Primarily, coalitions do not break down as easily as we are prone to think they do, and they last for as long as they need to last. Cameron can no longer call an election as it suits him, not least because he would need to include his deputy, who happens to be leader of a different party, it will even be constitutionally unavailable pending the introduction of Fixed-Term parliaments. Given the games the two parties are playing with 55% and 66% and dissolution votes being different from No Confidence votes, the framework is being set to keep the coalition in government for the whole five years.

If the coalition is going to be constitutionally secure, it is also structurally sound. We might have assumed that more Lib Dems would be feel uneasy working with the Tories but there has been little resistance so far, with the exception of a little tantrum over the rise in VAT. There seems to be very little dissent and no defections yet.

However, the VAT rise may be revealing. The parliament is young and the government has yet to face any real stress tests on difficult decisions where there exists a huge canyon between policies. With the exception of the Euro currency crisis, “Europe” as an issue is unlikely to arise as it did over the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. The economic crisis is over and slowly recovering, giving the government a temporary sense of direction as it aims to reduce the deficit, which will keep the two parties on the same path.

The real pressure will come when by-elections and councils start to swing, but until then we have no effective barometer. Thus far, the Liberal Democrats have shown themselves to be much closer than anyone had expected, and coalitions have gone the distance between much more distant colleagues.

The regional government of the Generalitat in Catalonia has been governed by a coalition of three parties (a ‘tripartit’), and is now just a year away from the end of its mandate. They have been able to stick together despite mutually exclusive policy differences; that is to say, one party is against independence and the other is for it, as we might imagine a Labour-SNP coalition in Holyrood. The tripartit has been relatively successful in implementing and delivering a program. A government with three voices and three leaders gives itself to certain incoherence; the government will spin “normal constructive debate” but it inevitably gives the impression of disunity and confuses the public.

On a national level, it is more appropriate to draw a parallel with cohabitation in France. Cohabitation, where the President was of one party and the Parliament was of another, occurred three times. There was the widespread assumption that the public institutions would halt, and there would be political deadlock until the next election. This never happened because they found a way to work together; in essence power, responsibility, and the realities of government; something with which the Lib Dems are wholly unaccustomed, kept them together.

The Cohabitation governments were inevitable when Presidential terms were seven years and parliamentary terms were five years, but there was a constitutional provision for it but our constitution (or lack thereof) means that on the one hand the Coalition is flying blind. On the other hand, it also means that they are free to move and adapt with little constraint. As constitutional reform is on the agenda, they have even more freedom to set precedents for the future.

The coalition only exists because no party could win a majority. Depending on the effects of tampering with the electoral system, this is not the New Politics, but we are stuck with it for now at least.

A is for… Afghanistan

NATO forces are fighting insurgents in Afghanistan with casualties increasing; each week the Prime Minister announces a few more British troops who have lost their lives.

B is for… Brussels

The Government plans to introduce a “Sovereignty Bill” to require a referendum every time power is moved from Westminster to Brussels. They have broken away from their natural sister parties in the European Parliament to form their own group.

C is for… Cuts

Cuts dominated the election campaign and the Chancellor is pushing for up to 40% budget cuts in government departments, as well as public sector pay and jobs.

D is for… Deficit

The government claims to be dealing with the largest peacetime deficit (ignoring Afghanistan and Iraq) in history, forgetting the massive bailout required to stop economic collapse during the financial crisis.

E is for… Emergency Budget

A manifesto commitment, the Chancellor announced an “Emergency Budget” within 60 days of taking power. It announced cuts and tax hikes in an “80-20” ratio.

F is for… Fisking

A debate technique for internet nerds, whereby one article is ripped apart and argued with point by point, usually producing very long, boring and anal responses.

G is for… Gulf War

The Iraq war remains a controversy; the Conservatives forgot they voted in favour of it, Labour tries to distance itself from it and the Lib Dems can’t criticise it anymore because they’re now in government.

H is for… Harriet Harman

The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party who is now Acting Leader until the end of September, she took over when Gordon Brown suddenly resigned after the election.

I is for… Immigration

Always a subject of debate; from asylum seekers to polish plumbers.

J is for… Johannesburg

Where the World Cup took place.

K is for… Kremlin spies

Russian Spies from the Cold War were caught operating in a small house in the USA, 20 years after the Berlin Wall came down.

L is for… Labour Leadership

Following Gordon Brown’s resignation, the Labour party is now in the process of electing its new leader.

