What next for the UK government?

There are now four possible permutations of a new British government. Don't be deluded that the substance of any of them remotely reflects the difference in form. So what are they? What do they mean for less government?

Conservative minority government: A confidence and supply agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. It will have to include at least some commitment by the Conservatives to support steps towards electoral reform, and principles around a budget. The Conservatives would form the government and Cabinet, and the Liberal Democrats would agree to support a budget and keep the government in power. Beyond that every bill would be negotiated on a case by case basis. Likely to be more acceptable to the wider Liberal Democratic Party as it would mean many of its policies would not be sacrificed to a coalition, but subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Liberal Democrats can claim some independence. Conservatives would implement manifesto only subject to obtaining a Parliamentary majority, which would become increasingly difficult. Difficult to see how extensive spending cuts can be implemented. Conservatives may need Labour support for some legislation. Unlikely to last for full-term.

Verdict: More likely to ensure Conservative instincts to restrain taxes will be implemented, but less likely to ensure the few positive Liberal Democrat influences on civil liberties will be addressed. Think watered-down Cameroonian Conservatives, a bit like watered down low-alcohol beer - what's the point?

Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition: A comprehensive agreement, which means a government led by the Conservatives, but with the Liberal Democrats having Cabinet positions. Clegg as Deputy PM (perhaps Home Secretary), and possibly Cable as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Would include a commitment on agreed policies, Liberal Democrat acceptance of certain Conservative policies, and moves towards electoral reform. Gives Liberal Democrats a long sought after direct sharing of Executive power. However, Liberal Democrats will be seen as being part of a Conservative led administration, and so will share responsibility for all policies. Likely to upset many Liberal Democrat supporters, especially if it is a government of austerity as it is likely to send many voters to supporting Labour. Essentially a trade-off of power vs. risk of unpopularity. Verdict - Expect perhaps a more solid commitment to not being authoritarian on law and order, but likely to have a far weaker commitment to cutting spending. An empty glass at best.

Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, with confidence and supply agreements with multiple minor parties (coalition of the losers). A new Labour leader would be Prime Minister, with Clegg as Deputy and a few other Liberal Democrats in Cabinet. There would be some form of electoral reform given Labour's statements, and policies would be some blend of the two leftwing parties. May need concessions to protect spending in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland whilst spending cuts are harsher elsewhere. However, it binds the two leftwing parties closely, and means another Prime Minister who wasn't standing as such in the election campaign. Verdict - Perhaps some easing of the draconian state of Labour, but watch taxes rise and spending rise (though not so much). Weak hemlock. Watch it try to be a grand coalition for the children and co-parents who are the current majority, and disappoint progressively.

Labour minority government, with confidence and supply agreements only with other parties. As with a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, except Labour carries the Executive and the responsibility for the government, and has to gain approval for all legislation. Likely to be far more unstable, and short lived as the minor parties seek more and more Verdict - Business as usual, except with the need to offer more to the minor parties.

On my part, I simply want two things:

- A government willing to make serious spending cuts;
- A government willing to wind back at least some of the authoritarian measures implemented under Labour.

I don't believe any government involving the Liberal Democrats will do the former, and frankly it is preferable that the next government comprises the thieving parties on the left, and is unstable, than being a short-lived limp-wristed Conservative government. A Labour led government will be a government dominated by parties that did NOT win in England, but won in the other three constituent countries, and if it pillages England to reduce the deficit, leaving the others intact, it will exacerbate the whole West Lothian question.

So go on Nick, Gordon and Mandy (Peter Mandelson), do a sordid little deal, watch you sacrifice English taxpayers to keep the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish in their Soviet bloc style public sector based economies, and pay the price. You'll delay the inevitable, make it obvious what needs to be done, and you'll force another election, and by no means will a majority support proportional representation at that point. You see at that point, a significant number in England will happily let Scotland and Wales go, or demand an English assembly.

