Tristram Hunt rules himself out of ever being a minister in a coalition or minority government

New Shadow Schools Secretary Tristram Hunt has been sounding off today on LabourList.

Ostensibly it is an attack on Nick Clegg and his record on education policy. But specifically it is attacking the entire idea of compromising in government:

It begins:

“The doctrine of collective responsibility is not some old musty constitutional suit of armour. It is much more concerned with common sense, good faith and comradeship amongst those who must act together in Parliament if they are to give effective leadership… No alternative substitute for that good faith exists”.

So said Michael Foot, who knew a thing or two about the dangers of loose tongues around the table. But he never reckoned with our Deputy Prime Minister. 

Nick Clegg’s speech in Bethnal Green was supposed to set out his vision for education. 

But as he railed against the policy of unqualified teachers – which his Government has implemented – a rather simpler message began to emerge. It went something like this: 

“I may be the Deputy Prime Minister of Her Majesty’s Government. But please believe what I say, not what I do.” 

Is it any wonder that politicians struggle to gain public trust? 

Alas for the DPM, it is actions that speak louder than words, not the other way round. 

So he is attacking Clegg for having been part of a government that has implemented a particular policy whilst he and the Lib Dem party would ideally prefer to have done something else.

I have highlighted before what the logical consequence of this sort of argument is but I'll spell out the reality first. It's a bit complicated but hopefully I can explain it clearly:

We. Are. In. A. Coalition.

So by definition we are going to have to compromise. Tristram was educated at some of the best schools and universities in the country. It beggars belief that he does not understand this. If a party does not have enough seats to get a majority then it simply has to compromise, either as part of a coalition or as a minority government when bill by bill negotiations will have to take place in order to ensure legislation and budgets can get a majority.

Therefore the only conclusion I can draw from Tristram's comments are that he is an absolute purist. Ergo it is impossible for him ever to take up a ministerial role in anything other than a Labour majority government. Anything else would require compromise and the Hunt doctrine clearly does not allow that.

I look forward to him stepping down from the Labour front-bench if he is ever asked to serve in a minority or coalition administration.

Are Labour incapable of being in a coalition?

This post today on Labour Uncut is very critical of Lib Dem Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election candidate Elwyn Watkins and some comments he made on Newsnight about tuition fees. LU seem to find it hilarious that he could have a view on tuition fees (that they should be ideally abolished) and yet still would have voted in accordance with the coalition agreement had he been an MP.

How can you campaign one way but vote another? How would he have campaigned against himself? Picketing his own office? Shouting at himself? Sending himself furious letters? Distributing leaflets saying “Do not vote for Elwyn Watkins – only the Lib Dems can win here”?

And all the while having to do all this campaigning without trying too hard, in case he convinced himself, and ended up not voting the way he intended.

Now I know this is not a world that we are particularly used to but the reality is that the Lib Dems are in a coalition with another party. So it is perfectly reasonable for Elwyn Watkins to have his views on tuition fees but at the same time to make it clear that he would have supported the government and the coalition agreement. If all Tory and Lib Dem backbenchers went against the agreement all the time the government would collapse. All he is doing is making it clear that he is a supporter of the coalition and the Lib Dem policies (and there are lots of them) that this brings. That doesn't mean he abandons all his views and he is still free to campaign for what he believes, after all the more Lib Dem MPs there are, the bigger the influence. It does however mean that he is willing to compromise to get the politically possible Lib Dem policies to be enacted.

Labour Uncut seem to have real trouble understanding this and it is not just them. I have seen lots of comments, mainly from Labour acvitists which if taken to their logical conclusion effectively rule out Labour from ever being in a coalition. Because many of these comments clearly have a problem with the fundamental principle of compromise. Either you absolutely stick to every pre-election position even when you are in a coalition (and hence it would not last 5 minutes) or you have "betrayed your principles" and "sold out" and made yourself a laughing stock.

If this is the case, and this view seems to be widely held by Labour activists from what I can tell then how could Labour ever be in a coalition?