Is Clegg's only option now to join the Tories?

Ever since the Coalition government was formed a year ago with the intention of governing for five years, a single overarching question has hung over its ultimate long-term survival.

It is what would happen if and when membership of the Coalition became a political liability for one or other of its partners.

Well, to no-one’s great surprise, least of all mine, that question has now assumed a certain degree of urgency.

The Liberal Democrats’ calamitous performance in Thursday’s council elections will surely lead to fresh unease among party members over just how long they can go on being David Cameron’s fall-guys.

Even leaving aside the result of the referendum on the voting system, still to be officially announced as this column goes to press, it was a bad, bad night for Nick Clegg and his party.

The loss of Newcastle City Council to Labour after seven years was not the half of it.

That result merely restores what has always seemed to be the natural order of politics in the city after a Lib Dem interregnum which was initially a consequence of the post-Iraq backlash against Tony Blair.

More damaging by far was the slump to 15pc of the national share of the vote, some 22pc behind their Coalition partners whose support held steady from last year’s election.

There will doubtless be some bemused Lib Dem activists who wonder why they, rather than the Conservatives, are currently taking the political hit for the government’s spending cutbacks.

There are several reasons. For starters, while those who voted Tory last May were by and large supportive of the cuts, that is not necessarily true of Lib Dem voters.

It stands to reason therefore that Conservative support is holding up better in the wake of the cuts than that of a party whose supporters were more in sympathy with Labour’s more gradualist approach to deficit reduction.

More specifically, the cuts are disproportionately affecting many of the areas, particularly in the North, where the Lib Dems were doing quite well until Thursday night.

But the biggest and most fundamental reason for the Lib Dem collapse is that the decision to enter the Coalition, and the way Mr Clegg had handled the relationship with the Tories, has left many voters confused about the party and what it stands for.

Ever since Paddy Ashdown abandoned “equidistance” between the two main parties in favour of a closer relationship with Labour, it has been perceived as a centre-left party – a perception strengthened by its opposition to the war in Iraq.

In the light of this, Mr Clegg should perhaps have taken more care to appear as a reluctant participant in the Coalition, emphasising that he was joining it purely in the interest of providing stable government rather than out of any sense of policy convergence.

But by making it appear instead like he and ‘Dave’ were enjoying some kind of ideological love-in, he has alienated that segment of Lib Dem support for which the Tories have always been the enemy.

The end result is that Mr Clegg may well now face a leadership challenge, if not from fellow Cabinet member Chris Huhne, then quite possibly from someone outside the Coalition such as former deputy leadership candidate Tim Farron.

Given the Lib Dem collapse on his home territory of Sheffield, he may struggle even to remain an MP at the next election.

On the face of it, probably his best chance of retaining his seat would be to do something which many of us think he should have done a long time ago.

It is to join the Conservative Party.

When two tribes go to war....

At the beginning of this year, I wrote that if the Coalition government survived 2011, it would in all likelihood achieve its original objective of serving out a full five-year Parliamentary term.

What I was trying to say was not so much that it will all be plain sailing from 1 January 2012 onwards, but that if there was a point of maximum danger for the Cameron-Clegg government, it will come this year rather than any other.

The past few weeks seem to have proved the point, as tensions have erupted between the Coalition partners over a series of issues ranging from the NHS to immigration.

A year on from the opening TV debate between the party leaders which shaped the 2010 election campaign, serious commentators have started to pose the question whether another election might not be so very far off.

Last week I focused on the health reforms, and the ongoing Lib Dem-inspired backlash against health secretary Andrew Lansley's plan to hand control of the NHS budget to GPs.

Although they refrained from saying as much, the Lib Dems will doubtless have been privately rubbing their hands with glee at Mr Lansley's humiliation at the hands of Royal College of Nursing conference on Wednesday.

The yellows showed no such restraint however when Chancellor George Osborne suddenly enlivened what has thus far been a sleep-inducing campaign on whether to change the voting system.

Mr Osborne criticised the role of the Electoral Reform Society in simultaneously receiving taxpayers' money to run some of the referendum ballots and helping to fund the Yes campaign, saying: "That stinks frankly."

The comments earned the Chancellor a rebuke from his own Lib Dem deputy, chief secretary to the treasury Danny Alexander, who accused his departmental boss of "pretty desperate scaremongering."

