I find the prospect of unity government instinctively appealing

As a former politician who always disliked tribal politics intensely, I am instinctively attracted to the idea of a government of national unity. I nonetheless think it is a bad idea in the current context. Personal experience has also helped to douse whatever enthusiasm for the idea that I may once have had.

I recall the 2008 financial crisis and feeling, and saying, at the time that the enormity of the crisis required a “GNU.” I was shocked by the virulent hostility within my party and outside. Nonetheless, there was sufficient support for the idea of parties working together in the national interest to give oxygen to the coalition formation in 2010—although that was not a GNU. Fatally, it excluded the Labour Party from any responsibility for the consequences of managing the difficult inheritance from the banking collapse, ensuring that politics would become a blame game rather than an attempt to solve very difficult problems.

Tribal politics took over very quickly, despite pockets of good collaboration within the coalition (I like to think my Business, Innovation and Skills department was one of them). The Conservatives became proficient at monopolising credit and shifting blame. Relations grew bitter when core political interests were involved as in the AV referendum. When Nick Clegg campaigned on the merits of coalition government in 2015, the vague goodwill towards the outgoing coalition among Conservative and centrist voters was swamped by terror of a Labour/SNP coalition.

The idea of a GNU reared its head during the Brexit legislation stand-off between parliament and the government. The proposal was for a temporary, single-purpose GNU to stop a no-deal Brexit and, perhaps, introduce a confirmatory referendum. There was however never great clarity over who, how or when. Jeremy Corbyn’s insistence that it was “his turn” to be prime minister and lack of agreement among opposition parties and Tory rebels killed the idea.

The current crisis is potentially more serious in economic terms than the financial crisis or a no-deal Brexit. It also involves life and death decisions, as in war. I don’t however see much sign of inter-party enthusiasm for a GNU. Labour is clearly very nervous about getting lured into the trap of being associated with the government’s errors, which it will want to exploit in due course. A safer course is to talk piously about “constructive criticism” and “the national interest” while keeping up a steady barrage of condemnation of “incompetence.” The Tories will be nervous of letting the new Labour leader acquire too much respectability and credibility and a giving him a platform in government for undermining their Brexit project. Each of these negatives has a positive flip side but in Britain’s low-trust, confrontational political culture the negatives win.

A more serious argument for keeping clear of a GNU is that whenever mainstream parties bury their differences there ceases to be an outlet for popular dissatisfaction and protest, leaving the way clear for extremists. The German “grand coalition” could be said to have fathered the extreme right AFD, though the main beneficiaries have actually been the moderate Greens. Holland, Ireland and countries in Scandinavia, with broadly-based coalitions, have also seen a populist reaction—though “normal” party politics didn’t stop Brexit in Britain or the rise of Trump in the US, and the wartime coalition government did not fuel communism or fascism.

There is potentially a big dividing line opening up over the pandemic, when more and more younger families, suffering economically and from a deprivation of basic day-to-day freedoms, rebel against restrictions designed to extend the lives, predominantly, of the elderly. Politicians will have to move carefully and as consensually as possible. But that does not require a GNU.