East of England – Post Mortem [Part II]

It's been a little while but here's a quick look at a few seats in the East that could have been a problem for the Conservatives at the General Election. They had a few MPs badly hit by the expenses scandal in seats that weren't absolutely safe, although they'd expect to hold them easily under normal circumstances. They also had to unseat the awkward Bob Spink who was elected as a Conservative in 2005 but resigned the whip mid-term. He stood as an independent and although he was a constant pain in the neck for the party leadership he was popular in his constituency. The new Tory candidate Rebecca Harris wasn't a shoe in to take it back for her party. As it was the Conservatives held on to all their seats in the East.

Constituency	Incumbent	Notional Majority	Swing Needed	Favourite	Prediction	Result	Swing Achieved
Harwich & Essex North	Bernard Jenkin	5,583	5.9%	1/20	CON Hold	CON Hold	7.6%
St Albans	Anne Main	1,334	6%	2/5	CON Hold	CON Hold	3.7%
Peterborough	Stewart Jackson	4,005	4.5%	1/100	CON Hold	CON Hold	0.9%
Castle Point	Bob Spink	8,201	9%	1/4	CON Hold	CON Hold

Harwich & Essex North Bernard Jenkin was second in the expenses repayment list, which isn't an achievement to be proud of! Jenkin had been renting a farmhouse from his sister-in-law, breaking the rule that MPs can't use family members as landlords. Despite this he managed to out perform the regional LAB>CON swing by some way and he was easily re-elected.

Anne Main in St Albans had a tougher battle to hold on to her seat. This is probably because the Liberal Democrats were in a position to challenge here, unlike in Jenkin's constituency where they were a distant third in 2005. Labour needed just 1.5% swing to take St Albans but, as was the norm in this region, their vote spectacularly collapsed. This left the Lib Dems as the biggest threat but they couldn't quite pull off the 6% swing needed. Anne Main's expenses issue was that here second home wasn't actually her second home; it was her daughter's main home. Another revelation that wasn't only against the spirit of the rules, it was actually against the rules. The Lib Dems increased their vote by 11% so they held up their side of the bargain. Unfortunately for them Main's vote also held up and she was re-elected with a couple thousand votes to spare.

Steward Jackson was fighting a more of a PR battle in his Peterborough, although his expenses claims weren't inconsequential. He initially had his 'excessive' claims flagged up but his unrelated comments about his constituents could have cost him his seat. In defence of the Conservative led local authority Jackson labelled some residents in his constituency as 'whingers and moaners'. He managed to survive quite comfortably in the end but he underperformed the regional swing by some way. In fact, his vote dropped but a couple of percent but, luckily for him, it mostly drifted to the minor parties, especially UKIP. Although he didn't lose his seat this time Jackson will be nervously looking over his shoulder when Labour turn the corner. He hasn't managed to make this seat particularly safe for the Tories.

Finally the Conservatives did managed to regain Castle Point from Bob Spink, but not with out a fight. Here's our preview of the constituency from before the election and although I called this right I didn't expect Spink to do so well. He managed 27% of the vote as an Independent candidate, which was only bettered on the mainland by Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest. The Conservative candidate Rebecca Harris still managed a comfortable hold, aided by the disastrous performance by Labour. Their vote dropped by over 16%, which could well have been squeezed by the Spink/Harris battle.

