Coalition Programme For Government

David Cameron and Nick Clegg introduce their full programme for government for the next five years... Let's see how the odd couple get on...

Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon have got nothing on these two.

And The Winner Is...

As the dust settles on the battlefield that was the 2010 General Election, it is now possible to identify some big political winners and losers. The election promised to be a bloody encounter, with the aftermath resembling the Battle of Naseby, but for all its pre-match hype the election descended into a bizarre episode of It's a Knockout, where the result is rather inconsequential, but everyone enjoyed the ride. With Sky News' "political heavyweight" Adam Boulton as the over overexcited Stuart Hall, demeaning the contestants at every given opportunity as they attempt to carefully manoeuvre themselves through a political obstacle course.

On the surface it is possible to assert that David Cameron and the Conservative Party won the election, they won more seats and more of the popular vote than their rivals. However, given the unpopularity of the incumbent Prime Minister and government, the state of the economy, unemployment and the spectre of the Iraq War, this Tory victory almost feels like a defeat. The result - an unsatisfactory coalition with the Liberal Democrats and an election that the Bank of England Governor Mervyn King believes will leave the winning Party out of power for a generation due to the unpopularity of the necessary austerity measures. Parallels could be drawn with the 1992 General Election, in which neither the Labour or the Conservative Parties particularly wanted to win due to the gathering economic storm, and ultimately Labour's short term defeat was their long term gain.

Again a case could be made for the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg as the big winners of the 2010 General Election; an increase in their share of the popular vote, increased exposure on a national level and the possibility to influence legislation at a cabinet level. But, and there was always going to be a big but, are the Liberal Democrats trading short term influence for long term obscurity . Many voters feel betrayed that the Lib Dems are propping up a Tory administration that are ideologically significantly separate and are going to be used are a tool for David Cameron to modernise his own party. It will be too easy at the next general election for the Conservative Party to blame the Liberal Democrats for the failings of this current administration. Damned by both sides of the party, the Liberal Democrats could spend another thirty years waiting for a taste of power.

If there is a significant loser in this election there is little argument that Gordon Brown has achieved this most dubious of accolades. But it always was likely to happen, any incumbent Prime Minister has a record to defend and Gordon Brown just was not that good at defending his legacy. However, the Labour Party could be the big winners of the election in the long term, even though the electorate roundly rejected their current reincarnation. There obviously is a will amongst the British electorate for a progressive policy agenda, and probably the Labour Party would have polled better if Gordon Brown was not in power, but the loss was not a rout as many commentators had predicted. If the Labour Party reorganise and realign themselves during their period in opposition the next election could be a significant success - if Mervyn King is to be believed.

And the winner is... No one!

What Price Power?

One of the most noticeable changes in British politics over the last five years has been David Cameron's attempts to shift the Conservative Party to the centre-right of the political spectrum. The party of Michael Howard, Iain Duncan Smith and David Davies seemed a distant memory for many new Tory supporters, the ideology of a small state and the infallibility of the economic marketplace was replaced by protection of many New Labour initiatives and strengthening many regulatory bodies (however, this was probably inevitable after the banking crisis).

So with rumours abound that David Cameron has ceded to many Liberal Democrat policy demands in order to have the strength to form the next government, what price has he paid for the acquiescence of the "right wing" of the Conservative Party? Obviously, there is a price to be paid, even the slightest suggestion of the EU normally has the Tory Party split down the middle, so forming a government with the most Pro-European party can be perceived as forming an unholy alliance.There has to be a sweetener for the Right Wing Tories to swallow the bitterest of pills. The suggestion is that for the silence of the Right, David Cameron has agreed that certain senior cabinet positions will be filled by the aforementioned Michael Howard, David Davies and, possibly most surprisingly Iain Duncan Smith.

Their reintroduction back into the front line of British politics will surely shorten the shelf life of any coalition government, but it also raises important questions concerning the direction of new Conservative Party policy. The British electorate overwhelmingly voted for centre left, progressive parties (over half the country at the last count), but the influence of these Right Wingers at cabinet level will surely result in an unpopular shift towards the Right of the political spectrum.

