What a load of rubbish.

The Government is right to finally declare that Westminster has the prerogative to decide whether or not Scotland can have a referendum, and indeed whether it is binding. There needs to be more Unionist assertion, including proper destruction of the SNP’s arguments, which seem to follow these themes:

1. The Scottish Executive (which the SNP rebranded ‘Government’) is the voice of the Scottish people: The SNP may command a majority in the Scottish Parliament, but they did not win the election because the Scottish people demanded a referendum, and therefore supported them for that reason alone. Labour has the majority of Scottish MPs in Westminster, and overwhelmingly sent Unionist MPs to Westminster, where referenda decisions are made. Surely they are the voice of the Scottish people? Westminster is sovereign, not Holyrood.
2. The referendum is bound to happen and it is with the SNP’s right to decide how and when it happens: they do not have the legal right. Local councils do not set monetary policy simply by virtue of their councillors promising to replace the Bank of England if elected.
3. Scotland as the sole political unit:  for all counties and unitary authorities that wish to remain in the United Kingdom, they should be allowed to. Why is it that the SNP dictates who stays and who goes? Maybe I should demand that the ancient Kingdom of Kent be allowed independence.
4. Seamless terms of secession: the SNP may believe that Scotland would happily remain part of the EU, NATO, IMF, & WTO, enjoying a special relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. They would think that they are free to peak and choose political separatism without the risks of economic nationalism. There is no reason why Westminster could not hold Holyrood to ransom, if Holyrood is currently willing to do the reverse. There are wonderful reasons for being in the Union and being British, and there are also costs for abandoning it.
5. Residents of Scotland have the only say: I see myself as British and not defined by the home countries of pre-1801 and 1707. If a Scots-only referendum happens, shouldn’t there be a UK-wide affirmatory referendum as well? If my country is to disappear, a commensurate say would be nice.
6. Fiscal imbalance: one the SNP’s old chestnuts about Scotland’s economic possible independence. There is nothing wrong with fiscal transfers to citizens, but the SNP should not be able to hold a veil over people’s eyes.

The reason I believe that a stronger Unionist line needs to be taken is because of my own experience in Canada-Quebec separatism. Indeed, this current Coalition Government draws many parallels with the Canadian Government in the 1990s. Not only have Francis Maude et al. sought to learn from their deficit cutting programme, but in 1995, Quebec – Canada’s second-most populous predominantly francophone province almost voted to leave the Canadian federation,  by 0.6 of a percentage point. The Canadian Liberal Government fought furiously during this third round of referenda to keep Canada together, against the separatist Parti Quebecois (notionally left-wing like the SNP), who had voted the provincial legislature to conduct a referendum. Although only advisory, the PQ ‘had a democratic mandate’ to hold Canada to ransom. Such was the near-destruction of Canada, the rancour the referendum debate had created, and the searing experience it left on both sides in Quebec, especially for the Canadian side of my family, that I have always been against Scottish devolution. It is also why Unionists needs to step up their game. Labour is increasingly an irrelevance in Scotland, which therefore leaves no credible strong voice in the Scottish Parliament. Alex Salmond and the SNP have created their own narrative and sense of fait accompli whilst the Unionism has remained mute.

It is right to put forward the positive aspects of the Union, but it is also correct to rebut Alex Salmond’s myths. At the head of his march to independence, both intellectually and politically, he is running rings around his opponents. Rather like Napoleon, he is masterful at gaining dominance of his political realm. To continue the historical parallel, Salmond’s return from exile in Mount Elba (read interregnum of his SNP leadership) has been allowed to continue for too long. Let us hope that at this next critical juncture, his opponents unit to ensure that he meets his Waterloo. Perhaps, he might then elect to be despatched to St Helena. Indeed, in 2015 2016  (the latest possible date for the next Scottish parliamentary elections), this would happily coincide with the bicentenary of Bonaparte’s arrival.

