The electorate are looking for sound government, not old enmities
Although many commentators regard it as a most unlikely political alliance, the notion of an arrangement between the Conservatives and LibDems has been bubbling away in the background for some time. Having won the leadership in 2005, David Cameron immediately identified himself as a ‘liberal Conservative’. Again in December 2007, he called for ‘co-operation across a range of fronts’. And in the Gurkhas’ hour of triumph, Cameron and Clegg stood side by side looking at ease. Although admitting he did ‘not know Clegg well’, Cameron nevertheless repeated his desire to work closely with LibDem leader.
Voters are enthusiastic about the idea. A Politicshome survey of 873 adults conducted immediately afterwards showed that eighty six percent of Conservatives and seventy six percent of Liberal Democrats would like to see more of this, with only a tiny minority (two percent and nine percent respectively) reacting negatively to collaboration.
The problem is, the ‘tiny minority’ are the activist wonks who tend to make life difficult for their leaders. Observing the relevant blogsites last week was instructive. These from various LibDem corners:
‘Cameron’s a tool, isn’t he? Even many Tories think he’s an empty-suit and a bit of a toad. Also, his party seems to consist of hateful, narcissistic, bedroom-bound bloggers’
‘If the Conservatives really want to reconnect with “ordinary people” they should stay out of advertising agencies and start knocking on doors like L iberal Democrats’
One such doubter’s apoplexy led him to unwittingly type that an alliance would mean LibDem policy being ‘renederd inot gibberish’. On Tory sites the venom (while not as widespread) was just as powerful:
‘I want a Conservative Right-Cameron coalition, not a Cameroon-Lib Dem coalition’
However, when eight or nine out of ten supporters respond enthusiastically to an alliance, it’s time for leaders to ignore the activist blogosphere.
There are sound reasons for doing so. The Populus survey of 10th May suggested that, with the right issue to hand, Clegg’s Libdems made an impact – and, compared to the April 6th poll, rose to 22% support largely at the expense of the repositioned Cameron Tories. Equally, the Centre is where the mass vote is: last September, the same company recorded 52% of voters describing themselves as ‘in the centre’ – far in excess of ‘to the right’ (23%) and ‘to the left’ (18%).
To the obvious possibility of a split ‘Centre’ vote should be added the recent track-record of Conservative/Libdem cooperation in local government: alliances in Birmingham, St Helens and Wolverhampton have kept the majority Labour Party out of power there and been popular with voters. Equally, given the likelihood of the Conservatives positioning their task in 2010 as a national emergency, the case for coalition becomes stronger to an electorate which trusts Vince Cable’s economic judgement - and rewarded Clegg’s fight for Gurkha rights.
For the Liberal Democrats, this is a genuine opportunity for real power. For post-Thatcher Conservatives, it offers the chance to consign New Labour to an isolated (even unpatriotic) role in opposition….and neuter the Old Tory Right. Cameron also believes that an offer to the Libdems would be seen as generous and principled.
Diehards may well fight any such deal tooth and nail, but in doing so they will highlight a much wider point. For while the grassroots endlessly debate policy purity and defend their turf, the data suggest yet again that old party lines do not impress voters increasingly in search of a new beginning. For Cameron and Clegg to heed this would be seen by the majority not as opportunism, but as democratic common sense.