Campaign.Mailers{at}mo.gov

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's "Political Fix" blog reports that Creve Coeur Rep. Jill Schupp, who is running unopposed for re-election to her House district, sent a campaign mailer from her former aide's Capitol e-mail address. Schupp is quoted in Tony Messenger's report as saying that it was her first time personally using the mass mailing client Constant Contact, that she was unaware that it had been set up that way, and that future mailers will come from a different e-mail address.

The missives in question were sent on 11 July and 11 May, from House.Mo.Gov addresses associated with Schupp and her office. As the operator of Missives from Missouri, I've been anticipating a mishap of this nature, as does happen often when politics mingle with new technologies and concepts.

And in this case, it has. To the untrained eye, Schupp's two e-mails did appear to come from her state office. This screenshot (click for full version) shows how I've set up Google Mail to place a label on every e-mail sent from House.Mo.Gov (Maroon) and Senate.Mo.Gov (Pink)

Also, as you can tell, GOP are Red, Dem are Blue, and e-mails sent by someone in a legislator's office is marked "Staffer". (And you can also tell that I've maintained support for the U.S. Soccer and Missouri's wineries, and even developed an interest in cricket. HOWZAT!)

In that screenshot, the mailing from Schupp, dated 11 July, was tagged as being from a House.Mo.Gov address. And this screenshot adds to that argument, but then re-qualifies it.

Here, the address and subject line affirms the source being from Rep. Schupp's office (and the address being a former staffer of the office), but adds that the e-mail itself was mailed through Constant Contact. However, it was signed by an account referring to Schupp's office and not her campaign, and on top of that (well, at the bottom of the mailing):
A re-affirmation of both the campaign nature of the mailer and the sender's address, from House.Mo.Gov.

Now again, I expected something like this to happen, and rather than continue providing screenshots until this is a shark-jumping, muck-racking escapade, I'll state my personal belief that this was an unfortunate oversight by Rep. Schupp. I anticipate the next mailer of this nature from the representative (provided my e-mail address isn't delisted!) to arrive from a different address. I should note, of course, that generally I don't post political mailers on Missives from Missouri, so as a result I opted to not post information on one State Senate candidate's barbecue for veterans in his district, or a discount that's being offered to readers of another campaign's followers for visiting a new restaurant. Both such items were sent from campaign addresses.

Ideally, lawmakers should follow in the example of lawmakers like Rep. Will Kraus of Lee's Summit and Sen. Joseph Keaveny of St. Louis City and maintain separate mailing lists for state and campaign business. Missives from both lawmakers, among others, have arrived from separate accounts. Reference the first screenshot, where the Keaveny Connection (which is providing exceptional publicity for organizations serving the St. Louis area) is tagged as being from Senate.Mo.Gov, but his later e-mail looking for canvassers for his campaign appears with only a DEM tag.

I have kept a close eye on weekly reports from both state and non-state addresses as to ensure that what's being posted is from a state legislator's perspective and not a political candidate. But of course, the line between state legislator and political candidate is often blurry, with caucuses from both parties providing material for their members to send home. Reports become as much an update to residents as they do a refresher of their legislators' values and political allegiances. State law, however, is clear in two areas:

1. State resources cannot be used, in an official capacity, for political campaigns.
2. Any e-mail sent from a state e-mail address to at least two people is available for public review through the Sunshine Law by anyone.

As such, any campaign material sent from either House.Mo.Gov or Senate.Mo.Gov will be published on Missives from Missouri, and I'm afraid Schupp's slip-up is not the only one that's been published in the seven months I've operated this site.

The Special Session That Shouldn't Have Been

The 1st Extraordinary Session of the 95th Missouri General Assembly continues to linger in the vacant halls of the State Capitol, a session that has brought about some of the most desperate twists in principle by some to ensure the state's economic viability, and conversely the most desperate twists in the state's economic viability to ensure others' principles.

