George Monbiot :

Who, in this fissile age, would wish for a prime minister with no discernible convictions, no perceivable moral core? Who, when we need courage in government more than at any time in the recent past, wants a prime minister who rolls over to everyone from the Daily Mail to King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud? Who, as we face negotiations with the European Union that will determine the future of this nation – negotiations that demand the utmost delicacy and care – wants a government peopled with buffoons, blusterers and bullies?

Hey Phil. How are you voting on the AV issue in the referendum?

Hmmm ... not 100% committed either way at the moment. I think both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.

I agree with @unloveablesteve that this is a highly misleading propaganda against AV.

If you do want to understand something about AV here's a great resource with in-browser simulation of the effects of different voting systems.

I guess I like a lot of the warm fuzzy things that AV is meant to stand for. Opening up the space for smaller parties who might challenge the status quo. Letting those nice cuddly LibDems ... oh sorry ... well, potentially letting some nice cuddly politicians into shared government to temper the excesses of the big bad main parties.

Like everyone, I'm bitterly disappointed with the LibDems in the coalition. I think that the only thing that they should do is walk out of it, today, join Labour in a vote of no confidence against the government, allow it to fall and we'll restart the whole thing. Hopefully with people giving enough power back to Labour to stop the Tory cut-machine.

But, having said that, I don't entirely blame the LibDems for their inability to resist the Tory agenda. The Conservatives played them very cleverly. And it's not clear how much power they really have as a minority party in government.

I'm guessing that the same would be the case even under AV. Remember how under Blair, power was getting increasingly centralised with him, even against the wishes of his cabinet? How much does AV for representatives matter when prime-minister is an increasingly presidential role?

Actually, you know what, I think I just talked myself into it. I haven't the energy or the heart to try to construct some kind of real rationale for voting against AV, so I guess I'll just support it.

BBC :

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said they agreed economic stability would be key to any agreement.

Remember "economic stability" is a code-word here for, "reassuring the markets" (because who else out there is creating instability *except* the markets?)

This, in turn, means, "demonstrating to lenders that repaying them takes priority over taking care of British citizens" which, in its own turn, means "making dramatic, theatrically visible, cuts to government services".

For the Lib Dems to agree that economic stability is key, therefore, means for Liberal Democrats agree not to challenge or vote against Tory cuts to public services.

What the Tories are offering, to buy this quiescence isn't clear. They can't really offer Proportional Representation. Even offering a pathway towards it (such as a referendum) is a anathema to the majority of the party.

So, one of three things is about to happen :

a) the Tories are going to sucker the Lib Dems. They'll tell something to Clegg that he thinks is genuine progression towards PR. But then find a way to avoid delivering it.

b) Clegg is going to wimp-out. He's going to, knowingly accept, some vacuous promise from Cameron, out of fear of looking obstructive.

c) An attempt to form a Lib / Con coalition is going to fail.

Of course, like everyone else, I have no idea which it will be.

Here's a cool thing about internet culture. While the politicians plot and the media pontificates on what the electorate really wanted by voting in a hung parliament. Facebook can actually just fill in the missing information.


Here's the comment I made :

I'd rather see a Lib/Lab pact than the Tories eviscerating the welfare state (just you watch, Cameron fanbois)

Sadly though, I think that any attempt to make that work is going to be so unpopular (with the media and public) that it will fall apart within weeks.

Better, then, would be Lib Dems not to commit themselves to supporting Tories, but agree to ad-hoc co-operation (just enough to get through the Queen's speech) then joining Labour to block all the really egregious cuts.

Unfortunately, that will take courage, as they'll be accused of uncooperative behaviour at a time of crisis.

(Sorry, I meant "uncooperative behaviour at a time of getting shafted by those same Rating Agencies that failed to understand or warn anyone about the instability and total fucking dishonesty of the CDO market; but nevertheless, and despite being unelected and not disclosing conflicts of interest, think they're the best placed to decide when and how fast the government should repay the debts it incurred cleaning up the mess that the finance sector created.")

I don't suppose the Lib Dems have the courage to stand up to that. (Nor would Labour, either, that's not a partisan point) and so I think we'll get the Lib/Con pact which will focus on pushing spending cuts AND tax cuts through parliament leaving us unable to guarantee even a basic quality of life for the poorest and weakest British citizens.

Welcome to Cameronland.

Meanwhile, I voted Green for local MP, Green as 1st choice, Labour as 2nd for mayor of Hackney, and 1 green and 2 reds for the local authority.