Why should Cameron help Clegg?

My column for The Independent on Sunday is about a change that has come over the Prime Minister in recent weeks. I am told that he now thinks that he can win in 2015 without the Liberal Democrats. Previously, the shock of falling short in the election last year, which he expected to win, had convinced him that winning a working majority (of, say, more than 10 seats) in his own right was too ambitious a target after a time of fiscal stringency.

The secret of his new extra confidence is that the Lib Dem endorsement of what most people think of as a Conservative government – so strong are the binary assumptions of our politics – has completed the change in Tory image that Cameron attempted before the election.

Thus he can present himself as tough on immigration and welfare (and say that he would be tougher if he were not constrained by the Lib Dems), while also being a compassionate, liberal Conservative on the NHS and international aid.

Which, in case you had not noticed, was precisely the electoral combination that Tony Blair put together and with which he won three elections.

Thus, when it is suggested that Cameron should “give” Nick Clegg something in the so-called Coalition 2.0 negotiations (so-called because 2.0 has been put on the Banned List when it refers to anything other than software), I understand that he says: “Why should I help the Liberal Democrats?”

Photograph: Andrew Parsons

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• "Clearing the Battlefield"
• UKIP Surges to Record High
• Poll alert
• Was An Alien Space Fish Just Filmed Outside The Space Station?
• Economic History Lesson

• LancashreLad

  Because Clegg hasn’t asked Cameron why Dr David Kelly’s body was moved and why Cameron made Grieve stand up in Parliament and not tell the truth.

  When you know a weakness you can get people to do all sorts of things. In the real world its called blackmail, in Westminster its called politics.

  Norman Baker’s happy with his new job though.

• MaxBoere

  I think Cameron would be absolutely right to say: no more concessions.
  Because, as a matter of fact, he has given much ground already.
  And, by the way, im afraid the LibDems are not worth helping, i’d be surprised if they’d get more than 10-12% at the next general election!

• CiaranCocktrumpet

  Cameron’s ministerial style was based on Blair’s simply because the defeated party mandarins stupidly believed that is what the public really wanted in a prime minister Now tied into a wishy washy coalition that needlessly causes him to seem U-turn mad and weak. The conservatives now lack political skills and overall depth. His pathetic performance and duplicity regarding immigration, man made global warming and the EU further diminishes him in eyes of the voting public. The only good that has come out of this coalition is that the Lib/dems have been shown to be a complete waste of space and should be confined to the litter bin of history at the next election. Labour lost the last election because they totally lost direction and control of the economy, they are now looking even worse in opposition. The country deserves better than our current crop of professional politicians.   

• Guest

  I am hardly surprised to read that David Cameron was shocked by falling short in the general election – his self-confidence is boundless. But he still did pretty well, all things considered. For one thing, owing to our skewed electoral system, the Tories had a nine-point handicap to make up on Labour before a single vote was cast. Yet they achieved an overall 5pc swing from Labour, almost identical to to the 5.2pc swing achieved by Margaret Thatcher’s Tories in 1979. The 97 net seat gains made by the Conservatives outdid their previous best gains total in 1950, when they gained 85 seats. Labour’s loss of 91 seats was worse than their previous greatest loss of seats – in 1970 when they lost 77 seats.

  Had Cameron won a general election outright by around 15-20 seats, he would by now be a virtual prisoner of the Europhobic Tory right with the threat of ambush on almost every major bill unless he promised the distraction of a quite unnecessary referendum on in/out of the EU. I imagine he is far more comfortable in coalition with the Lib-Dems. As for the Lib-Dems themselves, they have made their presence felt in government and are far more resilient than most give them credit for. Historically they have lost ground in public opinion polls between general elections, and surged back for the next. That New Whig Coalition could run and run, even if it does not match the Whig supremacy of 1714 – 1760.

• greggf

  Well, we all know that if Tony Blair did put together such an “electoral combination”, he did’nt deliver outside of the easy “compassionate” bits.

  It seems to me that Cameron has the same view about the 2015 election as he had for the one in 2010. 
  He expects to win. So why would he help Clegg?
  It’s just politics.

• aardvark10

  If Blair presented himself as being tough on welfare and immigration, he failed miserably. Was he guilty of lies?

• stonedwolf

  Only from day one and throughout his career.