Halfway to hell?

COALITION partners David Cameron and Nick Clegg reaffirmed their belief in their historic agreement as the Government's fixed five-year term reached its midway point this week.

Conservative Prime Minister Mr Cameron said: "It is a Ronseal deal: it does what it says on the tin. We said we would come together, we said we would form a government, we said we would tackle these big problems. That is exactly what we have done."

Meanwhile, Mr Cameron's Liberal Democrat deputy Mr Clegg looked ahead to the next general election, adding: "Of course we can fight, as we will do, as two separate, independent parties.

"Of course we will set out different visions of the future. Of course we can start explaining that before the general election. But we will govern and provide this country with good government until the election is held in May 2015."

Yes, it looks as if this coalition government is going to last a full five-year term but what Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg will not say is that this is due to necessity, rather than choice.

Frankly, either party pulling out of the coalition would be the equivalent of pulling a gun on itself, considering their respective, weak positions.

The Conservatives have trailed Labour with every single polling company for more than half a year now, and the Tories have further been damaged by the emergence of UKIP as the new home of the protest vote.

Almost as a consequence of the rise of Nigel Farage's party, it seems, Mr Cameron's Conservatives have stepped further to the political right in their recent rhetoric.

The launch of what can only be described as a brazen propaganda campaign which demonises all benefits claimants will play well with misinformed members of the public.

And, as the Independent newspaper pointed out this week, there are plenty of people who fall into that category, unfortunately.

The Guardian went even further, mounting a counter-offensive by pointing out the 1% cap on benefits will actually have most effect on the likes of nurses, soldiers and teachers.

After all, several of the capped benefits - such as Maternity Allowance, Statutory Sick Pay, and tax credits - are paid to working people on a low wage.

And so, while the benefits cap will inevitably play well to the archetypal Daily Mail reader, for many of the affected workers in the political centre, the move will simply reinforce the toxic Tories' negative brand.

This could be important, as a loss of voters in the centre makes it even more difficult for the Conservatives to get a majority in 2015.

Indeed, as explained here on the UK Polling Report blog, the way the boundaries are set up means that they are already at a mathematical disadvantage, compared to Labour.

Furthermore, those boundaries are unlikely to be changed by the time of the next election following the coalition partners' fall-out over the Alternative Vote referendum and House of Lords reform.

However, the Lib Dems' opposition to the boundary changes is unlikely to reprieve them in the eyes of the public at large.

For, from voting through the rise in tuition fees in December 2010 to forcing through a 1% cap on benefits tonight, the Lib Dems will rightly be seen as patsies for the worst excesses of the Tories' agenda.

Already subject to some humiliating by-election results, it is not yet quite clear exactly what the extent of the damage will be when the country goes to the polls as a whole.

But it seems unthinkable now that the Lib Dems will have time to turn around the way which the public perceives them.

It is therefore almost inevitable that the party will lose some of its 57 seats, a total which it has painstakingly built up over the last 20 years since the 1992 election.

Back then, under the leadership of Paddy Ashdown, the Lib Dems scored 17.8% of the vote but, due to the intricacies and indeed biases of the First Past the Post system, took only 20 seats.

Gradually, the party was able to build up a supporter base and become stronger in certain areas, which allowed it to pool its resources into more winnable seats.

Ultimately, their historically strong performance for a third party in British politics in 2010 left them in the position of kingmakers - but, equally, their choice of a coalition with the Conservatives may reduce their number of seats down to 1992 levels. It might even be worse.

Surely, then, the Government struggles must mean that Labour - as the only major HM Opposition party - must be odds-on to win an overall majority in 2015. Well, not quite, as it happens.

The problem for Labour is that the public's political consciousness not as short as the party would like it to be, and the Conservatives - despite their poor ratings generally - are still more trusted to deal with the economy.

Perhaps most damagingly, Labour leader Ed Miliband still trails Mr Cameron when it comes to the public's preference for Prime Minister, and he has rarely looked like shifting this perception.

Labour's mid-term poll lead will count for very little once the increasingly-personified general election campaign gets properly under way, if Mr Miliband's personal ratings remain so poor.

Indeed, the 2015 general election is pointing towards being yet another election in which no one wins.

Even going back as far as 2005, none of the main parties can claim to have had a particularly impressive general election result.

Of course, in 2005, Labour won a majority for the third consecutive time - but it did so on the back of just 35.2% of the popular vote, having nominally lost 47 seats against the backdrop of the unpopular Iraq war.

For the Conservatives, 2005 represented some progress compared to the wretchedness of 1997 and 2001. However, then-leader Michael Howard was still only able to attract 32.4% of the vote.

Finally, the Lib Dems could be best pleased with their 2005 result, winning many seats due to their opposition to the Iraq war - but their 62 MPs were still unable to do much to influence Parliament.

That all changed in 2010 of course - but, even amid the short-lived and ultimately fabled Clegg-mania, the Lib Dems could only manage 23% of the vote. In fact, their number of MPs actually fell by five.

For Labour, 2010 was an unmitigated disaster, as the party recorded its worst share of the vote - 29% - since 1983.

But, for the Conservatives too, the last general election was hugely disappointing with the party still unable to get an overall majority despite having been in opposition for 13 years.

Consequently, despite all the hullabaloo about the Alternative Vote system causing hung parliaments, there might be a second successive one under the First Past the Post method in 2015. 

Until then, no doubt, the coalition will stumble on, intermittently losing Cabinet ministers despite the Lib Dems bowing to most of the Conservatives' wishes. 

Sometimes, somewhat despairingly, it is easy to forget that this is only the halfway mark...