All of this week I have been keeping an eagle-eye on the development of the Anglo-French defence treaty with ever growing interest. Then finally on Wednesday it was staring out at me from the front of my morning newspaper, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy posing for what surely must have been confirmation that the treaty was pressing ahead.

The HMS Ark Royal- Could the Royal Navy's flagship become shared?

I have a mixture of feelings on the whole issue. For those of you who don’t know what the treaty is suspected to entail, quite simply it will be be Britain and France taking armed forces alliance to a level never really seen before during peacetime. “This consists of such things sharing two aircraft carriers, one from each country, to even such high level army regiments such as the SAS being shared.

My immediate concern was due to this sharing. Let’s face it, the French aren’t really the greatest military race this planet has even seen are they? They didn’t even have time to dust off the ‘welcome’ mat before they had surrendered to the Third Reich. How can the French army compare to that of Britain, which is renowned for being very well trained if not very large. The Royal Air Force survived and won its stripes in the Battle of Britain and “so much” is quite deservedly “owed to so few”. Our Navy is and has been for the long period of around three centuries one of the most dominant powers on the sea in the world, whereas a Frenchman’s idea of Naval assault probably involves a Parisian waitress and a bath. France has seemingly a vast amount more to benefit from this deal than us.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the French, and my second main concern is that of misinterpretation. I think that Wednesday’s  Matt cartoon perfectly illustrates this. The cartoon showed an aircraft carrier with two crashed jet planes on the right and a dotted line down the middle of the landing platform. On one side of the runway it had ‘tenez la droit’ or ‘keep right’, whereas on the other end was written keep left. During any military alliance there always has been and always will be a very high risk of mistranslation (why do you think the ‘special’ alliance so special?!) and with the SAS under a Frenchman’s control or vice-versa this risk is magnified. We as a country linguistically are about as skilled as a socially inept hedgehog, many people can’t even speak their own language correctly. I am surprised that Matt even thought it was worth it jotting down the brief extract of French on his aircraft carrier. Mistranslation and the need for translation will cause problems at the top all the way down the ranks, and will end up slowing the whole of the armed forces down.

Having only explored these negative factors so far, I don’t even think that the treaty is even a bad idea. I really don’t believe that in today’s society one needs to have a considerably sized army, but a well equipped one. This treaty will just mean that Britain and France will look after each other’s interests, which can only increase both armies effectiveness. In an age of restriction and too many cartoons of oversized axes I think that this deal is not only very clever, but also very necessary. Overall I think that Cameron and Sarkozy have got this one right, even if on the latter’s part it is a last attempt at political survival.

David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, the two main perpetrators of the treaty.

These words have been bandied about recently by members of parties from all sides. Labour in particular has taken up the torch, pushing truly to warn against the damage the austerity package could do. They simply refer to the looming threat of a second period in which the economy recedes.

The evidence that this is not likely to take place lies in a spread of areas: firstly, both the conservatives and liberal democrats believe that this will not be the outcome, secondly, the aftershocks of the recession, such as the bailout of a regional bank in Spain (CajaSur), are simply that, aftershocks. A third point of discussion argues that there is no likelihood of us ever defaulting, and so simply no need for the markets to go into freefall. Others might argue that as the market is a prediction device, rather than a reactor to current events these things will not affect it.

Political forces like Vince Cable, and similarly trusted politicians, may however, be able to encourage people to spend regardless and at least not to worry, though how effective this may be remains to be seen. It is difficult to evaluate the worth of this side of the argument, as the state of our economy is so precarious, and the papers do little to advocate the worth of such measures.

However the evidence for the contrary is perhaps more persuasive. It rests on a number of factors ; The recent bailout of the aforementioned Spanish bank, which comes amidst rising turbulence in the European Union, which includes Angela Merkel’s weakening support in Germany, France’s threat to leave the Euro (which would have truly catastrophic affects for everyone), and the Greek bailout. Not to mention that new worries have been extended on the subject of Spain’s economic situation by the IMF. All of these weaken their respective exchange rate, and as members of the European Union ourselves are likely to lead to bigger payments from us, and certainly a decline in investor confidence here and abroad. Combine this with escalating tensions in North Korea, as they sever ties from South Korea, which has destroyed investor confidence in both countries, as fear of a war looms.

Accompanying this, the sheer scale of debt : 893 billion pounds in Britain alone, and over 10 trillion in America, is horrifying.

Couple this with forthcoming austerity measures from George Osbourne which are likely to induce people to save money out of fear for their jobs and further cuts which may lead to them needing to say transfer their child to private school, or not go on holiday all of which remove money from the economy. He, disliked by many, will find it difficult to sell his cuts, particularly as the 6 billion only just announced have cut money from almost every budget and still found only that sum.

