AV: a failure by any other name would smell as sweet.

I haven't posted on this blog for yonks, and there's a reason: this last year in politics has left me feeling uneasy, out of my depth; lacking in the surety of my previous convictions. If that's what the coalition did to me, then imagine how Nick Clegg must feel.

Joining the Labour Party wasn't a panacea; it was merely me sticking to a rather outmoded view that I simply had to belong to a party. I had to pick a side. By temperament I'm probably more suited to joining the Greens. But the reason I did not do just that, the reason I felt compelled to join an Umbrella party, and not one tailored my actual ideals, is because of First-Past-the-Post.

For the Greens could never succeed with the current electoral system. Nor could, I realised, any third party gain the ascendancy and effectively influence national policy. It's a frustratingly chook-and-egg thing. With FPtP, short of a seismic shock in our society as happened in the 1920s, we're condemned to repeat the foetid metronomic cycles of Tory, Labour, Tory, Labour, and the governance of the country will continue to stagnate, with successive parliaments simply skirting around the edges, pandering to a small "c" conservative demographic in the key marginals.

I've held to this belief for a while. In fact, it was one of the key reasons I aligned myself with the Lib Dems from my teens. As an enthusiastic and hopefully well-informed student of politics, it's my view that in order to make Government more responsive, more radical, more exciting even, then we need electoral reform. The additional member system is my preferred option, but it isn't on the table. What is, the "miserable little compromise", is none-the-less a bold step in the right direction. It would force PPCs to campaign for the majority, not those same lucky swing voters. Voting could become about ideas rather than tactics. So the reactionary charge that this vote is trivial doesn't, in my view, hold up to scrutiny; a "yes" vote has the potential to reshape political discourse for the better, even if the campaign itself has been grubby and embarrassing.

But it's now all academic. The vote will be lost. And still, I don't mind. Holding my polling card in my hand today felt exhilarating. After ten years of wishing for the very chance, here it was. The long road to some sort of opportunity to make the case for progress is at an end, and it still feels satisfying. The whole debacle, the coalition and this compromise, have wrecked the Lib Dems for a generation, but at least they gave us this moment. So thank you, Nick Clegg. It's the last time I'll say it.

The Week in Miscellany: Coalitions and Cabbages

I was so sorely tempted to blog in full about the Coalition last week. So many on the left seemed to be panicking as if, as Charlie Brooker humourously puts it, the Tories were blood-curdling Vampiric sadists. We all know a few Tories who are just that, but much of the party's recent rhetoric seems to be aimed at a more centrist audience. With the Lib Dems on board, I'm confident that there will be some sort of beating socially-centred heart in Government. Immediately they're making pleasant purring noises on civil liberties, the environment, and lifting the poorest out of taxation. I'm not saying we should trust them forever, but we should give the Coalition a fair wind. See where it takes us. At the very least, for now it's a refreshing breeze.

~~~~~~

On the allotment front, I want to tell a cautionary tale about the dangers of May. It's all balmy and lovely for a bit, and your sprightly Runner Beans have been doing well on the patio for a couple of weeks. "Allotment, ho!" you say, and dutifully head off to erect some sort of weird bamboo clambering frame for them. And then it happens. May happens. Duplicitous, frigid May. With its snap frosts and consequently withered Runner Beans. Do not trust it.

Other than the Runners, everything's rather rosy in Xanadu (for that, sadly, is the working title for my little patch... don't worry, the shed's called Dave); my fruit bushes are becoming more bushy with every rainy day, none of the mail-order Artichokes or Asparagus crowns have failed, and there's a gradual feeling that the beastliest of the weeds are being tamed by my stern hoe. In short, it's becoming a garden. And it pleases.

~~~~~~

Now! Word-gripe of the week! This time it's the turn of "progressive", which has become so meaningless in the last few months that even David Cameron dares use it. We'll see on that front, but for me this election campaign was the moment when zeitgeisty "progressive" joined the pile of other meaningless campaign words.

So, that updated list in full: sustainable, fair, change, progressive. It'll doubtless grow...

A Cleggophany of Cleggonymy...

After Cleggomania we've had Cleggophilia and Cleggstacy. Now I've found Cleggolatry in The Telegraph. Where will it all Clegg?!

Letter to the Times

When the British get angry and animated, they don't have a revolution, they simply write a strongly-worded letter to The Times.

