Nuclear fusion achieved?

Well so says the Korean Central News Agency

So I can't wait for that country's willing idiots in NZ to cheer this on, since it already cheered on the DPRK nuclear weapons programme.

The same agency of course says US troops commit 60% of the crimes in South Korea.

It also claims the US is the worst offender of human rights in the world in that:

"In this society one can live only by way of racketeering and through fraud and swindle. Without these practices one cannot but be pushed to the fringes of society where one can not keep body and soul together, denied even the elementary rights to eat, get clad and have a shelter....Drug abuses getting more rife in the U.S. with each passing day are producing an increasing number of mental and physical cripples."

So methinks that scientists need not be planning a trip to Pyongyang soon to discover fusion.

Con-Dem anti-reason anti-business coalition

Well it's out, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has shown its true colours, and they are colours of a red and green coloured wolf in the sheep's clothing of Cameron and Clegg. The new government is no more friendly to capitalism and to reason than the last one.

The coalition agreement now published gives the impression of being pro-business, and the impression of dealing with the budget deficit, but it commits to a vast range of new spending measures, and to interfere with private businesses on a grand scale in multiple sectors.

The envy-touting, dependency supporting left should be relieved, and the Greens thrilled.

Take the following:

- "The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments. The target of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid will also remain in place." Yes, the NHS, subject already to record spending increases in the past, can continue to extract ever greater inefficiencies, and not be accountable for it. Meanwhile, the British taxpayer will have to mortgage to continue increasing state aid to developing kleptocracies.

- "We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats" So the retired wont have to face any austerity, just their children and grandchildren. Why? Well given they voted for profligate governments in the past you might well ask.

- "We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities" No income tax wont be coming down, it is about increasing capital gains tax. Yes, if you get capital gains for your OWN profit, not for "business" then screw you, Clammyegg wants your money.

- "We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.. We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector" Why? Well let's tax one of the country's most successful service sectors, never mind which banks never needed a bailout and those that did. Oh and let's deter the most successful people in the sector being tax resident in the UK, to please the envy ridden proletariat. So it's off to Switzerland for that lot then?

- "We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work" Don't worry, you'll not be attracting the best and brightest anyway, they'll be leaving. Nice sop to the BNP though.

- Finally, taxpayers will prop up a massive programme of Green fetishes and an effective end to growth in the British aviation sector including "The creation of a green investment bank" (quite where the money comes from is irrelevant), "Measures to encourage marine energy" (again, whose money?), "The establishment of a high-speed rail network" (ah the grand show off project that has next to no positive environmental impact), " The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow. The refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted" (privately owned airports and the airline industry can go to hell, less competition for European airports and airlines), "Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles" (with whose money?).

So that's it. More spending, more taxes, more regulation of the current crop of hated businesses (banking and aviation), and worshipping at the totem of environmental fetishes regardless of cost and benefit.

No reason behind most of it, and a distinctly anti-business agenda particularly if you are in finance or aviation.

Anything for freedom? Well, besides scrapping ID cards, ending the storage of internet and email records without "good reason", and something called a "Freedom Bill", there isn't much. Free schools, paid for by taxpayers maybe, and talk of some tax cuts (which don't offset tax increases of course).

Anyone who voted Conservative expecting less government, less interference in business and a more reason based view of policy should be sorely disappointed. When the Treasury briefs the new government on the fiscal debacle, it will become clear how little of this can be afforded, and so it will be a lie, taxes will go up dramatically, other spending will be slashed substantially or a conbination of it all. Furthermore, with a new agenda of faith based Green initiatives, reason appears to be distinctly absent from this administration. The government wont be shrinking.

Fortunately I didn't vote Conservative.

Who owes a huge debt?

One of the likely contenders to lead the Labour Party, as it moans and groans about how the incoming government is paying for the debt it incurred, is Ed Miliband.

