Overheard in a cafe on Friday morning: "If I was that David Cameron I'd shoot myself. Iraq War, credit crunch, cuts, most unpopular PM for twenty years and the Tories STILL can't win a bloody election"
So, desperate to get their paws on power, they go pimping themselves round the backstreets of Westminster, offering to sell themselves for any price except the one thing the voters seem to want, the one issue that got a consensus from the voters in the whole election - fair voting. 60% of voters voted for parties with a manifesto commitment to letting the people decide on electoral reform. The Tories are the only serious party left that DOESN'T want it. The next few days will tell us if Liberal party leadership is genuine about electoral reform. If they go into alliance with Tories without a firm public promise to introduce preference voting instead of FPTP then we will know that all their talk about fair voting was just another sham to get into power.
And we shouldn't fall for the line that we need Strong Government to fix the economy. It will make little difference in practice. All the main parties are pretty much in the same place on the financial fallout from the Credit Crunch. They are all going to make cuts in the welfare state (maybe in different places) and they are all going to raise taxes (maybe on different people) Labour might be a little less harsh on public sector jobs and the NHS than the other parties. Tories might be a bit more brutal to the unemployed, and they have their manifesto promise to transfer a billion pounds a year to their three thousand richest friends. The Liberals have their nasty aim of scrapping what little remains of property taxes - Council Tax, Stamp Duty, business rates - and so pouring fuel onto the house price cycle. But they are all tooled up to be harsh and nasty. None of them is incompetent, non of them is going to see the financial system go down the plughole on their watch, and none of them is going to make any radical changes to the current set-up. Socialism is not on any of their menus.
Nor is real democracy. The reason why they want to take electoral reform off the agenda is nothing to do with the financial or economic problems. They want to take it off the agenda because it forces government to listen to the people - or a any rate our representatives which is better than nothing. Westminster governments are addicted to the elected dictatorship. They don't want to deal with discussion or dissent. They want normal politics to go away for four years so they can get on with "running the country" without having to negotiate or compromise or even listen to anyone.
So what happens next in Westminster?
I still (Monday lunchtime) think the most likely result is a minority Tory administration, with no formal deals with other parties. In some ways that might be a good thing - they'd have to put bills through on their merits. Actually persuade MPs to vote for them. It might ameliorate the coming cuts a little. It might even do something for constitutional reform as both government and opposition will be desperate to curry favours with Liberal and Nationalist MPs. From a purely partisan point of view its probably the worst outcome for Labour as the party in Parliament will either look completely ineffectual and stand aside while the Tories wield the knife, or else be painted as totally negative. Sooner or later Labour and Liberals will probably bring the government down. And if that happens then the chances are they will get blamed for an unnecessary General Election and lose seats.
Second most likely is the LibCon coalition. The Tory Press are pushing hard for this because it gives some hope of getting their man in and keeping him there. But its still difficult to see how it could be stable without one or the other party giving up most of what makes them distinctive. They really can't agree on constitutional reform, on Europe, on democracy. And it is likely to be the smaller party that gives way. Clegg is flirting with the same bitch that did for Ramsay MacDonald, and if he gets too close his party will be sucked dry.
A bit less likely - a minority Labour administration with firm commitment to constitutional reform as price they have to pay to get some unofficial support from other parties. Perhaps the best result in some ways because the most likely one to bring about electoral reform., But it is at best a temporary solution. Labour simply don't have enough MPs to govern for four years. It would be a caretaker administration waiting for an early general election - but there might be some chance that that election could be under a fairer system. There would be a small but genuine chance of electoral reform (with either AV or STV - some kind of preference voting anyway). A genuine chance of fixed-term parliaments. A genuine chance of all-elected second chamber. Even a small chance of returning some autonomy to towns and cities. That doesn't save the world, it won't bring about socialism or true democracy or save the world or heal global warming or even prevent a sterling crisis. But it is worth having and we can get it done. But it would need reform NOW - a referendum this year before an early election under a new system. Go on too long and an election under the old unfair system will be unavoidable.
Even less likely is the Rainbow Coalition. Labour can barely whip in its own MPs these days (which is a good thing - we've had too much brainless party discipline) To get a majority in the House of Commons they would need Labour and LD, and SDLP, and SNP, and PC, and probably the Green and the Alliance member as well. That looks even harder to keep together then the LibCon would be.
Least likely of all - a no-goer from the start - is a German-style Grand Coalition with Labour in bed with the Tories. No-one wants this apart from some ultramontane Tories who can't accept that they haven't won. When you year some crusty old Conservative "grandee" going on about this being the worst political and economic crisis Britain has faced since the War, as if 1979-1984 had never happened (or Suez, or the 3-Day Week) then you know that what they really mean is that they want to rule and they bloody well intend to. And they want to smash the Labour Party.
And we shouldn't be seduced by the myth of Strong Government. Don't listen to those seductive voices that say "forget about electoral reform, forget about constitutional change, ignore all that juvenile frippery, Concentrate on the Crisis". That's not why they want to take electoral reform off the agenda. They want to take it off the agenda because it forces government to listen to the people.
What this "lets all work together for the good of the nation" line really means is "Leave it to us. Forget about politics for the next four or five years. Don't trouble your little heads about it. Leave it up to the experts, the professionals, the born leaders. Wait outside in the corridor until your elders and betters decide what is best for you." What they are really saying is that the voters can be ignored - even that the MPs can be ignored - and government can return to business as usual. Whatever we voted for it wasn't business as usual. So don't do it Nick! Stick to your policy of demanding real reform, now.
But WTF am I worried about the Liberals supporting the Tories? I'm a Labour Party member. And I'm a socialist. From a purely partisan point of view the LibCon is likely to be the best thing that has happened for the Left within the Labour Party for decades. My inner political hack, who likes nothing better than a carved vote and a smoke-filled room, says: "bring it on!" If they do the deal without electoral reform then everyone who cares will know 100% that their pretence at reform was a sham. So next time, they crash and burn. Nick - spread your legs for Android Dave - it won't hurt us half as much as it hurts you.