Political Reform Part 2: Electoral Reform in the Commons

Perhaps the most notable reform in the coalition agreement is the AV referendum. AV is not a proportional electoral system but electoral reformers see it as an improvement on the current electoral system. The referendum is also important because it sets a precedent that the electoral system is an important area of debate and because if it passes it is likely to encourage supporters of other electoral systems. AV is not substantially different from First Past The Post. We would still all live in single seat constituencies, as we do now, but we would rank candidates on the ballot paper rather than simply putting a cross next to those we like. If a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote then he or she is elected, quite simply. This would be the fate of a MP like Steve Rotherham of Liverpool Walton, who got 72% of the vote this year. If no candidate achieves 50%+ of the vote, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their second preferences are redistributed, candidates continue to be eliminated until one candidate gets 50%+ of the vote. In theory this should eliminate tactical voting (if I vote for, say, the Green Party, I have no fear of this letting in the Conservatives if I second and third preference the Liberal Democrats and Labour as if the Green Party candidate is eliminated my vote will flow to one or the other). The traditional view has been that the primary beneficiaries of AV would be the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats. For example the Electoral Reform Society used ComRes polls of people's second preferences to calculate the 2010 election under AV and concluded that the Conservatives would have won 281 seats (-26 compared to the actual result), Labour would have won 262 (+4) and the Lib Dems would have won 79 (+22). This result is not too different, but would have given a Lib-Lab coalition a majority, which may well have changed the nature of post-election coalition negotiations more than a fair amount). It is worth remembering however that if the electoral system IS changed it will inevitably change the way people vote. AV would allow the British people to vote in a much more sophisticated fashion and it is likely that they will exercise this right.

Labour has officially supported the system for the last year or, this has been viewed in two ways by commentators, firstly as desiring to change the system in a way which benefits them, and secondly as an olive branch to the Liberal Democrats in case of a hung parliament. Ironically the only party which officially supports the system is now in the opposition. Labour, will, I suspect, be forced to campaign in favour of the change, despite what I suspect will be internal division about it – several backbench MPs will probably oppose it, but the Labour leadership will have to campaign in favour. This will I suspect lead to the odd spectacle of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (whoever that will be) campaigning alongside, against the position of the Prime Minister. Yet, against the perceived wisdom, the person with potentially the most to gain from AV is David Cameron.

There is a 'natural' cycle of support for a government across a parliamentary term. Just after the election the government is popular as people are filled with hope and optimism, generally even opposition voters are willing to give the new government a modicum of support. By the mid-term the government is usually at a particularly low ebb, as the shine comes off when the government fails to fulfil all the expectations of its supporters. As the election nears however the government usually rises again as the opposition comes in for more criticism as it comes closer to forming an alternative government, and as the effects of government policies become more apparent with time, most of the time however the government loses votes from the previous election. There are occasions where this is not the case, (usually when the opposition is seen as particularly incompetent or out of touch), but this is the 'norm'. Therefore it is likely that whenever the next election is that both coalition parties will lose votes to the Labour Party, and they are also in danger of splitting pro-government voters between themselves. Therefore the most likely outcome of the next election is Labour Party victory (this is by no means written in stone, and there are a tremendous number of variables, but this remains my view). Yet if there is AV Cameron could attempt to create a relationship not dissimilar between the two parties of the centre-right in Australia who form a permanent Coalition. In Australia, they originally had FPTP but adopted AV. The reason was that Australia had one centre-left party (The Australian Labor Party) and two centre-right parties (now known as the Liberals and Nationals, but then operating under different names). AV allowed these two parties to, at one of the same time, compete and cooperate without introducing proportional representation, and allowed them to keep the ALP out of power. 'The Coalition' as this deal is known, often puts up two candidates in each constituency but recommends that voters second preference their partner party. If there is AV Cameron and Clegg, can, however, argue for the re-election of the governing coalition. It is likely that AV would make the coalition's re-election more likely as it is. In Lib-Lab marginal seats like Brent Central Conservative voters will be more likely to second preference the Lib Dems and aid their election, if both parties explicitly campaign for its re-election it will be a big help. The result of this may be a haemorrhaging of voters from the Lib Dem left but the spoils of government despite this may attract their support nonetheless. If Clegg and Cameron can succeed in convincing their voters to second preference each other, they have a much better chance of convincing their voters of stopping their government from being a one-term affair. AV would make it so that the next election is not just a battle for votes, but for second preferences, who wins those second preferences may define the next election result.