As we speak, a gaggle of staunch conservative senators are in the twelfth hour of a filibuster aimed at killing off a bill laden with incentives to convince Ford to retain two production lines at their plant in Claycomo. Their hope is to put to an end the practice of granting tax credits to practically everything that moves an inch in the state, which they believe is a major reason why Missouri continues to face growing revenue shortfalls.

Which won't get any better if 3700 people in Kansas City's Northland are indefinitely furloughed when Ford relocates their Escape & Escape Hybrid lines to another state.

As it stands, these jobs are gone in a year, off to Kentucky, and with it a large chunk of revenue from Clay County's largest private employer. Revenue that goes into maintaining roads in unincorporated areas of the county, North Kansas City and Liberty schools, and practically keep the village of Claycomo on the map. And even if this bill passes, there is no guarantee that Ford will bring a new model to Claycomo to replace the Escape.

There is, however, an even greater chance of 3700 Missourians being out of a job if it doesn't pass, all in the name of the ideal of free enterprise and small government. Now yes, a large chunk of affected workers can and probably will find a replacement job, but it's very unlikely that such jobs will pay the same. And yes, it might show a growing consumer consciousness for fuel-efficient and clean energy vehicles, like electric fleet vehicles now being manufactured by Smith Electric in neighboring Platte County. But in the short term, this loss will all but ensure a double-dip recession in many areas of Northwest Missouri, as the area adapts to find new jobs and revenue.

Jobs, revenue, impact, and critical specifics that has seen nary a mention in any of the three weeks of debate and political pandering. Instead it's been the need to pass it, the political means to do so, and the opposition from those who see the concept of government intervention at any level as the biggest problem to economic growth and not a possible agent of support.

The bill, should this filibuster come to a close, will likely pass, as Senate leaders say they have enough votes to pass it back to the House, where it will likely receive another round of yeas before landing on Governor Nixon's desk. How it got there, though, is another string of arm-wringing disappointment.

To ensure the rapid passage of the bill through the House, Speaker Ron Richard—comfortably on his way to the State Senate with no challenger in his bid to represent Joplin—wasted no time in pulling from committees two house members who did not express vehement support. Speaker Pro Tem Bryan Pratt of Eastern Jackson County was removed from the Rules Committee after he called it a "bail out bill". Within a day, another Jackson County representative, Will Kraus of Lee's Summit, was removed from the Job Creation and Economic Development Committee after he stated he would prefer to hear both sides of the issue before casting his both. Both Pratt & Kraus were among the 19 nay votes on the bill the House advanced to the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields of St. Joseph waited until this week to remove Howell County's Senator Chuck Purgason from the Government Oversight and Fiscal Accountability committee. Purgason, under his purview as chairman of the committee, refused to bring the bill up for discussion, also referring to it as a bailout and suggesting that Missouri "sucks at economic development." Purgason suggests that to spur economic development, Missourians should instead dump income taxes and instead charge a higher sales tax to ensure revenue neutrality. Problem with that, though, is that unless it's enacted at the national level, a large chunk of Missourians could drive across the state line and take advantage of what would then be a reasonable sales tax rates in Bentonville, Quincy, and Overland Park, with Missourians nowhere near the border either stuck holding up the bulk of Missouri's revenue burden or renting a U-Haul on a regular basis to hoard up on necessities.

So now we have a filibuster that's stretched into 12 hours, to prevent a bill to possibly save 3700 jobs in the hopes of possibly saving more businesses. Well, one thing's for sure: the bill could have had more teeth. HB2 is a more specific version of House Bill 1675, also sponsored by Gladstone Republican Jerry Nolte. Nolte's original bill would have applied to any industrial manufacturer in the state, be it automotive, chemical, electrical, etc. Because this bill stalled in a Senate committee over the same ideological concerns (on top of issues legislators believed to be more pressing, like changing I-70's name in St. Louis back to the Mark Twain Expressway), Nolte asked the governor to call a special session.

