Daniel Korski

One of the things that critics of the LibCon coalition keep coming back to is the question of what will happen in European, local and other elections. Will the two governing parties stand against each other? And how can they differentiate themselves when they support the same policies? To many, it seems like David Cameron and Nick Clegg are suggesting that we all walk backwards – odd, uncomfortable and unlikely to ensure progress. But why is this so odd? This kind of electioneering happens in many other countries. Take Denmark. There, a Liberal-Conservative government has been in power for almost a decade and across several elections, yet the two governing parties have gone to elections as separate parties, each with their own platform.

A week in, and I am loving the Conservative-led government. The new line-up of Secretaries of State is very impressive and, though a few solid Tory politicians missed out on Cabinet posts, the inclusion of the Liberal Democrat bench has swelled the government’s talent quota. David Cameron has infused No 10 with energy and purpose. You can just feel the umpf. As the former MP John Gummer said, there is now “smile on the face of Britain”. Foreign Secretary William Hague’s trip to the US set the right tone by calling the UK-US link “an unbreakable alliance”.

One of the most interesting questions is whether the Tories and the Lib Dems will be able to move from the talking points to the action points. Besides Ken Clarke, Francis Maude and William Hague none of the ministers have any previous government experience. They know government from the outside, from the sidelines, from parliamentary questions but not from the inside. It will be really interesting to see how the Cameron-Clegg government copes not just with the issues where they can set the agenda - like police reform - but where the Goverment is mugged daily by reality - like Pakistan or Yemen. I suspect they will find Labour acted not so much out of incompetence but in desperation. They will also find that because a government wills something does not make it so.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg want their coalition government to be seen as a reforming government. They can begin showing their seriousness today, as they fill out the junior ministerial posts in their government. Rather than appoint a slew of ministers, parliamentary secretaries etc, they should keep to one Secretary of State and one junior minister for each Department. Don’t listen to me; take the advice of such radicals as Sir John Major and Lord Douglas Hurd, who wrote in The Times in June 2009: "There are too many ministers. The total could be reduced by about a third. Only Cabinet ministers need parliamentary private secretaries. The Treasury should remain with two ministers, both in the Cabinet ....

In February I pontificated about the composition of Cameron-Clegg government - to general ridicule. The blogpost looks increasingly prescient now that David Cameron seems to be favouring a formal deal with the Lib Dems. Assuming that Lib Dem MPs will sit around the Cabinet table, what ministries should they get? The assumption is that the Lib Dems want six Cabinet post and will probably end with no more than four. The Conservatives cannot give up the Chancellorship, Education or the FCO - departments that are important for the leadership, its worldview and its reform agenda . Nor is it easy to see a Lib Dem in Defence or someone like Liam Fox passed over (even if it was for Paddy Ashdown).

Days, perhaps only hours away from the expected announcement of a Con-Lib deal, the Tory party rank-and-file is getting increasingly restive. Many MPs and party activists do not feel that Team Cameron has been sufficiently attentive to them and their concerns. They look longingly at the Lib Dems, whose democratic set-up enables MPs and party members to make their views known to Nick Clegg and the leadership. In a Tory party that has always favoured single-minded leadership, the options for representing rank-and-file views are few, particularly as the chairmanship of the 1922 committee remains vacant. As a result, many senior MPs have been reduced to calling hacks to find out what is actually going on.

David Cameron never really had a Clause 4 moment. True, the Conservatives never believed anything so absurd as socialist economics. But the fact that he never had a genuine dust-up with his party made many voters think that he had rebranded but not reoriented them. In the end, it made many would-be supporters wary of voting Tory. Now, the Tory leader may have a Clause 4 moment thrust upon him by virtue of the Lib Dem talks. For if a Con-Lib pact is to be made, it will include a lot of things the party finds unpalatable. Like Tony Blair's experience with the Labour Party over the Clause 4 discussions, some in the Conservative party will try to hold out against a coalition agreement and any compromise on Tory policies.

If you believe, as most people probably do, that Robert Chote of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Mervin King of the Bank of England should be listened to, then two conclusion emerge: one, that a new government’s budget-slashing will be far, far worse than anything the main parties have hitherto acknowledged; and that after a parliament of deficit-busting, the party in charge will be severely punished by the voters. It stands to reason, therefore, that it would be better to spread the pain, even if one party has a near-majority or an outright majority.

Gordon Brown knows he is finished. My prediction is that he will not use his constitutional right to hang on if the Tories are the largest party in a hung parliament. OK, the Labour leader might try to stay in No 10 – for a second, maybe a minute, perhaps even an academic quarter, trying desperately to persuade a triumphant Nick Clegg that a Lib-Lab coalition is vital for Britain, and that the Tories are evil and must be resisted. But he will soon give up, throw down the phone in anger, shout at Stewart Wood, ask his colleagues to leave him alone and sit in the office alone for a minute, acknowledging his Greek fate.

Today’s Express is reporting that David Cameron has said it would be wrong to set an 'artificial deadline' for withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, but that he hoped troops would come home during the course of the next Parliament.   In many ways this is smart politics. Given that President Obama has said that US troops would be looking to come home from 2011 onwards, it is hardly surprising that the Tory leader hopes British troops would return within the next five years. Other countries in Helmand, like Denmark, have begun signaling the same. The statement may – I say may – help those who care passionately about the war and who don’t feel at home with Labour and the Lib Dems.