By-Election Watch (30/05/10)

Here are the forthcoming by-elections we're aware of. Please get in contact if you are able to fill in the gaps! [We're not going to follow district councils too closely but we still wouldn't mind knowing about them]

Council	Type	Ward	Party	Reason	Date
Hertfordshire	County	St Albans South	Lib Dem	Deceased	3rd June
Redbridge	London	Chadwell	Labour	Ineligible	24th June?
Lambeth	London	Tulse Hill	Labour	Arrested	1st July
Brighton	Unitary	St. Peter's & North Laine	Green	MEP	8th July
Caerphilly	County	Blackwood	Independent	Personal	8th July
Knowsley	Metro.	Park	Labour	Personal	TBA
Wolverhampton	Metro.	Bilston North	Conservative	Deceased	TBA
St Helens	Metro.	Billinge & Seneley Green	Labour	Deceased	TBA

I'm only aware of one top tier council by-election this week; St Albans South – to the Hertfordshire County Council. The election has been trigged following the death of the Liberal Democrat incumbent Cllr Mike Ellis. He won the seat by a margin of 392 votes in 2009 from the Conservative challenger. Martin Frearson will be the Liberal Democrat attempting to hold the seat for his party with Tory candidate Salih Gaygusuz likely to be his biggest threat. The Conservatives currently control the council with 55 of the 77 seats and they also held the St Albans Westminster constituency last month. The Labour vote dropped by over 15% in the General Election, with the bulk of it going to the Lib Dems, so it's unlikely they'll cause an upset on Thursday. Whatever the result the Conservatives will still comfortably be in control of the council and so it's only really bragging rights to play for.

Candidate	2009
Martin Frearson	39.1%
Salih Gaygusuz	31.1%
Iain Grant	15.3%
Kate Metcalf	13.6%

Tories come from third to gain Council seat on Isle of Wight Council

The Conservatives scored a double election victory on Thursday night. In addition to Ann McIntosh's win in Thirsk & Malton the Tories gained a seat on the Isle of Wight Council in a by-election. The vote in the Ryde South ward was trigged because the Liberal Democrat incumbent was forced to resign after being convicted of assaulting a police officer. Adrian Whittaker has been given a three month jail sentence for spitting on a Police Officer and then saying he had aids.

The newly elected Councillor Gary Taylor won by a margin of 73 votes from the Labour candidate Deborah Gardiner. In the 2009 Council election the Conservatives came third in Ryde South so they should be pretty pleased with this win. They now hold 25 of the 40 seats on the Council, which isn't due for a full election until 2013. The Lib Dems will be disappointed with the fact they dropped to third here, but I imagine this is mostly to do with Whittaker's actions. They performed well in the two other elections held this week and so this should probably be put down to extreme circumstances.

Congratulations to Cllr Gary Taylor on his victory.

Isle of Wight Council
CON		LD		LAB		IND
25	+1	4	-1	1	-	10	-

 

Candidate	Votes	Vote %
Gary Taylor (E)	274	37.2%
Deborah Gardiner	201	27.3%
Tony Zeid	164	22.3%
Ian Jenkins	97	13.2%

Thirsk & Malton Result

Constituency	Incumbent	Notional Majority	Swing Needed	Result	Swing Achieved
Thirsk & Malton	Ann McIntosh	14,117	14.25%	CON Hold	5.4%

The votes in Thirsk & Malton finally had their voice heard in the 2010 General Election and, as predicted, there wasn't a shock result. The Conservative candidate, the pre-election Vale of York MP Ann McIntosh, easily won this newly established seat. Of more interest to most observers was how the Liberal Democrats' vote share would change in the first Parliamentary election after forming a Coalition Government with the Conservatives. The result would suggest Clegg and co. have little to worry about. The seat acted pretty much in line with the regional and national swings which occurred on May 6^th. In fact, the Lib Dems out performed their regional increase of 2% whilst Labour's vote dropped by almost 10%.

This is excellent news for the Lib Dems as it comes hot on the heels of a council by-election victory in the London Borough of Camden. It seems that voters are, at least for the time being, taking a 'wait and see' approach to the coalition, and they are certainly not punishing the Lib Dems for their decision. But how this will change when the honeymoon period is over, and Labour have elected a new leader, will be the true test. Next year's Scottish and Welsh elections are likely to be regarded as a more accurate measure of the Coalition's popularity. But for the time being Lib Dems across the country will be breathing a sigh of relief and Labour strategists need to concentrate on how they are going to effectively oppose this Government, rather than just expecting it to fail by the end of the week.

