British politics is in a fluid state. Decisions and events in the next five years could fundamentally realign how power is obtained. We could end up in a four party state, where governments are made up from the:

• Conservative right/UKIP party
• Conservative centre/Liberal party
• New Labour/Democrat party
• Labour left/ Green party  

Change to the voting system 

The first-past the post system encourages the formation of parties that contain philosophies stretching over a wide spectrum. Dennis Skinner and David Miliband join together to fight Bill Cash and Ken Clarke. Controlling the destiny of our country is what they are fighting for.  Both the Conservatives and Labour have a lust for power at the heart of their reason for existence, and it is this pursuit of government that is the glue which bound collectivist trade unionists to Blaire’s ‘New Labour’ project, and now binds free market radicals to Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ coalition.  

Get rid of the first-past the post system and you may get rid of the rasion d’etre for the main parties being such wide churches. 

Existence of a coalition 

“The British people do not like coalitions as they want strong governments.” This is the often-repeated assumption you hear from the mouths of those who want to maintain first-past the post. Like all assumptions this statement is hard to prove but British political history is almost exclusively made up of governments who have a single party legislative majority, so it could be true. But what happens if this attitude changes. My reading of election result was that voters got the outcome that the majority considered to be the best option. Labour was on its last legs, a new government was needed, but many did not trust the Tories to govern on their own. If the Coalition is deemed to be a success then the electorate may vote for it again. Some Lib Dems, having had a taste of government, may want to do their best to ensure that they don’t lose the trappings of power.  

Right/Left anti-coalition alliance 

The beginnings of an unlikely, maybe even unholy, alliance between the Conservative right and the Lib Dem left is being formed. Both these groups are nervous about the amount of influence they may have in the Coalition because their support is not needed to the same extent by their leaders as it was pre-election. Conservative Home’s interesting series on the voice of the right seems to be motivated by trying to carve out a place for itself as the vocal “conscience” of the right. The inference from this series is that Cameron must listen to certain voices, such as David Davis, John Redwood and Daniel Hannan, as they represent the mythical Conservative base.  

Simon Hughes, who is very much on the left of his party, is going to use his new platform as deputy leader of the party to provide some sort of Liberal Democrat opposition. Hughes wants to retain ‘short money’, which is reserved for opposition parties, and he wants a higher proportion of Lib Dem back benchers to have a guaranteed chance of quizzing Cameron at Prime Minister’s question time. At the next election the self-styled Tory Right and Lib Dem Left may campaign against the Coalition’s record, and their honourable friends who were a part of it.  

If you add into the mix:

• social media’s ability to allow politicians to build their own brand,
• reform to the House of Lords,
• the individualistic nature of our society where people are more likely to join individual pressure groups than political parties, and
• the growth in votes for minor parties in recent elections,  

then it’s more difficult to deny that the political establishment is facing its biggest challenge since the 1920s, when Labour’s rise challenged the then status quo.

If the Liberal Democrats cannot reach a deal with Conservatives now, then when? The answer to this question must be never.

• The Conservative manifesto was liberal. It contained an honest commitment to protecting civil liberties. The ‘Big Society’ idea is all about empowering those who have been left behind. Lib Dems may think the idea unworkable but the sentiment, that all of us in society need opportunity and protection, is one we both applaud.
• The Labour Government is on its knees. During 13 years of power they over-borrowed, lead us into numerous wars and increased the reach of the state. Those Lib Dems who believe that they are philosophically a lot closer to Labour should look at ALL the legislation passed.
• The parliamentary arithmetic makes a ‘rainbow coalition’ at best unwieldy and at worst unstable. The amount of negotiating and bartering that will have to go into every piece of legislation is the stuff of civil service nightmares.

The British electorate is a sophisticated beast. The current predicament reflects the will of the nation. If a Lab-Lib pact is formed we will be living in a two party state. A vote for the Lib Dems will be a vote for Labour. The Conservatives will offer the only alternative choice of Government. The price of having a coalition including nationalists is not ideological but financial. Will Lib Dem voters in Sutton, Carshalton, Cambridge ect be happy to subsidise a ‘progressive’ coalition? A Lab-Lib coalition would unite the Conservatives in a fight against a perceived injustice. As soon as any deal is done the Tories will start campaigning for the next election. The narrative will be “Vote Liberal, get Labour. Get Labour, get economic hardship.”

The Labour Party will not necessarily embrace the Lib Dems. Many members are bitter towards the ‘Liberals’. Bitter about the SDP split in the 80s. Bitter about joining forces with those who try to undermine them in election battles and local government. Bitter that the Lib Dems are now trying to call the tune. Gordon Brown has not yet tried to sell any deal to his party. Those who think that there will be unanimous agreement are living in fantasy land. There is probably a significant minority who would defy a party whip and vote against any form of PR. Labourites on the left of the party will be fearful that any deal today will usher in a permanent Lab-Lib pact in the future.

