With a difficult parliamentary environment, the government has been more conciliatory of late on some key bills, reports John Ludlow

We all know that a week can be a long time in politics, but the recent changes to the Westminster landscape have been truly a wonder to behold.


The catalyst, of course, has been the election of David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party. Seeming to appear from nowhere, Mr Cameron has given the Conservatives a real boost, and turned them into - some would say - a real party of opposition for the first time since 1997.


As the standing of the Tories has risen, it seems that the Liberal Democrats have followed the opposite trajectory. To some commentators, they have simply imploded. Surely there is some connection between the two events? In part, the Lib Dems have certainly been the victims of the 'Cameron effect' - the pressure from the election of a new, more dynamic leader. But, for the most part, the Lib Dems' problems have been caused by an unfortunate, if to a degree self-inflicted, succession of personal crises.


The important question, though, is what effect all these changes will have on the government itself and the reform agenda. The prime minister, typical to form, seems unfazed and professes that it is 'business as usual'. But while he will be taking some delight in the fall of the Lib Dems, the prospect of facing someone of Mr Cameron's calibre across the despatch box can hardly have been welcome.


Particularly difficult for Tony Blair have been the new messages of support from his political rival, messages that cynics would say were designed to force a wedge between the prime minister and his backbenchers.


Until last week's surprise double defeat on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, this government had only lost one vote in the Commons - when MPs voted against plans to allow the police to hold terror suspects for 90 days without charge. But there are strong indications that Labour rebels will force another defeat on schools reform in the near future and yet another on incapacity benefit later in the year. And while Mr Blair will be doing all he can to bring the rebels around, such messages of support will have done him no favours.


Of course, though it is a novel concept, he could use the support of the Conservatives to ensure a victory in the Commons' lobbies. As an alternative to making far-reaching concessions on flagship measures, this might be the preferable option. But it does not take a wise man to see the public relations disaster of a prime minister kept afloat by the opposition, even if it means ensuring that those reforms, so vital to his legacy, reach the statute book. This is indeed a quandary for Mr Blair.


Of course, lost votes in the Lords are far more of an occupational hazard for this government - perhaps any Labour government - though they do seem to have been multiplying of late. On 16 January, ministers suffered a number of defeats on the Identity Cards Bill, when peers voted to block the scheme until its full costs were known (through a National Audit Office report), and passed amendments to ensure greater security provisions and more controls on who can access the data. The following day, when dealing with the Terrorism Bill, their lordships removed the offence of 'glorifying' terror, arguing that the provision would be 'confusing' and 'unworkable'.


These defeats in the Lords pose a different problem for the prime minister, since he still has (if only just) the broad backing of MPs for the Bills. Both will return to the Commons in the next few weeks for the start of the ping-pong stage (officially known as 'consideration'), during which Mr Blair will have to decide if he wishes to make concessions or whether he will force each through using (or threatening to use) the Parliament Acts.


While the latter course might seem the more likely - especially as ministers seem to have been making 'no surrender' noises - it is worth remembering that the government has been in something of a conciliatory mood of late. For example, on the Criminal Defence Service Bill, ministers accepted at the Commons report stage a Lib Dem amendment allowing decisions of financial eligibility to be referred to the High Court for adjudication in exceptional circumstances. This is not as good as a general right of appeal, but it is something.


Meanwhile, on the NHS Redress Bill, and in response to concerns raised during Lords committee by the Law Society and others, the government intends to bring forward a slew of amendments covering the scope of the scheme, the independence of investigations, the cap on compensation and the right to free legal advice.


The government has also been listening to the Law Society and other groups on the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill, where concessions are expected shortly on one-stop appeals.


This spirit of appeasement may not be universal. Ministers, for example, are still refusing to budge on the so-called 'negligence clause' in the Compensation Bill. As the Law Society has argued, not only does the current wording of the clause appear to lower the standard of care, but it increases the risk of litigation by making the standing of existing case law uncertain. But we must take heart from the concessions that are being made elsewhere.


It is not yet clear what effect the election of this new Conservative leader will have on the prime minister and his policies. That may well depend on the outcome of some complex number-crunching when the important votes come. But surely it must raise the level of parliamentary debate and the quality of parliamentary scrutiny, and provide more opportunities for organisations like the Law Society to influence legislation.


If Mr Blair is less able to dismiss the views of the opposition, that must be a good thing. That is, if the Lib Dems are able to get their house in order.


John Ludlow is head of the Law Society's parliamentary unit