The governor's call specifically addressed the Claycomo plant. As a result, Nolte's bill could technically not be as broad as it was. Thus, the current version on the Senate floor would only apply to manufacturers classified by the U.S. Census Bureau as "Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing". (Interesting enough, according to the Census' 1997 figures, Missouri produced more goods in this category, in terms of dollar value, than all states not named Michigan.) The House attempted to saddle tax credits for senior citizens who own their own home and companies who create information technology jobs, but these were stricken by an earlier Senate committee who said they were outside the Governor's parameters for the special session.

So now, as Ford figures out whether it's still worth it to keep operating the plant they built 60 years ago on land which once was the residence of TWA's Jack Frye and site of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh's honeymoon, state Republicans squabble with other state Republicans and Kansas City area reps squabble with other Kansas City area reps over the future of one of their most critical economic engines, all over ideological principles.

All the while, 3700 families continue to dread next year when they will need to go thumbing through the help wanted section, trying to find anything that will keep food on the table, much-needed medication in the cabinet, and their kids' fragile college savings viable. And this is where the focus should always have been. For that reason, this session has been one colossal farce played out by the General Assembly and the Governor. And it will be the families affected by this line's relocation—Claycomo's assembly workers, employees of suppliers across the state, eating establishments whose core clientele will evaporate, special education students who can't get the specialized attention they need during the school day because of even tighter budget constraints—who will feel the most pain from this farce of a session.

It isn't Ford who needs the bailout; it's these families, and at the end of the day, it's what the bill in question should truly be about. It's giving Missouri a chance to preserve these jobs and retain a sizable economic engine at a time when no one can risk a double-dip recession.

It's Not Over Yet

OK, so it turns out the best defense is actually having a defense, which means Americans can now return to watching 43 bulky cars & dozens of guys wielding maple bats make left turn after left turn after left turn.

As incredible as it is to have 12,000 people crowd into the Power & Light District and having that shown on ABC, Kansas City's image as a soccer town can improve greatly if enthusiasts of the game, the cup, and most importantly residents interested in presenting the area as a potential hub of global commerce and sport, continue to show up for the remaining games. It would help KC's image, and that of the USA bid for the 2018 and 2022 games, if fans continued to show up to watch the finals even as our side fell short in matching our best performance in World Cup history.

Safe to say I'm looking forward to watching the championship game there, and at the moment I'll hedge my bets on The Netherlands and Argentina playing for the Jules Rimet Trophy, although I'm hoping for the English to upset Argentina & avenge the "Hand of God" incident of '86, provided of course England get past Germany tomorrow.

Bringing Vuvuzelas To Arrowhead

World Cup fever is nearing its peak as the 32 nations present prepare for their final group game (or in the case of France, affix picket signs to vuvuzelas), and their respective fans are preparing for watch parties complete with their schemes for how their side can advance into the round of 16. And yes, I'm one of them, having scrawled out on the back of a lunch receipt what it'll take for the US to advance to the single-elimination bracket and maybe square off against the seemingly hapless Aussies as opposed to anyone else in Group D.

Come Wednesday morning, I'll be back to where I've watched the two first games: from the Wizards' official watch party at the Power & Light District.

This scene is from last Friday, when hundreds of soccer (er, football) fans from across the Kansas City metro converged in the open-air pavilion just across from Sprint Center to watch our thrilling come-from-behind victory thrown away by an inept Malian. It has been a wonderful experience to come together as a city, as a community of football fans, and to cheer on the Red, White & Blue when other American sport fans remain obsessed with realigning college conferences. In particular, organizers for Kansas City's watch party claim to have the nation's second-most attended watch party. And it's not just for drumming up support for this year's squad or the Wizards as they struggle through their current MLS campaign.

