The late Denis Thatcher was not the duffer he appeared, but had a canny knack of judging political moods outside Westminster. As his wife was embarking on the poll tax debacle which accelerated her downfall, he said: “When people start talking politics in the pub, you know the Government’s in trouble.”
Less than three months into the coalition, that is proving true now, as people are shaken almost daily by the latest Con-Dem confidence trick, broken election promise and assault on public services. The seeds of the coalition’s destruction are quickly becoming apparent – and they lie within.
In recent days, we have seen Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron describe many Tory “partners” as “toxic” and claim that they are using the coalition as a cover for unpopular policies. Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes broke his unprecedented period of silence by saying his party would never have votes for the Academies Bill or the VAT rises they opposed during the election campaign, if it hadn’t been for the coalition agreement. It’s a bit late to discover a conscience.
Until now, the Lib Dems seemed to have embraced coalition cuts with unexpected zeal in return for ministerial cars and the occasional turn at Prime Minister’s Questions for Nick Clegg. It is possible that the trappings of uneasy power will still keep them in line.
What is astonishing is the first rumble of discontent on the Tory benches. Some of it reflects old Thatcherite-reformist fault lines within the party – Michael Howard’s attack on justice secretary Ken Clarke’s lower-case liberal instincts on prison sentences, for example. Or loose cannon David Davis’s comments, overheard in a wine bar, describing David Cameron’s partnership with Nick Clegg partnership as a “Brokeback coalition” and scorning the “Big Society” as Blairite window dressing.
But there are more widespread divisions among lower-profile Tories who may embrace tough, deficit-busting measures, providing they don’t impact too heavily in their own constituencies. The catalyst is the axing of more than 700 Building Schools for the Future schemes – a success for the previous administration, despite attempts to portray it as an expensive, over-bureaucratic programme. Voters are seeing for themselves school rebuilds stymied in their neighbourhoods, their children condemned to finish their secondary education in portable buildings and even, in some cases, storage containers.
During various diverse Westminster Hall debates just before the start of the summer recess, BSF featured as the most common complaint, not just from the Labour benches but also from the Tory side. Objectors included new boy David Mowat and veteran Patrick Mercer. The latter said: “People say you can teach in a tent. That may be true. But what we are seeing are schools unable to recruit teachers because the site is a shambles.” These are natural Tory loyalists, but seem prepared to stomach less than the Lib Dems.
Labour is temporarily sidetracked by its leadership contest, but eventually it will have to decide how to be an effective opposition. The obvious strategy, propounded by such experienced hands as Phil Woolas, is to drive a wedge into the coalition. A start has already been made inside the coalition itself and Labour must be ready to exploit that.