Gordon to go, as the price for Labour's grab at power

While the UK ticks along quite happily without government making any critical decisions, Gordon Brown has finally announced he will resign as Labour leader, in October. This was designed purely to woo the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition with Labour (which will need support from a gaggle of leftwing minor parties who wouldn't vote to bring it down anyway).

The British public are observing the delight of politicians negotiating how to take their money, how to spend it, how to run up debt in their name that they'll be forced to pay, how to regulate their lives and tell them what to do.

Whilst it has looked like the Conservatives would manage this with the Liberal Democrats either as a tight coalition, or with a minority government, the game has changed. The Labour Party has convinced Gordon Brown to fall on his sword, and sacrifice himself for the addiction to power.

Is this the change so many called for, for politicians to decide who is in government? For politicians to horse-trade their manifestos?

In any case, I don't care. I think it would be excellent to have a coalition of the losers, of those who genuinely believe in taxing and spending, who believe in telling people what to do. Let them cobble together a filthy coalition, where the Welsh and the Scottish nationalists demand to be shielded from budget cuts.

Whatever government is in power will either have to delay budget cuts, and so push Britain's reputation further into the dark, or will have to make brutally tough decisions on cutting spending that none of the parties were honest about needing to do.

It would be apt for those who have collaborated to keep the public ignorant about the scale of the public spending debacle to become increasingly to blame for it, or to take the can for having to deal with something they pretended didn't exist.

I like coalitions, except with parties I don't like

The Liberal Democrats believe in proportional representation, so as a party it believes that government in the UK should generally comprise coalitions.

However, more than a few Liberal Democrat members and supporters have been interviewed on various TV channels saying "I didn't support the Liberal Democrats to get the Tories put in power".

No, maybe not, but you did support the Liberal Democrats surely understanding that supporting coalitions means that the Liberal Democrats might back Labour or the Conservatives?

After all, if you supported Labour why didn't you vote or join the Labour party?

No doubt if the Conservative-Liberal Democrat agreement comes off, many Liberal Democrat supporters will be upset. No doubt many Tories will too (I for one would rather there be a coalition of the losers, because it would be largely dismissed by much of the public, prove unstable and incompetent).

However, be grown up. You wont always get what you want, besides YOUR party has been advocating just this sort of scenario being the norm.

Frankly, you need a Conservative-Liberal Democrat deal to work. Because if it doesn't, it will demonstrate to the public that coalitions are unstable and don't work well. Another election will cost the Liberal Democrats.

Which is, in fact, why I don't really care that much. All of the parties want to hike taxes, all want to at least maintain the existing size of the state, it really is a matter of not much change.

UK election: Strategic machinations

For political pundits, the negotiations between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and then no doubt Liberal Democrats and Labour are fascinating. However, what it is really about are two things:

- What team implements roughly a similar set of policies overall;
- Whether the economy or electoral reform becomes the priority.

So what are the pressures on the main parties? The tensions are between getting power, and alienating future voters or alienating their own grassroots of voters and members. All of the parties face very different pressures that limit their range of options, as follows...

Conservative

As the party with the plurality of seats and votes, it has rightfully claimed the greater right to lead a government. Cameron has also appropriately set down some bottom lines, such as defence, Europe and immigration. It is highly unlikely that the Liberal Democrats would push any of these. There are areas of potential agreement, like lowering taxes on the low paid, abolishing ID cards and (unfortunately) the embrace of environmentalism. However, there is a difference of priorities. Cameron has made it very clear the priority must be the economy, in particular addressing the fiscal crisis of the budget deficit. In doing so he comes across as being statesmanlike, focusing on the issue that does have a significant number of his own supporters worried, and the public in general.

The contrast is with political reform, a wider term than "electoral reform" as discussed by the Liberal Democrats. Cameron has proposed a cross party inquiry. He knows this wont be enough for the Liberal Democrats, but he also knows it will appeal to Labour and to many in the general public. To his own party it looks like a good opportunity to dodge proportional representation, but it does give room to talk about a wider range of ideas than electoral reform.

