Over dinner on Monday with a friend who happens to also be a senior Tory, and an admitted ‘huge fan’ of the Coalition Government, I found myself wondering about how the Labour Party might one day find its way back to government. I found it hard to stomach but my Tory friend’s argument was that the 2015 general election will be a battle between the Labour Party one one side and the Coalition on the other. The technicalities of this I haven’t got my head around, and I still think it could go one of many ways, but this should worry and concern the Labour Party.

My first answer to this point was that, David Cameron clearly having proven his ability to grab and hold on to power, is a ruthless political operator and wouldn’t hesitate to end the coalition deal and govern alone as a Conservative government, presumably if the Conservatives win more seats in 2015. I know it’s fashionable in Labour circles to write off the possibility that there will be a Tory Prime Minister for two terms, but single-term governments in the UK are very rare and by 2015, as painful as it might be, the deficit will be gone and it will be time to dish out the rewards and bribes to the electorate. So assuming David Cameron wins in 2015, why wouldn’t he end the Coalition in favour of an outright Tory government?

The answer is simple. Being in a coalition means Cameron can keep the Tory party as close to the centre as he likes. The Tories need to compromise so they can keep power. Of course if they had their own majority that could change but by all accounts the Coalition is now formed of three parts: 1) left-leaning Liberal Democrats who aren’t vastly comfortable with the setup, 2) right-leaning Tories who aren’t vastly comfortable with the setup either & 3) the real Coalition, the collection of Ministers & Cabinet Secretaries, and the majority of Lib/Con MPs who fully support the setup and the new way of doing politics.

It’s easy to brush the Coalition off as a right-wing government in disguise, but we just have to remember more financially rosy times and look at the approach that David Cameron wanted to take to governing. As far as Tories go, he is a centrist. He’s the ‘heir to Blair’ remember, and proud of it no doubt. Cameron is no Margaret Thatcher. So if we imagine for a moment that Cameron is a true centrist, a logical step would be to forge a permanent coalition, similar to what it looks now, into a centrist party on its own. The Liberal Democrats are in a precarious position, that is abundantly clear, with a recent poll suggesting that if an election were called today that their seat count would be reduced to just 13. Who would Nick Clegg be in that position to say no to forming a new, centrist party with a senior position for him and even a shot at being Prime Minister himself in five or ten years?

So where does this leave the Labour Party? It is hard to say but it would be naive to think that we will simply march back into Number 10 Downing Street in May 2015, simply because of ‘the cuts’ or because the population will see the ‘true colours’ of the Coalition. The Coalition is quite popular out there, as Ed Miliband and others have said, people like seeing a new way in British politics. Labour’s thus far short stint in opposition has been lacklustre and disappointing. I feel a slight shift to the left even from the more right-leaning leadership candidates. Be sure of this: for Labour to get anywhere near forming another government, it needs to genuinely renew itself, decide what it is about and make itself distinct to the electorate.

Heading to the intellectual comfort zone of the left will make Labour even more irrelevant than it currently is. Banking on the Coalition being unpopular enough in 2015 to turn around Labour’s fortunes is lazy and won’t work.

So how do we in the Labour Party re-gain the momentum to be the party of government once more? Will the Coalition become permanent and what would that mean to Labour’s fortunes over the next decade or two?

“May you live in interesting times” is a Chinese curse. These are most certainly interesting times for anybody in or interesting in politics.

There’s a bit of a hoo-hah today around the latest news on graduate employability in the UK. According to the Association of Graduate Recruiters, there are now on average almost 70 applicants for every graduate position available. So if you’ve just had your new degree minted, you have a 1 in 70 chance of getting a job that might somehow be related to anything you’ve just spent 3-4 years learning at university. Oh and a sting in the tail comes with the apparent fact that more recruiters than ever are now looking for a 2:1 or a first in the qualifications part of an applicant’s CV.

