Drakeford's proof is in the pudding

Mark Drakeford's article seems like a decent attempt at providing some thought to the basis of post-May coalitions. It all seems a bit "well who wouldn't be for that?" in places, but that is natural for the setting out of parameters.

I was particularly taken with this;

3. Content
My third principle shifts to the issue of content. Here, two key components seem to me to be essential in resolving the difficulties which agreeing content inevitably throw up:


1.Any final joint programme should contain only items which had been put before the electorate by either one party or the other.
2.It must not contain any item which had been explicitly rejected in the election by either of the coalition partners.

Number two is on such shakey ground you couldn't drink a pint stood on it. Can you think of one Plaid policy Labour hasn't apparently rejected? Hell even ones that later we found out their Ministers have put forward?

I would extend the question the other way, but aside from Carwyn's rehashed education promise I haven't actually seen a Labour policy to rubbish.

Point one is reasonable, but again I am not sure if it is chicken and egg stuff. Two coalition partners can have different policies on a big issue, a referendum is the best example to make my point. The two parties could agree to hold a referendum, but campaign on different sides or on a middle ground issue. The AV referendum is a case in point, but ultimately it represented what the ConDems would argue is a middle ground between the refusnik Tories and the pro-reform Lib Dems.

Oh yeah, remember only Labour went into the election promising a referendum on AV, most of their MPs ditched that promise when the Governing parties brought it in.


And I think Mr Drakeford misses another point - the Westminster parties offering non-devolved sweeteners. It seems a bit amiss that Drakeford is all talk about the two points above, but make's no mention of what being in power in Westminster can do to aid an offer of coalition. I will eat my hat if Rhodri Morgan never made it clear that Labour in Westminster would make sure the passage would be secured on the referendum. Nick Bourne will offer the willingness of a man whose party is in power in Westminster this time and even Plaid have raised the issue of 'What can Labour offer us?'

I fail to see how things not in the manifesto are totally off limits, but promises on non-devolved areas are given a free ride? Personally I think both are fair game depending on the circumstances.

Ultimately Mr Drakeford is a Labour candidate, however thoughtful. His list represents a fair ish but ultimately still slanted offer. It is there to make sure that anyone dealing with Labour are limited in their demands, while Labour can attempt to 'reject' any policies from other parties and therefore render them unacceptable post election.