Is a grand coalition the way forward now?

[Philip]

What are people's opinions on the idea of a grand coalition of Labour & Conservative taking us through the next few years?

The last time we had one was during the last world war and it did seem to work and unite the country. Today the situation isn't as critical as in the 1940s, but you could argue that we've become too divided as a country, and the economy & cost of living is at a critical point. Would a grand coalition be effective through this decade, both in terms of how well the coalition is run and in whether we'd be at a better standing on the issues I've mentioned, come the end of the term?

 

[nlogax]

I'd be concerned that nothing useful would actually get done with that sort of coalition. Mainstream Labour and Conservatives are far enough apart as it is, but add in the continued influences of both left and right wing fringe lunatics and such a setup would be asking for trouble.

 

[DarloRich]

Would a grand coalition be effective through this decade

No.

Get the Tories out. Give them the kicking they deserve. Get adults in.

( I will repeat: the current government are not Conservative. That party is dead and gone. They are now populist/nationalists)

 

[birchesgreen]

What a joke, why should the party who have been in charge for so long and caused the problems we are in have a say?

 

[Gloster]

So the party that looks like it is going to be hammered for its failings will be allowed to change the conventions so that it can keep all its privileges?

 

[Purple Train]

too divided as a country

I think this is the root of why a grand coalition wouldn't work. The 1940s one occurred when there was a need, and a want, and a will to unite - there might be a (lesser) need now, but there is neither a want nor a will, from what I can gather - the noisy extremes would tear it apart.

 

[kristiang85]

No.

Get the Tories out. Give them the kicking they deserve. Get adults in.

( I will repeat: the current government are not Conservative. That party is dead and gone. They are now populist/nationalists)

My worry is that the likely replacements aren't really 'adults' either. The standard of politics in this country is just scraping the barrel right now, but at least we aren't alone in that. I just think democracy in general, in its current guise, has reached its evolutionary limit now in the WEstern world and just isn't working anymore. But I don't have any answers on how to solve that.

But totally agreed on your last line.

 

[Mag_seven]

What are people's opinions on the idea of a grand coalition of Labour & Conservative taking us through the next few years?

Only after 14 years of an alternative to the current lot.....

 

[Killingworth]

Theory v. reality.

I'm afraid no government of any hue will be able to deliver strong policies on anything due to the rapid pace of modern communications spreading chaos and confusion as truth becomes inextricably mixed up with part truths, deliberate distortions and total fiction.

I hope the next government can prove me wrong and deliver all the policies I think are right - but others certainly won't agree! And I'll have changed my mind by 2025 after receiving more information. Which is why I wouldn't join any political party.

 

[Sorcerer]

A grand coalition like that of the Second World War? Definitely not. Ideally for me a small Labour majority will allow us to throw the current rabble out of Westminster and then we can bring in proportional representation and be left with smaller coalitions but between parties of common interest and still with a clear vision forward. Maybe even small single-party majorities. But a grand coalition has a snowball's chance in Vesuvius of happening and being effective.

 

[Busaholic]

A grand coalition like that of the Second World War? Definitely not. Ideally for me a small Labour majority will allow us to throw the current rabble out of Westminster and then we can bring in proportional representation and be left with smaller coalitions but between parties of common interest and still with a clear vision forward. Maybe even small single-party majorities. But a grand coalition has a snowball's chance in Vesuvius of happening and being effective.

I agree: that presents the best prospect for the country in the short and medium term.

 

[edwin_m]

What a joke, why should the party who have been in charge for so long and caused the problems we are in have a say?

In 1940 the very survival of the country was at stake. The preceding Conservative government had some responsibility for this because of appeasement, but any other possible UK government would probably have done the same at the time (Churchill being nowhere near power at that stage), as governments in other countries did too. But especially with Churchill now as leader, I think most people in 1940 would have recognised the situation was now very different, it was essential to pull together and not worry too much about the sins of the past.

Most people today probably think the current problems of the country are largely caused by the behaviour of Conservative governments since 2010, a very different approach is now needed but the Tories are continuing to mess things up and there's no reason to believe they would stop if they continued in power. Ironicallly enough, one of the few things they've got right (in my opinion) was to resist appeasement in Ukraine.

