What would the effect of coaliton be?

There has been much discussion on these pages and elsewhere about whether Labour should go into a coalition with the Lib Dems after the next election. Personally, I believe we should make sure we have a Labour government after the next election and for long enough to implement the kind of radical change we need from the next Labour Government to our economy and society.

That might mean coalition with a Liberal Democrat party willing to help us implement such a vision or it might mean going it alone if they are not. Red lines exist for good reasons. Those would be mine.

The question of coalition is traditionally seen as one that deals simply with the question of who governs. Sometimes we even stretch that to how they govern. But for me,  we need to examine this question beyond a decision that may or may not need to be made in May (say that ten times drunk!)

But the question that needs to be asked is what would the effect of going into coalition with the Liberal Democrats have on the Labour Party? On our direction, on our membership and on our future?

As both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are finding out there is a cost to being in coalition. You get to be in Government, but at a cost of the dissatisfaction of members of your own party and the gain of fringe parties.

The rise of UKIP – at least initially owed a great deal to the Tories deciding to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Tory members and activists felt disappointed that they weren’t getting a “pure” Tory government (one shudders to think…) and this has massivley boosted not only UKIP’s vote, but – crucially – their activist base while at the same time depleting that of the Tories.

The Lib Dems have lost huge numbers of members largely (though not wholly) from their left flank. Their vote has collapsed and while it is true that their Parliamentary Party will almost certainly prove more robust, it too will be reduced and weakened perhaps for several years to come.

Can Labour avoid these pitfalls? Or are they the inevitable price that must be paid by Parties in coalition? And if so, are these a price worth paying to oust the Tories and bring in a Labour Government?

If Labour were to go it alone in a minority we would have rejected the Lib Dems and thrown them out of government. Why – under such circumstances – would they offer us a confidence and supply arrangement? The truth is they wouldn’t. They would be far more likely to unite with the Party they are already used to working with to defeat a minority Labour Government as often as possible. While painting Labour as the intransigents who can’t work with others. A Government that can’t pass legislation can’t govern. An early election would be bound to ensue.

If, on the other hand, Labour were to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats we would be the party that proved comprehensively in the eyes of an angry electorate that we really are “all the same”. By empowering a party the voters are likely to decisively reject, simply for electoral calculation, disgust with the Lib Dems – particularly among the young (a vital part of our electoral coalition) will transfer to us.

This Saturday, Labour is expected to move towards a model that is at once both less tribal (you don’t have to be ONE OF US to be with us) and at the same time more member-focused. Would a coalition with the Lib Dems lose us members? And if so how does that calibrate in the new post-Collins system? Can we afford to lose members in this way even if it means us being in government?

Ultimately, I hope all these questions are futile. If Labour win an overall majority – as I believe they will – then these become questions for an alternate world. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t questions worth asking.

To make a decision about the future we need to fully analyse a both the costs and the benefits of any future coalition. The answers are not black and white, however much this seems like an either/or question.