Europe

Post-election deals are tough for those on the wings of political parties - the activists, the die-hards, the idealists. Those in the middle, by definition the pragmatists, find it easier to prioritise aims or to compromise in the short-term in order to win over the long-term. Any Con-Lib deal will be tough for the left-wing of the Lib Dems and the right-wing of the Conservative party. But both will have to accept that power is better than opposition and that being able to implement part of your party programme is better than carping on the sidelines, your manifesto languishing on never-visited websites.

Europe is likely to play a big role in tonight’s debate. It is probably the one issue that divides the Liberal Democrats and the Tories as much as electoral reform. Nick Clegg, a former MEP and adviser to then-EU Commissioner Leon Brittan, is a euro-enthusiast who would like Britain to join the Euro, even if it takes time. David Cameron is a euro-skeptic (though not, to the chagrin of many CoffeHouse readers, obsessed about the issue).   But neither wants a confrontation with the EU and other European governments over the next four years - and the Liberal Democrats have become quieter over time about their pro-EU tendencies.

Since the Lib Dems starting surging there has been no shortage of speculation about the possible coalitions that may emerge after the election - Lab-Lib, Lib-Lab, Con-Lib. There has also been breathless speculation about what posts Nick Clegg might demand, including by yours truly.  But none have been as cleverly-written as Hugo Brady’s. A think-tanker for CER, Brady is predicting the rise of "Clameronism": 'Buoyed by a huge increase in the Liberal vote, Clegg at first opted for opposition. He bet that a swift second election was likely and that the Liberal Democrats would again double their seats. But the threat of a new financial crisis later that year spelt an end to normal politics.

The FT’s Jim Pickard writes: ‘Cameron will be cursing the order of the debates. He’d much prefer to be attacking Nick Clegg on domestic issues than foreign affairs on Thursday.’ I’m not so sure. Foreign Policy is the arena where the Tories are concrete, populist and accessible. The same is not true for the Lib Dems. Along with Iain Martin and John Rentoul, Pete noted that Ed Davey is vague on the Lib Dem Trident replacement policy. Davey's vague with good reason: the policy is hopelessly confused. The manifesto says: ‘Rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

The Conservative Party’s departure from the European People's Party came down to a choice of expediency over principle. If you are inclined to accept that Britain will stay in the EU and that membership helps this country - even if it requires some compromises - you will likely find the move unfortunate. If you are more concerned about the principles at stake – and feel that Britain’s loss of sovereignty has gone too far – and do not care about the loss of influence on the legislative process, you are likely to be in favor of the Tory move.   David Cameron is keen to keep the issue of Europe away from the campaign - and he is likely to succeed.

The Civil Service is readying itself for a new government. The BBC has already reported a discussion of efficiency savings among senior officials. In another part of Whitehall, work is a foot on how to set up a National Security Council should the Tories win. I have in the last few weeks been interviewing ex-ministers and senior officials as research for a RUSI paper, due out soon after the election, on how to improve the government's security set-up. Traipsing around various departments, a number of interesting conclusions have come to light: - Conservative ideas for an NSC are not the same as the government's NSID committee, however much ministers say it is, but there is yet no clarity on the Tory detail of what one official called "the second layer" of reforms.

As I said earlier, today's PMQs was all about giving the various parties' campaign messages a walk around the block.  Cameron's questions reduced down to "They've failed – give us a go".  Clegg pushed the Lib Dem's Labservative prospectus.  And Brown droned on about "£6bn being taken out of the economy," as well as about Lord Ashcroft and "securing the recovery". In which case, it's striking that Denis MacShane used a question to denounce the Tories' alliances in Europe.  Indeed, Peter Mandelson did exactly the same in a speech this morning.  Here's how he put it: "David Cameron chooses to sit alongside the xenophobes and homophobes in the European Parliament.

Euroscepticism is David Cameron and Gene Hunt's sole shared attribute. But, bequeathed a poisoned chalice at home, the EU is not a future Tory government's immediate priority. Set-piece battles over rebates, defence procurement and the CAP can be avoided for a time, but skirmishes will be a regular occurrence. And some of these will be bloodbaths. The first test comes in June, when EU finance ministers will consider hedge fund and private-equity firm regulation. There is no more contentious a topic. Recent European regulatory initiatives have impeded British financial services to the extent that even Brown and Miliband have taken note.