So, congratulations to Ann McIntosh; the new MP for Thirsk & Malton.

Candidates	Votes	Vote %	+/-
Ann McIntosh (CON)	20167	52.9%	+1%
Howard Keal (LD)	8886	23.3%	+4.5%
Jonathan Roberts (LAB)	5169	13.6%	-9.8%
Toby Hawton (UKIP)	2502	6.7%	+3.5%
John Clark (LIB)	1418	3.7%	+0.8%

The Coalition’s Political Reform Agenda: Some words on Fixed Term Parliaments

This is the first in a short series of articles on the new coalition agreement's political reform section. As a political scientist this section particularly interests me, partially from a professional POV and partially because hey, it's my passion. Yet, it should interest everyone. Nick Clegg has referred to the section as the 'Biggest shake-up of our democracy" since the 1832 reform act. While this statement was laughed at in some quarters (Universal Suffrage, the 1921 Parliament Act etc. Are certainly similarly heavy weight contenders) there is an element of truth to it in that not since then has this country attempted to change so many things at once. Yet any constitutional reform uniformly creates winners and losers, and changes the nature of our democracy. Perhaps the most controversial element of the constitutional reforms being pursued by the coalition is the introduction of fixed term parliaments.

Traditionally the British Prime Minister has had the capability to call an election when he or she sees fit, by simply asking the Queen to dissolve parliament. Under the new coalition agreement, this will no longer be the case and fixed terms of five years will be the norm. Officially all three parties support this, but in actuality this has been among the most controversial elements of the entire coalition programme so far. The big disagreement surrounds the number of MPs – 55% needed to dissolve parliament and force a new election. Many have pointed out that the Conservatives have 47% of the seats currently and can therefore block a parliamentary dissolution, arguing that this is undemocratic, and that it should be 50%+1. Yet equally it could be pointed out that in 2005 Tony Blair's Labour received 55.2% of the seats on 35.2% of the vote. Under these rules he could still dissolve parliament unilaterally, simply by whipping his party into it. It should be noted that dissolution is not the same as a no confidence motion (which still requires 50%), which brings down a government. If a government collapses under a no confidence vote it is almost certain that both it and the opposition would vote for dissolution (blocking dissolution and clawing in and holding on would look desperate, and only lead to a massive pummeling at the polls later), it is also likely that the opposition would not be able to form a government. It has not yet been properly announced what happens if neither government nor opposition can form a majority, but I suspect some sort of dissolution would be on the cards (probably the Queen would regain the ability to dissolve parliament at this time and this time only to prevent deadlock). While much fuss is being made about the 55% threshold I do not think it is too large, and it may well be too small considering that we have an electoral system that CAN give parties 55% of the seats. In the Scottish parliament the threshold is 2/3rds, meaning widespread consensus is required to call an election. The most important detail vis a vis the 55% threshold in my mind is what happens if no one can form a workable majority. I look forward to seeing the details of this in the bill itself.

More questionable, to my mind, is the five year term itself. Recently four has become the norm (though Gordon Brown and John Major both held on as long as they could for obvious reasons). Typically PMs that expect to win go to the polls after 4 years, PMs that don't wait until the last possible minute and go at 5. The fact that Cameron and Clegg have chosen to set the date at five years off is therefore intriguing. It suggests that they do not expect this to be a popular government (which is reasonable, considering the economic difficulties they are up against) and may expect to see an economic upturn in 5 years large enough to propel them into another victory. It is certainly true that this proposal has partially been drafted with coalition stability in mind, but I suspect that the 55% dissolution will prove to be less important than the 5 year term.

It seems extremely cynical, to me, to define the length of fixed-term parliaments upon the basis of the short-term partisan interests of a single government. Considering that four year terms have become the norm, this seems the natural length for a fixed term parliament. Nonetheless, it is hardly new that a government is introducing constitutional changes designed for its own benefit - Labour certainly did (earlier this year I did a short comparative study on the electoral systems for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments in which I demonstrated that both systems had clearly been designed with Labour's tactical priorities in mind). Sadly it is rare that any politician attempts to change a constitution unless there is a clear benefit for themselves.

