Yesterday was probably not the most dramatic day in recent British political history. The 1997 General Election and the vote of no confidence in 1979 probably pip it at the post.
Yet Margaret Thatcher's vote of no confidence victory by one vote would not have got her the May 1979 General Election under plans proposed by the LibDem-Conservative coalition, with a proposal to legislate so that it will take 55% of MPs to get an election. That might not impress Thatcherites sceptical about the new Con-Lib alliance, but the partisan motivation for a major constitutional change may concern many more.
So it that the new politics? Or a stitch-up in the partisan interest of two parties in a potentially unstable coalition? Peter Hennessy, our most respected constitutional historian told Newsnight that it looks rather like the 'new politics' involves 'doctoring the pitch'.
This also begins as the first ever Tory-led government not to have a majority in the House of Lords. So it is planning to pack the House with 200 new Peers. After all, how could they really be expected to govern on the basis which every single non-Tory government in our history has faced?
In a parallel universe, imagine the LibDems and Labour formed a coalition government. With 315 seats between them, they are 8 short of a de facto majority, but confident that 9 Scots and Welsh Nats, nor another 5 from the Greens, SDLP and Alliance will vote them out.
It sounds very tight - until somebody has a cunning plan.
Why not make it much tougher for 306 Tories and 8 DUP MPs to combine with the smaller parties, by changing the rules?
And so Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg announce that the age-old tradition of the "vote of no confidence" leading to a General Election is to go, that would take 55% of the House of Commons (as many as 358 MPs).
Suddenly, the Lab-Lib coalition has much less to worry about.
But they could surely never have done it. All hell would have broken out.
Yet this seems to be what the Tory-Lib coalition is proposing to do.
This is done in the name of fixed term Parliaments.
Yet the Coalition does not need its new rule to do that. All one needs to do to create fixed term Parliaments is to find a formula to avoid a "fake" vote of no confidence being engineered by a governing party (when the House in fact retains confidence in the government). There are many ways to do that. One could give the Speaker a veto, or a role to the Opposition party leaders, or devise a simple formula - for example, that there need to more Opposition than Governing Party MPs in the no confidence lobby.
BTo put the government beyond a genuine vote of no confidence by a Commons majority - so that a LibDem departure from it due to a genuine loss of confidence is legislated out - is a very suspicious piece of moving the constitutional goalposts.