David Came, Ron (more's the pity)

International lawyer and Liberal Democrat supporter Philippe Sands spoke for millions last night when he said it had been a "gut-wrenching moment" to watch David Cameron on the steps of 10 Downing Street due to his own party's blessing. For myself, although of course there was the fascination of being able to witness a transfer of power at Westminster for only the second time, I just had an overwhelming sense of a country moving backwards. In a way it's reminiscent of George W Bush coming to power at the worst possible moment - a slightly unfair observation, perhaps, as no-one would doubt Cameron's intellect and articulateness, but all the same he does boast a bona fide neocon in his cabinet.

*

Ironically, one of the 'political reform' concessions wrought from the Conservatives by their new coalition partners is one that - in a way - makes Britain a less democratic country than it was before. Fixed-term parliaments are an excellent idea in principle, but five years? Given that five years is currently the absolute maximum and that many parliaments finish earlier than that, this plan simply means that the public will be consulted on who should rule them even less frequently than they are at present. How is that progress? It should have been four years at most, although Australia gets along quite happily with three - and I sometimes think the Chartists had it right all along. Annual general elections to keep them on their toes.

*

I may be proved wrong, but Danny Alexander seems a poor choice for Secretary of State for Scotland. Things have come to a pretty pass when the only way the Tories can find a Scottish spokesman that people will listen to is by appointing a Liberal Democrat! Alexander actually comes across as quite a hesitant communicator, and the public have every right to be somewhat baffled that Clegg has put him up for the role, in place of Alistair Carmichael who performed so well in two out of the three TV debates. It's hard to escape the conclusion Clegg is appointing people based on obsequious loyalty to him personally rather than on merit.

*

When I pondered the effect on Holyrood voting patterns of a Con/Lib Dem deal, I completely overlooked the impact it might have on what happens after the 2011 election, ie. on potential coalition negotiations. My guess is that the Lib Dems will argue that a Westminster deal makes no difference at devolved level and that it's still business as usual - but things might look very different on the other side of the net. If Labour now plan to (risibly) paint themselves as the 'only remaining progressive party', it's difficult to see how they would credibly square that with a new coalition with the Lib Dems at Holyrood. It's far too early to say, but I just wonder if the Scottish electorate might next year be presented with a de facto straight choice between two potential minority governments - SNP or Labour.

*

A couple of posters on the previous thread suggested that the SNP had made a tactical error by not focusing on independence during the campaign. It's a point that can be argued either way - perhaps the Scottish public weren't quite ready to listen to those arguments. But with the Tories back in power, people will certainly be open to listening now, which should at least settle question marks over strategy. To (slightly) misquote Winnie Ewing - "we're all fundamentalists now".