Vince Cable set up by Daily Telegraph "constituents"

I feel sorry for Vince Cable. He's been stitched up by some journalists from the Daily Telegraph. A bit of a mean trick, I'd say. Not really Telegraph stuff in the main. More Murdoch's minions' territory. No wonder they were always portrayed as pigs in Spitting Image. A bit unfair to pigs, I always thought.

So what if Vince Cable's got opinions. He's not said anything that outrageous. He hasn't leaked government secrets. He hasn't got a Russian mistress. He hasn't sexed up a dossier. He hasn't lied about foreigners. Not much to get bothered about really. Except the Daily Telegraph can't stand the Coalition. So why not have a go at Vince. Send some posh ferrets down to Twickenham and get the man singing like a canary. Well, in that they succeeded. But it doesn't make them look like decent people.

Sir Denis Thatcher's friend Bill Deedes used to be a bigwig at the Telegraph. If they were around today, I dare say they'd be shocked. "I say Bill, that Vince Cable chap's been done over by some of your pipsqueaks. I mean, he's a liberal wotsit, I know, but that's just not cricket. A bit below the belt, if you get my drift!"

Harriet Harman in "ginger rodent" attack

Harriet Harman, or Harperson when she is being all equal, has just lammed in on the Liberal Democrats and Danny Alexander in particularly. I thought she was above all this. Didn't she push through some kind of equalities bill? Isn't it a diabolical crime to say nasty things about people in the workplace? I would have thought calling someone a "ginger rodent" is enough for at least six moths in the slammer. She could then do corrective training and come out a totally rehabilated person. I think the rozzers should pay her a visit. Not for the first time, mind you. She's got form, what with mobile phone driving.

At their very worst Labour can be a bunch of self-righteous shysters. This isn't that bad, but Harperson's the type that thinks she's above it all if she can say she has a track record in this, that and the other. Humbug, basically. Glad they didn't get in.

This all came about because she was ranting on about people not voting for a coalition. She must have low grade O level general politics if she thinks that. People voted as they voted. The result may not be as they wanted, but we live with a party political system that offers only Government and Opposition. She's the latter. Everyone knows that the Tories couldn't make the numbers so a Coalition it is. Simple. Stop wingeing!

Coalition Conferences

For the first time in living memory of any living Briton, a Liberal (of sorts) gets up at a conference and talks about being in government. As a natural conservative I would have preferred a fully-fledged Conservative government. However, the voters, ever more hurtling towards electoral pipolar disorder, plumped for a situation where no party held a majority in the Commons. So, in the face of dire financial circumstances, two parties agreed to a coalition government. But before it had started, the gainsayers tried to start to unravel the newly-knitted coat of two colours. "It won't last!", they cried, as if doom and gloom were far better bedfellows. The BBC is quite keen on seeing the coalition crash before the year is out. Questions abound on possible calamities, possible rifts. Who cares? THERE'S A CRISIS AT OUR DOOR!

Apparently 40% of the electorate are still moaning about not voting for a coalition. I sometimes wonder if some people should ever get near a ballot box. They seem to think an election is a kind of affirmation of their views and their views alone. David Miliband, celebral geek that he is, even suggested that the last general election was in some way an affront to his democratic decencies. Really?!!

Nick Clegg is right when he says that this coalition government must be judged on five years of achievement or failure. However, carping before anything has happened is just going to lead us into a self-inflicted catastrophe. With the bankers and corporate bonus baggers reaping undeserved pickings.

Labour goes into a bitter sulk!

The Liberal Democrats are better off without Labour. I once went to a Labour conference. It was like walking into some time zone. Admittedly it was in the comrades days and everyone looked like they'd forgotten their cloth caps (a sort of dress down Friday) and were trying desperately to be ever so fraternal. A lot of smoking, too, I remember. Now, the Mandy and Campbell duo might have changed Labour into some new kind of spivs lottery business, but the same old mean, grudging, sometimes spiteful opinions of others remains.

After the second world war ended and Labour was propelled into office, my grandmother was confronted by her housemaid with a brutal "Now it's our turn!". Talk of opinion worms on electronic polls. This worm turned with a vengeance rather like the Icelandic volcano. Not entirely unexpected but a shock nevertheless when it happens. When Labour got into office, Nye Bevan led the charge. He called Tories vermin. They don't change much if they stay Labour. Shirley Williams seemed to blossom in the SDP. As Labour, she always appeared world-weary, and she was a heck of a lot younger in those days.

Bringing it up to date we have Dr.Kim Howells speaking as a true Labourite. He says of the failed Progressive Coalition - "I tell you why it's been rejected by most Labour MPs - because they know that they're a bunch of opportunistic toerags, who'll say anything to anyone in order to get power. And they've done it this time, they've got power." No love lost there. The LibDems can wave such commentary aside. It just shows Howells up to be the bitter man he often is. And if he hasn't ever been an opportunist politician, well I'm a ........................

