This is obviously because everything has been going so smoothly for the coalition… *cough*

We missed the Budget (which was better than expected), and Gove’s schools fiasco (which is actually still going on – see Thomas’ article below). We also missed the launches of the online efforts to get public ideas to put in October’s spending review, and for laws to be repealed by the Great Repeal Act.

Other than that some men have been kicking around balls in South Africa, inexplicably watched by millions across the globe. A German Octopus named Paul predicted that Spain would win. He was right. You honestly couldn’t make it up.

But whose was the shortest stint? There’s a lot of history to sift through, but Twitter has come to my aid.

Fox Maule was President of the Board of Control for 16 days in 1852 (5th to 21st February)

Thomas Milner Gibson was President of the Poor Law Board for 16 days in 1859 (24th June to 9th July), but then went on to become President of the Board of Trade, so stayed in the Cabinet.

Sidney Herbert was Secretary of State for the Colonies for 15 days in 1855 (8th-23rd February).

James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave was de facto (though the term did not yet exist) PM for 4 days in 1757 (8th to 12th June).

Earl Temple was Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary for 4 days in 1783, two of which were spent finding his successors.

William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath was de facto PM for 2 days with Carteret as Secretary of State in 1746 (10th-12th February). According to Wikipedia, the exact figure is 48 hours, 52 minutes, 11 seconds.

However, the unclear winner seems to be Robert Peel in 1839. He certainly accepted the Queen’s invitation on 8th May, but she asked Melbourne back the following day when she refused his proposed changes to the Royal Household. He would thus have been PM for about a day, and thus a member of the Cabinet.

The problem with this episode, as well as the 1746 Bath ministry is that they hardly count. Depending on your pedantry however, the safest winner would be Earl Temple with his 4 days in control of two of the largest departments. Poor guy.

According to the excellent Tim Roll-Pickering, the briefest ministerial (if not Cabinet) career was that of Lord Frederick Cavendish, appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland on 6th May 1882, and murdered that same afternoon.

A similar ministerial non-Cabinet career was that of George Cowper, who was Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office from 13-14th November 1834.

(Thanks go to Tim Roll-Pickering, James Burdett and Ian Burgess for helping me out via Twitter)

I very much hope he returns. He was able and competent, and possibly the only outwardly libertarian Cabinet member.

I have no opinion of Mr Alexander as yet, but I very much hope he rises to the occasion. He’s got some massive figurative shoes to fill, even if they were left by a physically small man.

With his resignation, Laws will have sought to retain some of his integrity and moral standing. To many, he should not have resigned at all, so his reputation will only increase. His noble political self-sacrifice will ensure that the perception of “new politics” will remain intact. He is the Coalition’s first martyr. Hopefully he will remain its last.

Edit: It turns out both the Prime Minister and his Deputy have indicated that they hope David Laws will be back in government at some stage in the future. I can’t wait until the next reshuffle.

The man is able, competent, and should remain as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. His private life is none of my business, and it has no bearing on his suitability for the job. It may be interesting as gossip, and some may find his expenses reprehensible, but he’s bloody good at his job and ought to stay.

Once upon a time our politicians could get away with just about anything. Lloyd George apparently sold peerages, Henry Temple, the 3rd Viscount Palmerston apparently seduced the young wife of a journalist at the age of 78, as well as having numerous affairs, and George Canning and Robert Stewart, Lord Castlereagh fought each other in a duel. Even Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington fought a duel as Prime Minister, and William Ewart Gladstone is said to have invited prostitutes into Number 10 for “correction”. These were all great men who did great things.

I said only a few days ago that Laws was one to watch. He still is.

One Conservative MP was relieved to see the return of Gladstonian liberalism to the treasury. Laws accepted the compliment and then added that he hoped to bring social liberalism to the job as well. Conservatives and LibDems all seemed to murmur in contentment.

With his blonde LibDem hair, his dark blue Conservative shirt and his Coalition green tie, Laws epitomised the spirit of the coalition, giving an assured and confident delivery. He batted away Labour objections, channelled comments from his own side against the opposition, and dealt calmly and confidently with an absolutely fuming Dennis Skinner. At one point he even managed to defend localism and attack Big Government.

Labour was clearly in disarray, although without the need for patronage and no clear leadership, their MPs should have been on top form at holding the government to account. As individuals they were, but they could not land a single blow on Laws. Poor Darling was reduced to making his main criticism (rather hypocritically) the fact that the announcements had not first been made in the Commons.

Laws is one to watch. I wonder if next time he’ll wear a blue tie with a green shirt… or maybe dye his hair?

“Wait? What?! Anton, you’re saying Clegg could use this to his advantage?”

