³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Lady Sarah Churchill, writing 300 years ago, struggled to make sense of the British party system.

The Tories and Whigs - as Liberals were then called - were just beginning to flex their muscles in parliament and both Lady Sarah and her husband (Britain's conquering generalissimo the Duke of Marlborough) were frequent targets of their attacks.

Reflecting upon the supposed rivalries and bitterness between Tories and Whigs, she noted: "I can't see much difference between them, both sides designing nothing but their own advantage."

The Whigs, she noted, argued that they were all for Liberty and the Tories were staunch monarchists. But in the end, felt Lady Sarah, "they imagined they should have all the power and places of advantage divided among themselves".

Her words keep coming back to mind as we watch the first steps of our new coalition government. I am not so cynical as Lady Sarah Churchill, a ruthless schemer memorably described by her descendant Winston as, "a spitfire and a termagant".

Today, there seems to be a genuine groundswell of support for party leaders willing to set aside their differences in the national good.

However, I do think that we have reached a point where our post-ideological politics have brought us full circle, to a point recognisable to those - like Lady Sarah - who witnessed the birth of the party system in the early 18th Century.

People talk about the entire political argument in Western democracies these days being about how ½% of GNP is spent.

Parties fighting for the centre ground "triangulate" policy, splitting the differences between them until something like yesterday's coalition program can emerge.

There are still some pretty ideological voters out there, but they drift off to the likes of UKIP or the Greens, and don't stand much chance of forming a government. And those who remain to fight over the centre ground end up, like 18th Century gentlemen, looking and sounding much like one another.

Robbed of real ideological difference, the parliamentarian often resorts to rhetorical excess. And the Marlboroughs knew all about that, being the target for such merciless satirists as Defoe and Swift who heaped abuse upon them.

The analogy to the reign of Queen Anne or the Georgian monarchs continues with the current obsession with patronage - who is making money out of political office - and indeed nepotism or dynasty.

Perhaps in Tony Blair, we see a modern equivalent for the Duke of Marlborough - not a conquering general of course, but a man, accused as Lady Sarah's husband was, of making a personal fortune through war.

Of course, all of these historical parallels have their limitations. Today's MP is scrutinised to a degree that his early 18th Century counterpart would have found completely unacceptable.

But to the degree that the new government embodies people for whom wielding power (in the national interest of course...) is more important than ideology, I would imagine Sarah Churchill would be entirely unsurprised.