Tom Richmond: Better a stable coalition than the chaos of minority rule

I’m not surprised. The Conservative leader, and Labour’s Ed Miliband for that matter, are duty-bound to make clear that they’re only interested in winning the 2015 poll. You’ll become used to the phrase, believe me, because it will be said often enough. As for the Lib Dems, Nick Clegg will repeat his 2010 tactic – he will hope for a stalemate and then begin negotiations with the biggest party.

Yet, while I do not blame Cameron for trying to unite the political right-wing in this country by assuaging those who blame the Lib Dems for stopping certain reforms, the PM should not box himself into a corner.

This is the logic. Cameron and Clegg’s government has been far more stable, and achieved far more, than many doubters envisaged in 2010. Despite understandable concerns about the cost of living, it will pass the test of time and history will offer a favourable assessment of its efforts to halt Labour’s public spending free-for-all – and, indeed, the Lib Dems for preventing Britain from becoming embroiled in an unwinnable war in Syria.

Compare this with Sir John Major’s government that was elected in 1992 after the Tories secured more than 14 million votes – a number that eclipsed those who supported Margaret Thatcher in her pomp. However, the first-past-the-post electoral system left the Conservatives with a fragile 21-seat majority and Major never recovered from the Black Wednesday financial disaster and his party’s interminable infighting over the Maastricht Treaty.

As rebels left Major without a Commons majority, backbenchers knew that they could hold the then government to ransom on each and every issue – not ideal as Tony Blair began his charm offensive following John Smith’s sudden death. This turbulent period in political history 20 years ago is the reason why the Conservatives lost so much ground in Yorkshire and the North.

In this regard, Cameron should not dismiss coalition government. In the meantime, his priority is finding a way of winning the next election by a significant margin if he is to govern alone. Given that he secured only 10.7 million votes in 2010, despite Gordon Brown being one of the most unpopular premiers in history, he has his work cut out.

However, I do like the idea put forward by backbencher Robert Halfon – the campaigner against fuel duty says the Conservatives should rename themselves the Workers’ Party, offer free membership to trade unionists, cut taxes for lower earners and value the efforts of public sector workers.

It is a helpful contribution and a fair reflection of the aspirational values espoused by Margaret Thatcher. But it will not happen if David Cameron continues to be advised by close chums from his school days – he, and his party, need to find a way of connecting with those hard-working families who are bewildered by Britain’s political and economic dynamics.

If they can achieve this, the next election could still be won. But, until the electorate have spoken, nothing should be ruled out – just in case voters, the ultimate arbiters, decide that no one party can be entrusted with power. For, in my view, a stable coalition is preferable to a minority government – and all the chaos and uncertainty that ensues.

I’M not sure Cathy Ashton, wife of opinion poll expert Peter Kellner, was the best person to travel to Kiev to lecture the Ukrainians on democracy.

After all, she has never won a major election in her life – she was appointed to the unelected House of Lords in 
1999.

She then succeeded Peter Mandelson as EU Trade Commissioner in 2008 because Gordon Brown’s government did not want to risk a by-election defeat by sacrificing an elected MP.

And then Ashton became the European Union’s foreign policy chief in 2009, a post that has seen her ridiculed regularly for being absent from key meetings.

BARONESS Ashton is not the only politician guilty of double standards this week. I’m afraid Nick Clegg is equally culpable after agreeing to some form of debate with Ukip leader Nigel Farage over Britain’s membership of the European Union.

If such forums matter to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, why did Clegg’s unelected peers – in concert with Labour – allow the House of Lords to scupper a Tory proposal to guarantee the British people a referendum vote on the EU after the next election?

AS for May’s European elections, it appears that disgraced former Rotherham MP Denis MacShane will be offering a commentary after being freed from prison just six weeks into a six-month sentence for misuse of Parliamentary expenses.

He’s describing himself as an “EU Policy Consultant, Strategic Media Advisor” on a social media website for business bods.

DIDN’t German Chancellor Angela Merkel put Britain to shame on Thursday when she addressed both Houses of Parliament in fluent English for several minutes before reverting to her native tongue?

How many of our politicians could have addressed the Bundestag in German?

WHY the fuss over Princess Anne calling for the limited expansion of rural villages, so countryside communities become more sustainable, as an alternative to the Government pressing ahead with the development of a new generation of garden cities?

As far as I can see, the proportionate expansion of existing villages – even those in the picturesque Yorkshire Dales and North York Moors – will help existing facilities to survive.

“Is it really necessary to only think in terms of large-scale developments where you might add 10 or 15 thousand in a block where you require infrastructure to be installed? I’m not sure it is,” said Princess Royal.

“You will need a new school, you will need new shops, you will need to create a community centre, but for many of the small-scale developments you already have those. They may be underused, and they may be your church hall, but with a degree of investment could provide a centre for so many other activities.”

After all, no one appears to want these new towns – a lesson that Gordon Brown learned when his government had to undertake a full-scale retreat five years ago.

A REQUEST. Can the word “legend” be used more sparingly in the future, perhaps when the deeds of an individual equate to a “remarkable feat” – the dictionary definition?

I make the plea after revealing a missive which said that Tim Henman and Jamie Redknapp were the “sports legends”, along with New Zealand All Blacks player Sean Fitzpatrick, who would be announcing the nominees for the Laureus global awards.

Though they tried their best, Henman never made it to a Grand Slam tennis final while Redknapp’s success on the football pitch was modest and he will never be as endearing as his father Harry.

If Henman and Redknapp are “legends”, what does this make winners like Andy Murray or Sir Bobby Charlton?

[email protected]