I think it is useful, in our reflections upon the Coalition, to place its policies into four categories, as follows:
- The productive. These are areas in which the Coalition has resulted in policies that many Conservatives always favoured either coming forward when otherwise they might not (e.g. a large rise in the income tax threshold) or being provided with important political entrenchment (e.g. removing ID cards, cutting down on criminal background checks).
- The untrammelled. These are areas in which Conservative policies, for all their previous strengths and weaknesses, appear to be being implemented without too much watering down. Examples include: the schools policy, welfare reform, the NHS, regulatory policy, spending cuts, a bank levy. We might agree or disagree with policy in these areas, but if we disagree with the Coalition's policy we were probably going to disagree with the Conservatives' policy anyway.
- The acceptable. These are areas in which policies that the Conservatives favoured will not be implemented by the coalition or in which new policies will be introduced by the Coalition that the Conservatives did not favour, but which should constitute acceptable compromises even to those that disagree with them. Examples include: failure to repeal the Human Rights Act, raising CGT, not introducing the fair fuel stabiliser, not reducing inheritance tax, not raising the threshold for employees' NI, reviewing Trident, reviewing separating retail and investment banking, de-prioritising a transferable tax allowance for married couples.
- The unacceptable. These are areas in which the Coalition has made compromises (and some in which the Conservative Party leadership appeared to have an intention to act but would very probably have had to back down in the face of opposition were it not for the Coalition) but the policies should be considered unacceptable by Conservatives - not matters on which we should compromise in order to secure formal support from our political opponents. These include: apparent refusal to renegotiate with our EU partners (Hague's policy statement yesterday was, again, totally unacceptable. It is not nearly enough for him to say merely that the Coalition government will not permit further powers to go to Brussels. Our clear and unequivocal policy was that we would seek to recover powers from the post-Lisbon situation, that we would not let matters rest there. This is not a matter that can be delayed until later - the current woes with the euro and desperate need for a new Treaty present us with the best opportunity for renegotiation we shall have for decades.); proposals for fixed term Parliaments and a 55% rule; a referendum on AV; an elected second chamber (with PR). These are not matters over which it is acceptable for us to compromise - we should not introduce bad long-term constitutional changes for the sake of the short-term partisan advantage of our leadership (which may or may not coincide with the short-term partisan advantage of the party...).
The Coalition can reasonably, I believe, expect some discipline and loyalty in respect of the acceptable compromises I have identified above (except, perhaps, in respect of Conservatives that wish the Coalition to fail so that we can have an early new General Election on a new platform to obtain our own overall majority). Politics is a team game, which intrinsically involves compromise. We aren't going to get our own way over everything in a Coalition.
Thus, my advice to rebels is that, unless you think you have the numbers to bring the Coalition down and force another General Election (or unless you feel the need to review your scales of support for later more fundamental battles), you should try to avoid rebelling unreasonably over acceptable matters of compromise - there are plenty of unacceptable issues coming up over which the Coalition must be forced to choose: back down or break down.