Apparently he tweeted "We owe Gordon a huge debt: Britain is a fairer country and our world is more just because of what he did."

No Ed, the country owes a huge debt because of Gordon. You lying lowlives pretended this wasn't real, scared the people who you've made dependent on the state that they would be out in the cold if it was addressed.

Gordon Brown has left the UK with record public debt, a record budget deficit (at levels akin to Greece) and a legacy that will burden taxpayers for many many years, including the children of taxpayers.

Good riddance. It was the most optimistic outcome of the election that you spendthrift liars were ejected from continuing to borrow your way in office by propping up those who you depended on for power.

UK 2010 - NZ 1996

Despite the noisy baying of far-left violence touters outside Number 10 last night, already demanding their own bloody vision of the future, the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat (a leftwing wit called it Con-Dem) coalition is not a return of free market Thatcherism.

More's the pity.

Had the Conservative Party been a party touting a shameless belief in capitalism, wealth creation, property rights and a sound scepticism of government on both practical and moral grounds, then this coalition might actually be positive for freedom in the UK. The sole thing the Liberal Democrats can bring is a belief in social liberalism - and by that I am not meaning the vile socialist conformity that means that a priest can be arrested for expressing his point of view, but a belief that individual rights comes first, at least in respect to law and order matters. The element of the Liberal Democrats sceptical about laws on drugs, censorship and creating new offences every time a particularly hienous crime is committed, would be helpful.

Sadly, the salad bowl of these two does not fill me with optimism, yet I am going to give this government a chance. Why? Life's too short to be constantly negative, so I'll rate this lot on what they do, not what they said they would do. For the latter would simply be depressing.

Y

So I am hoping taxes don't go up, although both parties campaigned on it to greater or lesser degrees.

I am, in fact, hoping that the Lib Dem promise to make the first £10,000 of per annum income tax free goes ahead. That WILL help put money in the economy, just not the way that socialists embrace.

I am hoping that the promises to abolish ID cards, and get rid of the criminal offences created under Labour since 1997 are kept, and the Orwellian Independent Safeguarding Authority is abolished.

I am hoping that LibDem Finance spokesman Vince Cable's recent conversion to cutting the deficit means that some serious spending cuts can be implemented this year.

I hope privatisation increases in pace, noting that unlike NZ, it isn't a dirty word in the UK, and continued throughout the Blair and Brown administrations. The Royal Mail, Channel 4 and Met Office were all considered for sale under Labour, and should be back on the agenda.

Finally, I am hoping that the Conservative policy of allowing anyone to set up a school, with minimal regulation and funding following the pupil (ala Swedish school vouchers) proceeds. It is perhaps the only policy that had anything worthwhile in it.

Yet the seeds of discord have already been sown in this coalition. The LibDems have been promised over 20 middle and junior Ministerial roles, for a party with 57 MPs this is grossly disproportionate compared to the 307 Conservative MPs. It is especially disconcerting given that absolutely none of them have ever been in government before.

So this is where the parallel to NZ lies. In 1996, the National Party and the NZ First Party formed a coalition. It immediately caused discord among many NZ First supporters who opposed National, so the LibDems will already be under substantial grassroots pressure to ensure the Conservatives have their policies severely moderated (not that there is much to moderate).

However, with over 20 LibDems in executive roles it is easy to see where announcements of sheer banality and stupidity will come from. Bear in mind the LibDems include those who have been aligned with the Marxist Stop the War Coalition (Chaired by the supporter of North Korea's regime, Andrew Murray), the LibDems embrace the European Union in ways that the Conservatives rightly find an anathema, and the LibDems are fanatical supporters of cutting CO2 emissions according to the Green Bible of "fossil fuels always bad", and have a Cabinet Minister leading that policy. The announcement of broad agreement on many policies would seem to indicate that the Conservatives had little to surrender, and showed how little the Conservatives really offered that means chance.