With power comes responsibility. Governing is about making tough choices. When Nick Clegg next meets his MPs he should say: “Those of you who want to join Labour, join Labour. Those of you who want to join the Conservatives, join the Conservatives. Those of you who want to be in a centrist party that will act flexibly for the national interest, stay with the Lib Dems.” Otherwise it won’t take the electorate long to realise that the ‘new politics’ image was just old politics spinning.

A deal will have to be done. The Liberal Democrats are the (very) weak kingmakers. There is – somewhere – a deal that can be acceptable to Cameron and Clegg. The main ‘national interest’ issues are restoring stability to the economy, resolving our situation in Afghanistan and reforming how government resources are allocated. Voting reform and restructuring the House of Lords are important issues that need serious consideration BUT voters are not pressing for these questions to be answered today.  

Cameron should offer Clegg a free vote on holding a referendum on proportional representative within the next parliament. In exchange the Lib Dems will support the Conservatives on a vote-by-vote basis. In this pact it would not be in the Lib Dems’ interest to bring a Cameron government down, unless the spirit of the deal is reneged.  

Gordon Brown is not an appealing option. The national interest is not the same as the Liberal Democrats’ interest. When Clegg made his statement earlier this morning he was wisely continuing the lofty campaign position of wanting to support the party with the most votes and seats. In the current climate any parties that do a deal for nakedly partisan interests will be punished at the next election. If Clegg goes back on his word, he will be rightly viewed as being another old style politician. If the Lib Dems lose their ‘new politics’ image they will have nothing left. The Labour party will not do themselves any favours if they prostitute their beliefs in order to cling on to power. If Mervyn King is right about power being a poisoned chalice, having an extra few years of Government is not worth sacrificing long held principles for. 

Nick Clegg leading a Lab-Lib coalition is the wild card in the pack.  This is an unlikely outcome for so many reasons. But it has been an uncertain night. It’s now up to those who have had no sleep to make a solid agreement.

New Labour share remarkable similarities with Old Labour in that they’ve never been prone to widespread theoretical debate. Indeed, the ongoing prevarication and confusion over House of Lords reform is veering perilously close to being farcical. The idea that this Labour government should be in favour of any reform that removes power from the executive should bring a tear to the eye.

They’ve has never been sure how precisely the membership of the House of Lords should be determined, nor on what basis or according to what criteria, although any attempts to strengthen the House of Lords relative to the House of Commons have invariably been resisted by most Labour leaders. They have, however, unhesitatingly accepted that the Executive’s policies should ultimately prevail in the House of Commons. The more confident the upper chamber becomes in blocking government legislation, the more interest there is on the Labour side in limiting its powers. Lords reform – in Labour’s eyes – is in order to govern unimpeded,or, ahem, “efficiently”, rather than adding further democratic checks.

Likewise, reforms which might enhance the role and influence of backbenchers in the House of Commons have also been brushed aside. “I’m sorry that has not been terribly clear but please don’t be suspicious. It’s just quite complicated,” Harriet Harman told MPs who were itching to have some meagre amounts of power back.

Assuming we take Straw seriously however, there shouldn’t be any doubt that the transition to an elected House, if and when it takes place, will be a complex process. As the White Paper on Lords reform notes, the Commons votes and the work of the existing cross-party group have established a number of points of agreement. These points aren’t agreed by all MPs and certainly not by the majority of members of the Lords (leave aside the division on the issue within the Labour party). The only reason that it could have been raised now, and in such drastic terms, is to create dividing lines ahead of the election.

Jack Straw noted himself that “Lords reform can come with a heavy political cost”, including “disruption to the legislative programme”. For any government, tackling the most serious recession in half a century should be the highest priority; this Government is open to serious criticism if they allow Parliament to occupy itself with these matters at the cost of postponing urgent measures of social and economic reform. It’s time to attack the Government, while maintaining that Lord’s reform is of the utmost priority in the future to allow partnership with the Commons in holding the government to account, not as a rival for power.

Once we’ve sorted out Gordon’s mess of course.

Gordon Brown’s deathbed conversion to the cause of electoral reform is surely one of the most cynical acts in modern British politics.

Don’t forget that Labour were elected in 1997 on a mandate to have a referendum on electoral reform, just as they were elected in 2005 on a mandate of a referendum on Lisbon.  What was one of the major stumbling blocks to holding a referendum on the Jenkins Report?  Why it was the steadfast opposition to reform of a certain Gordon Brown!  Could this be the same man who yesterday embraced the cause of reforming the electoral system?

Brown’s conversion to reform is an act of unprincipled political desperation.  He is looking to change the rules of the game because his team has fallen behind.  This is the last throw of the dice by a desperate Prime Minister.  It is not a serious case for political reform.