For example, balancing the size of constituencies, reducing the number of MPs, reforming the local electoral system, electing the House of Lords. On electoral reform, several options can be considered, including Labour's preferential voting proposal. Cameron can present any of these for discussion, and can even consider a referendum for some of them. However, he also knows he can't offer a referendum on proportional representation without a major internal rebellion.

By prioritising the economy, Cameron is trying to portray any LibDem claim that electoral reform should be a priority as being the LibDems being self interested from a political perspective. As a result, if the reason the LibDems reject a coalition with Cameron, he can claim he was putting the national interest ahead of politics, but that the LibDems are less interested in governing, but more interested in politics. Cameron also knows that Nick Clegg is in a weaker position than he appears to be. The LibDems only increased their share of the vote by 1%, and lost seats. Clegg is not as popular as many thought, and personally must deliver to his party or he faces a serious challenge. However, Cameron also knows he offers some things to Clegg that Brown cannot:

1. Clegg campaigned on change, yet supporting Gordon Brown to remain PM will be contrary to this. He also doesn't have enough support to demand a new Labour leader;
2. Labour plus LibDems does not create a parliamentary majority. So the SNP and Plaid Cymru may be needed, adding to the complication, the compromise and the sense of it being a coalition of the losers.

However, if a coalition doesn't happen, because the LibDems wont get enough, a minority government could yet be formed. Yet, the LibDems would still want to extract a price for that, and that would have to include electoral reform.

As long as Cameron makes the economy a priority, he can state that he will lead a minority government only if a budget can be agreed that starts to cut the deficit. Other parties that interfere with that will only accelerate another election, an election none of them will want, given it is likely to only benefit the two major parties - as parties that can lead a government.

So Cameron knows he can either negotiate what he wants, or sit back, say that he wont compromise to fit minority special interests, and either sit in Opposition watching Labour have to confront the deficit, or wait for an election.

Cameron should not fear another election, as he can state that it would not be because of him. It would be because minor parties sought to gain more influence than he was prepared to submit to, and because Labour could not lead a stable government. Yet it would be a gamble he could play only once, for if the next election also fails to produce a majority, the pressure for electoral reform would multiply. Under the circumstances, the gamble is probably worth the risk.

Labour

Labour has lost, but nothing like as bad as had been anticipated. The strongest cards it can play are incumbency and the broader leftwing affiliation of most of the parties in the House of Commons. Incumbency has already been played though, and has been played too strong. It looks like a defeated Prime Minister believes he is entitled to stay in power. Labour will be aware of this, but also knows the other card is far more important.

The Liberal Democrats used to be a blend of those who believed in small government, with those who thought the Labour Party had gone too far to the left. The small government Liberal Democrats could work with the Conservatives, but they have been overwhelmed by those who came from the SDP, ex. Labour members who had fled a party with a Marxist manifesto. Now, they are to the left of Labour, and so would be less than impressed if Clegg went with the Conservatives, particularly if there is no solid guarantee to hold a referendum on proportional representation. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition would see many LibDem voters swinging to Labour at the next election.

So Labour does have a strong card to play. It knows that maybe a majority of LibDem voters would prefer Labour over the Conservatives. The seats the LibDems lost went to the Conservatives, indicating that the bulk of the remaining LibDem vote are Labour supporters who either voted strategically or were choosing a "safe" alternative to punish Labour. That does not mean they would want a Conservative led government.

However, Labour also knows its weaknesses. The obvious one is that Labour + the Lib Dems does not make a majority. Yet that may not be a major problem. Both the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru are highly unlikely to support the Conservatives, and both are even more unlikely to want another election, so they have little alternative but to grant confidence and supply to a Labour-Lib Dem government, even if it means offering referenda on independence for their nations. Referenda that Labour knows would be lost by the nationalists.

On policies, there aren't any serious difficulties, given that the differences between the parties are not intractable. Labour can concede more than the Conservatives. Most importantly, Gordon Brown has already offered a better deal on electoral reform. Such a deal would include legislation to ensure the next election was under a different system. One compromise that the LibDems might accept is for an elected House of Lords with a form of proportional representation. In short, Labour can offer more on electoral reform than the Conservatives, and this is critical for the Lib Dems.