M is for… Milibands

David and Ed Miliband, two brothers, two former cabinet ministers and two leadership contenders.

N is for… NHS

The National Health Service is apparently to be ring fenced from damaging cuts.

O is for… Obama

The American President is under pressure to save the world, and then a massive oil disaster washes onto his shore.

P is for… Petraeus

The general who masterminded the “troop surge” in the Iraq War, he is now in command of the troops in Afghanistan, replacing General McChrystal who was fired for a series of unwelcome remarks.

Q is for… The Queen

This was the first election where it was thought that the Queen might need to intervene. She didn’t though.

R is for… Referendum

The Lib Dems wanted PR, then a referendum on PR, then AV. In the end, they got a referendum on AV. The conservatives plan to campaign for the “No” side and Labour should do likewise.

S is for… Smoking Ban

The Labour government had planned a review of the Smoking Ban five years after it was introduced. This will not happen under the new government.

T is for… Twitter

This was supposed to change the election. All it did was change the columns in the Guardian. A “social networking site” for political obsessives.

U is for… Underdog

During the election, Gordon Brown and the Labour Party tried to present themselves as the “underdog”. It worked for Rocky, after all.

V is for… VAT rise

One of the main features of the Emergency Budget was to raise Value Added Tax to 20%, after the previous government lowered it from 17.5% to 15%

W is for… Website

Please vote for mine in the Total Politics Blog Poll. Click the button on the right or this link here.

X is for… X-factor

Simon Cowell, famous for manufacturing Pop Tarts through TV “talent” shows came out and supported, to everone’s surprise, the Conservative Party.

Y is for… Youtube

YouTube never really took off in politics, after the Tory Party launched “WebCameron” featuring the Conservative leader washing dishes.

Z is for… Zac Goldsmith

The Tory MP who ousted former Lib Dem London Mayoral candidate Susan Kramer, it was published in 2009 that he had “non-domiciled” tax status.

It was quite a powerful moment, I think, for everybody involved, whether Labour, Tory or Lib Dem.

It will also be my first taste of Opposition, and although I am sure many of my Labour colleagues will be panicking; and indeed with Gordon Brown’s immediate resignation a lot of people are going on and on about a nice big friendly debate. I’ll talk about the leadership election nearer the time.

A few people on Facebook have interpreted my reaction as slightly bitter and angry, as I was quite relentless against the Lib Dems in particular during the campaign and of course after the election.

In fact, I feel somewhat relieved; the bitterness is actually enthusiasm. I’m enthusiastic about laying into the Tories, and I can’t wait to land some body blows on the Libs.

On to more serious political thoughts though: the coalition.

I have to lead off with a big “I told you so.” After all the nonsense about the Liberals replacing Labour as the progressive party and Labour coming third, they still managed to do worse than in 2005.

The Tories didn’t do very well either; we denied them the majority they so took for granted. Of course Labour lost though, I certainly don’t deny that.

You almost (not quite) have to feel sorry for the Lib Dems, after all that hype. It was like the electorate was holding out the football for Charlie Clegg and pulled it away at the last minute.

On to the coalition, I approve of it. I think it was the only viable option apart from a minority Tory government. However, the Lib Dems have been put in the worst possible position (bent over squarely…) as they were almost obliged to prop up a weak Tory result.

You can be sure that when it falls to bits, and fall to bits it most assuredly will, the Libs are the big losers out of all of this. Don’t take my word for it though, take a look at what the BBC things on their coalition agreement page. The Tories are already trying to push a confusing “55% rule” with the goal of being about to kick out the Libs whenever they need to.

Before I get back to regular business, let me say something to Lib Dems voters: you’re right to feel betrayed. You probably voted tactically to keep the Tories out (particularly in Bath, where Foster significantly increased his majority) only for them to go and join up anyway! Vote yellow, get blue.

Friend and colleague Jack Penrose loves to say “Lib Dems are just Tories who haven’t been mugged yet.” and it looks like he’s right; the Libs are about to get mugged… by the Tories.

In conclusion then, it looks like Game, Set and Match to the Tories. Although, Cricket is probably more their game, so I’ll say Labour is out after some very good innings, the Libs have scored a duck and now the Tories are up to bat.

Finally, just to add to my (surprising) sports metaphors:

You’ve only seen me playing defence, so just wait until you see me in an offence position!