Kansas City, by way of the $375 million renovation project nearing completion at Arrowhead Stadium, is one of 18 finalists to be a host city in the United States' bid to host either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup, beating out cross-state rival St. Louis as well as Chicago, which hosted the opening ceremonies of the 1994 World Cup. The bid committee, on the city's profile, touts KC's "long and storied cultural soccer culture", as well as ease of access via car, complete with references to tailgate parties and our extensive boulevard system. More than 20,000 people have signed USA's petition list supporting the inclusion of Kansas City in the bid, more than Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles and Washington. A successful friendly between the Wizards and the English Premier League's Manchester United on 25 July—the first event to take place in the renovated Arrowhead Stadium—will solidify KC's role in the USA's bid when FIFA vote in December to award the 2018 and 2022 World Cup finals.

Right now, the USA remain the only non-European nation still in the running for 2018, as Australia, Japan, Qatar and South Korea are opting to pursue just for 2022. Should any of the European nations bidding (Belgium & The Netherlands, England, Russia, Spain & Portugal) be awarded the finals for 2018, then the remaining European bids will not be considered for 2022, under a new rule that requires a continent to wait at least eight years before attempting to bid for another World Cup. Despite growing speculation that a European nation will receive the 2018 finals, the growing support for football in the States, on top of solid infrastructure, ample media and advertising revenues, and state governments willing to throw into stadia millions upon millions of tax breaks, makes such a bid hard to ignore.

FIFA officials reviewing each bid will tour the States in early September, then meet in December to award the 2018 and 2022 bids. Hopefully in June 2018, the world will find themselves enjoying some grilled pork ribs and beef kebabs in the parking lots of Arrowhead, just before blaring their vuvuzelas as Guatemala take on Italy in Group D action.

Divided Attention, Memorial Day Edition

I had a feeling this would occur, that after the UK election was resolved I'd find myself devoid of intriguing comment. Even as the new coalition government is rocked by its first scandal: the resignation (after just under three weeks) of David Laws—the Lib Dem cabinet member tasked with assisting Chancellor George Osborne of identifying £6.3 billion worth of cuts—after it was unveilved that he claimed £40,000 in rent payments to his partner. (And on top of that, his replacement Danny Alexander, who started out as the government's Scottish Secretary, is also under scrutiny for making use of tax loopholes.)

But instead, much as my attention has been the past three weeks, I'm focused elsewhere. And inbetween watching Mizzou softball win convincingly twice this weekend and the typical Memorial Day fare, I watched (or perhaps more accurately, subjected myself) to this year's Eurovision Song Contest. The great combination of Europop, bizarre and retro outfits, cheesy lyrics, and voluptuous performers from the fringes of the European Broadcasting Union (along with the occasional heavy metal band and obligatory performer from the UK that Simon Cowell would have dismissed from The X Factor before blinking) attracted an audience of tens of millions across Europe last weekend, including 8 million on BBC One & BBC Radio Two to hear 19-year-old Josh Dubovie earn a whopping ten points for Britain with "That Sounds Good To Me". (That happened to net the UK last place for the second time in three years, as the winner from Germany, fellow 19-year-old Lena with "Satellites", netted 246 points. You just might hear that song in the States this summer.)

And then, as I was cutting back and forth between my grandparents visiting from the old stomping grounds for the weekend and Dario Franchitti strolling through Indy at 220 mph, I wondered if such a contest could ever play out in the US. Just picture it: performers from all 50 states (plus DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and maybe even the Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands and the three nations with whom we have a Compact of Free Association) competing for other states' votes by singing original songs (as opposed to covers that make up practically all of American Idol). It'd be a mix of every genre under the sun: mainstream pop, R&B, country, rap, adult alternative, hard rock, acoustic, indie, electronica, Latino, Native American, Asian, religious, etc.

