As the Royal Navy prepares to evacuate the Easter holiday expeditionary force from the beaches of France a historian’s thoughts turn to national governments. There is no earthly chance of a real national government of all the talents to address the economic and military challenges we face. The threat to this country is too distant and uncertain in military terms and in economic terms the ideological divide has once more opened significantly. Cameron’s brand of US influenced small government Conservatism has deep blue water between it and the approach of the other parties. A sluggish economy in the doldrums is not the stuff of 1940. So a true national government is out of the question.

What then could be made of a result in which the Lib Dems keep about half of their recent gains, people vote tactically and the parliament comes out with three significant blocs? A coalition built of deal-making, born out of necessity and stitched together with shared ambition? The Conservatives stand aloof, demanding a fresh election, attacking the meaning of mandate – whether it is seats or votes, the question which Clegg has to answer before the week is out – and sweep home next time? It could be such a mess that the causes of electoral and constitutional reform are set back decades rather than advanced. Or it could be the moment at which British politics is renewed.

This has been the best week in politics for decades. An election campaign energised, a surge of voters registering and every politician forced to ditch the script and think on their feet. The challenge is to take this new energy and movement and use it to advance deeper reform that makes the political system responsive enough to maintain or at least repeat this influx of energy periodically. Coalitions built on principled agreement with defined areas of difference can be part of this process. A shared progressive agenda of political reform and constitutional change, implemented through a constitutional commission charged with reporting within a session of the new parliament meeting, a period of stability in other administrative and departmental arrangements while the major business of institutional renewal is carried out. The opportunity to demonstrate that politicians can work alongside each other in the national interest. These could characterise the formation of a coalition government.

For progressives it is a time to ask quite difficult questions about why they are in politics and what they think politics should be about. The tribes of British politics have dominated for so long that stepping over them and onto thinking about politics as the means for advancing certain central principles can be hugely challenging. I remember sitting in Michael Foot’s garden several years ago, and he turned to me after I had expressed less than total satisfaction with the performance of the Labour government and boomed: “What! But you are Labour!” Given that I loved Michael dearly and that my day job is running the John Smith Memorial Trust, yes I suppose I am Labour and in a sense I always will be. However, in the political part of my life am I not – are not all political animals? – about ideas and principles first. Or rather, should we not be about the best solution to a problem rather than the solution that our side puts a press release out about first. It is different if you are running for office, but as I never intend to do so, I need to follow ideas and principles. This seems to me to be the chance for us all to do the same.

If the British people vote into parliament a ‘clear’ three way split, then is that not their expressed will? The duty of the political class becomes to deliver the best possible version of that result. It would be the result that proves the electoral system is not fit for purpose because it does not reflect the fluid nature of the electorate. If a Lib-Lab pact would bring on the progressive reform of our institutional structures faster and more comprehensively than any other result, then bring it on.

Photo: .michael.newman. 2007