So, following on from the frustration I mentioned in my last blog post, here is my own little bit of fuming:

Sirs,

Forgive my possible naivety, but my many years as a Liberal Democrat supporter and activist leave me sure that I can rely on the party sticking to its principled guns and not supporting a future minority Labour government if the Tories win the most seats. Nick Clegg would be committing political suicide if he were to even contemplate going against the will of the electorate. When as a party we talk of electoral reform, we really do mean it.

So please don't give credibility to the "Vote Clegg, get Brown" mantra spun in an attempt by Tory HQ to get the working majority they feel entitled to. If Cameron wins, Clegg will support him. Save us the histrionics!

Joseph Blurton,
Devon.

Debunking Coalition Talk

I've noticed a sour odour wafting around the newspaper columns and TV studios over the last couple of days, and thought I'd expound on it for a little while.

There is an assumption in the press - all of it, even at the BBC - that the Lib Dems are most likely to prop up a minority Labour administration after the election. This is giving cheer to many on the left, and making Gordon Brown seem decidedly complacent. The prevailing theory goes that if current polling is reflected in the eventual votes cast, Labour will come last, but still - under our crap electoral system - have the most seats. As the incumbent, Brown would certainly by precedent have the first right to seek to build a coalition. But it actually won't happen.

You can see why the idea's gained headway. There are certainly some policy similarities between the Lib Dems and Labour, and most of the Lib Dem membership would probably self-describe as social democrats. The Lib-Lab pact narrative also appeals to the Tory spin machine, since they can scare floating voters their way. But I have news for them.

I am almost 100% certain that Clegg would not prop up Gordon Brown if the final vote share went a bit like: Con, Lib Dem, Labour (in descending order). Party members might feel more at home with Labour on social issues and constitutional reform, but they are currently a lot closer to the Tories on the economy and civil liberties. There is also another very crucial factor: the principle of the thing.

Let me explain. It's no use spending decades ranting on about electoral reform in the wilderness unless you actually - when the crucial moment comes - stick to your guns and follow the principle of the thing you believe in. If the Tories get the most votes, they have the mandate. Simple. I know this choice will be a hard one for Lib Dems, but I also have faith - from years of personal experience - in how fervently they believe in this particular principle. They would most likely join the Tories and win the concession of electoral reform. (How now could the Tories refuse?) For those interested, Guido Fawkes' blog has quite an amusing take on this hypothetical Lib-Con coalition here.

Now, this all assumes that the Tories will win the most votes. Looking at a lot of the polls, it's actually relatively easy to see that the Lib Dems might themselves be the party with the peoples' mandate, and still form the smallest party. In this position, the Lib Dems would probably demand - as well as proportional representation - the right to impose terms on the other parties. In this scenario they probably would work with Labour, but on the proviso that Gordon Brown steps down, in favour of Alan Johnson or one of the Milibands. They would simply and undeniably have the power to do this, and to demand electoral reform, or else the public would fume if they were thus denied the expression of their will.

So, this talk of "Vote Clegg, get Brown" is all hokum. It's a Tory scare tactic designed to give them the working majority they feel they're entitled to. It looks almost guaranteed that voting Clegg will mean change, because the Liberals hate Gordon Brown just as much as the rest of the nation. They're not too keen on Cameron either, but probably feel he's a man they can work with.