 

[3141]

I agree with several of the earlier posts. In addition, coalitions in the past have worked out badly for one of the partners. The Lib Dems were almost wiped out after 2010-15. The coalition government of 1931 onwards became mainly Conservative in practice. The coalition of 1940-45 ended rather differently. It didn't survive the end of the war that had brought it about, and in the election of 1945 there was a great desire for change. If we had a new coalition tomorrow, the partners would start wondering who was going to emerge politically in better shape in the future. Unlike in a war there would probably be no clear point at which one could say "That's it, we've solved the problem," but after some years voters would again be disillusioned with the government, and there would be some figures (Farage, perhaps) loudly declaring that everything would be better if the New Reform Party was in power.

 

[DarloRich]

My worry is that the likely replacements aren't really 'adults' either.

Despite what "they" say all politicians are not alike. Not all are as dodgy as the current "Conservative" government. You might need to retune your radar.

( and I get that Labour aren't Clownbyn enough for many of the crank left who seem to prefer "winning the argument" rather than winning power. You cant change stuff by "winning the argument")

 

[Dent]

Why?

Labour are generally expected to get a majority art the next election, so why would it be in their interest to form a coalition with the Conservative party? Even if Labour don't get a majority, there are other parties closer to Labour that the could for a coalition with if they need to.

 

[brad465]

A Government of National Unity would have been beneficial for handling Brexit &/or the Covid response, but otherwise the reform needed is PR voting and subsequent cross-party working from that. Besides, the prevalence of this "they're all the same" attitude is bad enough, having a "grand coalition" in times of non-crisis is only going to cement this mindset.

 

[edwin_m]

A Government of National Unity would have been beneficial for handling Brexit &/or the Covid response, but otherwise the reform needed is PR voting and subsequent cross-party working from that. Besides, the prevalence of this "they're all the same" attitude is bad enough, having a "grand coalition" in times of non-crisis is only going to cement this mindset.

Covid maybe, but Brexit certainly not. There wasn't enough "unity" to go round.

 

[renegademaster]

Deleted, seemed to misrembered my reading of Jenkin's book on Churchill

 

[DarloRich]

The WW2 coalition happened because their wasn't enough pro intervention Tories to make up a majority so Chamberlain(whow was very reluctant on declaring war in the first place) needed Labour votes to get anything done.

Labour refused to serve in a coalition led by Chamberlain hence his replacement.

 

[DC1989]

Seeing as it's possible that the tories could even come 4th in the election, if there was to be a grand coalition it shouldn't involve them at all

 

[renegademaster]

Labour refused to serve in a coalition led by Chamberlain hence his replacement.

Ironically due to the failure of one of Churchill's initiatives in Norway

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The standard of politics in this country is just scraping the barrel right now, but at least we aren't alone in that. I just think democracy in general, in its current guise, has reached its evolutionary limit now in the Western world and just isn't working anymore. But I don't have any answers on how to solve that.

I totally agree. I don't have the answers or even suggestions. However, I would like to see proportional representation at least given a shot.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps the most likely (or least unlikely) time in recent history for a Government of National Unity would have been 2009. There was a sort of desire to pull together to get out of the financial crisis. However Osborne and co were too intent on pinning the blame on Brown and rolling the pitch for austerity.

 

[nw1]

What are people's opinions on the idea of a grand coalition of Labour & Conservative taking us through the next few years?

The last time we had one was during the last world war and it did seem to work and unite the country. Today the situation isn't as critical as in the 1940s, but you could argue that we've become too divided as a country, and the economy & cost of living is at a critical point. Would a grand coalition be effective through this decade, both in terms of how well the coalition is run and in whether we'd be at a better standing on the issues I've mentioned, come the end of the term?

Why do we need the Tories to be part of the coalition?

They've done enough damage as it is, and until they drop the reactionary right-wing culture war nonsense, they are absolutely unwelcome in government as far as I'm concerned.

I can't see an electoral outcome which would require the Tories to be in coalition. If Labour can't get a majority they should be able to govern with Lib Dems, or perhaps SNP.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I agree- I have voted conservative in the past but no way now. They must NOT be any part of a coalition.

 

[nw1]

I totally agree. I don't have the answers or even suggestions. However, I would like to see proportional representation at least given a shot.

Definitely, I am fed up of the unrepresentative outcomes that we get under FPTP.

For the 45 (! - is it really that long) years from 1979 to 2024, we will have had a Tory-dominated government for 32 out of the 45 years and a Tory majority government for about 25 of the 45 (1979-97; 2015-17; 2019-24). That's approximately 55% of the time. It's completely unreasonable that a party who has achieved 43.9% max of the vote in that time period has dominated politics for so long.