Unfortunately, it is exactly words like austerity that encourage people to save rather than to spend, and considering the pathetic growth rate of the United Kingdom’s economy, 0.3% in Q10, it would be only too easy to return to recession.

What do you think? Comment Below

“The press and politicians would have you think that David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s arrival at 10 Downing Street means the big questions of how we do politics have been settled. No more rallies, no more protests, no more calls for fair votes now.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

There will be a referendum on changing the voting system – and you helped make this happen. AV may be a small step in the right direction, but it’s not a fair, proportional system. The politicians need to understand that we demand more. We want fair votes. And on Saturday they’ll hear us. Our voices still matter. We still have time, and we still have the power, to send a deafening message to the new government demanding a fair electoral system.” – Pam Giddy, Take Back Parliament.

Current estimates suggest that AV would result in only around one in every 75 seats switching hands, which is only around 8. It has become abundantly clear that our own system FPTP no longer works, with AV now the consensus option. But it’s far from reform. It doesn’t even attempt to ensure that everyone’s views are represented, just that the MPs elected are okay with a majority of the votership in each seat. That leaves us with at least 40% of votes uncounted in that seat, and of the 50% many in marginal constituencies may still be reasonably unhappy with that vote despite having ‘OKed’ it.

In a few months, perhaps a few years, we will be able to judge the success of this coalition government. But the clear message now is that it can be done, and that we will be able to do it again. All the problems that once arose from Proportional Representation have now been dismissed, and with AV +, the MP remains responsible to his constituents, whilst a proper and fair system of proportional representation is still in place.

If you’re interested in protesting, or would just like to sign the petition head on over to Take Back Parliament. Also comment below and/or follow us on twitter!

David Cameron (CON) is the man in charge as Prime Minister and to his right will be Nick Clegg (LIB) in his role as Deputy Prime Minister with the added dispensation to clean up politics and reform the system.

As Foreign Secretary, William Hague (CON) retains the position he earned in the shadow cabinet, and will also be Chairman of the Northern Board of the party, fighting to reshape the perception of the party in the north of England. The next top job falls to George Osbourne (CON), in an appointment some may consider a surprise, having become Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Theresa May (CON) become Home Secretary, and gains the remit of being the Minister for Woman and Equality as Harriet Harman was in the last parliament. Dr Liam Fox (CON) has become Defence Secretary, despite being shadow health secretary under both William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith.

Lord Ken Clarke (CON), seen as a thatcherite by many for his hard-line right views and his years of service in the Major and Thatcher government’s, leading Britain out of its previous recession, has become Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State For Justice. Andrew Lansley (CON) is now Health Secretary, whilst Michael Gove (CON) is Education Secretary. Vince Cable (LIB), once toted as a possible chancellor, and deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats has fallen to Business Secretary but will be part of several committees linked with taxation and banking. Iain Duncan Smith (CON) takes over Work and Pensions and Chris Huhne (LIB) will now be Energy and Climate Change Secretary. David Laws (LIB) seen by many as on the liberal side of the Liberal Democrats economical policies will become Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Danny Alexander (LIB) will be Scottish Secretary. Patrick McLoughlin (CON) will remain Chief Whip. Eric Pickles (CON) becomes Communities and Local Government Secretary. Dominic Grieve (CON) becomes Attorney General. For Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt (CON) will take up the mantle. Baroness Warsi (CON) will become Conservative Party Chairman.

Caroline Spelman (CON) is environment secretary; Philip Hammond (CON) is transport secretary; Cheryl Gillan (CON) is Welsh Secretary; Owen Paterson (CON) is Northern Ireland secretary; Lord Strathclyde (CON)  is leader of the Lords. Details of the new Policies can be found on the BBC.

LATEST : David Cameron has just left Buckingham Palace and is now Prime Minister, having formally signed the agreement with the Queen. He has arrived at 10 Downing Street, place of dreams.

ON THE SPEECH : There are “Deep pressing problems”,but Cameron has decided to form a “proper and full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats” and “put aside party differences”, “to take difficult decision”  and form a “strong government, to “rebuild trust in our political system”, reforming parliament and ensuring that politicians are always “their servants and not their masters.” He asks us to be responsible to our country, and to have a sense of duty, and that “those who can should” and that “we will always provide for those who cannot.” He wants to build a society of “freedom, fairness, and responsibility,” by rebuilding our communities.

It has finally happened. At this very moment Gordon Brown is on his way to speak to the Queen, only minutes away from handing over power to a Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition, which David Cameron will lead. It remains to be seen what the terms of the agreed deal are, and the Liberal Democrats federal executive committee still does not meet until 9.30pm and he requires a 75% majority, but it has become evident that the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have agreed some sort of a deal. He has spent a while with the Queen, explaining the process to the Queen, and how he will form a majority.