Yet it still remains that there are many in the Conservatives eager to cut back the role of the state, and many in the LibDems keen for the opposite. How long those tensions can be papered over is unclear. It helps that, unlike NZ in 1996, the minor party is not led by a prima donna who seeks attention, but does little work. Although it also helps that Clegg and Cameron genuinely get on, not something that could have been said for the Bolger-Peters relationship at first.

Whatever happens, there will be disenchantment. If it proves to be a government shrinking the state then the LibDems will split, as it has been the repositary of protest votes for leftwing opponents of New Labour for so long. If it proves to be a government of pablum and little serious change, then many Conservatives will be fed up and bored with government that simply "conserves" what Labour did, and makes selective cutbacks (and tax increases) to address the deficit.

For myself, I don't expect much difference. If that proves to be the case, then the big question will be whether David Cameron will have changed politics in the UK in form (not substance) by moving the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together (leaving a sniping increasingly leftwing Labour in Opposition), or if this is the start of a polarisation process as the two parties find their inevitably diverse wings sniping and building support for a revolt.

In any case, the losers will always be the taxpayers, as no major party was standing up for them this election.

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.

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.

Advice for David Cameron

Let me assume, for the hell of it, that it would be better for the Conservatives to govern than Labour.

Then the appropriate strategy NOW is this.

- Nick Clegg has an offer. He will want to renegotiate. If he wants to substantially change it, say it is take it or leave it. Clegg will prefer you over Brown. You have more of the vote than Tony Blair did in 2005, tell Mr. Clegg that he either respects that, or you'll seek confidence and supply.

- If Clegg says no, and negotiates something with Brown, let it be. You can say you tried to form a government in the national interest, on common ground, but you wont sell out your supporters. Besides, you know that a Brown/Clegg/others government (as Labour + LibDems does not equal a majority) either wont last or will involve enormous tradeoffs with the SNP and/or others, that it will be desperately unpopular. Bide your time.

- If Clegg comes crawling back, seek confidence and supply, from Clegg and others, and form a minority government. Be prepared to hold another election if you can't govern effectively. Bear in mind Labour will have its own internal bloodbath in the meantime.

First and foremost, remember that selling out your party, principles and policies to gain power will eviscerate you. Allowing Gordon Brown to do the same will have a similar effect on him.

UK election: Two offers

Labour

Gordon Brown has said that he respects Clegg wanting to talk to Cameron first, but that the door is open for him to talk to Clegg as well (and Cameron). Gordon dangling fundamental electoral reform with a referendum.

Conservative

David Cameron has said either there can be a minority government with confidence and supply from a range of parties, which includes policy compromises, or a "comprehensive offer" to the LibDems.

That "comprehensive offer" would be as follows

Leave immigration, Europe and defence as not negotiable for the Conservatives.
Seek common agreement on education, a "low carbon economy", abolishing ID cards, reducing taxes on those with the lowest incomes and a commitment to civil liberties.
A cross party inquiry on political reform, regarding the electoral system, to consider ideas from all parties.

It also needs to recognise the highest priority is tackling the deficit, this year.

Conclusion

Brown seems desperate, he only offers electoral reform.
Cameron seems statesmanlike, almost take it or leave it.
Clegg? Well what is to his advantage. Brown will mean Labour plus others, but a referendum on reform. Cameron hasn't offered a referendum, but it would be a clean 2 party deal.

Green Party blindly believes a dictatorship

I have been lamblasted loudly by Green Party sympathisers because I damned Frogblog for believing reports about the Cuban health system being simply great.

Now I don't know if Cuba's health care system produces the great outcomes that it reports to the UN or to outsiders. Who does? Cuba isn't a country where you can publish anything, or say anything, or organise a non-governmental association without official approval, or criticise the government. Cuba is a one-party state, it is a dictatorship. There is no freedom of speech regarding politics or public policy in Cuba. How can you believe what the Cuban government says when it throws into prison people who criticise it?

I tell you how, you hold up your hands to your eyes and wilfully ignore that.