David Cameron is Prime Minister - It's A Brand New Day!

It's all worked out quite well. A new and stable government. One which will, I think, prove to be just the thing to get us moving along in this second decade of the 21st century. When David Cameron gets to the House of Commons and sits on the government benches, he will be facing Harriet Harman as Leader of the Opposition. It will all be so very different. Iain Dale said tonight on Sky News that he hoped the years of spin by Mandy and Campbell (as Austin Mitchell dubs them) were over. No more spin, no more subterfuge. It's a brand new day!

DUP to take over the LibDem opposition benches?

When the LibDems go into coalition government what will become of Nick Clegg's opposition seat in the House of Commons? Will the Democratic Unionist Party pitch up on this bench? Interesting times. I suspect though that Labour MPs will get in quick to squeeze Paisley Jnr out. Dennis Skinner will be in PDQ to sit there. Could be an unseemly tussle.

The only show in town

Gordon Brown thinks he has done a fine thing. Admit defeat of a sort but suggest that all parties are losers. Tell the nation he will quit as Labour leader but say he will stay on as prime minister until the progressive coalition has had a chance to "secure the economy". Then give some kind of rousing speech at the Labour conference, wish his successor well and depart for a cushy job like top bottlewasher at the IMF. That's the game plan. It's eagerly being taken up by the likes of Peter Hain, always the opportunist.

Thankfully such minds as David Blunkett's are coming out against it. So is John Reid. Labour could join up with the LibDems and form a minority government, with the Nats acting as whipping boys in order to secure votes in the House. Perfectly possible, but exceedingly unstable and likely to anger the electorate.

Far better for the Tories and LibDems to form a stable coalition and knuckle down to deal with the deficit. And I hope we won't all carp and criticise when they take difficult decisions. We don't want to end up like Greece or worse. So the only show in town is the Cameron and Clegg coalition. Anything else is a non-viable non-starter.

1 versus 100 - Picking a PM

Some media types are getting all in a muddle because they can't fathom out what's going on. How about forgetting all this cloak and dagger stuff. Try a round of "1 vs 100" with Caroline Lucas taking on 100 randomly-picked MPs. Be a lot more interesting!

Coalition Dee or Coalition Dumb!

I'm with the coalition that can prove a positive worth to the country. That is a Cameron/Clegg partnership. The alternative is a motley bunch of potential squabblers and skirmishers. Claire Short has come out for a Lab/Lib/SNP/PC/Grn/SDLP grouping. So has Peter Hain. I can't think of anything worse.

Britain did not vote for strong one party government, that's obvious. It voted for the parties to agree so that the financial situation and the way the House of Commons works can be settled. So the best way to get out of the mess is to put the best of the Tories and LibDems together before this so-called Progressive Alliance takes off.

Coalition deals

The BBC has got a nice little chart for working out a possible coalition. In their enthusiasm they include Lady Hermon as being a possible Conservative partner. Highly unlikely, I'd say, unless she's been given some halucinatory substance. They also suggest the DUP, but I think Paisley Jnr is more fickle than his father in doing deals. Cameron would go bananas in the end.

The only real deal is going to be a Con/Lib Coalition. Peter Hain is getting all nostalgic for his Young Liberal days, Alex Salmond talks of a "Progressive Alliance" but anything with him in is likely to be regressive. However, such a grouping could get the go ahead and it would have a majority. But without the guy currently in No.10. There's talk of Miliband being the leader. Maybe. But I can't see that, really. It's more likely to be a caretaker type. After all, keeping six parties in place will be hard going.

It's between a "Productive Alliance" and a "Progressive Alliance". I prefer positive production to persuasive progress! The first will hopefully give us stable government, the latter more hot air and spin.

The Nick & Dave Show

David Cameron has made overtures to the LibDems. In the national interest, of course. For those of us living in seats like Solihull, this is likely to prove rather difficult, but then the country hasn't plumped for anyone with great fervour. In fact, the Apathy Party did best. Vast swathes of the British electorate are still in an "I don't care!" mood. Great pity, but then that's what you get in a democracy that has become rather sullied and soiled.

I hope we can have a fresh start. I'm not opposed to a Conservative/LibDem coalition. This is by far the best deal. It would give a government with an overall majority of about 35. We would have a proper government facing a proper opposition. Gordon Brown does have the right to try to form a government. But his arithmetic is far shakier. His 258 seats plus 58 LibDems plus a Green, Lady Hermon, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP. Makes a total of around 330. Not a great margin. Keeping that lot together in a "stable government" may prove a job too far.

Best all round if there's a formal coalition between Cameron and Clegg. Give the LibDems a lock-in period of two years. Put PR on the table for a referendum. I'd also go further. Have a referendum on the EU. That way both parties get to know where they stand. Although, if they leave it too long, there may not be an EU as we know it. Frau Merkel may have picked up her toys and gone back to the Deutschmark for safety.

