I have read David Cameron's very short article expressing the wish for an "alliance" between the Conservatives, the LibDems and the Greens. The article is remarkable due to its brevity. 296 words. The standard length of a letter to the press in the case of many newspapers.
If you are going to make a serious proposal about an "alliance" with other parties, am I the only one that thinks that the rationale should take longer than 296 words to explain ? And before anyone mentions the Gettysburg address, I would point out that Cameron's article ain't in that league. It looks like he roughed it up on the kitchen table to meet the deadline of the Sunday newspapers:
I've always believed that political parties, even though they may have serious disagreements over many aspects of policy, should work together in those areas where they agree. So I hope than in 2008 the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party will join us in putting pressure on the Government to decentralise power, and that together we can create a new progressive alliance to decentralise British politics.
What a pile of cobblers!
The Conservative government from 1979-1997 presided over one of the biggest centralisations of power in this country. Cut backs on council spending, cut backs on education spending. All dictated from the centre. You only have to look at the almighty balls-up of rail privatisation, forced through by a government with a wafer-thin majority to see the centralising instincts of the Conservative party writ large.
And this "alliance" which Cameron is proposing...would this mean the Conservative party not standing candidates in certain constituencies to allow the LibDems or Greens a better chance? Would it mean the Conservatives not criticising LibDem policies? Of course not. Because it is not an alliance which he is talking about.
It is a cloud of hot air.