Complications and costs, however, would be numerous. Whichever network were to pick this up would have to establish contests in each state (plus DC, PR, etc. etc.), require their affiliates to carry it, organize phone banks and online/SMS voting and keep it to their state's ZIP codes. This would cause issues with markets that reach into multiple states, as in the case of Kansas City you'd have to run the contest on two separate days and alienate half your audience both times, as viewers with 913 & 785 area codes wouldn't be allowed to call during the Missouri qualifier, and 816 & 660 area codes wouldn't be allowed to cast votes during Kansas'.

And then comes the national contest: would the site be selected in accordance with whoever won the previous year, as is the case with Eurovision? That would showcase several cities across the US as the contest develops, but would organizers instead find it easy to stick with a supposedly neutral site like Las Vegas or New York? In terms of the broadcast, what shows would wind up getting pre-empted? Would hit radio stations be allowed to simulcast it? How many cut-ins would be budgeted for idiotic shameless plugs for upcoming movies bound to flop at the box office? How do you stop Canadians from calling in, or factor in out-of-state cell phones?

Simple enough, you'd probably have two semi-finals, with states pooled at random and then only those states would be able to vote that night, with the top five or so advancing to the national finals. (In Eurovision it's ten per semi plus the hose and "Big Four" of Germany, France, Spain and the UK, but they don't break for commercials so we won't have room for 25 acts.)

And two most critical questions: first, how do you score it? Eurovision uses a system where each country, regardless of its size, allocates 12 points to their top vote-getter, 11 to the second, etc. down to one. Would we retain the same, or would we come up with some bizarre take on the electoral college? Would provisions go into place to prevent states from ganging up on each other (say, Kansans intentionally voting for a handful of states to prevent Missouri from getting any of their points.) or pooling their votes behind a random candidate or ring of candidates from their bloc (most like New England in one bloc and Dixie for another)?

And second, are enough songwriters going to be willing to write 55+ original songs? Certainly several performers would be keep to showcase their original songwriting skills, but will that win the votes? Will eccentric and flashy choreography and wardrobe (or lack thereof) wind up winning more votes instead? Would the music industry, or moreso the radio conglomerates Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, Entercom, etc., be keen to playing these songs?

Critically, will the diversity truly be there? Will enough acts from groups that could be classified as minority or multi-ethnic get into the national final that cries of racism or religious persecution not drown out the competition itself? And for this contest to proliferate, certainly there would need to be a Spanish-speaking counterpart broadcasting it, complete with states allowed to submit entries who perform in Spanish.

Aside from those complications, a US song contest would be quite unique and showcase the diverse, amalgamated ethnic culture that continues to develop in this great land. Now if a network were to run with this, get all their stations on board with it (which would wind up eating into local newscasts), line up the advertisers, and get Tom Bergeron, Mario Lopez, and/or Ellen DeGeneres to co-host the finals. It would unite the nation in a contest that explores the uniqueness of each state while at the same time celebrate the common bonds that make this nation great.

Here's to the Show-Me State's first entry getting douze points from several of its peers.

When Gordo Met Henry Clay

Gordon Brown's announcement to leave 10 Downing and step down from the leadership of the Labour Party makes the atmosphere more tense for the formation of a new government. Especially as, after a weekend of "cordial" and "productive" talks between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, one key hurdle toward the formation of a progressive Lab-Lib government is now surpassed. And what follows will likely set Britain's course in the 21st century. And it could be done by way of a "corrupt bargain".

Since Friday, the LibDems have been in earnest discussions with Tory leaders, hammering out common objectives for a coalition government to pursue in the midst of lingering European national debt crises. All three parties acknowledged that, following the Tories winning the most seats and most votes, they should have the first crack at forming the new government. (Brown remains Prime Minister until he no longer commands the confidence of Parliament, be it by a vote of confidence or their lining up behind a new leader.) However, even with those talks going on, some LibDems have begun reaching out to Labour ministers.

