Taking the plunge....

I've just watched Gordon Brown's valedictory speech live on the television and then Cameron's response as he entered Downing Street - both of which I have to say were generous, statesmanlike and dignified. The same could certainly not be said of John Prescott, who seemed to have been collared for some comments by Channel 4 News just as Brown was on his way to see the Queen. In fact, within five minutes of Brown leaving Downing Street, Prezza already seemed to have started the next General Election campaign. He was rehearsing the rhetoric about the "Liberals being the same as the Tories," which no doubt will become drearily familiar over the next couple of years and seemed to be more interested in Labour's preparations for making trouble in opposition than what form the government of our country might take.

In the past few days, many column inches have been devoted to the possibility of a so-called "progressive coalition," to keep David Cameron out of No.10. Without commenting on the desirability of such an arrangement, it seems to me that it was never viable, not least because a Lib-Lab arrangement would be unable to command a majority in the Commons.

In addition to that, there's the "progressive" bit. Many, many moons ago I was a member of the Labour Party and I have to say that only someone who had never been a member could possibly think that everyone in the Labour Party is "progressive." Many are, of course, but others are as conservative with a small "c" on issues of political reform as the most right-wing Tories - one only needs to look at the government's "achievements" during the last 13 years to see that.

In addition, the support or at least acquiescence of the nationalist parties would be needed. I can't remember who it was that said that the unionists were the undertakers of any government, but if that's so then the nationalists surely must be sharks - their support can be bought at a price, but they would certainly move in for the kill as and when it suited them. The concessions they would have extracted would surely have made any such coalition deeply unpopular with English voters. I was particularly amused to see that the SNP claimed to be terribly concerned about preventing the Tories from taking power. The reality is that they must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of a Conservative PM in Downing Street, which could pave the way for a successful referendum on independence. Cameron is surely well aware that he will have to tread carefully north of the border.

The negotiations between the Tories and Lib Dems were undoubtedly conducted in a serious spirit; those between Labour and the Lib Dems, conversely, had an air of political theatre about them. In the first place, many Labour backbenchers and even cabinet ministers were opposed from the outset to the "coalition of the losers" which, probably correctly, they considered to be an electoral suicide pact. It may be that the appearance of serious talks served a purpose for both parties: for Labour, they can claim that the Lib Dems rejected a "better deal" than the Tories offered them, on the basis of their deathbed conversion to the importance of proportional representation, not expanding Heathrow airport and so on. On the other hand, the Lib Dems will be trying to demonstrate that a coalition deal with Labour was never viable, in an attempt to pacify their radical leftie supporters who will be horrified about a deal with the Tories. Anyway, the recriminations had already started on Newsnight with Ben Bradshaw spinning the "party line" that the evil Lib Dems were determined to lever Cameron into No.10 no matter what. More entertainingly still, Labour are apparently now the new "radical" party and plan to "reconnect with their voters." Well at least they have finally managed to admit that they are completely out of touch.

Nick Clegg may be left with the feeling that he was not so much the kingmaker as the pawn in this particular chess game. In the end, he was left with a choice between a deal with the Tories or nothing: and of course nothing would mean a Tory minority government, constitutional crisis and another election within 6-12 months in which the Lib Dems would likely be hammered from both sides - not least because the two main parties are far better funded. I don't know whether Vince Cable had read my last blog posting, but he apparently intervened at a meeting of Lib Dems yesterday to describe a Tory deal as the "least worst option."

Perhaps the most intriguing figure in this whole episode is David Cameron. For him, forming a minority government with another election to follow would have been a viable alternative, as he was urged to do by some of the right-wingers in his own party; yet instead, he chose to enter a coalition with the Lib Dems. It seems there is some genuine personal rapport between the two party leaders which may at least in part explain the success of the negotiations that have established Britain's first coalition government since the war. But what were Cameron's real reasons for doing the deal?

Well, of course there may be an element of political calculation - after all, the Lib Dems are the natural home for disgruntled Tories, so the political fallout from any difficult decisions in the coming months may be limited by having them as part of the government. He may even see the arrangement as a way of moderating the influence of certain backbenchers and ditching awkward policies like the ludicrous pledge to increase the inheritance tax threshhold to £1,000,000. Maybe it was Cameron's response to the "Scottish problem," to try and get more Scottish MPs in the governing coalition; or perhaps it is that rarest of all pearls in politics: genuine statesmanship. We may never know - or at least we may have to wait ten years for the memoirs to come out. What we will discover over the coming months and years is the level of commitment of both parties to the coalition - and whether the Tories are really prepared to deliver even the very limited reform they have promised; I hope they are.

As I mentioned before, the process of entering government will force the Lib Dems to define much more clearly what they stand for. I'm disappointed at the election of a Tory-led administration, though it cannot be disputed that the two parties together did command the support of a majority of the electorate. Obviously it would be hypocritical to accuse the Lib Dems of "betrayal", since they never had my support in the first place - the possibility of them supporting the Tories into No.10 being one of the reasons for that. I also formed the view quite a long while ago that if we wanted more Green MPs we would have to fight to get them under something like the existing system - an opinion that has been entirely vindicated by recent events; those people who voted "tactically" for the Lib Dems at the last election, please take note.

However, now is not the time for churlishness. Like it or loathe it, the arrangement between the Tories and Lib Dems is historic, with Nick Clegg taking over as deputy prime minister - meaning that he could actually be answering Prime Minister's Questions on occasion in the Commons. And I will say one thing in is favour - whatever he achieves in the post, he surely cannot fail to make a better fist of it than John Prescott!