By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.
Andrew Rawnsley's column today rolls together a report and an argument.
The report is that Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are getting on much better together:
The argument is that two parties' policy approaches converge over:
Rawnsley could also have mentioned:
Finally, he makes the point that:
Even on deficit reduction, senior Lib Dems contend that they and Labour
are not as far apart as it sometimes suits both sides to pretend. When
the government publishes its number for planned total spending into the
next parliament, Labour will be confronted with a major decision. If it
rejects the government total, that would put the Tories and the Lib Dems
on one side of a very fundamental divide and Labour on the other. But
if Labour accepts, things would be very different.
I made a tangential point in a different way last year:
A deal [between Labour and the Libea Democrats after the 2010 election] would have suited both Ed Balls and Mr
Clegg. It would have delivered Mr Clegg the keys to the Deputy
Premiership. (He really had his options covered, did the Liberal
Democrat leader.) And it would have delivered Mr Balls the Treasury,
which he has always coveted, plus a nice line for Labour backbenchers:
"Sorry I can't do everything that you want – because Nick Clegg just
won't have it." Heard that one anywhere else recently?
The view I was putting was basically the same as Rawnsley's: the most natural coalition in British politics is between the Liberal Democrats and Labour.
There will be much, much more of this as the next election approaches.