The main proposal contained in the White Paper is the introduction of an elected element into the House of Lords, but keeping a partly appointed Upper Chamber viable too. “Single Term Elections” will be held every fifteen years using a proportional representation (PR) electoral system (either STV or AMS.) This already causes controversy over accountability. Simply put, fifteen years is far too long for a single term election. It diminishes accountability and in my view would disenfranchise the electorate from UK politics. What would be a more sensible proposal is if in the case of a general election which happens every 5 years, the electorate have two votes and they then decide who they want representing them in both chambers. It would be far more democratic than 15 year term solution, and also makes the electorate deal with the problem at the time subsequently meaning they don’t have to wait 15 years to judge the good or bad characteristics of an elected peer.

Many have argued that a partly elected chamber elected by PR would mean division between both the upper and lower house over who is supreme and has a more democratic mandate. This is nonsense. It would clearly be set up in our constitution that “The other place” would have vetos but only limited law-making responsibilities. The 100% elected chamber can be the main chamber to propose legislation and bills. Therefore the House of Lords to some extent functions the same way as it does now but it has more power to veto bills (possibly excluding finance bills) adding more scrutiny to government and minimises the strength of unopposed majority government.

Do these plans go far enough? In my opinion these proposals perfectly balance the age old debate of tradition vs. democracy. It is important to keep these two values close to Parliament. However, Liberal Democrats have always believed that the Upper chamber should be wholly elected, creating a greater sense of accountability and more democracy. This could make our political system more democratic, but many believe it would lead to a stalemate between the House of Commons and the House of Lords over legislation. In addition to this a wholly elected upper chamber would want to assert its law-making ability and veto strength over any proposals coming from the Commons. It would be a highly frustrating experience for government and purely stating nothing would get done making the country go backward. My justification of this is people have to look at Obama’s healthcare proposals going through Congress; it has been a pure nightmare and slugging match. We do not need this in British Politics.

The current proposals spark an interesting debate. The government has got to focus a lot of attention on the lifetime of the single term elections, and should propose every 4-5 year elections, making it far more democratic and accountable. The perfect mix of partly elected and partly appointed minimises party appointments based only on whose donated most to the party. Elections will make the second chamber a meritocracy based institution. I recommend the Government really look closely at all proposals on the table and choose wisely, we do not want another 100 years on this question, we need decisive action taken now.

But if you were an Ancient Greek magically transported 2,500 years into the future – then you’d probably say “No”.

If you were an Ancient Greek – and I am speaking more of Ancient Athenian Greeks than I am of Greeks in general, but they deserve a hearing given that they set up one of the first properly functioning democracies and were the hotbed for much of Western Philosophy – then one of the first questions you’d ask about a place was not “did you elect people?” (in fact they would have thought elections as undemocratic as people would not be treated equally – a lottery is far more democratic in that sense), but rather “who controls the courts?”

You see the rich, the powerful and the “cosmopolitan” elites always make it their interest to dominate the legal system if they can do so – why?  

Because it doesn’t matter so much what the law is (or who is making it) providing that you have the ability to avoid it or interpret the law (or lack of law) to your particular advantage.

Let the majority make any many laws as they like, but if they can’t enforce it through the legal system then it doesn’t particularly matter what they decide.  

Given that Britain has picked from a narrow social and economic elite of lawyers an even narrower social and economic elite of judges, you’d find it pretty hard to convince your Ancient Athenian that you were in a democracy.

They would probably say that we have an “oligarchy” (rule of the wealthy) as a consequence – and they would have some handy examples in the form of super-injunctions.  

“Look at the case of super injunctions” they would say “the rich hire the most expensive lawyers and pray on the instincts of sympathetic judges – and they can win their privacy above what normal citizens would be able to afford – that is not democracy that is oligarchy”.

The Ancient Athenian would also probably point to the issue of votes for prisoners.  

“The vast majority of your citizenry do not want votes for prisoners, yet they are probably going to have to allow it pass – despite what your citizen’s assembly (Parliament) has voted on. You call that democracy?”  

