Tories

We know that europe and perhaps electoral reform will be difficult for the Tories and Lib Dems to agree upon. So let's talk about something else: tax. Cameron's email to Tory members today strikes just the right tone and says most of the right things. It makes it clear that he thinks there's a deal to be done and, importantly, reminds the membership that the Tories will have to give some things up too if the partnership is to be stable enough to last at least two years. That's important because it's one way of building trust and convincing the other party that you're serious. So, on tax, I'd suggest this as one potential way forward: 1. The Tories should make it clear that they are postponing their planned changes to inheritance tax*.

Tories are supposed to be pragmatists. That's why they're the traditional party of coalition in this country. On that front, it is interesting to see that John Major is suggesting that, to advance the cause of stability, Cameron should offer Clegg a number of cabinet seats. This seems sensible and, happily, would also improve the quality of the cabinet since, lord knows, there are a good number of Tories who ought to be kept well away from the Red Boxes. More interestingly still, it was notable today how both Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell were warm on the idea of a coalition and even, if necessary, some kind of electoral reform. Of course, they're both liberals, not social conservatives and as such are less tribal, perhaps, than some.

It stops at the Tweed. Dave was in Glasgow and East Renfreshire yesterday on the Scottish leg of his 36-Hour-Dash-To-Save-the-United-Kingdom but, while symbolically useful, it won't have done him or his party that much good north of the border. Today's Scotsman poll puts the Tories on 17% in Scotland. More remarkably, the Scotsman finds that Brown has a +4 approval rating in Scotland while Cameron endures a -2 rating. I can't help but feel that many of my compatriots are employing a double standard here. As Cameron put it: "Of course it is always frustrating when you are not always getting through." "I believe in the UK and I will always fight for a Conservative recovery in Scotland.

Paul Waugh has an excellent post on the difficulties and opportunities that will face Cameron if he falls short of winning a majority. Much of the commentary on this has hitherto focused on the difficulties but Waugh is right to suggest that, actually, a minority Tory ministry could probably pass a good deal of legislation and, just as importantly, effect change in other areas without the need for primary legislation. I doubt Cameron would want to run a minority government for more than 18-24 months but it's worth noting that Stephen Harper's minority ministry in Ottawa still stands and so does Alex Salmond's in Edinburgh.

My thanks to John O'Sullivan for his response to my post on Friday. A post that was so "well hidden" (as he puts it) that it was the top post for four hours and on my blog's front-page all weekend. I'm grateful too that he sees fit to remind me that the current electoral set-up gives Labour a considerable advantage. I wish someone had pointed that out sooner. Just to re-cap: Mr O'Sulivan thinks that the biggest question of this campaign is why the Tories aren't winning by more. To which I'd say that actually they are winning but that there are a number of other factors that prevent us from seeing this clearly. If Cameron beats Brown by seven points in the popular vote he will have beaten Labour by the same margin that Mrs Thatcher prevailed by in 1979.

Earlier today I took issue with John O'Sullivan's take on this election but do not let it be said that his views are the only odd ones available at National Review. Here's Dennis Boyles: I'm sure all good Tories wish Cameron well. But one could argue that a Cameron win might be the worst of all outcomes for the Tories. Call it the sorrow of granted wishes, but if he wins, the Conservatives will run on visionless, unimaginative, timid platforms for years. [...]As I said, party partisans surely would never wish it — and after this last week, it's a very unlikely outcome, anyway — but I ask Jack and Andrew, is it not possible that the best result for Conservatives next Thursday is a narrow Brown win, with Clegg finishing third?

The other day a wise friend, lamenting the "madness" of the people carried away with Cleggmania, fretted that it all amounts to the beginning of the end. For the Union, I mean. These days, you see, it's Unionists who are forever whistling an old song and always wondering if it's for the last time. I didn't, I admit, quite follow his argument but it had something to do with the Liberals in power, the advent of proportional representation leading eventually and inexorably to an English parliament and thus loosening the ties that bind to the point that they may be severed with a single blow of a Damoclean sword. Or something like that anyway. Conventional wisdom in Nationalist circles has always been that the independence cause is best advanced by a Conservative victory.

So it seems you have to vote Conservative to accept the party's invitation to join the government of Great Britain? Who knew? Tory warnings of the dire consequences of a hung parliament are understandable but, I suspect, unfortunate. There is little evidence that the electorate believes that a hung parliament will be a disaster, far less than they can be cajoled into thinking that they're letting Britain down if they don't vote Conservative. And that, my friends, is the underlying message sent by the Tories' blitz against a hung parliament. A hung election might not be ideal but it might also be a fitting end to this exhausted, depressing parliament. But it need not be the disaster the Tories claim. The PDF they released today - and the advert - is thin gruel.

I am not surprised that Paddy Ashdown says the Liberal Democrats cannot work with the Conservatives. He would say that wouldn't he? After all, Ashdown came close to selling his party to New Labour, lock, stock and barrel. Nevertheless, the idea that the Tories and Liberals cannot work together (though doggedly contested by this blog and a few others) is by now Westminster's latest piece of Conventional Wisdom*. I doubt that Andrew Neil likes to think of himself as a purveyor of the CW but there you have it: even he thinks a Con-Lib arrangement highly improbable.  Guido thinks differently and so do I. True, Nick Clegg would need to secure the agreement of his party before making any deal with Cameron and true too that this is usually seen as a major obstacle.

Jonathan Freedland is surely right: Labour's best hope, now that the electorate appears to have decided that "change" matters* and dismissed Labour's pretensions to offer that change, is to maximise its core vote in the hope of avoiding an electoral meltdown that would, say, leave them with fewer than 200 seats in the new parliament. If Labour aren't quite the walking dead the Tories were in 1997 that's because of the current constituency boundaries, not because there's any more life in the Labour campaign.

No electoral system is perfect. First Past the Post has its advantages and it's a mistake to suppose that switching to the Alternative Vote or multi-member constituencies elected by STV solves all problems. On the contrary it probably replaces one set of difficulties with another. Nevertheless, one wonders how sustainable FPTP is. Traditionally it has done a pretty good job of corralling extremism and producing more-or-less coherent governments that can command a majority in the House of Commons (and that can be unceremoniously turfed-oot once they've outlived their usefulness). Unfortunately - and increasingly - those governments enjoy only minority support in the country-at-large.