Conservative party

Almost a year ago, David Cameron and Nick Clegg staged their love-in at the Downing Street rose garden. As I say in the News of the World (£) today, this era is now at a close. When they come back from the 5 May elections, Clegg and Cameron have agreed that they cannot go on as before. An agreement has been struck for an amicable separation. Not divorce — the coalition will keep going. But Cameron and Clegg will put clear blue (and yellow) water between them and drop the pretence that they agree on everything. The coalition is about to enter its Phase Two.   Clegg’s analysis is that Phase One was, perhaps, too successful. His over-riding mission was to prove to a sceptical Britain that coalition governments can work and don’t lead to sclerosis.

Crude politics has intruded on the Royal Wedding after all, and all courtesy of Peter Hain. The Shadow Welsh Secretary has complained — on Twitter, naturally — that the BBC's coverage of the event dwelt too long on David Cameron and Nick Clegg, and ignored Ed Miliband. "BBC airbrushing Labour like the Palace?" he asked leadingly. The Tory minister David Jones has since admonished him, "time, place, Peter." If Labour have much sense they'll play this down as efficiently as possible. Miliband, it is true, barely featured in the television coverage — but that's really beside the point. It is rarely smart politics to take on the Palace at any time. Yet on the day of the Royal Wedding it's just downright foolish.

Blimey. That was a weird one. PMQs was trundling merrily away when the house was suddenly engulfed in a whirlwind of insults and accusations. Even now the row rumbles on across the blogosphere. Cameron arrived at PMQs looking genial and well-sunned. Quite a contrast with his sallow-faced opponent. Perhaps Ed Miliband’s bookish ways have kept him in the reading-room during the heat-wave while Cameron was roaming his herbaceous borders uprooting dandelions and other troublesome yellow-heads. The session began with the usual blend of opportunism and hypocrisy. Miliband demanded to know why economic growth has flat-lined in the last six months.

Something has undoubtedly changed in the coalition in the past fortnight. Even those at the centre, who have been most loyal to the concept of coalition, are now happy to complain about the other side and its behaviour. But I’m still sceptical of all the early election speculation which has been sparked by Jackie Ashley’s very clever Guardian column. The main reason why I don’t think it will happen is the Cameron brand. Ever since David Cameron became leader of the Conservative party, the top of the party has believed that the protection of the Cameron brand is essential to electoral success. Cameron has too much personally invested in showing that the coalition can work to let it fail. The coalition is now key to Cameron’s whole political persona.

You know a political campaign has gone terribly wrong when a Cabinet Minister threatens defamation proceedings against the Prime Minister. And that is precisely what happened this weekend, when Energy Secretary Chris Huhne began snarling in the Sunday papers. Stating that the Tory claim that the AV electoral system would cost more was “demonstrably untrue,” Huhne said: “It is frankly worrying if you have colleagues, who you have respected and who you have worked well with, who are making claims which have no foundation in truth whatsoever. If they don't come clean on this I am sure the law courts will.

The AV referendum: it’s enough to make you long for the life to come. As James notes, this Easter Sunday has been shaken by the Lib Dems' righteous fury over the conduct of the campaign. Many will think this anger synthetic, but its virulence is striking nonetheless. Gone, it seems, is the bonhomie of earlier days, when ministers were surprised by how amenable they found each other. Perhaps they will now put aside childish things and trust in their better judgement. The AV furore is beginning to relegate the local elections, which might concern the government because these elections are paramount to its reform of local government.

A row over internships has upset this unfeasibly perfect spring day. The Prime Minister has given an interview to the Telegraph in which he contradicts Nick Clegg’s view that internships should be open to more than "the Old Boys". He says: “I’ve got my neighbour coming in for an internship. In the modern world, of course you’re always going to have internships and interns — people who come and help in your office who come through all sorts of contacts, friendly, political, whatever. I do that and I’ll go on doing that. I feel very relaxed about it.” There is a split, but I suspect it’s a calculated one.

It's a funny thing, reading the speech on AV that Nick Clegg delivered to the IPPR this morning. It starts off as you might expect: putting some distance between his party and the Tories. Everything is Liberal-this and Liberal-that, while "conservatives" are cited as the opponents of change and choice. But then, from nowhere, comes one of the most brutal attacks on Labour that Clegg has delivered in some time. "For every £8 we are cutting they would cut £7," he quivers. "To deny that reality is to treat the British people like fools." The New Statesman's George Eaton has sifted through the numbers here, but the main point is simply the sheer force of Clegg's words.

Barack Obama's budget plan has become a political debating point on this side of the Atlantic. Ed Balls set the ball a-rolling in an article for the Guardian this morning, which effectively claimed that the President isn't planning to cut the deficit as quickly as George Osborne is. "The truth is that it is Osborne himself who is isolated," is how he pugnaciously put it. But the Tories' Matthew Hancock has since responded — on Coffee House, as it happens — arguing that, actually, the Obama Plan is simpatico with what Osborne is doing. By way of hovering above the red-on-blue scrap, we thought we'd put together a comparison of Osborne's and Obama's budgets for the benefit of CoffeeHousers.