Aneurin Bevan once commented after brokering the deal between the Ministry of Health and the BMA for the NHS, that the concessions he had to give was akin to "stuffing their mouths with gold". David Cameron probably has a lot of sympathy for Nye's sentiments...

The Kingmaker and I

In the run up to a general election, party leaders can be forgiven for making some pretty rash statements, the pressure and punishing schedule will inevitably cause a lack of focus. But to base your entire election campaign and manifesto around these pretty rash statements is disingenuous and fool hardy at best. Both Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party have taken centre stage this week with their manifesto launch and some pretty dubious claims concerning how they will use their influence in a hung parliament to gain concessions for their respective countries.

The claims themselves are not particularly dubious, every small party or independent will sell their vote on certain issues to gain influence in other areas, it is the way of a Westminster Parliamentary System. The disingenuous aspect to their claims is the misrepresentation and exaggeration to the electorate of the likelihood of these events; in essence they are suffering from small dog syndrome - they believe they are bigger than they are.

Currently the SNP have seven Members of Parliament whilst Plaid have three out of the total of 646, this represents 1.5% of the elected representatives at the House of Commons. This has always been traditionally adequate to contribute to debates, influence policy and potentially effect some legislation, but to now suggest that the national parties will have undue influence on any potentially weak or coalition government after this current election is simply not feasible.

According to the latest Populus Poll the current voting intentions are as follows:

• Conservatives - 32%
• Labour - 28%
• Liberal Democrat - 31%
• Other - 9%

If this was the result on 6th May, the potential breakdown of seats in the House of Commons would look something like this according to the BBC (the winning number of seats is 326):

• Conservatives - 234 seats
• Labour - 278 seats
• Liberal Democrat - 109 seats
• Other - 29 seats (SNP - 8 seats, Plaid - 3)

There is no conceivable calculation that would allow the national parties the influence they claim they will exert over the legislative process. The best case scenario for both Plaid and the SNP is that a minority government is formed by the Conservatives in which they control approximately 320 seats, this is the only outcome that would allow them the influence they desire. If Labour form a minority government the Lib Dems will probably become the kingmakers, either by way of coalition or by supporting only specific aspects of legislation.

However, this issue perfectly highlights the incredible inequities in our current electoral system and the bias that the incumbent administration can command over redrawing constituency boundaries to make marginal seats safer.

Fear and Loathing on the 2010 Tory Campaign Trail...

Harold Wilson once perfectly defined the British political landscape with his truism that a "week is a long time in politics", and for David Cameron the last week has possibly felt more like an epoch rather than just a long time. The only other person that can truly relate to this incredible sense of time distortion is the Chinese tanker Captain who crashed into the (not so insignificant) Great Barrier Reef, after sailing through illegal shipping lanes, causing untold environmental damage. He knew the outcome a long time before the accident happened, but he still tried in vain to turn the ship around, but those tankers take a lot of turning and the crash was inevitable.

This general election has already thrown up a few surprises (the Lib Dems second in YouGov latest opinion poll, anyone?), but the biggest surprise of the whole election campaign is the Tories inability to gain any significant political momentum. Given the economic conditions and the unpopularity of the incumbent government, the Tories must have believed that the election would be an easier fight than it has been...

The constant media references to the similarities between David Cameron and Tony Blair, have been somewhat misleading - giving the impression that the 2010 general election was going to be an inverse repeat of 1997, in which Labour swept to power on a popular tide of goodwill and hope. Probably a more insightful comparison would be to compare this election with 1992: the opposition in both examples are trying to reinvent themselves, attempting to throw off the shackles of negative public opinion and a lack of trust. Plus the rising spectre of increasing tough economic conditions, in which the harsh realities of a global recession will come to bear - the public may just be comforted by the devil they know.

There are several key factors which are impacting upon the Conservatives inability to gain a significant lead in the opinion polls:

• The Shadow Cabinet is weak and unable to connect with the public - in 1997 the Labour Shadow Cabinet was a significant strength of Tony Blair's election strategy, whether it was Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw or David Blunkett; the Cabinet was prompted as a 'Cabinet of Talent'. Currently the Conservatives are appearing to focus solely on David Cameron and George Osborne, sidelining the poor(!) Chris Grayling for fear of costly gaffes. Even John Prescott was given meaningful airtime in comparison.