Lib Dems win three seats in Camden Council by-election

Last night the Liberal Democrats passed their first electoral test since forming a coalition Government with the Conservatives. The vote in the Haverstock ward of the London Borough of Camden had been delayed following the death of the Labour Cllr Syed Hoque during his re-election campaign. The Liberal Democrats already held two of the three seats up for election, and managed to snatch the third with a margin of 34 votes. This result goes against the grain of the May 6^th results in Camden where Labour gained 15 seats to take the Council out of No Overall Control. This was mostly at the expense of the Lib Dems who lost half of their 20 seats. Last night's result leaves the Lib Dems as the second largest group with 13 of the 54 seats.

Camden Council
LAB		LD		CON		GRN
30	-1	13	+1	10	-	1	-

 

Candidate	Votes	Vote %
Jill Fraser (E)	1462	16.1%
Matt Sanders (E)	1326	14.6%
Rahel Bokth (E)	1291	14.2%
Sabrina Francis	1257	13.9%
Tom Copley	1202	13.25%
Joynal Uddin	1114	12.3%
Joan Stally	259	2.9%
Tim Frost	250	2.75%
Jane Adele Lawrie	246	2.7%
Paul Grader	240	2.6%
Robert Ricketts	236	2.6%
Sean Thompson	181	2%

This result should please party strategists worried about how the coalition agreement would affect them as a seemingly significant portion of their voter's were against the decision to join the Conservatives in Government. This result would seem to indicate this was over exaggerated in the media and their vote, at least at a local level, will hold up. The next test will come tomorrow with the Thirsk & Malton by-election but as I wrote yesterday I doubt we'll see anything drastic happen in North Yorkshire. If the Lib Dems' vote holds up again then the two results combined should help them quell any scaremongering foretelling their imminent demise.

A Look @: Thirsk & Malton

Constituency	Incumbent	Notional Majority	Swing Needed	Favourite	Prediction
Thirsk & Malton	Ann McIntosh	14,117	14.25%	1/66	CON Hold

You'd be forgiven for thinking the 2010 General Election finished almost three weeks ago. So much has happened in that time you might also be surprised that is was only three weeks ago! However, the voters in Thirsk & Malton have yet to have their say as the election in their constituency was countermanded following the death of the UKIP candidate John Brookes.

The constituency is newly formed for this election and takes in most of the old Ryedale seat and a large portion of the disbanded Vale of York seat. This led to a selection battle between the two sitting Conservative MPs in the abolished seats. The Vale of York MP Ann McIntosh beat her colleague John Greenway to the candidacy leaving her as the firm favourite to win on Thursday. McIntosh did have cause to worry last September when she was subjected to a mystery deselection vote. Having survived this she should win by a large margin, just by virtue of being the Conservative candidate. Although McIntosh will not enjoy any incumbency advantage in most of the wards, this is such a safe seat for the Tories it's hard to see anyone else getting close.

What will be far more interesting is the actual vote totals for the three main parties. The events of the last few weeks are likely to affect this election and the Liberal Democrats will be very interested in their vote share. On May 6^th they increased their vote by 1% nationally, and 2% regionally, but their decision to go into coalition with the Tories is not universally popular and so this may help a newly Brown-less Labour. However, I suspect it will be hard to deduce too much from the result on Friday as the Lib Dem's greatest fear is sure to be the loss of tactical voters in seats where they are second, and Labour are not competitive. As neither are likely to get close to the Conservatives in this seat I suspect a few Lib Dem voters who are particularly against the coalition deal will vote Labour, or even for the Liberal Party candidate, but nothing too drastic will happen. My prediction is a pretty boring result on a considerably reduced turnout; Tory Hold.

Candidates

Ann McIntosh (CON)

Howard Keal (LD)

Jonathan Roberts (LAB)

Toby Hawton (UKIP)

John Clark (LIB)

Labour and Coalition Talks: why being in the opposition may be the sensible choice?