On the political spectrum, the centre-left LibDems, and their core of support, have more in common with the socialists-in-denial Labour than they do the Conservatives. Both want electoral reform, a proposal the Tories will need dragged through a bed of hot coals to agree upon. Both prefer further integration with Europe, while some Tory backbenchers could get away with defecting to UKIP. And unlike the Conservatives, both have sizable clout in Wales and Scotland. However, on the critical issue of the economy, the LibDems and Tories are quick to acknowledge the need to cut the government budget in order to curb a record deficit, and would seek to make such cuts. And both the Tories and LibDems want to revise the tax code, though they will likely have different desires on who benefits from such reforms.

To the core supporters of LibDem and Labour, Brown's lame duck declaration removes a major hurdle from the formation of a Lab-Lib coalition. (Granted, Brown's successor would not be formally selected until September at the latest, meaning he could take his sweet time packing the china while Portugal and Ireland go begging to Germany and Benelux for their bailouts.) And that could very well be a part of a bargain aimed at keeping the Camerons from installing a nursery in 10 Downing.

Supporters of a Lab-Lib coalition argue that Cameron, despite getting 36 percent of the vote and 47 percent of MPs, does not have sufficient backing of the electorate, as more people voted to ensure that he would not become prime minister. Indeed, the combined total for Labour (29 percent) and the LibDems (23.1 percent) would create a majority.

Precedents for such a block are few and far between in UK history, but in the US, one watershed election could fit the bill: that of the 1824 matchup between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. After no candidate received a majority of electors (William H. Crawford and Henry Clay also received votes), the election was replayed in Congress, where Adams, Jackson, and Crawford were on the ballot. Clay, despite coming in last, also happened to be Speaker of the House. As the story goes, Clay convinced his supporting states to back Adams in exchange for Adams appointing him Secretary of State (the post Adams held at the time). Thus Jackson, the war hero from Tennessee, who had the most votes and most electors, was shut out of the White House when a majority of state delegations (13 of 24) backed Adams.

Jackson vociferously alleged that the deal was a corrupt bargain, an allegation that, while never proven nor disproven, would result in Jackson's election to the White House four years later and bring about a sweeping new era in American History, as well as the formation of today's Democratic Party. Adams' supporters, many of whom were more opposed to Jackson and his populist ideals, would form the Whig Party, the front runner to today's Republican Party. (Although the parties were not related, the name is identical in etymology as the UK's Whig Party, who eventually became the Liberals and now the Liberal Democrats.)

If later today a Lab-Lib coalition comes about, Tory supporters and Brown bashers who yesterday celebrated the prime minister's act of political seppuku with an extra pint of Guinness will feel jilted like Old Hickory. And that jilted feeling, along with a sagging economy and what will be decried as a "coalition of losers", will only fuel Tory resentment for as long as such a government stands.

But Lab and Lib together will not surpass the 320ish mark needed for a majority, falling about ten short, and even their Ulster counterparts (SDLP and Alliance, respectively), along with the lone Green, won't put them over the mark. Adding the nationalist parties, with both of whom Labour have partnered in devolved legislatures in the past, will put them over the top, but there lies two issues.

First, a vast coalition of minor partners prone to fracturing, where assuaging one's concerns of support could wind up costing them another party's support. Second, with nationalist parties supporting the government, such parties will ensure that government spending remains the same in their regions, meaning any such cuts either occur in areas of solid Tory support (namely, the Home Counties) or they wind up not happening, setting Britain down the path of Greece.

Add to that the fact that whoever succeeds Brown will wind up being the second straight Prime Minister who never led his/her party at the time his party was elected to government. Voter resentment, although not as nationally uniform with regards to the expenses scandal, will only intensify, bringing about great distrust for all parties involved. Such resentment could manifest in the form of electing fringe parties, most notably the BNP or some far-flung idealist party like the Wessex Independents.