Gordon Brown’s departing words where “I wish the next prime minister well as he makes the important choices for the future. Only those who have held the office of prime minister can understand the full weight of its responsibilities and its great capacity for good. I have been privileged to learn much about the very best in human nature and a fair amount too about its frailties – including my own.” He made a gracious exit, with his two sons and wife with him, and has quickly been greeted with good wishes from members of the press and MPs.

The deal still has to be ratified tonight at 9.30pm, and Simon Hughes, a senior member of the Liberal Democrats, stated that “I will use my head rather than my heart, and if it’s something I believe will deliver the sort of more liberal and more democratic future that I’ve fought for for 30 years or more then I’d be prepared to support it.” But the question still remains as to the nature of the deal, despite many Conservatives being highly optimistic about it. The draft agreement included a fixed-term parliament of three years or more and an agreement by the Liberal Democrats not to vote against them while they are in power. There is also said to be no tax now on the first £10,000 one earns according to Lord Carlile. Whether this is in the final agreement remains to be seen.

Labour will begin its search for a new leader over the coming months, but it is expected to take until July.  Harriet Harman will now be Acting Leader of the Labour Party. Already the spin has begun from Labour, as Peter Mandelson excused the loss, saying Labour had had”a good, long innings”, whilst Ed Balls pointed to their losing the election as a fault of Gordon Brown supporting the country rather than focusing on politics often.

The question now to be asked is what to expect from the new leader. We’ll be reviewing key points of the manifesto shortly when the deal is announced. Comment below or follow us on twitter.

“The idea that the two parties that suffered most in this election, that were rejected by the electorate, that in the case of the Labour party lost a hundred of its seats, should put together an illegitimate government, this is the Robert Mugabe style of politics,” says Conservative MP and former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind. “It’s exactly what Mugabe did you know, he lost the election and scrabbled to hold onto power.” But that is the way Senior Liberal Democrats are attempting to pull Nick Clegg, despite him being one of the most right leaning Liberal Democrats in modern history. Unfortunately Labour members from Jim Fitzpatrick to a prominent scottish labour mp, as yet unnamed have expressed doubt in the ability of their party to form a workable coalition.

In terms of the Labour Leadership contest, Harriet Harman appears to have bowed out, saying that as Deputy Leader she cannot stand for Leader of the Labour Party, though it is unclear whether this means she intends to step down, as some have suggested. David Milliband is still the favourite, with some newspapers suggesting that Ed Miliband will also stand, either to help his brother by splitting the left, or with the real intention of becoming Leader of the Labour Party.

In other election news last night’s take back parliament protest went well, and the leaders are pushing the idea that they have been successful as “Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats heard our voices that proportional representation must be part of any coalition deal. They have now begun formal negotiations with the Labour Party, who may be inclined to offer this essential reform if the Tories refuse.” They also are cheered by the Tories offer of an Alternative Vote Referendum.

In short, Cameron is offering fixed-term parliaments and a referendum on Alternate Vote which he has just phoned Nick Clegg to discuss. Labour on the other hand offer on fuller proportional representation and a bill on the Alternate Vote scheme. It remains to be seen whether without a leader of the party how cast-iron Labour’s offer will be. Alistair Darling seems to hold little hope insisting that they are necessary but that he’s unsure if anything will come of it. At 10 o’clock the Liberal Democrats will meet to discuss the offer once more.

Michael Gove, the shadow minister for education would have us think that there is “unanimous” support among Tory MPs and peers for offering the Lib Dems a referendum on electoral reform, but all his comments are really showing is the Conservative desire to sign the deal and get into parliament. Most of Labour have given up, despite the talks, as the pact is unworkable, as it fails to secure them a majority, even despite the fact that Sinn Fein have never sat in on parliament. Labour MP Diane Abbott says that “tragically, the numbers mean that a Lib-Lab pact would be least stable”.

Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the labour party is also set to make a speech at some point, outlining the future of the party. We’ll have news tomorrow on the speech and all the events as soon as they unfold. For now comment below, or contact us on twitter.

As Tory-Lib Dem talks move further on, Brown has finally announced that he will step down. It will perhaps signal the hope of a new wave to Lib-Lab talks which may even lead to a new coalition, though that seems unlikely considering its dependence on nationalist parties which may well cost them dear. Nick Clegg has finally agreed to set up official, formal talks between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Now the challenge is for Labour to decide upon a new leader who can pull the Liberal Democrats away from Labour. Constitutionally, the argument goes that an unelected Labour Prime Minister would not be unconstitutional as we have a parliamentary democracy whereby we vote for our local candidate who joins part of a block in parliament that elects a leader to speak for it, rather than the public electing a leader in the same style as a presidential democracy. Obviously the criticism is that after the TV debates and the past few years developments in politics, people vote more and more for the Leader and the party than just the party and its candidate.

