Conservative party

For a while then, it looked as though Britain and France really were going to share aircraft carriers as a mesure d'austérité. But, today, Liam Fox seems to have put a block on the idea, describing it in Paris as "utterly unrealistic". He did, though, add that we could pool some of our transport planes and helicopters with the French (which sounds like the military equivalent of hitching a lift, if we happen to be going in the same direction). And Fox's spokesman has since said that there still might be "strategic co-operation across the maritime domain," whatever that means. So some sort of link-up with the French should be expected.

Amid all the feverish commotion about cuts, it's easy to forget that it took the Tories until November 2008 to ditch Labour's spending plans - and, indeed, that it was barely a year ago when George Osborne first mentioned the c-word in public. Even David Cameron admits that this delay was his biggest mistake. It weakened his party's claim to foresight, and gave them less time to embed a new narrative about the economy before the election. So it's noteworthy that Alistair Darling exhumed this mistake on the airwaves earlier, telling the Beeb that "the Tories supported [our spending plans] until the end of 2008." This may sound like a cheap shot at Cameron and Osborne, but I expect we'll hear more of it in coming months.

Strange but true: the Cameroons are wary of a Labour Party led by David Miliband. The Guardian's Nick Watt has been eavesdropping and he's gathered a few choice quotes. Kool-aid drinking Tories say: "David Cameron said the candidate he hoped for was Ed Miliband, and the candidate he most feared was David Miliband."  "On the whole we would prefer if Ed Miliband won. His analysis that Labour has to go for a traditional Labour vote, rather than the middle classes, is absolutely wrong. The Ed Miliband analysis will lead them into big trouble." In spite of his best efforts, David Miliband is likely to win.

If there's one observation to make about Ed Balls's speech this morning it's that it's punchy stuff. His main point is that the coalition are "growth deniers" – not only do their "austerity and cuts" risk a slide back into recession, but they're also unnecessary. He explains: Attlee didn't make his "first priority ... to reduce the debts built up during second world war," and he left us with the welfare state – so why should we cut spending now? Et cetera, et cetera. These are, more or less, all arguments that we've heard from Balls before. But this is definitely the most concentrated form they have ever taken. It's an unrelenting barrage of Brownite economics. As always with Balls, there are exaggerations, inconsistencies and half-truths aplenty.

On Monday, I wrote that the question of whether the Budget is fair or not will "pursue the coalition more doggedly than any other". Yesterday, we saw just how dogged that pursuit will be. But there's no need for the coalition to panic as Mark Hoban did on the Today Programme yesterday. Instead, with policies from welfare reform to low taxes for low-income earners, they have built a firm redoubt from which to stage a counterattack. They can put the chase to their opponents. It is encouraging to see Nick Clegg do just that with an effective article in the FT today. He was bluntly dismissive of the IFS report yesterday, calling the organisation's work "partial".

Today's GCSE results demonstrate the tremendous success of City Academies, a hugely heartening trend given that this formula - which was so slowly rolled out under the Labour legislation which introduced them - can now be rapidly implemented under the new Academies Act. It's always been a con to look at the absolute results of Academies, as under Labour the only schools given such status were schools that were doing poorly. What matters is improvement. Let's take the three Academies groups and look at the ratio of  pupils winning five good GCSEs (i.e. A-C including English and Maths). In the The Harris Federation, which now runs nine schools, there was a 10 point increase. In the ARK academies, a 13 point increase. In the ULT Academies, an 8 point increase.

A week ago, I wrote that Nick Clegg had an important couple of weeks ahead of him. Now, the next couple of months are looking even more significant for the Lib Dem leader. An article in today's Independent captures the tone of what faces him: in the aftermath of the Charles Kennedy defection talk, Lib Dems have been shocked into demanding more from their leader. As the paper puts it, senior Lib Dems are calling for "more policy 'wins' ... to demonstrate to doubters in his party that he was delivering on Liberal Decocrat priorities."  Clegg probably hasn't faced such sustained internal pressure since he defeated Chris Huhne to the leadership in 2007. What strikes me, though, is how shortsighted much of that pressure is.

The quotes emerging, in advance, from Nick Clegg's Westminster Hour interview are a mix of the unsurprising and the intriguing. To the first category belongs his claim that "parties in government tend to get a dip in their popularity" – I mean, he's hardly going to say that the Lib Dems' decline in the polls is a disaster, is he? But this, for instance, belongs firmly in the second category: "If we weren't in a coalition now I don't think people would take any notice of the Liberal Democrats ....  If we were in a coalition with Labour, arguably our identity crisis would be even worse." In other words, the Lib Dems are better off in coalition – and they could well be better off in coalition with the Tories.