The new Conservative intake faces blood, sweat, toil and tears - but the coalition will lighten their burden

There's a legend that when Winston Churchill faced a difficult decision he'd find a piece of paper and a pencil. He'd then use the pencil to draw a vertical line down the middle of the paper.  At the head of the left-hand column, he'd write "pros"; at the head of the right-hand column, "cons".  He'd then tot up the pros and cons separately, and if one clearly outweighed the other he'd make up his mind accordingly.

I bear no resemblance whatsoever to the great man (other than liking a nap in the afternoons whenever possible), but find his example helpful in thinking about the coalition.  There's no shortage of items to put in the "pros" column.  There are plenty of items to put in the "cons".  I want to write about both, starting today with one of the "pros".

Which is this: talking of Churchill, the new Conservative intake faces blood, sweat, toil and tears.  But for as long as it lasts, the coalition will lighten their burden.  So if self-interest is their guide (though I'm not recommending it: at least, not entirely), they should murmur a discreet word of thanks to David Cameron and - yes - Nick Clegg.

Consider, for a moment, the position of the new Conservative Parliamentary Party had we won the election outright.  I'm assuming that our majority, had we gained one, would have been no greater than 20 (which became evident during the last days of the election campaign).

* 148 Tory MPs are brand-new.  They're Commons virgins with no Westminster experience - and are a remarkable 49 per cent of the total.  However talented this new intake may be - and much of it is very gifted - this is unprecedented in modern times.  Had we won outright, the proportion of new MPs in the Parliamentary Party would have been over half - a headache of migraine proportions for the Whips.

* As far as I can see, all Ministers appointed to date are MPs with Parliamentary experience.  Let's assume that the eventual Government payroll is roughly 100 Ministers.  Take 100 MPs away from, at the very least, 326 MPs (enough to have given us a majority of two) and one's left with 226 MPs.  Of those 226, more than 148 would have been new (because we'd have won more seats, and nearly all our candidates in winnable seats weren't Parliamentary retreads). Consequently, approximately half of all our backbenchers would have been untested.  The balance between experience and freshness in relation to Select Committee Chairmanships and places, the workings of the Chamber and Party management would have weighed heavily in favour of the latter.  I'm wary of football analogies, but this would have been rather like replacing half the Chelsea squad between one season and the next.

* A new Conservative Government would have had a whole legislative programme ready to go.  Labour, the Liberal Democrats and other opposition parties would have lurked in the lobbies, their offices and houses near Westminster to spring snap votes on the new Government - in order first to destabilise it and then to destroy it.  The House would have sat late into the night, as it did before the Blair/Brown years, especially during the mid-1990s and late 1970s, when the Callaghan and Major Governments respectively lost their majorities.

* Now let's return from the Westminster Village to the real world.  Spending cuts and tax rises would have been implemented by a Conservative Government alone.  Labour and the Liberal Democrats would have campaigned against them. The trade unions have stashed funds away to "fight the cuts".  21 victorious Conservative candidates have fought their seats before.  No fewer than eight have done so twice.  Had we won more seats, these numbers would be higher. All such candidates have been patiently plugging away in what are now their constituencies for years, lambasting Labour's A&E mergers, post office closures, police station amalgamations.  The Opposition parties, including of course the Liberal Democrats, would have tried to turn the tables with a vengeance, accusing the new MPs of double standards, hypocrisy, and selling out their communities.

* During the 1980s and 1990s, anti-cuts campaigning expressed itself in the technology of the time - through marches, demonstrations, stunts, petitions, letters.  The internet, Facebook and Twitter played less of a part in this election than many writers, including this one, thought would be the case.  But an axe-wielding Conservative Government would surely have brought them centre-stage. Tory MPs wouldn't have arrived in their offices each day to find a pile of indignant post. Instead, they'd have switched on their blackberries and laptops, first thing in the morning, to find a blizzard of Facebook campaigns against them, Twittered out relentlessly, demanding instant attention and response.