(Now I accept that this is a European issue, but one could argue that the European Court of Human Rights was the brainchild of one elite, merely trying to pass its view of the law onto another elite).

A lot of the issues that most anger people in Britain are not really to do with politicians any more per se, they are often to do with Courts.  

If you go down to your local pub or read the local newspaper there is always a story about how someone has got a punishment which is incredibly too light or some rich person who has managed to avoid punishment because of a technicality.  

You can begin to see a growing frustration with this last undemocratic part of our constitution (if one accepts that the Prime Minister makes our executive democratic).   

A few centuries ago one would argue that you couldn’t put the law into the hands of ordinary people as they would not be able to read or write – almost the entire population can read and right now and an increasingly large number of people participate in higher education.  

Some would also say that the public don’t respect or appreciate the subtleness of law. But then people used to say that about elected Governments – that people would not understand all the issues – and yet that hasn’t lead to disasters on that front.  

The point is that our Courts are desperately in need of reform. Aristotle himself said that one can only be a true citizen if one participates in authority and judgement. At present, we have one but not the other.  

The Conservative Party has become more open to democracy as the citizenry has matured and developed – and this has reached its zenith under Cameron with the ‘Big Society’.  

This is too big a project for this Government to do now, it is too big a project probably to do even in two terms let alone one.  

But isn’t this a debate that we should start having?

I don’t know myself what a democratic legal system would be: elected judges perhaps?  

However no one could doubt that we need to build confidence in our legal system – a poll in 2009 for the Ministry of Justice showed that nearly 70% of people lack confidence in the judicial system – and to the party that managed to achieve a turnaround there could be great political spoils…far more than the quagmire of say Lords Reform….

The legitimacy of Parliament as a whole rests on it being representative of the people and serving the people.  This lies uneasily with an upper chamber comprised of peers appointed on the basis of parentage, party-political usefulness, wealth or personal friendship.  There is no place for a wholly unelected House of Lords in British politics.

Changing the House of Lords is a Conservative action because it is part of a slow evolution.  The relationship between the two Houses has been changing in small ways for the majority of the 20^th century – in 1900 Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister, yet by the time of Sir Alex Douglas-Home it was unthinkable that a peer take Number 10, and today the circumstances by which he became Prime Minister are inconceivable.  Now is the right time for further change to the House of Lords.

The question of whether the upper chamber should be wholly elected or partly appointed rests on the characteristics and purposes of both Houses.  If the House of Commons asks “what must be done?” then the House of Lords asks “how can we do it”, thus fulfilling the roles of proof-reader, scrutiniser and editor.  A hybrid House with a small appointed component would relish this role and create a workable upper chamber, while an entirely appointed Senate could threaten the balance of Parliament.

A cross-bench group within a mainly elected chamber would benefit Parliament as a whole – the appointed cross-bench peers would bring expertise, broaden representation and strengthen independence.  While it’s certainly not the case that elected peers would necessarily lack these skills, appointment enables individuals to be chosen specifically for such qualities.

Expertise, experience and representation are vital for a chamber of scrutiny.  Appointing someone who has expertise in, for example, disabilities policy, can ensure that these issues are properly covered during debates.  The nature of expertise is often oversimplified or rejected by those who wish to see a completely elected House of Lords.  Unlock Democracy have suggested that experts should be invited in to consider specific bills, with the general argument often being that expertise is a narrow field.  The counter argument is that expertise in one field requires an intellectual curiosity and determination which is invaluable in other subjects.  Furthermore, few subjects stand completely alone, and while an expert in physics may not have the same level of expertise in education, such scientific knowledge can be applied to many areas of debate.

Cross-bench peers serving long terms can be independent of political advancement in a way that party-political members of the Commons are not.  Some individuals with much to contribute will not feel able to join political parties – such as those who gave their service to the country in military or civil service, or those who lead faith groups.  Elected representatives receive legitimacy through the democratic process, while appointed peers receive legitimacy because of past successes in the community or in their professions, or in a long career in the civil service.