• Lack of a coherent message - the main focus of the Conservatives' election manifesto is the 'Big Society' in which the public can effect the running and management of many public institutions. The issues for most people are rooted in real problems, employment, transport or education, but the Tories have proposed an abstract concept that generates few pragmatic solutions for real issues. The Labour Party in 1997 offered a tangible response to the genuine concerns of the nation. The 'Big Society' is perceived as empty rhetoric, from the party that once claimed that "there is no such thing as society".

• Whilst other parties are weak on the topic of Europe, the Conservatives can not exploit their advantage - in the public's opinion the European Union is at a particularly low point, the rise of UKIP is testimony to this fact. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are potentially committed to further European integration, but David Cameron is wary of using the populist EU stick to beat his opponents for fear that it may open old wounds, in the Conservative Party, that have only been plastered over - not healed. Witness the undercurrent of discontent at the 2009 Conservative Party conference, with David Cameron's pledge that if the Lisbon Treaty was ratified the next Tory government would work within its parameters.

• David Cameron's inability to connect with many of the electorate - whether this is due to old fashion class prejudice or the perception that he is style over substance, David Cameron has struggled to find a voice that speaks to a majority of people. This is not helped by an advertising campaign, organised by Andy Coulson, that appears to be confused and artificial. Most elections that are fought on the concept of 'change' have their vanguard amongst a section of the population that have been under-represented in previous regimes; youth, working class or ethnic sections of the community. It is difficult for the general public to believe that a privileged and wealthy white man is sincere about significant change - also it is not a typical election pledge by a party that is perceived to be more concerned with the conservation of society rather than its radical overhaul.

• The inability of the Conservative Party to reassure the public that the recession would have been better under their guidance - even though there are significant differences between Labour and Tory economic policy, it would have been impossible for the Conservative Party to have claimed that they would have avoided the recession with tighter regulations of the banking sector. After all it was the Conservative Party that actively encouraged deregulation of the finance sector allowing 'bankers' the freedom to recklessly gamble the country's economic stability by chasing larger profits.

 The Chinese tanker Captain and David Cameron have both discovered something important in the last fortnight - big ships take a long time to turn so it's vital to make sure that you have plotted correct course before you sail.

The Not So Gravy Train

It is a continual source of amazement, and possibly amusement, that when a political party appears to be showing well in opinion polls, there is a tendency to self implode. Witness Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt's abortive attempt at a very British coup earlier this year, a blundering exercise that did not so much take off, but crashed in the hanger with the doors closed.

So it will come as no surprise that the latest opinion poll, released today, placed the Conservatives a commanding 9 points ahead of Labour, should be followed shortly by a ill judged outburst by veteran MP Sir Nicholas Winterton on BBC Radio 5 Live. The comments centred around the plans for MPs to travel standard class on trains, instead of the traditional first class, when travelling between their constituencies and Westminster. In a rant that appeared to reinforce every negative Conservative stereotype that David Cameron has attempted to eradicate, Sir Nicholas Winterton stated:

"If I was in standard class I would not do work because people would be looking over your shoulder the entire time, there would be noise, there would be distraction. They are a totally different type of people. There's lots of children, there's noise, there's activity. I like to have peace and quiet when I'm travelling."

This outburst was followed quickly by the denunciation of Sir Winterton by Tory Head Office as "the out-of-touch views of a soon-to-retire backbench MP". David Cameron feels he has worked too hard and too long at re-branding the Conservative Party for an "old Tory" to ruin it. It is not the first time that one of the Wintertons has started a train related controversy; Ann Winterton (wife of Sir Nicholas and fellow MP) told a racist joke involving a train in 2002, which ultimately cost her position in the shadow cabinet.

David Cameron is learning very quickly that it is impossible to control a parliamentary political party of the size of the "Big 3", in fact it is almost impossible to manage a political party of more than one.

Just ask Roger Knapman and Nigel Farage, who only had eleven other MEPs in their party and they still got mired in several controversies... but they did have to deal with Robert Kilroy-Silk, so they can be forgiven for taking their eyes of the political football.