 70th anniversary of VE day, and the weekend will be busy with commemorative events. Whatever happens, it is likely to be quite interesting.
Are we at war with Scotland?
When did that break out?
We have always been at war with Eastasia. Oh, sorry, wrong blog.
As I said, we are not at war, but there are always geopolitical risks. We are/were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, the situations in Syria and Ukraine remain unresolved, and Libya is a potential problem too, not least for the stream of refugees into southern Europe.
But my main point was: other countries have grand coalitions; we have had grand coalitions of a sort. Is it only this particular grand coalition that is against the public interest, or are they always against the public interest?
On the 70th anniversary of VE Day, I have heard that the Queen will be staying away, and spending Friday and the weekend (and probably most of the next week) away at Windsor while the politicians sort out who is in charge.
Grand coalitions can have a benefit
I made clear why I did not think that the case here
I would confidently predict that massive cicl disobedience would result in Scotland, for a start
Practically all the forecasts have a conservative lead in the coming election, of between 9 and 15 seats.
UKIP are at between 1 and 3 seats.
Libdem at around 24.
Snp at something like 55
Cons at 278
Lab at 267
Ally libdem to cons gives 302.
Snp to labour gives 322.
Either-Ors at around 25.
Next parliament will be hung and good to neither man nor beast.
Hopefully there will be a face-to-face live debate at which one or another will be shown to be hopelessly inadequate…..chances are that all will be so shown, and we’ll be stuck with an another government of hopelessly inadequate chancers.
My personal forecast is cons at 263 and labour at 282, still hung…
I think 275 each
But SNP swing it to Labour
It’s the only possibility given they have refused to go near Tories and I am sure they mean it
Well, Labour+SNP is certainly one possibility, but the SNP will have to do extremely well to achieve 50 seats.
Would it be in the public interest for the SNP to use their position holding the balance of power to push on further than the proposals agreed by all parties through the Smith Commission following the “no” vote last year?
Of course it would be possible
That is how democracy works. People vote for change. Maybe you have a problem with that?
Sure, a Labout+SNP government is possible. But unlikely, I think. Who knows for sure? Slighly more likely than a grand coalition, anyway.
Of course I have no problem with democracy, or people voting for change. There are plenty of changes I would like to see. Scotland leaving the UK is not one of them, but it is not my choice. As it happens, the Scottish people themselves voted against that proposition less than 6 months ago.
If Labour and SNP can form a coalition, then good luck to them. Similarly, if about 70% of the UK voters elect 600+ Tory and Labour MPs, and they can find enough common ground, then they could form a “grand coalition”. If.
In that eventuality, it seems that you are the one who has a problem with democracy: you said “A ‘grand coalition’ could never be in the public interest”. I disagree: I think there are circumstances when a “grand coalition” could be in the public interest, but I think it is quite unlikely here and now.
It is not clear to me why there should be mass civil disobedience in Scotland, if the new government of whatever flavour delivers on the promises made before the Scottish referendumm last year and set out in the proposals agreed by all parties in the Smith Commission report.
Because the people of Scotland were not asked about the Smith Commission
I am getting tired of misinformed Southern Britain thinking Scotland is subsidised
We are not subsidised.We are not subsidised. We are not subsidised.
If we are then why the panic to keep the Union.
That neither mainstream Unionist party looks capable of gaining a majority in the GE tends to prove the adage “careful what you wish for” in relation to the earlier referendum. They wantedThe Scots to remain part of the UK political process. The Unionists can’t then be heard to complain if the Scots take advantage of that.
I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I heard of the suggestion of a Labour+Conservative coalition. Even just 10 years ago it would have been unthinkable to speak of such in public and dismissed as beyond the realms of possibility. That Labour have not (as far as I’m aware) immediately jumped to categorically rule that out as a possibility is even more worrying.
This throws up a great big red flag for me and demonstrates the blatant injustice of the current British political system, that come what may either Ed Miliband or David Cameron will be our next prime minister and is a very worrying fact indeed. Considering the economic damage that Labour + the Conservatives have inflicted on the UK over the past 10 years, only serves to make the fact re EM or DC as prime minister even more worrying.
Personally I do not like predictions of the polls because they are based on a small proportion of the electorate and therefore prone to inaccuracies, but in the absence of an alternative I am willing to go along with them. I think that Cameron has suffered huge credibility damage and the results of his policies speak for themselves. Miliband does not yet have the nerve to be an effective prime minister (if he ever will) so it seems certain we will have some form of coalition government.
However, little attention is ever paid to the non voters who in desperation at the lack of choice and there being no party that represents their beliefs, or for whatever reason choose not to vote. I believe at the last general election these people represented 35% of the electorate and it seems apparent to me that figure will rise in the May election. That in and of itself will be a further red flag for the urgent need of change in the policies of all political parties.
The British economy is in dire straits and the apparent lack of any political party with the will to do what obviously needs to be done speaks volumes about British democracy and where the loyalties of politicians truly lay.
I seriously doubt there will be a coalition after the next election. The various parties now hate each other too much. The LibDems won’t go back in with the Tories and vice versa. Labour will have nothing to do with the LibDems. UKIP won’t get into bed with the Tories – they know they will be gobbled up.
What will happen is a period of complete chaos – what Cameron and Clegg wanted to prevent at all costs back in 2010.
I also think coalition unlikely
But I think the SNP will let Labour govern
As will Plaid and the Greens
“The Guardian’s latest polls projection now sees the Conservatives winning 279 seats, up seven on last month. Labour is down four seats, on 266.” I want to weep.