But it is necessary to remember that Labour now lack a leader which it will take a while to elect democratically from within the party and the two parties together lack a majority. The ultimate sacrifice for the coalition or a vain gesture in the hope of keeping his party in power?

Fantasy Cabinet anyone? Tweet us, or comment below.

Amid emerging news that Liberal Democrat negotiators met with Labour, alongside this is the new developing story that at 5pm today Liberal Democrats will meet to once and for all decide just how important fair votes are, not just for themselves but for the people of this country. Anyone who feels strongly on this matter should join the waiting crowd outside The Work Foundation, at 21 Palmer Street wearing purple.

On a broader note, an increasing number of Liberal Democrats have been debating the renewed possibility of Lib-Lab time-limited coalition, though the obvious objection regarding the sacrifices that would have to be made to the nationalist parties has once again been raised. Dr Richard Grayson, former Lib Dem policy director said that “Any deal with Labour would have to be time-limited. I think, for example, if a deal could be done for two years that would allow emergency measures to be taken on the public finances, that would allow a referendum on electoral reform and some re-drawing of boundaries, the people would know that they’re going to get a chance to vote [after that].” But many of the Labour MPs have unfortunately been quoted as thinking that Gordon Brown has ‘blown’ his chance of forming a parliament, by simply sitting there waiting.

The obvious question to ask now is simply, what would Tony Blair do? As ex-prime minister, despite dropping lower and lower in the polls and in parliament before he resigned, has never failed to be dynamic and charming. He was truly a love-hate character in a way that the PM never was, and it was clear that had he stood for election once more, he would either have been thumpingly beaten on account of the two wars, or he would have been heralded from the roof tops, and perhaps even increased his majority. But even if he had not managed either of those two things, considering his relationship with the Liberal Democrats he certainly would have been first to be approached by them, and would never have suffered the humiliation that Brown must now face as he waits in Parliament for the phone call that will tell him his fate.

As always comments below, or you can check out our twitter!

I’ve been waiting to put my two cents in. Nick Clegg’s just headed into the Liberal Democrats headquarters so we’ll see what happens there. For now, you’ll have to abide with me (well, if you want.)

Naturally, I’m a labour supporter. I tend to side with Labour because I want my vote to be helping others not just myself. This is the way I see Labour’s principle of redistributing wealth, that it is necessary to spread this burden in a way that helps the poorest because everyone deserves a certain Quality of Life.

Labour have diverged a lot from that principle. I’m ashamed to say that I think Labour have failed us, on more counts than one. There have been good things in the past few years but crucially there has been a huge split between where we were meant to be going, to where we ended up. Gordon Brown has not been radical, he’s not been elected, and he hasn’t been a driving force in any way. That’s not to say Brown doesn’t have his plus points, as I’m sure he does, as rarely reported as they are.

But the Conservatives have always illustrated selfishness to me. They favour lower taxes, and less government, which means less job creation in the public sector and less money for the poor. You don’t have to agree with this. In fact I hope you don’t, so long as your reason not to is solid.

I’ve been flip flopping all day about how I think this will go. Labour and the Liberal Democrats seem less and less likely to sign a pact, but then more and more Liberal Democrats are beginning to question their party on the basis that it might join the right-wing Conservatives who are far away from its principles. Some of the Tories support proportional representation, but a huge majority hate the very idea because it won’t result in them holding power very often, and it will result in so-called ‘weak government’. So in theory a Lib Dem-Tory pact should be off the cards, but now more than ever it seems well and truly on the cards, though whether this is all just for show remains to be seen.

It’s also important to note that the Conservatives received ONLY 36% of the vote. That has never been, until now, sufficient to form a government. They can tell you how many seats they’ve won, how they’re the only party who can legally govern but their share of the vote would not be sufficient anywhere else to govern. I apologise for how biased that may appear, but I wanted to make the fact clear.

Will there be the new kind of politics that the Liberal Democrats used to want? Or will we just see a quick election and a Conservative majority?
I don’t know. And nor does anyone else. So register your comments below and we’ll see if you can beat the experts.

Reminder : Everything’s happening on the BBC

Some New links :

Tory Teenager : Self-explanatory really, a blog.
Labour List : Labour themed Discussion
Lib Dem Blogs : A whole list of Liberal Democrat posts. My personal favourite.