In an interesting insight on the whole negotiation and coalition formation process, Danny Alexander (Nick Clegg's chief of staff and one of the Lib Dems main negotiators, now Secretary of State for Scotland) let slip that they used to text a lot during the talks. To the people sitting across the table. His argument was that it mainly happened in their discussions with Labour who were not talking 'with a single voice' or as the press has clearly noticed, many Labour MPs were quite adamant to be in opposition after the election. The same Highlands MP gives us the answer to the question:

'And I think maybe we're seeing one of the reasons why today, you know, this sense that maybe one of the things they've been doing over the past few months is laying a few stink bombs around Whitehall, and maybe some of them knew that and didn't want to be there when they went off," he added.'

The already famous treasury chief's note stating 'There is no money left', joke or not, is such an example. George Osborne explaining how the country left in an economic mess can be seen as another. But even as all these can all be seen as unintended consequences of what Labour thought was the best for the country, the controversies surrounding the Welsh devolution referendum aren't. Thus, after more than 5 months of preparation to have a referendum this autumn, and serious political pressure, among others, from the junior coalition partner in Cardiff Bay, Plaid Cymru, it seems that Peter Hain, former Welsh Secretary has done a brilliant job of... postponing the preparations. Thus, with very little possibility of the event taking place this year (and most likely being on the same day as Assembly election next year), the whole of the Welsh political leadership and Welsh public is turning towards the new Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan for explanation as to why their wishes have been ignored. Moreover, First Minister Carwyn Jones (Labour) is also playing a very good hand in the game, requesting an autumn referendum, when it would seem he had never argued for that in front of the previous Secretary. One cannot help but be amazed how Labour are already capitalising on the fact that the new government have yet to fix the problems they left behind (Seriously?? What have Dave and Nick done to fix the country so far? And they've been in power for almost 2 weeks!!) while also wondering ... what would they have done if they had been re-elected?

Concluding, I am by no means trying to accuse Labour of ruining the country just before the election, it would be far too cynical of us to have such a perspective (and we all know hope dies last, even if this hope is one in the political establishment), but we must accept that Labour most likely did not want to continue governing the UK. Especially since it is reckoned that this government did get the short end of the straw and will have to face a very harsh judgement five years from now. Yet, they had to go down with a fight, as in no other way could they still keep their voters allegiances, but by saying 'we tried our best'. And their voters, just like some of the press, will just ignore that the so-called Rainbow Coalition was terribly unworkable even if this were a country where multi-party coalitions are the rule. And Gordon Brown had to go down with it, because New Labour is no longer the new black, while a new leadership will be forced to refashion the whole party and it ideology.

I would say 'Bring on post-Labour...' but somehow I can already see the some analysts peeking their heads and arguing in a small voice that Labour is dead and that the Liberal Democrats are rightfully replacing them on the left of the political spectrum. One must remind them that, in Europe, they only judge a party dead when it doesn't get above the threshold in an election (5%ish) not when they still have almost 30% of the vote, but failed to continue in government after 13 years. But that's another topic for another time...

Reflections on the Coalition

It's now 13 days since the electorate gave Britain its first hung parliament since 1974, and 8 days since David Cameron walked into 10 Downing Street heading the first coalition government Britain has had since World War 2. With trends being what they are it is likely that election results are going to become increasingly close and that hung parliaments are going to become increasingly common, perhaps even frequent. The process of coalition formation and then how it governs may well define how future governments are formed in the UK. So when it comes to coalition formation there is one great big precedent. British coalition formation is FAST.

Despite many complaints, Britain went from election to government in 5 days, which is very quick. When Scotland had its first elections in 1999 (the Scottish Parliament is elected under the AMS form of proportional representation) coalition formation took two weeks. The norm in Europe is for a coalition to take a good 2 or 3 weeks at least (though it can be longer) to form. Our coalition formation was very fast for several reasons:

• There wasn't really a viable alternative to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat option.
  
• We are used to quick government transition in Britain. In the United States more than a month goes past before the new President moves into the White House, whereas Europeans are used to coalitions.
  
• Precisely because we Brits are not used to waiting to find out what sort of government we were going to get the markets panicked slightly. Had this been Europe the markets would have taken it as normal, but the economic situation demanded a speedy reaction.
  