If members of the upper chamber have no constituency pressures comparable to those of the lower house, they will not champion particular policies in the same way.  They have the space to carefully consider legislation solely on its own merits.  Peers, it could be argued, could come closest to perfect law-makers; while knowledge of a subject is valuable, self-interest is dangerous.

In 2008 the Conservative and Liberal Democratic Parties broadly agreed with the Labour Government’s white paper suggestions for reform.  The differences, such as they are, lie in the details.  While all parties support elections by thirds (much like many two-tier and all metropolitan districts) Labour and the Conservatives favour combining these with general elections, while the Liberal Democrats suggest the 2011 devolved national cycle.  The Conservatives proposed elections held by first past the post in 80 new constituencies comprising the counties and cities.  (An interesting suggestion, as it prioritises the community boundaries which the House of Commons constituencies will be moving away from.  It’s also worth noting that elections are run by districts rather than counties.)  Liberal Democrats prefer a single transferable vote in 24 roughly equally-sized constituencies.  While Labour and the Liberal Democrats suggested a total between 400 and 450 electors, the Conservatives recommended a smaller chamber of 250 to 300.

Labour promised to reform the House of Lords, and while they did much to demonstrate the need to do so, they ultimately failed.  This is an opportunity to prove that this Coalition Government is progressive and keen to support the right changes.  If the Government waits, it will be guilty of adding yet another link to the messy business that Professor Philip Cowley called “a compromise followed by a hapless white paper followed by a U-turn followed by a farce followed by another U-turn”.

The Coalition Government is right to be pressing forward with this issue.  The House of Lords can act as a veil of ignorance, but it needs careful reform to ensure that it contains enough independence, expertise, representation and legitimacy.

I am completely undecided over how to vote in the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum.  To be honest, like many others, I have yet to give the issue much thought but as there are only 16 weeks until a decision has to be made, it is only right that some of my focus goes to the topic of electoral reform.

This issue tugs at both my conservative and progressive instincts. On the one hand, change should only happen if there is a strong argument for disrupting the status-quo, but conversely it is very possible that an electoral system exists that is much better than First Past the Post (FPTP).

The fact that Phil and Rene, who often agree on most political issues, take polar-opposite positions on AV shows that the debate doesn’t simply align itself along traditional political lines.

Before deciding which voting system is the best option it is sensible to be clear what the prerequisites of any system should be. For me, these are:

• Fairness: No one party should gain a disproportionate advantage because of the electoral system. This includes having a smaller third party as the perpetual king maker.
• Representative: The outcome should accurately reflect votes cast. No one should believe voting is a waste of time.
• Simplicity: All parts of the electorate must understand how to vote and what they are voting for.
• Local representation: The link between political representation and the constituency should not be broken. This includes giving influence over candidate selection to local parties.
• Strong government: The electoral system should err in favour of creating stable governments.

No voting system is perfect so I do not expect either FPTP or AV to best fulfil every part of my criteria. All the pros and cons will need to be balanced against each other.

Decisions, decisions, decisions…

Useful resources

The official website of the No To Av campaign

The official website of the Yes To AV campaign

The Independent on Sunday’s AV feature

When Gordon Brown found his long-lost reformist zeal just before the General Election, his proposals were hopelessly top-down and driven only by political expediency – a way of showing a bit of ankle to the Liberal Democrats in the hope of a post-election bunk-up. The Coalition Agreement and the Alternative Vote Referendum now offer us the chance for real change and such an opportunity will not re-present itself for decades to come.

That is not to say that “any reform is better than no reform” and I do want to engage in a sensible and informed debate about the problems associated with AV. But those who argue against reform must do more than attack AV (often using examples of some hybrid system used in obscure US local/judicial elections with no relevance to the UK proposals); they must tell us why FPTP is a system worthy of keeping.