I couldn’t help notice one little thing though, a press release from my favourite right-wing pinata, Tory Candidate for North East Somerset,  Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Now the election is on, it’s going to be a lot harder to hide from the media!

The release is pretty dull and biographical, though Jacob lives down to my expectations and lets us know what he’s really all about in the first paragraph:

Jacob Rees – Mogg was selected as candidate for the newly formed constituency of North East Somerset, (formerly Wansdyke), in 2007 thus fulfilling his ambition to represent the Somerset parliamentary seat in which his family has lived for generations.

So there we have it. He must already be the MP since he has fulfilled his ambition. He’s already won, and may have done so as long ago as 2007!

In fairness, it seems Rees-Mogg didn’t write this one himself (either). A quick look at the properties box of the word document reveals that it was written by someone at Northgate Information Systems. A quick googling suggests that this is a company based in Hemel Hempstead.

Normally I wouldn’t bother with this last bit, though it has caught out our dear JRM before, when he had a politically restricted council press officer to write his releases!

The leaflet, presumably financed by Lord Ashcroft, has been addressed individually to every student in town. See below for the scans:

It is despicable yet typical that Bath Tories would try to scaremonger students into thinking something is happening and the Tories are the only ones who can do anything about it. Please note that the Tories are running the council, they could have sent out a memo when there was “more time”.

Of all the problems with this leaflet, perhaps the worst part is the patronising and naked bias. The question posed is:

“Should students be forced to live on campus?”

I would like to know what answer they are expecting, having sent this question exclusively to STUDENTS. The responses are equally ludicrous:

[_] I believe students should be forced to live on campus for the whole of their course
[_] I believe students should not be forced to live on campus, but be free to rent a house in Bath.

The only type of student I can imagine who would even consider the first option would already be an active member of Bath Conservative Future.

In all my political experience, in Britain, in France, in Spain, and of all the many leaflets from all the many parties I’ve encountered, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a ham-handed and clumsy way of data mining to gather targeted voting-intention information. Once they’ve got you, they’re not going to let you go unless you text this, email that, then post the other.

Moving on to substance, students may find that this is the first they have heard of such a debate or decision. There have been a few ideas knocking around on the topic of housing, which got Lib Dem MP Don Foster into hot water in the University Newspaper.

Not only is the “decision” broadly fictitious, it’s also completely infeasible to move 10,000 students onto campus. There is no space. Unless the Tories are planning to build a massive tower block, not that the University would want to waste funds on such a project, while throwing away Bath’s World Heritage Status (which the council uses an excuse not to do anything ever). Bath would probably not enjoy the prospect of becoming the country’s only university with such a silly policy and thus losing however many applicants. It would also wreak havoc on the Oldfield Park economy, which has already suffered the collapse of Woolworths.

Students should be alarmed that such an important debate can take place without them knowing or being informed. Let’s thank these Bath Tories for informing us just in time!

So no, Fabian. No, we will not be terrorised, no, we will not be forced to live on campus and NO, we will not be voting Conservative!

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory PPC for North-East Somerset, really is the comedy Tory gift who keeps on giving. (Giving tax benefits to the super-rich that is, ho ho!)

His latest gaffe, since November, sees him once again faking he truth.

Private Eye picked this one up, and in the Christmas edition explained how he shipped a London-based member of his London-based investment firm staff on a 260 mile (about 420km) round trip to Midsomer Norton to take part in a photo opportunity to illustrate his website.

Here’s a scan of the article:

However, what Private Eye doesn’t tell you is that the very same picture, also appears on the front page of Rees-Mogg’s latest hard copy newsletter which has been circulated across N E Somerset, under the title of “Honesty on the Economy”. Take a look:

If you head over to this page on Rees-Mogg’s London based hedge-fund management company and scroll down to the bottom, in last place you have Fiona Tyrrell. Then, if you head to his political website you’ll see the same picture Private Eye was talking about.

If you still in any doubt, right-click the image and choose “save as” and you’ll find that Rees-Muggins has even named the picture “Fiona”.

In fairness, the caption “Honesty on the Economy. Jacob talking to a lady in Midsomer Norton” is technically true. That is Jacob. Fiona is a lady. The pair of them are in Somerset. Her mouth is presumably moving.

Actually, Jacob isn’t allowed to talk any more. Conservative Central Headquarters issued a gagging order after he told The Scotsman in October 2001:

I gradually realised that whatever I happened to be speaking about, the number of voters in my favour dropped as soon as I opened my mouth.