What does this say about the way we educate our young in this country? I was always uncomfortable with the “let’s get at least 50% of young people into university” mantra that Tony Blair & Gordon Brown spouted as their answer to making Britain more economically competitive in a globalised age where British workers have to compete with Indian, Chinese, European & American counterparts. I mean I’m sure it’s a worthy aim trying to raise the number of people who go to university. Education is one of the most powerful tools we have in improving people’s chances in life. But when more and more people are getting degrees, the law of markets (supply & demand) would suggest that the value of each degree would be reduced.

But alas, hundreds of thousands of young people over the last few years have gone to university and studied for degrees, ending up in a tight market with no work experience and tens of thousands of pounds in debt. Labour did “successfully” raise the number of people going to university: in 2001 only 20% of the population had a degree, but in 2007 that figure went up to 30.8%. But today’s anecdotal evidence reflects on the fact that there are too many graduates, and in a struggling economy, not enough jobs.

Perhaps our graduates are being spoiled and inflexible in demanding higher paying, more professional jobs simply because they have degrees. You can’t really blame them though, this is the system our politicians created. The chief executive of the Association of Graduate Recruiters suggested that graduates might want to be more flexible in their choice of jobs, and even encouraged some to consider working at places like McDonald’s (I can hear a gasp all across Middle England as I write this!). In the light of austerity Britain, his quote is quite apt “Any employment is better than no employment [even] if it’s about flipping burgers or stacking shelves rather than being sat at home feeling sorry for yourself and vegetating”. I do agree Mr. Gilleard, and indeed I worked at McDonald’s when I was unable to find more professional work, without an ounce of shame.

I left school at 16 with a lot of motivation and some good ICT skills. I later went into politics and I’ve been lucky enough to advise Prime Ministers, MPs, presidential candidates and government agencies. I can provide for my family, and I have good work options in the future. I managed all this without a degree. Today, hearing about the exasperations of 2010’s graduates, I have to admit to a pang of schadenfreude and remember all the naysayers in my life who tell me I can’t get to where I want because I don’t have a fancy degree. I’m already half way there, and at least I have a job.

The answer, in my opinion, lies in helping people to find alternative career paths which don’t require a degree. We should make education through primary and secondary better, by implementing the International Baccalaureate which provides a broad, challenging and internationally compatible curriculum. At the same time we should spend more time and money exploring how vocational careers can be developed from an early age. For this we should be looking at Switzerland & Sweden, as well as other countries, for lessons and pointers. One thing is for sure: New Labour’s model of pushing more and more people into university has only de-valued the idea of a degree and has left hundreds of thousands of educated, bright young things on the heap of unemployment. We need to look a-fresh at how we tackle this challenge if we’re to get anywhere near 10 Downing Street ever again.

@chrisjw133 & @clairee_french also wrote on this subject.

My initial reaction this morning when I heard about Diane Abbott putting herself forward in the Labour leadership contest, was of surprise and disbelief. I’ve never been Abbott’s biggest fan! She is outspoken and oftentimes irreverent, and spends a bit too much time on television pontificating to the political class. But over tea, lunch and a stroll, I’ve decided it’s a thoroughly good thing and I congratulate Diane Abbott.

I doubt it comes easy to anybody, unless your name is Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, to have the audacity to put yourself forward to lead a historic movement like the Labour Party, or any other major national party in any democracy. Diane Abbott is a proud backbencher, and she takes every opportunity to remind people that she’s of independent mind and not ‘with’ the Labour front bench. So even more of a surprise that she would put her name in the hat for the leadership.

Lots of Labour women I know have been lamenting the lack of female candidates so far. Until today we had five white, middle class, English males in the race for the leadership. Far from inspiring. Diane Abbott, in the rawest, most cynical sense, ticks two boxes: she is indeed a woman, but she’s also minority ethnic. We certainly need more diversity in our leadership contest; it doesn’t only reflect the diversity of Britain, but it also reflects the diversity of our party. David Lammy should also think about running.

It would have been far too easy for Diane to sit back on the sofa on This Week next to Michael Portillo and complain about the lack of diversity. Instead she put her money where her mouth is and is running for the leadership. That is bold, and it’s an exciting development in politics this year. Good luck to her.