Confusion grows over the purpose of the coalition

Coalition 2.0, an attempt to thrash out a joint agenda for the second half of parliament, has been w

They called it Coalition 2.0 -- a working group of ministers and policy wonk Tories and Lib Dems, with the task of thrashing out a joint agenda for the government for the second half of the parliament. Last summer's coalition agreement doesn't contain enough plans to fill up a whole legislative term. Or at least it wasn't meant to, but with sufficient "pauses" along the lines of the recent NHS reform pit stop, they might eke it out for a good few years. That wouldn't look good though and the more enthusiastic supporters of Coalition 2.0 thought it might deliver a second formal agreement. It won't. The whole thing has been downgraded, with one participant telling me recently it is most likely to deliver some vague statement of shared principles after the Olympics next summer. It is a sign of growing confusion at the heart of government about what the coalition is actually for -- the subject of my column in this week's magazine.

On the Conservative side, I've looked at the competition between what I call Romantic and Pragmatic tendencies in David Cameron's inner circle -- those that see the whole project in terms of a grand re-alignment of politics, and those that see coalition more as a means to a Tory end: securing a second term with an outright majority.

That has focused Lib Dem minds on the need to carve out a distinct and positive agenda within the coalition. Party strategists know they won't make any progress with voters by simply watering down Tory proposals, as they did with the NHS reform.

Clegg can hardly build an electoral recovery by casting himself as an iceberg, lurking mostly beneath the surface waiting to sink Tory boats. If the Lib Dems block too much legislation the Tories will denounce them as unfit for office. "There's no advantage to us from stalemate government," says one senior Clegg aide.

How to avoid stalemate was the main subject of discussions at a recent Lib Dem "away day" (technically two days) in Bingley, Yorkshire -- in a conference centre and hotel in a converted Gothic mansion. One detail from that meeting of no great consequence and therefore not included the column: there was a pub quiz to break up the heavy political chatter. The result was close, but I gather deputy leader Simon Hughes's table won. Clegg's Special Branch security protection team also put in an impressive performance, apparently.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

Pity the Premier League – so much money can get you into all sorts of bother

You’ve got to feel sorry for our top teams. It's hard work, maintaining their brand.

I had lunch with an old girlfriend last week. Not old, exactly, just a young woman of 58, and not a girlfriend as such – though I have loads of female friends; just someone I knew as a girl on our estate in Cumbria when she was growing up and I was friendly with her family.

She was one of many kind, caring people from my past who wrote to me after my wife died in February, inviting me to lunch, cheer up the poor old soul. Which I’ve not been. So frightfully busy.

I never got round to lunch till last week.

She succeeded in her own career, became pretty well known, but not as well off financially as her husband, who is some sort of City whizz.

I visited her large house in the best part of Mayfair, and, over lunch, heard about their big estate in the West Country and their pile in Majorca, finding it hard to take my mind back to the weedy, runny-nosed little girl I knew when she was ten.

Their three homes employ 25 staff in total. Which means there are often some sort of staff problems.

How awful, I do feel sorry for you, must be terrible. It’s not easy having money, I said, managing somehow to keep back the fake tears.

Afterwards, I thought about our richest football teams – Man City, Man United and Chelsea. It’s not easy being rich like them, either.

In football, there are three reasons you have to spend the money. First of all, because you can. You have untold wealth, so you gobble up possessions regardless of the cost, and regardless of the fact that, as at Man United, you already have six other superstars playing in roughly the same position. You pay over the odds, as with Pogba, who is the most expensive player in the world, even though any halfwit knows that Messi and Ronaldo are infinitely more valuable. It leads to endless stresses and strains and poor old Wayne sitting on the bench.

Obviously, you are hoping to make the team better, and at the same time have the luxury of a whole top-class team sitting waiting on the bench, who would be desired by every other club in Europe. But the second reason you spend so wildly is the desire to stop your rivals buying the same players. It’s a spoiler tactic.

Third, there’s a very modern and stressful element to being rich in football, and that’s the need to feed the brand. Real Madrid began it ten years or so ago with their annual purchase of a galáctico. You have to refresh the team with a star name regularly, whatever the cost, if you want to keep the fans happy and sell even more shirts round the world each year.

You also need to attract PROUD SUPPLIERS OF LAV PAPER TO MAN CITY or OFFICIAL PROVIDER OF BABY BOTTLES TO MAN UNITED or PARTNERS WITH CHELSEA IN SUGARY DRINK. These suppliers pay a fortune to have their product associated with a famous Premier League club – and the club knows that, to keep up the interest, they must have yet another exciting £100m star lined up for each new season.

So, you can see what strains and stresses having mega money gets them into, trying to balance all these needs and desires. The manager will get the blame in the end when things start to go badly on the pitch, despite having had to accommodate some players he probably never craved. If you’re rich in football, or in most other walks in life, you have to show it, have all the required possessions, otherwise what’s the point of being rich?

One reason why Leicester did so well last season was that they had no money. This forced them to bond and work hard, make do with cheapo players, none of them rubbish, but none the sort of galáctico a super-Prem club would bother with.

Leicester won’t repeat that trick this year. It was a one-off. On the whole, the £100m player is better than the £10m player. The rich clubs will always come good. But having an enormous staff, at any level, is all such a worry for the rich. You have to feel sorry . . .

Hunter Davies’s “The Beatles Book” is published by Ebury

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 29 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, May’s new Tories