So there you are. If more vote Clegg, you'll get a Lib-Con pact. If even more vote Clegg, you'll effectively get government by, er, Clegg.

~~~~~
I have to add that, personally, I would rather see a Lib-Lab coalitionthan a Lib-Con one, but I don't see the arithmetic going that way. It could, but it won't. This is what riles me about the assumptions in the media at the moment, since I have no hope of this happening, why should they?!

Notes on the Lib Dem surge.

Wow. It's the only appropriate word right now. This weekend's polls are so staggering I may have to bite my arm off just to see if this is actually deep sleep. Nick Clegg's much-praised performance in the ITV leaders' debate on Thursday night has propelled him into the forefront of British politics, and seems to have caught the media, and the other parties, by surprise. Today's YouGov poll puts the parties at C 33, L 30, LD 29, and a BPIX poll in The Mail on Sunday actually puts the Lib Dems in the lead for the first time since 1985, on C 31, L 28, LD 32.

The phenomenon vindicates the long-time mantra of the Lib Dems about their historically awful Catch 22 situation. Without support they cannot get enough exposure, and without exposure they cannot get support. But since almost 1 in 4 voters chose the Lib Dems in 2005, there was little chance of them being left out of the new leaders' debates. The Tories and Labour must be sorely regretting this. But complaints by the likes of Anne Widdecombe about allowing the Lib Dems a platform really do reinforce Clegg's claims about the supreme entrenchment of the political orthodoxy. It's a very useful angle for them. They're both rotten, so come with us!

However, now that the Lib Dems are in the public spotlight after almost a century in the wilderness, and are threatening Cameron's sense of entitlement to govern, the two "old" parties will train their sights anew on the third party.

The conservative press, by which I mean most of the, er, press (The Sun, The News of the World, The Daily Mail, The Times, The Daily Telegraph - really, almost every newspaper!), have essentially printed a memo verbatim from Tory HQ. The main three points of attack seem to be as follows:

• The Lib Dems will sign Britain up to the Euro.
• They will scrap Trident's replacement, leaving Britain without a nuclear deterrent.
• They support an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

This is a classic case of attack by misrepresentation. If you alter the wording of any policy significantly, you can completely change its meaning. In the previous three cases, the Lib Dems' meaning is as follows:

• The Lib Dems would like Britain to join the Euro eventually - like Labour - but now is definitely not the time.
• Given the size of the deficit they would prefer to replace Britain's four on-duty nuclear submarines with an alternative, cheaper deterrent, such as land-based missiles or airborne delivery, at a cost of £20 billion, rather than £100 billion. This is expected to be operational from 2030, and coincides with America and Russia making bilateral reductions.
• The Lib Dems support an amnesty for all illegal immigrants who can prove they have been here for 10 years or more, contributing to the economy, and not committing any crimes. "Playing by the rules," as folks like to say. This would help to grapple impoverished people out of the hands of criminal gangs.
  

It all sounds very different, put like that, doesn't it?

Now, let's do the same thing for the Tories, because it's fun.

• The Tories will abandon communities stuck with poor schools and hospitals to run them by themselves. A source close to the Conservative leader was quoted as saying: "we can't afford to fix them, so you're on your own."
• David Cameron announced last week that the Tories will value commitment at the paltry sum of £3 a week, or the very reasonable price of 3 Daily Telegraphs.
• On Sunday the Tories enlisted Gary Barlow to help turn every school into a spin-off of The X-Factor. Simon Cowell, interviewed about the scheme at a charity fund-raiser hosted by The Horned Beast, Lucifer, rubbed his hands in glee.

You get the idea. Why not try writing your own?!

Anyway, the Lib Dems are doing well, and good luck to them. But the Tories will have to do a lot better than attacking invented policies to halt the yellow tsunami. Conservatives call Lib Dem policies "eccentric", but I think the polls show that the public have been itching for something new and optimistic. They won't get that from the old duopoly.

Struthiocracy: Government by Ostriches

Well, what a fine little pickle this is. Four ministers going in two days, Labour expecting a drubbing at the European elections, Hazel Blears rocking the boat... (oh, how I shan't miss her!) Even the trusty Guardian, in its leader editorial, is calling Brown's pedalo in. The waters of the Westminster Village boating pond are so choppy at the moment that fair-weather Blairite flamingos are migrating before the reshuffle.

Brown promises the nation he's taking action. But I suspect "action" means the same to Gordon Brown as it does to the Vogons. Unluckily for Labour, only one of them is fictional. So the Government's enquiries can enquire, the committees can deliberate, but all the while the nation sees the other parties coming up with all manner of radical proposals. Alan Johnson, to his credit, has made positive noises on proportional representation, but at the moment it's a distraction only, and if Brown supported it then you can be damned sure the public would reject it.

And I think this is the Government's major problem. They couldn't now even sell candy back to the baby. Nobody is listening. They might listen a bit more to Johnson, but Brown and his cadre are too entrenched in their bunker, too busy with their heads in the sand, to actually hear the voice of the people. That voice tells them to go. The big man's passion for power, however, will be the Labour Party's undoing. Rather than disappear gracefully after Friday, as would serve the country and the party best, Brown will have to be dragged out of Downing Street with his beak clamped to the desk.

If Labour MPs don't have the bravery to oust their Dear Leader next week, then they have only themselves to blame for the eventual fate of their party. An entire generation of youths will always despise the party for Iraq, for top-up fees, and for so much more. The party is in debt to its sand-covered eyebrows and donations have dried up. If Brown insists by his arrogance on clinging to power until the bitter end, then Labour may well cease to exist as a viable force in national politics.

The end is nigh. The Guardian is right to warn, and right to suggest its readers shift support to the Greens and Lib Dems. The progressive future looks increasingly to be out of Labour's hands.