Looks like there is a theme emerging here from Honesty Mogg. Time to add this one to the list, having been in trouble for plagiarising Trevor Kavanagh from The Sun he now has to fabricate ‘in the constituency with constituents’ pictures to give an impression he’s connected to the community.

I’ll leave you with this thought for Christmas; the Rees-Muggins newsletter was delivered by the Royal Mail. I suppose his crumbling campaign means he has no local volunteers to deliver for him!

Click here to see other classic Ress-Mogg gaffes.

Jan 6th Update: Venue Magazine has also featured the story as their main news article, to supplement other pieces in The Telegraph, in The Daily Mail and a little bit in The Independent. Nothing from The Times, not that that would have anything to do with Rees-Mogg’s father as former editor and columnist, of course.

Finally, can anybody tell me why I published this on December 23rd, yet the Nationals waited until December 28th/29th? Guys, come on, a little credit here.

When Cameron came to visit, the Lib Dems criticised the Tories over the amount of information participants were asked to give, claiming that the meeting would be rigged or filled with Tory apparatchiks. They smarmily added that their meetings are open and honest.

Now, even by their own criteria, the Lib Dems have failed. They are now under fire for asking that residents sign up online and receive an e-ticket.

“Nobody wants to come to my party.”

It could be suggested that the Lib Dems are getting scared. With a majority of 4,638 and a certain sentimental element to it, Bath could be in danger of falling to the Tories, despite being Lib Dem since 1992 when Tory Party Chairman Chris Patten helped win the General Election despite losing his seat.

In principle, I see nothing wrong with the fact that people are asked to register because it helps organisers get a good idea of the numbers. On top of that, they can prioritise local residents.

If only there was some easy and simple way of proving identity, without the awkwardness of a passport or the need to know how to drive. Some sort of card, for your identity, like all other nations have. That’d be a radical idea, though just the sort of thing the Lib Dems oppose.

When Cameron came, he was warned that residents would ask questions regarding the Bath Transportation Package, which directly contradicts Conservative policy on Green Belts. He avoided and refused to answer the question for fear of embarrassing his Tory Council.

This time, with Clegg, I have no doubt that seagulls will be top of the agenda.

Fixed Term Parliaments have been shelved for a long time now; it was Labour Policy in 1992, but since they didn’t win nothing came of it. The Lib Dems have held on to it for a long time now, but since they’ll never win, nothing will ever come from it. The Tories aren’t really quite sure whether to be in a conservative mood or their “change” mood.

If the date of a General Election is fixed well in advance, we can certainly expect to see an increase of widgets like this:

Though at least they won’t be quite so arrogantly presumptuous as to second guess the Prime Minister, at least this one doesn’t say “countdown to victory” or suchlike.

I would expect the Conservatives to rather like the current system, since they have played it so well. In Opposition, they used the “Snap Election” card to its breaking point. Cameron asking Brown “Can we have an election? When can we have an election? I want an election! Muuuuuuuuuuum!” every week for about three months in Prime Ministers’ Questions came off well for him.

The real advantages to introducing a fixed term parliament in Britain seem negligible. On the part of the electorate, the advantage is little more than psychological as it takes power away from the Executive (and gives it to the Administrative); the flipside is that by taking this power away, the Prime Minister no longer has to take the make-or-break decision.

This puts a stop to the grandstanding and the bluffing over wanting an election and completely removes the debate away from “personal mandates” and other nonsense that people come up with because they don’t understand the difference between a Prime Minister and a President.

It also means the Prime Minister will no longer need to go to the Monarch and ask for her permission to hold a general election, thus removing the Monarchy even further from politics and eroding its case for existence in the 21st century.

With the “PM decides” model, the incumbent has the advantage of being able to call an election when it suits them; they also have the disadvantage of being in government, so logically they really are just trying to pick the least unfavourable date.

There have also been accusations in past elections of releasing a ‘favourable’ budget just before an election, with Fixed Term Parliaments the same practice will go on, it will just be a little bit more obvious.

With Fixed Terms, potentially a government can hold out on the people for three years and then come out all guns blazing in year four. Whether voters have short or long memories is a different debate but my inclination is definitely towards the goldfish end of the scale.

The logic is, on the face of it, that fewer MPs will claim fewer expenses. It true in absolute figures, less so in proportion. Members of Parliament are quite unpopular at the moment so it follows that we should have fewer of them.