We need an end to FPTP, and majority governments, unless they really do have a massive popular mandate.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I agree with several of the earlier posts. In addition, coalitions in the past have worked out badly for one of the partners. The Lib Dems were almost wiped out after 2010-15. The coalition government of 1931 onwards became mainly Conservative in practice. The coalition of 1940-45 ended rather differently. It didn't survive the end of the war that had brought it about, and in the election of 1945 there was a great desire for change. If we had a new coalition tomorrow, the partners would start wondering who was going to emerge politically in better shape in the future. Unlike in a war there would probably be no clear point at which one could say "That's it, we've solved the problem," but after some years voters would again be disillusioned with the government, and there would be some figures (Farage, perhaps) loudly declaring that everything would be better if the New Reform Party was in power.

2010-15 coalition worked pretty well with the Lib Dems moderating many Tory policies but it means some of their scared cows had to be sacrificed but the electorate didn't get that and threw there toys out of the pram over student fees and ultimately unleashed the almighty mess we are now in. This now risks a massive swing to a dominant Labour party who wont be interested in PR an the two party system will soldier on.

 

[dosxuk]

but the electorate didn't get that and threw there toys out of the pram over student fees and ultimately unleashed the almighty mess we are now in

It was badly managed by Clegg, with little care of the consequences.

Take the student fees issue for example. Long been a core part of their campaign, many of their MPs had made it one of their priorities. Suddenly because of the coalition that position not only had to be dropped, but completely reversed. Clegg could have come out and said that it was a necessary part of the agreement that he signed up to, or he could have allowed the Lib Dem MPs to have a free vote on it - it almost certainly would have passed anyway. If either of those had happened the blame for the reversal would have been placed entirely at the feet of Clegg rather than the wider party.

The question many voters asked themselves afterwards is that if the party is going to reverse their key policies without a care, just for the opportunity to be in power, why not just vote for the other party anyway?

Of course, the kicking the constituency electorate gave Clegg then led to the waste of space that was Jared O'Mara, so they got a very quick lesson in that the grass isn't always greener...

 

[nw1]

It was badly managed by Clegg, with little care of the consequences.

Take the student fees issue for example. Long been a core part of their campaign, many of their MPs had made it one of their priorities. Suddenly because of the coalition that position not only had to be dropped, but completely reversed. Clegg could have come out and said that it was a necessary part of the agreement that he signed up to, or he could have allowed the Lib Dem MPs to have a free vote on it - it almost certainly would have passed anyway. If either of those had happened the blame for the reversal would have been placed entirely at the feet of Clegg rather than the wider party.

The question many voters asked themselves afterwards is that if the party is going to reverse their key policies without a care, just for the opportunity to be in power, why not just vote for the other party anyway?

Of course, the kicking the constituency electorate gave Clegg then led to the waste of space that was Jared O'Mara, so they got a very quick lesson in that the grass isn't always greener...

Indeed, Clegg should have put his foot down on the tuition fees issue. Not happening, end of, and that's a condition of the coalition.

That said, it shouldn't really stop people voting Lib Dem now, given that the alternative is Sunak's godawful Tory Party.

 

[Busaholic]

2010-15 coalition worked pretty well with the Lib Dems moderating many Tory policies but it means some of their scared cows had to be sacrificed but the electorate didn't get that and threw there toys out of the pram over student fees and ultimately unleashed the almighty mess we are now in. This now risks a massive swing to a dominant Labour party who wont be interested in PR an the two party system will soldier on.

Cows can be very brave, I'll have you know. Seriously, I'd take great issue with your first sentence. The Lib Dems, and Vince Cable in particular, presided over Royal Mail getting sold off way below a fair price, Ed Davey and others failed to look into the sub-postmasters' grievances and others in their party helped preside over the dismantling of the Disabled Living Allowance to any new claimants, compounding this by ensuring the general public were never informed of this. To this day, so many people ask me why, as someone very obviously suffering from Multiple Sclerosis,I don't claim any extra government money beyond my pension and I reply between clenched teeth that my eventual diagnosis came both after the 2014 closure and my retirement, leaving me ineligible in my 70s for anything other than the pathetically inadequate sop of the Attendance Allowance, Clegg and Cable were just so happy to have their feet under the table, David Laws and Nick Harvey were Tories at heart, and the only decent one, Charles Kennedy, soon died, having lost all influence anyway. Clegg, Osborne and Galloway are the three politicians this century I most despise, though not necessarily in that order.