* All this would have happened in the context of an attempted reduction of the number of Parliamentary constituencies.  The new Conservative MPs, like the old ones, would have found themselves pitted against each other, in a dog-eat-dog scrap for survival.   In the event of local primaries having exercised real control of selections, local people would have tugged one way, demanding that candidates oppose "cuts" in the lobbies at Westminster, and the Whips the other, insisting that the new MPs stand by their leader. Many of them would be pulled one way by hope of patronage and the other by fear of non-selection.

* In the event of local Associations having exercised real control of selections, don't assume that they would have taken a different view from local primaries. By and large, Associations have smaller memberships than they did during our last period of Government, and are thus more reliant on local Conservative Councillors for their workings.  Very probably, we've reached the high-water mark of our success in local government.  Voters have been punishing local councillors for the perceived faults of national government for as long as I can remember.  There's no reason to believe that this pattern will change much in the short-term, until or unless localisation really kicks in.  Crucially, very many councillors are more state dependent than their predecessors were even fifteen years ago, because their allowances are larger.  Many of them are retired people to whom the allowances come in very handy. When they lost their seats and money, some of them wouldn't have held the Conservative Government immune from blame. Their local Conservative MP would have borne the brunt of complaints.

* Most candidates are political animals (though a surprising proportion are not). They're to some degree prepared for life at Westminster.  But I doubt whether most of them would quite have been prepared for the events described above. Some are new to politics.  Others, who were formerly the members of other Parties, could have been forgiven for wondering if they'd jumped on to the right ship.  Others still, expecting rapid promotion, would have been greeted instead by long hours on standing committees, limited opportunities in the Chamber and the dull toil of Parliamentary grind.  The hours would have been long, their constituents indignant, their families unhappy, and their salary and expenses curtailed, and under relentless examination.

Now let's consider whether this bleak picture still looks quite as grisly once one adds the Liberal Democrats to a Conservative Government.

Yes, the Parliamentary Party's still light on experience.  Yes, there'll be furious, union-backed, Labour-supported campaigns against cuts.  Yes, these will utilise all the new technology at their disposal.  Yes, MPs will have to battle with each other for selection - and face AV into the bargain.  Yes, local elections will be lost.  Yes, Association members and ex-Councillors will be unhappy.  And, yes, Parliamentary life will be very, very tough for the new intake.

But the coalition brings with it, for them, one piece of unexpected, brilliant news. In the short-term at least, they won't have to face anti-Government campaigns from the Liberal Democrats in their constituencies. They won't have to counter the Focus leaflets, the targeted mailshots, the negative campaigning, the personal attacks which those spawn of Satan - I apologise: I mean, of course, which our angelic new partners in Government - have turned into an art form.  It can of course be argued that this point of view isn't quite right: that the Liberal Democrats, as a separate party, will continue as they've always gone on. Quite so: but they won't be able to blame the Government for everything.  For after all, they are the Government.

This will make life a little easier - perhaps a lot easier - for our new MPs.  I expect Parliament to sit for part of September, as a token of penitence for the expenses scandal, but the new Government has a secure majority. Consequently, it will sit for less long and less late than it otherwise might have done.  Since drawing up legislation will involve negotiation between the two parties, there will be less of it.  And when Conservative MPs return to their constituencies at the weekends, they'll be greeted by their local Liberal Democrats not with relentless hostility but muted resentment.

A last point.  I'm not saying that the Whips should always have their way, that Parliamentary life should be easy for MPs, or that local primaries should be the norm.  I'm simply making a point - namely, that however testing Parliamentary life may be for the new intake, the coalition will ease the pressures on them at least slightly, perhaps considerably.  They'd be less than human not to appreciate it.  And for that, they should raise their glasses to the Prime Minister.  Oh, and to the Deputy Prime Minister, too.

Paul Goodman