It is yet another example that Cameron is nowhere near being prepared for government; leaping on top of a simple solution with a short term benefit with no regard for the long term decision.

No wonder they called him “Mr 10%”. See this interview in the FT.

Osborne, You're Fired!

Fewer Labour seats mean less Opposition

The real reason behind this measure is really just to cut the number of seats the Labour party has and thus make it easier for the Tories to win a majority by moving the goalposts, as my Bath counterparts have explained.

It’s not a bad strategy. By reducing the number of MPs, those remaining will have to take on more constituency casework. This will be particularly the case in Inner City areas (which generally happen to be the Labour seats) where there tends to be more casework generated than for the MPs in rural constituencies.

Fewer Labour MPs will therefore need to take on more casework, and if they’re busy in their constituency office all the time they won’t be able to be in Westminster preventing legislation. They won’t even be getting out and about in the community, scoring up those pesky Labour votes. This is where the phrase “chained to the desk” applies itself well.

It could be worth giving constituency casework to local Councillors, though they tend to like to maintain political independence and loyalty to their council group rather than the Constituency Party. Perhaps it could be an area of reform to give Local Government some teeth.

Fewer Cameroons, more Hannanas

When (if?) Cameron is asked to form a Government, and he enacts his proposal, not only will he have to say goodbye to a few of his chums (which I am sure he is ruthless enough to do) but he will also have to make new ones.
Consider the following quite from Yes Minister:

There are only 630 MPs and a party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts.

There are about 646 MPs right now and there will be 650 (due to new constituencies) after 2010. So a party needs 325 for a majority. Cut that by 10% and we have 585 MPs, 292 of which can form a majority.

Now you see the significance of the YM quote, I hope.

The result is that it will completely cripple DC, depending on when/if he gets the legislation through. I sound as if it is a fait accompli though you can be sure Labour and Lib Dems won’t take kindly to it, and I doubt newly elected Tory MPs will be so quick to sacrifice themselves in the name of Conservative hegemony either.

DC will have fewer Tory MPs to choose from and so in terms of probability alone it means he will have to offer jobs to the very same Old Tories and Thatcherites he has been trying to get away from for years. You know what’s worse than a Cameron Government? A Cameron Government with Health Secretary Dan Hannan in it. He will be at the beck and call of not just his backbenchers, but his frontbenchers too.

So it will not only weaken his particular government, but any subsequent government’s prospect of longevity. Obviously, as more and more MPs go through the ministerial ranks, the harder it is to control parliament. As it was with Major it is with Brown. With fewer qualified MPs to start with, the half-life of a government decreases and the pendulum will swing faster between Labour and Conservative (not necessarily a bad thing, though).

Cameron has said that there isn’t enough talent to go around on the Labour benches, despite a 60ish majority, hence the appointment of Lord Mandelson as Dark Lord of the State.

But that’s another story…

The Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for North-East Somerset had previously been caught out for plagiarising an article in the Sun and sending it to Somersetters. Once the discovery was made, however, he apologised immediately and explained it was in fact a staff member who was in the wrong.

Then a huge number of spelling mistakes and typing errors were found on his website. I would link to it, but it has in fact been taken down and amalgamated into a generic Tory Party site for being too much of an embarrassment.

This time, it seems he hasn’t learned any lessons.
This time, it seems a little more serious.

Private Eye, the satirical magazine, wrote a little article in its “Rotten Boroughs” section (click to see a scan in .jpg form), which was then picked up by local media.

The story is fairly straight forward. A ‘politically restricted’ Press Officer working for the B&NES council has been writing Conservative-issue press releases for JRM.

Two press releases issued by Margaret Brewer (JRM’s press agent in North-East Somerset) were emailed to several journalists as Word attachments – the ‘properties’ box revealed them to have been written by James Hinchcliffe on a B&NES computer during a working week day. The ‘properties’ box was also the source of Rees-Mogg’s downfall over the plagiarism scandal, so you have to admire his invincible ignorance.

Hinchcliffe was at the time the politically-restricted Tory group researcher on B&NES (as the Private Eye article explains) – this means banana skin-prone JRM has benefited from a Council officer, paid by the council tax payer to conduct Council work, misusing the time & resources provided to him for said Council work – making JRM the beneficiary of a misuse of council resources.

His own expenses scandal before even becoming an MP. Ra-Ra Jacob!

You can also click here (.jpg) to read the Western Daily Press article.