It showed that, although the two sides have agreed to disagree on the subject of voting reform, it is very hard to have a civilised disagreement when the whole future of how we conduct our politics is at stake.

Predictably, however, the week's biggest Cob-Lib bust-up arose over Prime Minister David Cameron's decision to make a speech highlighting the impact of immigration on local communities.

Lib Dem Cabinet colleague Vince Cable said his words were "very unwise" and that the PM risked inflaming extremism.

Partly this was down to the timing of the speech, three weeks before some local elections in which the British National Party will once more attempt to make inroads.

But it also exposed real disagreements over the issue at the heart of the Coalition, with business secretary Dr Cable consistently arguing that putting a cap on immigration will limit firms' abilities to recruit key workers.

The Lib Dems have pointed out that Mr Cameron's wish to take net migration back to the levels of tens of thousands a year rather than hundreds of thousands is Conservative, as opposed to government policy.

The Coalition Agreement speaks merely of an "annual limit" on people coming to the UK from outside the European Union for economic reasons, making no reference to specific numbers.

One of the commentators who openly speculated this week that the Coalition might not see out its five-year term was the constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor.

He pointed out that while the leaderships of both parties will almost certainly want to hug together until the end, the fate of coalitions is determined by restless, committed party members whom leaders cannot always control.

Mr Bogdanor is right to point out that it is the wildly differing nature of the two parties' memberships that gives the Coalition its inherent instability, while the good relations between their respective leaderships have hitherto been its biggest strength.

If this week's events are anything to go by, however, that may not always be the case.

A listening government - or a government in retreat?

Of all the changes introduced by the Coalition government since it took office last May, it is fair to say that its proposed reforms to the National Health Service have been the most politically controversial.

What about the cuts, I hear you say? Haven't they caused much more widespread public anger and made a much deeper impact on local communities?

Well, yes. But there was a broad political consensus dating back to well before the general election that spending cutbacks needed to be made – the only real disagreement being about the extent of them.

More importantly, the Coalition had a mandate for them. Labour lost the election primarily because, rightly or wrongly, the party was seen to be in denial about the size of the deficit and the remedial action needed to address it.

By contrast, the NHS reforms were not even spelled out in the Coalition Agreement, which infamously promised that there would be "no more top down reorganisation of the NHS."

Indeed, the agreement implicitly accepted that Primary Care Trusts would remain, promising a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local PCT."

However when the legislation was published, it turned out that health secretary Andrew Lansley was proposing the abolition of PCTs and the transfer of their entire commissioning role to GPs.

Much of the anger felt by Liberal Democrats over the reforms can be traced back to this piece of perceived duplicity on Mr Lansley's part.

There is said to be anger in Number 10 at the way Mr Lansley has handled the reforms – but to my mind the fault lies more with Downing Street for not paying sufficient attention to their likely political impact.

As with the Forestry Commission sell-off debacle, No 10 seems to have been so focused on deficit reduction in the government's early days that it took its eye off the ball in other, seemingly less contentious areas.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg must bear some of the blame too, for not realising the strength of feeling in his own grassroots against the proposals.

It is only since his party's Spring conference delivered a huge thumbs-down to the reforms that Mr Clegg has started to argue for changes to the legislation.

So it was no great surprise that, this week, the government was forced to announce it was taking a raincheck on the implementation of the reforms while it conducted a further "listening exercise" with the public and health professionals.

It amounted to an admission that the reforms had been introduced without the necessary buy-in from either the public or, more importantly, those people who will be charged with making them work.

Should we see it as the prelude to a dramatic U-turn? Or is it simply a belated effort by Prime Minister and ex-PR man David Cameron to 'sell' the proposed changes?

Time will tell….but Mr Cameron's apparent openness to changes in the legislation suggests this is more than mere window-dressing.

The backbench health committee of MPs, for instance, wants to see the new fund-holding commissioning bodies drawn from a much wider membership, including councillors and hospital doctors.

Although this is more in tune with the spirit of what was in the original Coalition agreement, any weakening of the central proposal to hand power to GPs will be seen as a major political reverse for Mr Cameron.

The political commentator Benedict Brogan said of this week's events: "The underlying impression was one of an administration in retreat, forced to trim on policy because it got the politics wrong."

Mr Cameron is finding that the line between being a "listening government" and a "weak government" is sometimes a very fine one.