It is very likely that events that transpire in the meeting rooms of Whitehall today will prove incredibly pivotal in the economic viability of Great Britain and political future of all parties involved for this coming century. A Tory-LibDem coalition will set about modest austerity measures, all the while giving Labour a change to retool under new leadership (be it Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, or either the Brothers Milliband). A Lab-Lib-everyone-else-whose-name-doesn't-include-Conservative-or-Unionist-who-will-actually-take-their-seats coalition will inflame Tories, inflame a distrusting electorate, and most critically convey continued insecurity to investors still jittery about the Euro and a colleague's inability to discern a B from an M.

It's trying times like these that bring about historical characters like Old Hickory, those that will shape the destiny of nations for generations to come. Or it may just bring about another election right during the middle of The X Factor, with a few more down the pike.

Because it had to be done…

With apologies to the Chicago Tribune:

Cameron's keys to 10 Downing are somewhere in Belfast

Polls in the UK are set to open in a matter of hours, and every paper not named Mirror, Guardian, Observer, and Independent is encouraging or all but encouraging their readers to vote Conservative. Only one paper (Mirror) remains supportive of Labour, but is encouraging tactical voting to push Lib Dem candidates in marginal seats with the Tories to prevent David Cameron from moving into 10 Downing.

As the Conservatives figure out what shade of blue carpet to install, they still need to get the keys to 10 Downing (and make sure today's front page for The Sun isn't followed by "CAMERON DEFEATS BROWN"). And rather than Buckingham Palace, where the next prime minister will formally receive the consent of the Queen to form the next government, Cameron will likely need to travel to Ireland.

Of course by Ireland, I mean Northern Ireland, where any seat not won by the Social Democrat & Labour Party or Alliance Party (the latter unlikely to win any) helps the Conservatives. For every two seats claimed by Sinn Féin, the Conservative target is lowered by one. Because Sinn Féin's members will not take their seats in Parliament, they technically can't vote against Cameron forming a government, nor can they vote for any government that'll be perfectly happy to let Ulster leave the UK & unite with the lower 26 counties that comprise the Republic of Ireland.

Additionally, the Conservatives have a firm affiliation with the Ulster Unionist Party. Any UUP candidate elected to Parliament will be expected to support a Conservative government. Problem is that the last time the Tories were in power, the UUP were the main Unionist party in Northern Ireland. Since 1997, the Democratic Unionist Party (who could essentially qualify as Europe's flagship chapter of the Sarah Palin Fan Club) have supplanted the UUP in that role. Worse, the UUP have no incumbents in the House of Commons, as their lone MP left the party and is contesting the race as an independent. Also part of Cameron's Ulster keychain is a likely gain on the border with the ROI: an independent pro-Tory candidate in the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tryone, Rodney Connor, is looking to reclaim this seat with the help of the Tories and both Unionist parties.

The ultimate notch on Cameron's key will come from the DUP, whom Cameron was assailing during a visit Tuesday to Belfast. Cameron, of course, was hoping to sway Unionist & non-sectarian votes to the UUP from DUP, who under the Robinsons have been dogged by scandals involving the typical political trip-ups of sex, money and power. (Sinn Féin didn't come off much better in the expenses scandal, somehow having six-figure access to the Queen's purse strings despite refusing to swear allegiance to her!) But with the DUP likely to remain the fourth largest party in the House of Commons, it would be tactically foolish to dismiss their MPs if they're needed to ensure a majority-backed government.

The Conservatives and UUP, after accounting for Sinn Féin's absentions and the four mandatory non-aligned seats that account for the Speaker and his three deputies, will need anywhere from 320 to 324 MPs for an outright majority. If they find themselves within 10 of that number, they will need to be ready to make concessions to Peter Robinson, especially as he is first minister of Northern Ireland. Those concessions, naturally, will be favourable to Ulster, meaning any drastic cuts a Cameron government will pursue will wind up occurring in greater number to Wales, Scotland, and north of the M62.

While eyes will be focused on three-way races, marginals, and bellwethers, eventually the key to 10 Downing will be found sitting somewhere in Stormont.