Gordon Brown should see this period through until the Cameron and Clegg agreement. Then he should resign with dignity intact.

Peter Robinson aims high for cosy coalition

The pundits are telling us we are in hung parliament territory. By that they mean they will have fun finding out who is doing deals with who in the election aftermath. One leader has already put his head up to be counted. Peter Robinson, dour cuckold of the Depressing Unionist Party, has said he could be ready for coalition government. I can't see the bulk of the UK taking to Peter as Home Secretary, for instance. Anyway, he's got to get past the new intake of Tory MPs. I would not be keen on a Tory/DUP coalition.

George Galloway is hoping for three seats in order to strike a deal. Who is he going to sidle up to? Surely not Gordon? David Cameron would find George too much even before they got to see the Queen. Where would the Greens fit it in? Caroline Lucas can get quite agitated if too much blue or red gets mixed in with her green. She might find her party has turned a palid pink in the process. It all depends on the numbers, I suppose.

Peter Robinson, though, is better placed to do a deal than most. If his party got, say, ten seats and the Tories got 320, then Robinson's lot could seal the election for Cameron. Many in the Tory Party would go along with that. However, where does that put Sir Reg Empey and his coalition of UUP and Ulster Conservatives? On the grumpy seat?

Coalition or National Government Mr.Brown?

In the Daily Mail today, Peter Oborne suggests that Gordon Brown might be considering some sort of deal regarding future governance. Perhaps a coalition with the Libdems? Get rid of the Speaker (Oborne doesn't rate him) first, then install Sir Ming Campbell, then cosy up to senior LibDems by offering plum jobs. Does it sound plausible? I don't think so.

It may be that Gordon Brown is pally with Ming, but that doesn't imply all LibDems are pally with Brown. Oborne rightly suggests that the younger brood on the LibDem benches would be appalled at a coalition with New Labour. And I can understand why. Gordon Brown may have certain qualities, but he is also prone to grumpiness and vendetta-like attitudes. His meddling in the traditional parliamentaty processes is deplorable. No wonder the Tories are furious with him.

I feel that Brown may consider that his best bet in remaining Prime Minister is to contemplate a coalition or a national government before the next election. If he thinks he will go down as a big loser, why not blame the credit crunch ("It started in America") and say that a unity government is the answer? Trouble is that the public won't buy it.

We know that New Labour is a busted flush. All spin and no substance. If it is true that Vince Cable is "on good terms" with Brown, that he is after a job, he won't last long in the scheme of LibDem politics. The only possible coalition after the next election (not before) is that of the Conservatives with the LibDems (and that is a long shot!), because both have been in opposition and the public would accept this over keeping a failed government in power.

One thing Peter Oborne says is curious. He writes, "before 1979 it was common for two minority parties to enter into alliances in order to form a government. Indeed, analysis shows that for at least a third of the past century, the country was governed by parties which had failed to win an election in their own right but had created temporary mergers with another party in order to form a ruling coalition." I'm not sure what this means. Certainly there was no coalition after 1945. Ted Heath tried in vain to bring the Liberals into government in 1974, but this was vetoed by the Liberal hierachy. The odd Irish MP has helped in tight votes, but that is not a coalition. And I don't consider wartime national governments are to be considered in the same vein as peacetime coalitions. So that leaves the period when the Liberals were going down and the Labour Party coming up in electoral terms.

The truth is that we live in a democracy that was originally created around two political philosophies. Conservatism and Liberalism. Then these splintered over the years and the result is we now have a multi-party process in a two-party system. Hence New Labour gets to govern on the votes of only 20% of the total electorate. 80% of us either voted for some other party or didn't bother to vote.

Coalitions are only good if they are supported by the system. In the UK system, our adversarial instincts are now centuries old. A coalition will not last long, even if agreement is reached. It is far better to look at changing the system first rather than to plot an outcome based on present formularies.

Belated birthday wishes!

I missed this one. Probably too wrapped up with the idea of going into hospital, but the Liberal Democrats celebrated their 20th birthday last month. Next year will be tantalising for them. Could it be that a general election is called and they get the key of the door?

The Liberal Democrats are a new party. They are not the old Liberal Party (Gordon Brown keeps calling them that - the "Lubberull Party!") nor are they Social Democrats in entirety. They are, at least to me, a new breed of politician. Liberal in some sense, corporatist in a way, muddled on occasions, and socially aware at times. They have, though, done what the old Liberal Party couldn't do. Appeal to a wider audience within the electorate.

So they had a marriage made in Portsmouth, as the BBC Parliament programme showed. Still happily married, although, somewhat like Ken Livingstone, they have preferred not to talk about their tiffs and rows and their two children ,who they have kept at arms length. The continuing SDP and the continuing Liberal Party are still plying their policies and living the life of a minor party.

The Liberal Democrats gave us three-party politics. We will have to wait to see if they can cosy up to another party in the event of a hung parliament.