I wonder if Guido will crow about this...

The budget Britain needs was delivered in Ireland

Ireland teetering on the brink of a double dip recession?

Thought not.

Can't see the futility of Ireland's slash and burn Budget making much of an impact on Gideon, either.

Good Government Intervention

It was Ronald Reagan, one of the few Presidents to die before his term ended without anyone noticing, who, in order to pick up some ignorant voters who lived in the square states who didn't like having to have driving licenses or tell the authorities they owned a gun, and some more informed voters who lived in the cities and sat on the boards of big companies and didn't like having to deal with the government (or pay taxes), told people that "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

This summed up his anti-government philosophy perfectly, that government can't do everything (or shouldn't) and therefore it should do as little as possible. Keir was reminded of this (and all the pre-election warning that Cameron was, at heart, a small-government Tory) when he read that Southern Trains had decided that 'refreshed' trains put onto the 90 minute long Portsmouth to Brighton service wouldn't be refitted with toilets. Previously, toilet-less trains have existed (this ludicrous in its own right, disabled? Pensioners? People with bladder and urinary tract problems? (maybe they should take the bus? Oh, wait...)) but only on shorter routes.

Interestingly, in the initial news report (posted on a blog here) there is comment from the Department of Transport that is removed from the link above. Hmmmm.

The Department for Transport said there were no rules on whether or not toilets should be available on trains.

"We expect rail companies to provide a good service," he added.

"However, it is not for the Government to micromanage the industry."

No, Keir thinks it is regulating in cases like this that is exactly what the government should be doing. How far does the government step back? When does managing become micromanaging? This is letting Southern get one over, and more likely than not, save money while doing so. The Department should step in and force minimum standards on trains that will be travelling over a certain distance; just like they should be trying to talk sense into Michael O'Leary about Ryan Air and their ideas over charging for the toilet. Or maybe this is one for the Big Society?

Office of the Ministry of the Department

The Clegg has been stating (what once might have been accepted as) the obvious recently. (Some of the responses there are cringeworthy. P.S especially that one)

Otherwise, there are some familiar stories knocking about, that set Keir onto Google, wracking his brains for where he had seen it before. The excellent Political Scrapbook outlined at the end of August the issues facing Nick Clegg's office, with reports from the Standard and the Gruniad that Nick Clegg's team was 'frazzled' by being in office, and unclear of its role and purview in government. (Unsurprising really since they've not had much practice at it)

This tittle tattle was confirmed yesterday in slightly more professional and delicate terms by a report from the Institute for Government: "Clegg must be better resourced, or else the sheer overload of information will overwhelm him."

And it seems the reports advice on assisting Clegg and other Lib Dem govenrment ministers while increasing their influence and 'watchdog' role in government is simple. More SpAds. Oh, whats that, another Lib Dem cherished principle being dropped. Put that [slightly less significant] one with tuition fees and Trident.

So, other than being the second tick in a single tick system, (hands up who really thinks the Clegg has a true veto?) what exactly is it that Nick Clegg does that is making his team so frazzled? Spend all his time redrawing constituencies? (Apolitically of course)

Iain Martin at the Wall Street Journal has an interesting idea about his future at least.

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock

Keir always thought this government would last no more than two years. The signs are ominous/promising, however you want to look at it.

Simon Hughes' open discontent regarding David Cameron's housing proposals today is a meaningful moment. Hughes has always been held in high regard by liberals and progressives, and with good reason. A member of the Beveridge Group, Hughes' views have always been compatible with progressives in this country. And today he showed he isn't afraid to speak out against a government he knows is doing wrong. Unlike his peers Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, Hughes doesn't seem too fussed about power and doesn't want to sell out his principles. Sadly for him, his party did that on his behalf. Even the things he has said regarding the coalition have been sensible and far-removed from the brown-nosing "I thought this was a good idea all along" attitude of Deputy Dawg. Hughes is right, of course. He is right when he says that the point of social housing is to provide security. Being in social housing means, as he said:

"You know you can have affordable housing for the rest of your life and for people in many walks of life – out of work, retired, on low incomes – that's fundamentally important."

That is the view of the progressive. And it is diametrically opposed to the view of the Conservative. The Tories are intransigent on issues like this; especially now during a time when they are being smokescreened by the view that all of these cuts are necessary.

In addition to today's disaffection, Hughes also passed comment on Michael Gove's mental free schools plan last month. "A nonsense" is what Hughes said it would be to spend money on free schools that could have been spent improving existing school buildings. And God knows what Hughes thinks of Theresa May's decision to scrap plans to ban domestic abusers from the homes of the victims. I'd forgive him if he was still sitting at home squinting at his screen, wondering whether he is actually reading that story correctly. I'm still confused now as to what is going on inside May's head.

Coalitions collapse over things like this. We all saw what happened in Holland over disagreements on Afghanistan troop numbers. And Belgium's coalition government collapsed over what I think can be deemed an even smaller matter than the housing issue; although the cultural factors in that particular case were complex. Then there was Romania's coalition catastrophe. In all of these cases, the splits were arguably between parties much more closely aligned by ideology than our current coalition.

Though I admire Hughes' defiance, I will wait for him to start voting against things until passing full judgement. He has a lot of respect throughout the party, as shown with his election to Deputy Leader, and therefore should have a lot more influence over the left-wing MPs than Messrs. Clegg, Cable, Alexander and Laws. If he feels this strongly, he could lead a revolt. But I get the feeling that he also wants to be sensible and try to make this odd coalition work.

Still, the possibility is there. It shows how fragile this Government is and it can collapse. What's the relevance? Labour must be ready to fight on the ground whenever the moment comes. Keir still feels this will be before the end of 2012. We need to begin mobilising now. And as soon as our leader is in place, we need to unite and begin the fight; whoever that leader is. Let's be clear though: that leader has to be the Member for South Shields in order to give us the greatest chance of winning.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.