Due to the speed at which the coalition agreement was written it is very short. Just twelve pages plan the next 5 years! I think it is a pretty reasonable deal for both parties. The Conservatives get much of what they wanted on the economy, and issues like immigration, but the Lib Dems do secure some key gains. The blocking of the Conservative inheritance tax cut, and a rise in Capital Gains Tax are big victories for the Lib Dems. While many have criticised the Liberal Democrats for being opposed to early cuts and agreeing to £6bn in cuts now, in actual fact the picture is quite positive here. When compared to the £160bn budget deficit that Britain faces six billion is a comparatively small cut indeed, much less than I was expecting to see if the Conservatives had won a majority. The agreement also states that the initial cuts will not be to frontline services. Nonetheless, this is still a larger cut than Lib Dems would like, and it seems that VAT will rise, which will not be popular amongst Lib Dem activists. On the environment and particularly the holy ground of civil liberties and political reform there are big wins. The civil liberties section could almost be copy and pasted from the Lib Dem manifesto, whereas political reform is a compromise, but the Lib Dems have gotten more than they expected.

Yet the agreement is short so much will have to be negotiated and dealt with ad hoc, and most of government comes down to the running of departments. In many ways the Lib Dems have secured their greatest victory here. Many have said that the Lib Dems have been given paltry, meaningless cabinet posts. It is true that none of the biggest cabinet posts (besides Deputy PM) has gone to a Lib Dem, but, highly unusually for a coalition, there is a Liberal Democrat minister in every government department. There also seems to be a balancing act going on. Look at the Home Office headed by Theresa May, who has come under fire for her anti-gay rights voting record, her deputy is Lynne Featherstone, one of the Lib Dems most left-wing MPs. Similarly George Osborne is Chancellor, but his deputy is Lib Dem David Laws, and Vince Cable gets the Business portfolio so whenever Osborne or May attempt anything there are Lib Dems looking over their shoulder. The ability of Lib Dem junior ministers to hold their bosses to account will undoubtedly rely largely on that particular Lib Dem, and it may be trying for the coalition at times (a committee has already been set up to deal with arguing Tories and Lib Dems) and beneath the cuddling up to each other the measure underlines Lib Dem doubts. Given the behaviour of Cameron and Clegg, I also have suspect that this is to be something of a dual monarchy, with both 'co-ruling' rather than the Presidential PM of the recent past.

Some suggest that the Lib Dems will become co-opted as a party of the centre-right by Cameron, and create a new anti-Labour majority. If the referendum on AV passes the coalition will be able to run for re-election (If you are a Conservative candidate in a seat you extol people to vote for you as first preference and Lib Dem as second, for example, boosting the chances of election of one of you. Some have suggested that the coalition will be a disaster for the Lib Dems, and they will be annihilated, having 'betrayed' their progressive vote. I think this is a misreading of the Lib Dem vote. While most prefer Labour to the Tories, there is also a large portion of the Lib Dem voter base who hate Labour and particularly Gordon Brown. I find it very difficult to imagine the Lib Dems gaining votes or seats at the next election, but I do not foresee their collapse. The situation will be, I suspect, not dissimilar to the 1979 election, where the Liberals were punished for propping up the Labour government, and lost a sizeable chunk of their vote and 2 seats. They will probably lose more seats (they have more seats to lose now) but will remain a sizeable force. Of course I am no crystal ball, and this is just educated guessing. If the coalition becomes unpopular enough the Lib Dems may break the coalition, forcing the country to a fresh election. If this is done in the right way and is seen to be for principled and consistent reasons then this may well pay off (witness the collapse of the latest Dutch government, where Dutch Labour withdrew due to objections to the war in Afghanistan. Dutch Labour doubled in polls overnight). The effect on the Conservatives is mixed. The hung parliament has made the Tory Right more outspoken as the Cameron Project they so detest has failed to deliver them unto the promised land of majority government, but Cameron can use the Lib Dems to balance them, and has given himself a powerful political centre to work within between his own right and the wishes of his coalition partner. Cameron will have to use all his political skills to keep both his own party and the Lib Dems happy.

And Labour? Well that is for another time.