There are those who argue that the Conservatives would have done worse under the AV system in 2010, but new polling from Lord Ashcroft has shown that the Party could actually do much better in marginal seats. Regardless of partisan advantage, I still see it as undemocratic that our 47 per cent seat share in the House of Commons is rather larger than our 36.1 per cent of the share of the popular vote.

AV is currently used to elect the Chairs of Select Committees in the House of Commons and for the Leadership of the Conservative Party. Interestingly if the Party Leadership elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 had been fought under FPTP, the outcomes would have been Clarke, Portillo and Davis respectively. The AV nature of the contest meant that the eventual winners of those races (Hague, Duncan-Smith and Cameron) represented a broader cross-party view than those who came ahead in the first round of voting. If we can see the benefits of AV for selecting Commons Committee Chairs and for our own internal Party elections, why can’t we comprehend the advantage for the wider electorate when they come to vote for their MPs?

AV would also end “wasted” votes. Candidates campaigning against Labour incumbents from a third-place position have to endure countless bits of paper going through doors from the Liberal Democrats telling electors that a Tory vote would be a “wasted vote”. The instant run-off nature of AV allows electors to make a more sophisticated choice, expressing their support for the Party they support the most, then going on to make subsequent preferences which will only count if their first choice is “off the menu”, as it were. It is the ultimate “consumer is king” form of voting.

AV really does put the voter in a more prominent position in terms of exerting influence on incumbent MPs than the current FPTP. It encourages MPs and candidates to reach out into new parts of the electorate in order to earn second and subsequent preferences. In seats where MPs feel vulnerable to subsequent preferences, perhaps it would be incumbent upon them to build a dialogue with the supporters of their smaller opponents? The MP would simply no longer be able to ignore the 60 per cent or so of people who did not vote for them and every party really will have to work all year round!

The politics of the outcome of the 2010 General Election meant that David Cameron had to go against the instincts of many Conservatives and offer an historic referendum to give the British people the opportunity of gaining an electoral system with many more benefits than the current FPTP system. The chance for change is now upon us and we must seize moment and vote for reform.

The Alternative Vote was proposed as the electoral system for Westminster in 1918 and 1931, and both times it failed in the House of Lords. Since then it has also been rejected by Lord Jenkins (whose  1998 Report  of The Independent Commission on the Voting System is available here). He cited the danger of tactical voting wiping out a party, the “unpredictable’ disproportional link between seats and percent of the vote ‘it is even less proportional that FPTP [first past the post]”.

In 1997, the Conservative Party won 30.7 per cent of the vote; under FPTP they won 25 per cent of the 659 seats. Under AV, Jenkins reported that the party would only have won 14-16 per cent of those seats.  Jenkins concludes his findings on AV by stating that “it inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government… presided over by a Liberal Democrat from recommending a solution which… [would] have left the Conservatives with less than half of their proportional entitlement.”

But this disproportional link isn’t a one off. In 2010 when Labour scored only 29 per cent, it would have delivered them almost as many seats (248) as the Conservatives, who won 36.1 per cent of votes (ie 283 seats). In 2005, Blair was re-elected on 35 per cent of the vote – the lowest share of the vote ever won by any majority government (and which meant a majority of 66). Yet under simulations of this election under AV, Labour could have increased its already disproportional majority to 88!

Jenkins is not alone in his disapproval of the Alternative Vote – Nick Clegg famously described it in an interview with the Independent as “a miserable little compromise”.

Caroline Lucas, Leader of the Green Party, has also said that AV “won’t transform politics, and it won’t open up the House of Commons to diverse voices”.

Ben Bradshaw, Head of Labour’s Yes Campaign, told the New Statesman in 2009 that he “never supported AV”.  When asked why, he replied, “If one of the reasons that we want reform is to rebuild public trust and confidence in politics, make MPs more accountable, give more power to people and establish a political and parliamentary system that more reflects the will of the public, then AV doesn’t deliver that.”

Even the Electoral Reform Society’s policy on AV before the referendum was that “AV is not a proportional system, the Society does not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament, council, committees, etc.” They have now edited their position to state, “The Society has long argued that AV is the best system when you’re out to elect a single winner”.

