Published:

By Peter Hoskin
Follow Peter on Twitter

Really,
honestly, I woke up this morning intending to write a post on what the continuing
EU farrago implies about the next Tory manifesto and, indeed, the formation of
the next Government. My argument was straightforward. With David Cameron being
pushed into ever more spectacular shows of commitment to an EU Referendum, will
the policy be an even more inviolable promise around the next election? And, if
so, what would that mean for the chances of another LibCon coalition? If the
Lib Dems remained set against a referendum, it could add all up to No.10 for Ed
Miliband.

But
that was before I read Daniel
Finkelstein’s column for the Times (£
) this morning, which strides across similar
ground. The next election, he writes, “will be one defined not by policy
pledges but by how robust those pledges are”. The party leaders will have to,
in effect, draw up “red line manifestos,” establishing where they will and will
not cede ground in any coalition negotiations. And the upshot is that “it is
quite possible that, by the end of it all, the red lines will make the
formation of a new coalition very difficult indeed.”


In
which case, I hope you – and Daniel – don’t mind if I make a few supplementary
points:

i) Red lines
needn’t mean more clarity.
I doubt any of the three main party leaders will go into the next
election without a proper plan for coalition. But that doesn’t mean that – in
public, at least – they will be clearer about their commitments. It’s worth
remembering the flipside to red lines that cannot be crossed: fuzzy, wavy lines
that can be crossed. Where a party leader isn’t making non-negotiable
commitments, they may be tempted to cloud their policies to meet all electoral
eventualities. That way, we might see more pledges like this one that Ed
Miliband wrote into the last
Labour manifesto

“Over the
next Parliament the structural deficit will be cut by more than two-thirds.”

…where
the “by more than” contained enough leeway that, in theory in least, Labour
could even have agreed with the Coalition’s deficit reduction plan.  

ii) The
trust dimension.
John Baron’s campaign for an EU Referendum Bill has revolved
around trust: after the Lisbon Treaty, he says, the public don’t believe what
politicians say about Europe any more, and so more must be done to reassure
them. Myself, I suspect the wider public doesn’t much care about Europe, but
that doesn’t entirely negate Mr Baron’s point. The fact is, voters barely
believe anything that politicians say. In a recent YouGov poll,
only 23 per cent of people said they trust “leading Labour politicians”,
dropping to 19 per cent for Tories and 16 per cent for Lib Dems. There are now,
quite literally, more people who think
Princess Diana was assassinated
than trust leading politicians from all
three main parties.

This,
of course, has ramifications for the next manifestos. Red lines or no’, will
people actually believe any of the promises that are made? And, if not – by
Tory backbench logic – should David Cameron be doing more to firm up his
commitments now, not just on Europe? In any case, the Prime Minister would be
in a stronger position had he worked harder on restoring trust in politics. I’ve
put forward some ideas for that in the past, including here
and here.

iii) Better
party management?
Daniel begins his column by observing that the Lib Dem leadership
did more to involve their MPs in the coalition negotiations than did the Tory
leadership. And so, as he puts it, “the Liberal Democrats volunteered to get
hit on the head by a flowerpot, the Conservatives did not” – with the sorts of
consequences that we are seeing now.

But
surely that cannot happen in future, should other coalitions be formed. As the
current Referendum row demonstrates, the Tory party’s “red lines” will have to
be drawn in consultation and conjunction with Tory MPs. Otherwise, Tory MPs
will try to impose their own “red lines” after the event, and that gets very
messy for all involved.

It’s
partially what I meant when I wrote, in a ConHome
column
last year, that “now’s the time for David Cameron to make a ‘big,
open and comprehensive offer’ to his own party.” He made such an offer to the
Lib Dems after the last election, setting out areas for compromise and
cooperation. But he’s never made one to his own colleagues. That could be fixed
by the prospect of more coalitions to come.

Comments are closed.