That’s right, I am. Here’s how:

A conversation with a LibDem staffer helpfully revealed why Short money (that’s the state funding allocated to Opposition MPs) was so helpful. Not only is it extra cash, but it allows MPs to spend that money on researchers to help them hold the government to account. Well, it’s supposed to, in any case.

Now, I’d always thought it was part of an MP’s job description to be doing the researching themselves. Hec, that’s why we pay them isn’t it? Which brings me onto the opportunity. State funding of political parties is just plain wrong. But what about the Union and rich donor money the big two get (I hear the LibDems amongst you cry out in anguish)?! Well, Clegg’s already promised a cap on donations, so why not simultaneously ban the Short money?

Result? LibDems emerge on a higher horse than ever for getting rid of something unjustifiable, but which they thought they needed. Labour has its funding cut, and the Tories get away alright as they’re now in government. Sorted… aaaaathankyouverymuch! *Applause*

The snag? Oh dammit, I thought you wouldn’t bring that up!  Well, we don’t really know what the secret agreement between the parties is. Heck, the Tories may quite like the Short money (although I can’t quite see why they would nowadays as abolishing it damages Labour more), and well, we don’t really know if they were using it properly in opposition. Heading off scrutiny however would be perfectly done by just getting rid of it. Hard as I try, I can’t actually see a proper snag. Gwooon Clegg, show us a flash of political genius!

Let’s be clear. The 55% rule is for the dissolution of parliament when the government has NOT already lost a vote of no-confidence. In that sense, it has to be at a level higher than the MPs under the government whip so that the Prime Minister cannot just call an election for tactical reasons. As shown, 55% is the post-war average, but the ideal would be 65-66% as no post-war government has had that much control.

Dammit Davis! You’re wrong, and we’ve been through this already. At the same time, Dammit Government! Can we make sure everyone’s understood this by now – it’s been days! Where’s a spokesperson when you need one…?

This suggests a major concession to Nick Clegg. In effect, Cameron would need his full support in order to dissolve parliament for tactical reasons. The reform does entrench fixed term parliaments, but it doesn’t seem to go far enough. Many governments obtain significantly more than 55% of the seats, so it looks like this reform only really applies for 5 years, with Cameron expecting an outright majority at the next election which would allow him to effectively regain the ability to dissolve parliament. Nevertheless, despite these political manoeuvers, it does guarantee the stability of the coalition government.

So, what threshold would truly guarantee the supremacy of parliament over the government and party leaders in the event of a vote to dissolve parliament?

Looking at past parliaments, and taking into account Sinn Fein not taking their seats, here are the figures for how much control the government had of the House of Commons:

• 2005 (55%)
• 2001 (63%)
• 1997 (64%)
• 1992 (52%)
• 1987 (58%)
• 1983 (61%)
• 1979 (52%)
• Oct 1974 (50%)
• Feb 1974 (47%)
• 1970 (52%)
• 1966 (58%)
• 1964 (50%)
• 1959 (58%)
• 1955 (55%)
• 1951 (52%)
• 1950 (50%)
• 1945 (62%)

The average of this does indeed work out at 55%, which means that the 55% level is to some extent justified as the usual level at which a Prime Minister cannot just call an early, tactical election. However, if it is to be done properly, the new rule should ensure that the PM never has control. This would require a level over 64%, which is the highest in the post-war period, meaning that Scotland’s 66% for the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament looks quite sensible indeed.

The reality of course is that some sort of threshold is needed for the emergency shortening of fixed term parliaments. It has to be high enough so that no Prime Minister can simply use the majority under his command to dissolve parliament and hold a tactically timed election. Likewise, it has to be high enough for the opposition parties not to gang up on a minority government for tactical reasons. Let’s be clear – parliament would still be dissolved if there were a successful vote of no confidence and no alternative PM emerged to lead a government.

If anything, the move adds to the many rights of Parliament, strengthening its independence from governments and party leaderships. Unfortunately, some Conservative MPs are as confused as the Labour ex-heavyweights. Christopher Chope, Charles Walker and Richard Ottaway have all raised concerns.

This of course constitutes the coalition’s first failure: of communication. It needs to learn from this mistake and make sure that it doesn’t rely on everyone understanding the small print of the agreement. A successful government is one that people understand – we hear a lot of talk about ‘making unpopular decisions’, but let’s give people some credit: when they understand exactly why you’ve made a choice, they’re going to respect you for it. The new politics is about trusting people again instead of  hoarding their responsibilities within the corridors of Whitehall. Perhaps this government assumed too much of people and MPs and thought they’d understand automatically, without any explanation – but if you’re not talking, nobody can listen.

This must not happen again. The coalition was lucky this time as people are beginning to understand, it’s happened early on, and isn’t a particularly emotive issue for the population at large (even if a select few would rather die than see the constitution undermined). Please guys, let’s not make the same mistake again!

P.S. make sure you read this excellent piece on the issue. You will laugh. Guaranteed.