To me, to you: The first day of the Chuckle Brothers Coalition

By David Higgerson on May 13, 10 01:19 PM

One common theme seemed to dominate the morning press today - a sense of sneering at the new Con/Lib government - better known in Fleet Street as a 'love in.'

With the tents being taken down on College Green, Kay Burley back in the Sky News studio away from the chants about being sacked, and Adam Boulton perhaps dreaming of a sunshine break, the serious business of parliament is resuming.

To me, what we saw yesterday was the creation of the Westminister version of the Chuckle Brothers: Quite amusing as a double act in front of the Press, but how much can we, as the electorate, trust them to get things right?

In fact, how much trust can voters for each party place in their respective party to honour the manifesto commitments which, just seven days ago, 65% of the voting nation passed judgement on?

Judging by the six-page agreement which binds the coalition, I think the answer to that second question is: Not a lot. There's a definite air of 'to me, to you' ala the Chuckle Brothers, about it.

The Tories gave way on inheritence tax - ironically, the George Osborne masterstroke at the 2007 Conservative conference which prompted Gordon Brown to shelve his snap election plans - and in return, the Lib Dems agreed to faster 'deficit reduction' plans.

The Lib Dems get their way on spending more money on schools in deprived areas, while the Tories sort of get their own way on scrapping the 'jobs tax.' Interestingly, employees will pay the increased amount, but not employers. Magically, the Tories stop calling it a 'jobs tax' and instead call it a 'national insurance rise.'

The Lib Dems caved in on immigration, so the Tories get their annual cap, but in return get political reform - something the Tories opposed.

Of course, there are areas of agreement, especially around the environment and schools in general. But if you voted for either the Lib Dems or the Tories, how do you feel now the headline-grabbing policies and long-held beliefs have been put to one side so the two parties can sit around the Cabinet table?

Then there are more sinister elements to the plans, such as a 55% majority being needed in parliament to call an election, rather than just a majority. Such a move makes it nigh on impossible for an election without Tory support - a situation which would be acceptable if the Tories had an outright majority, but that wasn't the result last week.

The argument here is around stable government - but there are better ways to achieve that than by stifling fair democracy.

Cameron and Clegg will be hoping voters come to realise that what they've done is for the best, and that such a move will set them in good stead to win the 2015 general election.

If things go well, Cameron will hope for an outright Tory majority - pointing out that if people do want his manifesto to come to pass, then they need to elect him outright. Does the same argument work well for the Lib Dems? Or will their members feel too much has been sacrificed?

Of course, if it all goes belly up, Labour should get a clear run back into Number 10.

My hunch is that behind the smiles in the Downing Street garden yesterday, there are a lot of people hoping Cameron and Clegg will fail, rather like viewers watching the Chuckle Brothers. In other words, how long until they drop the box?