Would a national government be a good thing?

A resounding NO!

Why do i bring it up? Martin Kettle, in the Guardian, has written an article entitled: 'Darling, Clarke and Cable in the cabinet? Don't rule it out'. He writes that: "Another disaster for Labour in this European elections, and the drums will beat for a national emergency government."

Kettle also highlighted the Tory MP, Patrick Cormack, who called on the PM during PMQs to invite David Cameron and Nick Clegg to Downing Street to seek common ground and national leadership on the economic crisis. Kettle said of Cormack: "On occasions he says something that speaks to the mood of the moment in a way that eludes more calculating and partisan politicians. This week at prime minister's questions was one of them... the earnest, one-nation patriotism of Cormack and MPs like him may become increasingly attractive"

I couldn't disagree more - i thought it was one of the most naive questions i had heard from a Tory MP for some time as it completely misunderstood the character, psychology and politics of the Prime Minister.

I'm unconvinced that the drums will beat for a national emergency government. However much our Dear Leader likes to make war analogies to the current situation, calling for a Blitz-like spirit, we are not in a war.

We are in a severe recession (or should that be depression?) but i do not know how getting all three parties to work together will help our recovery.

A national government should be opposed for five reasons:

1. Labour and the Tories have diametrically opposed positions on the economy. To my mind it would be impossible to reconcile these.

2. A national government, if it were even possible given the divergent views of the parties, is unlikely to restore economic confidence. The problem is we are going in the wrong direction under Brown's leadership. What this country needs is a change of government - a Conservative government - not a national government.

3. The only reason why Brown would ever countenance a national government would be to get himself out of hole. Brown is the most partisan and tribal politician there is. He is also a control freak who does not like giving power away. He is not going to bring in politicians from other parties to his Cabinet and also have to modify his policy positions unless a national government is the only way of saving his political skin. And remember, Brown only embraced bi-partisanship last year because it was a way of stymieing debate, not to bring about a consensus of views.

4. Brown is partly responsible for this recession. The Tories would gain nothing by forming a national government with Labour and lose everything by unjustifiably providing political cover for Brown's woeful economic performance. This is why Cameron made a huge error by trying to appear bipartisan, like Obama and McCain, on the economic issue. Brown was always likely to end up throwing it back in his face as soon as the Tories made any legitimate criticism of him. As i said above, Brown was only interested in bi-partisanship in order to curtail dissent. A national government could lead to Brown winning the next general election which would be an unwarranted travesty - a disaster for Cameron, the Conservatives and most of all, the British public.

5. Finally, it is the job of the opposition to provide voters with an alternative and to hold the government to account. Were a national government to be formed, the opposition would not be able to provide those vital public services.

To be fair to Martin Kettle he concludes that a national government, although he no longer believes it is impossible, it still is unlikely.

I'd go much, much further and argue it definitely won't happen - and nor should it!