Ex aide shows spectacular brilliance or spectacular stupidity by saying minority government would deliver true Tory agenda
Share 19
inShare0
David Cameron and Nick Clegg with engineers Garry Matthews (left) and Michael Bailey at the Soho railway depot in Smethwick. Photograph: Tim Ireland/PA
So that's clear then. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have swept aside critics in both their parties who hope the coalition will end before the next general election in 2015.
The obvious target in their sights is Graham Brady, the chairman of the Conservative 1922 committee, who suggested that the coalition might end before 2015.
Since Cameron and Clegg's joint appearance in Smethwick, Stewart Jackson, who resigned as a ministerial aide last October over a proposed EU referendum, has just raised the prospect of a minority Conservative government.
It is worth examining exactly what Brady and Jackson said to illustrate how the Tory right still struggles to understand why Britain has a coalition government and what would happen if it fell apart.
This is the key section of Brady's interview with Carolyn Quinn on the Westminster Hour on Sunday night:
I think the end of the coalition is very likely to come before the general election. It would be logical and sensible for both parties to be able to present their case, their separate vision to the public in time for the public to form a clear view before the election when it comes. Of course it is always possible that that moment of separation could come sooner.
Brady is a diplomat who chose his words with care to avoid causing offence. But he seems to be saying that the natural process of differentiation between the two parties should go further and they should detach from eachother before the election.
But if the coalition ends under the Brady scenario Britain would still need a government because he has said the election would still take place in 2015. That would presumably mean a minority Conservative government.
To understand how the Tory right thinks a minority Conservative government would work let's turn to Stewart Jackon. This is what Jackson told Martha Kearney on The World at One when she asked what would happen if the Lib Dems veto Tory plans to reduce the size of the House of Commons:
If they do do that...that would be such an egregious breach of faith that David Cameron would be needing to think about a minority Conservative government, a growth bill, putting forward marriage tax breaks, UK Bill of Rights – things we would want to do on our own. That breach of faith would end the coalition government.
The key phrase here is "on our own". The Tories would indeed be on their own with no majority in the House of Commons and no ability to introduce those issues, such as marriage tax breaks and a British Bill of Rights, that are dear to the Tory right.
So there we have it. The Tory right are itching to strike out on their own and deliver their fantasy agenda. But they have no ability to do so after Cameron failed to secure a commons majority in 2010 after adding a mere 3.7 percentage points to Michael Howard's poor performance in 2005.
There can only be two conclusions from Jackson's remarks. He is either spectacularly stupid for failing to realise that a period "on our own" will deliver deadlock rather than marriage tax breaks. Or he is spectacularly clever because the deadlock would remind the Conservative party of Cameron's failure in 2010 and potentially embolden the right to overthrow the prime minister.