So apart from lack of support and rejection by a report designed to choose a new electoral system, AV suffers other stark objections. Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji are the only other countries to elect their lower house by this method. In Australia, 6 out of 10 voters want to return to FPTP which is used by nearly fifty nations, including India, the world’s largest democracy, and the United States to elect the most powerful person in the world.

Complexity and invalid votes are also a hidden danger of AV.  The Australian Parliament analysed 146 countries’ voting patterns to calculate the average number of invalid votes over the last 4 years. Australia was in 46th place, while the United Kingdom was best placed, with 0.2 per cent of votes cast being invalid, compared to Australia’s 3.2 per cent. Even Gambia (1 per cent) and Bangladesh (1.5 per cent) – both FPTP users and with half the literacy rate of Australia – suffered fewer invalid votes.

But the most profound problem with the Alternative Vote (apart from its disproportional nature, failure to eliminate tactical voting, its lack of support from its proponents or its obscurity for national body elections) is that it doesn’t eliminate the problem of safe seats. In Australia since 1945, 40 per cent of seats haven’t changed hands; inner city and rural seats are nearly all safe and it’s in the suburban marginals that elections are won. In the UK the equivalent figure is just 29 per cent of seats.

As a modern Conservative I support and understand the need to modernise our Parliament and the electoral system (AMS or AV+). FPTP may be flawed but AV (the only option, there is no magical road to STV after AV) does nothing to solve these problems it adds to them. So I implore you to go out and campaign, support and vote NO To AV.

1. Cancelling benefits to higher rate tax payers. I’ve never been happy that the Tories failed to really articulate an argument about why it is better for people to keep the money that they earn rather than recycle and waste part of it by paying benefits to those who don’t need them. I’m a bit underwhelmed by the various bits of backtracking on certain programmes, and I’m not confident that we should be allowing pensioners’ benefits to be sacrosanct. But – it’s been a good start.
2. Linked to the above, reducing taxes for the lowest-paid which we had long argued for. There is just no point in shifting money around and losing a bit more of it each time, taking away a little bit more of people’s self-respect each time the state takes over. I want a benefits system that gives serious and substantial help when people need it, and a tax system that lets them decide how they want to live their own lives.
3. Changes to the mechanics of politics – from recall elections, to referendums, to open primaries, to equalising the sizes of constituencies, and reducing the number of MPs.  As I’ve said before, the one thing I’m not sure is worthwhile is the AV referendum – I am not sure we need it if all the other measures work – and I’d also have liked some attempt to resolve both the over-representation caused by devolved assemblies, and the constant sort of Dutch auction about what MPs are actually supposed to do. But I suppose you can’t have everything and perhaps those are things we’ll return to, along with finishing reforms to the House of Lords.
4. 4. Transparency, the PBA agenda and the (slow) reversal of the citizen’s relationship to the state transparency is the thing which will revolutionise the way the state spends our money. Look what happened when the Telegraph started exposing MPs’ expenses claims. The post-bureaucratic agenda is what will revolutionise the choices and therefore the life chances of people who currently can’t afford those choices. And the reversal of the state-citizen relationship will take years but is crucial to both of these. I am surprised that I am about to write this but here goes: perhaps most importantly, it restores the old way of doing things – in other words, you have the freedom to do something unless it is expressly forbidden, which as a principle has been sadly eroded both by legislation and by atmosphere in recent years.
5. 5. Maintaining the aid budget which I appreciate is perhaps further down most peoples’ lists of good things… But I fervently think that we have both a moral duty and an economic imperative to recognise how lucky we in the UK are, and to spend our aid budget as wisely as possible. There are monstrous abuses and there are places where we simply shouldn’t be sending anything. But overall, a sensibly used aid budget is the best way to improve lives abroad, reduce conflict, increase trade and global growth, and give human beings the self-respect that we would all wish for ourselves.

That’s my top five. What are yours?

• 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.

• 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.