The responses I got from the Green supporters are telling:

"How can Cuba trade doctors for oil in Venezuela" Did that happen? You believe Hugo Chavez as well, given he hasn't exactly shown warm tendencies towards free speech?

"How can Cuba offer 5000 doctors after Hurricane Katrina" Because it knew it wouldn't actually have to deliver. Do you think the Cubans really thought George Bush would welcome them in?

"The UN Human Development Index says Cuba has the same life expectancy and infant mortality as the US" The UN gets its data from member states. The Cuban government tells the UN what it wants the UN to know, and nobody audits it.

"Cuba has been renowned for years" Yes, by leftwing activists and developing countries that know no better. Most of the developed world governments are a bit more grown up than that.

"Watch Sicko, it shows you how wrong you are about Cuba" Really? So Michael Moore talked to dissidents, talked to people who independently reviewed the Cuban healthcare system? Yes, thought not.

"Batista was worse" Ah there was a worse dictatorship before, that justifies the current one. Silly me. Tell the Burmese and North Koreans that the next governments they get will be nicer dictatorships, ones that don'[t run gulags, just political prisons, ones that don't execute on a wide scale, just torture and harass.

"Cuba is people not profit oriented" Notice the hoards flocking to live there and nobody wants to leave, and it is so people oriented, the people's freedom of speech can be completely suppressed. How easily do socialists trade away fundamental freedoms when capitalism is absent.

So there you have it.

A dictatorship, that gives its elite the best health care, that doesn't allow independent organisations to be established without state approval, that only permits official publications and broadcasting, that imprisons political opponents, can be believed for having a great health care system.

Except..

Katherine Hirschfeld has written criticising the Cuban healthcare system because:
- "Formally eliciting critical narratives about health care would be viewed as a criminal act both for me as a researcher, and for people who spoke openly with me";
- "Cuban Ministry of Health (MINSAP) sets statistical targets that are viewed as production quotas. The most guarded is infant mortality rate. The doctor is pressured to abort the pregnancy whenever screening shows that quotas are in danger. There is no right to refuse the abortion".
- "In Cuba, however, values such as privacy and individualism are rejected by the socialist
regime as “bourgeois values” contrary to the collective ethos of socialism.... Cuban family doctors are expected to attend to the “health of the revolution” by monitoring their
neighborhoods for any sign of political dissent, and working closely with CDR officials to
correct these beliefs or behaviors."
- There is no right to take action on medical malpractice and no sanctions, unless of course, it is against a member of the elite.

To take one quote from her article "People simply would not voice negative opinions in
the context of researcher-interviewee interactions. Questionnaire data would be similarly
unreliable. In fact, most Cubans I spoke with informally seemed to view questionnaires as tools to elicit popular reiteration of the party line. As one friend stated, "We know we're supposed to be moving toward democratic reforms and be able to speak out, to criticize. But people are still scared. Any kind of survey or opinion poll makes them afraid. No one will say what they really think."

Of course our leftwing friends who support the Greens would point a finger and say "University of Miami" "Americans" "they have to be anti-Cuban". Which is a cop out, it doesn't answer the fundamental points.

It is this simple:

Either you believe what a dictatorship says about how successful it is in looking after its subjects, or you are a sceptic.

It would appear the Green Party is willing to believe a dictatorship.

UK election: Verdict so far

With 34 seats yet to declare, it is mathematically impossible, short of recounts, for the Conservatives Party to get a majority on its own now. However, there are some fairly clear conclusions to be drawn from the election so far:

1. Lots of people turned up late to vote in substantial numbers, and the staff were not sufficient to handle it. Frankly, if you have a 14 hour day to vote, and a postal voting option, I'm not sympathetic.

2. Labour has suffered a significant defeat. However, it does not appear to be on the scale of 1983. 29.2% of the vote is better than Labour might have expected, but with more than 2 voters to 1 against a Labour government, it is astonishing that Gordon Brown thinks it is wise to demand that he have the first call at forming a government. Desperation for power is not pretty. Indeed it may well turn the Liberal Democrats away from any deal.