Yet there does remain a weakness. Gordon Brown. Nick Clegg will be aware that Brown is unpopular, and that one clear verdict of the electorate is that a vast majority of voters do not want a government led by Gordon Brown. However, the Labour Party is too battered by the loss of the election to engage in the coup needed to remove Brown and select a new leader.

Still, if Clegg picks Cameron Labour should not be too upset, for it offers Labour one and potentially two major political gifts.

Firstly, a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition will upset many Lib Dem members and voters, and potentially one or two MPs. This will be particularly if it is achieved without a solid commitment to electoral reform. Labour can sit back and watch that support look for a home. Given the reasonable chance such a coalition would not last a full term, it gives Labour a platform to build upon. Labour can simply say a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for a Conservative led government.

Secondly, if such a coalition embarks on a serious austerity drive, Labour can oppose and seek the votes of the disgruntled.

So, Labour knows the Lib Dems wont want another election that soon, and also that there will be pressure to not support the Conservatives. If the Lib Dems support the Conservatives, then with the exception of Gordon Brown (who will almost certainly face a leadership coup), Labour wont be shedding too many tears, especially if that government faces the political price of reducing the budget deficit.

Liberal Democrats

It's fairly simple. The LibDems have lost seats, and gained only a tiny increase in the proportion of the vote. However, as a party it knows that while it can pick the government, it isn't in a strong position to bargain having lost seats. The only thing that unites the party is a commitment to electoral reform, and it must get the best deal for such reform, otherwise the chance the election has offered will have been wasted. As much as Clegg will want to talk of stable government and the national interest, he knows his party is split between those preferring Labour and those preferring the Conservatives, with the former in a clear majority. What matters the most is ensuring that this position of power delivers the party enough of a chance for electoral reform that it can at least get a referendum it can back to deliver a form of proportional representation. So that deal will be what matters.

Beyond that, Clegg personally would prefer Cameron over Brown. However, a deal with Cameron will upset many in the LibDems, so if it is to happen it better last, be stable, delay an election as long as possible. So he will want it to work, to be able to show policy gains, and then deliver electoral reform.

The same applies to Labour, although he knows that would be more comfortable with the party rank and file. So any such deal would need to be stable, and last.

Why? Because the last thing he wants is another election, an election when many LibDem voters would scurry back to the main parties.

So while he can choose between two suitors, he knows neither suitor will be too concerned if it does not last, because he will be the scapegoat, and another election will not scare them (although Gordon Brown almost certainly would not be permitted by his party to seek another term), but for Nick Clegg, he wont want another election.

UK election, the aftermath

David Cameron has already laid down his offer to claim power with the support of the Liberal Democrats. They have been talking. Cameron has stated what he wont compromise:
- He wont surrender more control to the EU (bit late though);
- Maintenance of national defence (code for retaining and replacing the nuclear deterrent);
- The relatively closed door policy to immigration from outside the EU.

However, he is willing to surrender to the environmentalist agenda, which he shares, with the Liberal Democrats. He believes there is enough commonality to form a government. He risks leading a government that will bitterly disappoint his supporters,

Yet, if David Cameron does become Prime Minister it wont be the great success that was promised when he became leader. Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph has a rather damning verdict:

"Dave had to fight a widely despised Prime Minister leading a Government incompetent and destructive on a scale unseen in living memory. Seldom has there been a softer target; but seldom has one been missed so unnecessarily. With just 36 per cent of the vote, the Tories stood almost still since 2005. They are now on their knees to their other enemy, the Lib Dems. "

Gordon Brown may feel wounded, but in fact he did not do anywhere near as badly as forecast. He did better than Michael Foot in 1983, he did not come third, and he fended off perhaps a third of the Tory targets, and most of the LibDem ones.

The question is whether what David Cameron did to the Conservatives, saved it or cauterised it? I suspect it has done both.