Conservative-Liberal Democrat government of austerity

or so it seems. Given imminent reports of the end of talks between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The incoming government will have one priority, addressing the budget deficit. It should do so with alacrity, and with a clear vision to strip out as much unnecessary spending as possible. It should not treat any budget area as sacrosanct. It may wish to delay tax cuts, but it should not increase taxes. However, I fully expect an increase in VAT and fuel duty at the very least, thieving bastards.

What it will mean is significant layoffs in the public sector, freezes for public sector pay, significant culling of public sector pensions, and the end to the wishlists of the many seeking money that does not exist.

It will also mean that the budgets of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will all be hit, despite the moans and groans of the socialist parties that largely represent those communities.

The LibDems will automatically lose popularity as leftwing supporters are upset about the inevitable, which was that the party would choose one of the major parties to support. However, both parties will cause an upset, since both barely touched the issue of the £100 billion deficit, with at best plans to deal to a tenth of that. The British voting public have both been deceived and wanted to be deceived.

They are about to face reality almost Greek style, they wont like it, and the Labour Party is waiting there to show sympathy, even though the Labour Party is mostly responsible for the problem in the first place.

I expect within weeks an "opening of the books" exercise of reality on the deficit, highlighting how bad things are, what happens if it is not addressed and pointing the finger of blame squarely at Gordon Brown and Labour. The Lib Dems will join in on this as well. Labour will seek to sidestep this, but it will be difficult to deny the truth of deficits year on year, and how the bailing out of the banks is only part of the reason for it.

The only question remaining for now is whether it is a coalition or a minority government. Either way, it wont be very popular very long. The answer will depend on what the Liberal Democrats decide.

Britain wont get proportional representation

With the Liberal Democrats proving that their negotiations in good faith with the Conservatives, include backroom dealings with Labour, it has become clear what the sticking point is. The problem for the Liberal Democrats is that there is no incentive on either major party to give in.

The sticking points with Labour were really only twofold, Gordon Brown and the need for more than Lab-LibDem to get a majority. The first part of this has been addressed, Gordon will be gone. The second part is an issue, especially since the SNP and Labour are far from friends. Yet it need not be quite that way. 323 seats are needed, if you consider Sinn Fein never turns up. So Lab-Lib Dem = 315. Plaid Cymru, Greens, the Alliance and SDLP add another 8. So it is done. The SNP is hardly likely to bring down such a government to give the Conservatives an advantage. Messy perhaps? However, the leftwing LibDem rank and file would embrace it.

So now the LibDems get to choose. Conservatives or a coalition of the losers? What will matter is electoral reform, since the LibDems want this to unlock the prospect of being near permanent kingmakers.

However, neither Labour nor the Conservatives are that stupid. Labour knows that it would enable its own vote to be cannibalised by the LibDems, Greens and even the BNP. The Conservatives fear the same from the likes of UKIP, but also fear there is likely to be a permanent leftwing majority.

So the electoral reform issue has been the card the two main parties have played, except it has come to a natural conclusion.

First, the Conservatives offered an all-party committee to look at wider political reform with proposals ready for the next election. The LibDems say that as a fudge, but the Conservatives said it would consider a far wider range of issues than just the electoral system (and that it wasn't the top priority).

Secondly, Labour offered legislation to enact electoral reform. Admittedly its own kind (called alternative vote, also known as preferential voting), but it would be in place for the next election. The LibDems were more impressed, but such a change would only benefit the party modestly.

Thirdly, the Conservatives proposed a referendum on the system Labour was offering. A big step for the Conservatives, but still less than Labour's offer.

Yet both main parties are not offering any form of proportional representation or even a referendum on it. Why? Because both know the other wont do it either. The Conservatives wouldn't offer it, because it would cause civil war within the party itself. Labour knows this, so has little incentive to do better than the Conservatives, yet has done so.

For the Liberal Democrats they are stuck. The Conservatives are offering a solid coalition or confidence and supply agreement, which could last and offers a chance at a referendum on voting reform the LibDems have little interest in, but which looks like a big compromise, as it is Labour's policy on offer. Labour is offering a less stable coalition, but guaranteed electoral reform, and a more acceptable policy mix. It has even rolled its own leader to achieve an agreement.

The corner the Liberal Democrats are in is one of their own making. If Labour is supported, the change in the electoral system will put proportional representation off of the agenda for many years, because change will have occurred. The public wont have much appetite for another change until that is bedded down. If the Conservatives are supported, the referendum will do the same. If it is a "no" result, then the implication is no public appetite for change. If it is a "yes" result, the change will still put proportional representation off of the agenda.

The only way the Liberal Democrats can back themselves out of this is to seek a little less than the Conservatives are offering - a referendum to back, in principle, a change in the electoral system (with a second one on the options after an election), or to focus electoral reform on the relatively toothless House of Lords. Labour wants a fully elected House of Lords, pushing for a form of proportional representation there, might be acceptable to both major parties, given the Lords only has limited powers to amend or reject legislation.

So whatever happens in the next few days, it will be clear that PR is not going to happen. There will be many upset at this, but then again the majority of votes cast at the general election were not for parties pushing PR.

As for me, I'm agnostic about how heads are counted, when what's in them is what matters. I was never enthused about proportional representation in NZ, but then I'm not enthused that my vote didn't count under FPP unless I wanted to pick between four choices I found distasteful. So whatever happens, happens. What matters far more to me is resolving the West Lothian question, which surely will come to the fore if a Labour-Lib Dem government is formed, consisting of a great deal of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs, with the vast majority of English MPs in the Opposition.

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.