3. The Conservative Party has made some good wins, has held off the Liberal Democrats, picked up in Wales, but still not done enough to secure power. 36.1% of the overall vote so far is MORE than Labour got in 2005 when it won outright, so David Cameron can claim greater legitimacy to lead a government than Gordon Brown. However, in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 the Conservatives did significantly better. What went wrong?

4. The Liberal Democrats are where they generally always are, only this time it's worse. Having lost seats overall, and only picking up 1% more vote than 2005, it is not remotely any kind of breakthrough. Its predecessor Liberal/SDP Alliance won a higher proportion of the vote (but fewer seats) in 1983. Kingmaker Nick Clegg may be, but he has no grand mandate to do so.

5. The number four party by proportion of the vote is UKIP, albeit only 3.1%. The only seat it had a chance of winning, Buckingham, has not declared yet.

6. The Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties have barely changed at all. Scots having the same seats as before, Welsh gaining 1. No breakthrough there.

7. BNP will say that it did well, with 1.9% so far. While Nick Griffin got nowhere close to his goal of second in Barking, the BNP did disturbingly well in plenty of safe Labour seats.

8. Green Party of England and Wales will be thrilled to have 1% of the vote, but more importantly 1 seat. Replacing George Galloway as the voice against capitalism, individual freedom and western civilisation.

The only party that can govern with the Liberal Democrats alone is the Conservative Party.

Labour with the Liberal Democrats would also need the SNP and Plaid Cymru at least, plus the Green MP at least.

uK election live: uncertainty ahead

I'm off to bed, briefly.

Conservatives pulling in new victories, Liberal Democrats are possibly worse off than before, and Labour has seen much of its vote collapse.

However, it is highly likely to be a hung parliament.

Gordon Brown is apparently going to seek to form a government, because he is legally entitled to do so. However, it would appear to be up to the Liberal Democrats to decide whether to support the Conservatives, or to be a part of a ragtag mob to prop up Gordon Brown.

Whatever is chosen, it will cost the LibDems at the next election.

UK election live: 5.30am Labour clinging onto power without legitimacy

Gordon Brown has flown back to London.

However, Conservatives now have a higher proportion of seats and the vote than Labour, by a long margin.

The Conservatives have a higher proportion of the vote, and with a higher turnout, than Labour in 2005 got.

BBC predicting Conservatives will be 20 short of a majority, but even Labour and the Liberal Democrats together would be short.

Possible combinations:

Conservative-Liberal Democrat

Conservative-DUP, Alliance, independent, SNP, PC

Labour-Liberal Democrat-SNP, PC, SDLP

In other words, unless Nick Clegg does a deal with David Cameron, it will be Ulster, Welsh and Scottish parties that will decide who the PM will be.

UK election live: 5am the birds are singing and..

ITV predicting Conservatives 23 seats short of majority.

So far..

Conservatives - 224 seats, 36.7% of vote

Labour - 168 seats, 27.4% of vote (record low since 1920s)

Libdem - 36 seats, 22.6% of vote

Notable LibDem losses like Oxford West to Conservatives.

Labour would find it difficult to govern given how far behind it is, as it would need the LibDems, SNP and Plaid Cymru, with independents or some Ulster MPs.

Conservatives only need Lib Dems or most of the others...

UK election live: 5am the birds ares

UK election live: reaching those goalposts

The Conservatives need to win a net 166 seats to govern.

So far of the top targets:

- 45 have been won;

- 16 have been lost;

- rest are still to be declared.

The Liberal Democrats were hoping for at least a 5% gain.

So far of the 30 targets:

- 1 has been won;

- 16 have been lost;

- rest are still to be declared.

Oh and leftwing Education Minister Ed Balls has been re-elected, just...