http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham James Graham is a co-founder and executive member of the Social Liberal Forum. He won the 2007 Liberal Democrat Blog of the Year Award and regularly writes on Quaequam Blog! en-gb Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2013 Tue, 31 May 2011 17:00:01 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/webfeeds 15 http://image.guardian.co.uk/sitecrumbs/Guardian.gif http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/31/lib-dem-peers-lords-reform <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/95811?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Alib-dem-peers-lords-reform%3A1565638&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Liberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CPolitics%2CLords+reform%2CConstitutional+reform%2CHouse+of+Lords%2CUK+news%2CNick+Clegg&c5=Not+commercially+useful&c6=James+Graham&c7=2011%2F05%2F31+06%3A00&c8=1565638&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Liberal+%E2%80%93+but+not+so+democratic+in+the+Lords&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">The Lib Dem party has danced with the devil long enough. If it's serious about reform, it must stop appointing peers</p><p>That the House of Lords itself is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/31/lords-united-against-nick-cleg-reforms" title="Guardian: Lords united against Nick Clegg's reform plans">strongly opposed to reform</a> should not surprise anyone. That most peers feel it would be "unconstitutional" to press ahead with reform anyway shows quite how difficult pushing reform through will be.</p><p>The word "unconstitutional" has no agreed meaning in a country with an uncodified constitution. Regardless of what legal niceties the Lords may be tempted to use to thwart the will of the Commons, they should look to the principles that lie at the heart of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention" title="Wikipedia: Salisbury Convention">Salisbury convention</a> and ask themselves if they are really prepared to presume to impose an <a href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2011/05/31/is-thwarting-the-will-of-the-lords-really-unconstitutional/" title="Liberati: Is thwarting the will of the Lords really 'unconstitutional'?">undemocratic veto</a>.</p><p>But when even half the Lib Dem peers are in open revolt, what hope is there for the rest of them? Notionally, the party has a century-long commitment for democratic Lords reform but it has always been more a part of the establishment than it has liked to admit. Now we see the chickens coming home to roost.</p><p>Nowhere are the flaws of political appointment more apparent than in the Liberal Democrat party in the House of Lords. Not only are Lib Dem peers handpicked by their leader (in theory, the leader is restricted in his choice; <a href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/05/17/that-interim-peers-list-in-full/" title="Liberati: That interim peers list in full">the reality is somewhat different</a>), they are self-selecting. You are either the sort of person who is eminently comfortable with being given a seat for life in the legislature without any democratic mandate, or you find it abhorrent.</p><p>The latter tend not to invest the time and energy required in finding favour from the leader of the day while the former can be all too readily identified by anyone who has ever sat on an internal party committee.</p><p>With a system of appointment, engineering a parliamentary party that is gender-balanced and broadly reflects the ethnic and socio-economic mix of the country as a whole ought to be simplicity itself. The fact that the majority of peers continue to be middle-class men of a certain age and background should tell you all you need to know about the nature of patronage.</p><p>By their very nature then, peers predominantly either come from the establishment or seek to be a part of it. This is usually good news for a party leader seeking loyalty on the red benches but now we see that this loyalty comes with strings attached. For too long we have gone along with the system while blithely assuming that our own peers will vote for their own abolition when the time comes. Now we learn that is unlikely to be the case.</p><p>The current system of appointing peers is not only corrupt but is corrupting. A party committed to reforming the second chamber should resist the temptation to appoint members to it and thus lend it the veneer of legitimacy, something peers are now clinging to for dear life. If Nick Clegg wishes to show leadership in an attempt to end this merry-go-round he needs to get off it.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/lordreform">Lords reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constitution">Constitutional reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/lords">House of Lords</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg">Nick Clegg</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Liberal Democrats Politics Lords reform Constitutional reform House of Lords UK news Nick Clegg guardian.co.uk Comment Tue, 31 May 2011 17:00:01 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/31/lib-dem-peers-lords-reform James Graham Comment is free 2011-05-31T17:00:01Z Article 375191548 Liberal Democrats, Politics, Lords reform, Constitutional reform, House of Lords, UK news, Nick Clegg Martin Argles/Guardian 'A party committed to reforming the second chamber should resist the temptation to appoint members to it and thus lend it the veneer of legitimacy' Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian Martin Argles/Guardian 'A party committed to reforming the second chamber should resist the temptation to appoint members to it and thus lend it the veneer of legitimacy.' Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/24/lib-dems-nick-clegg-tories-coalition <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/29336?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Alib-dems-nick-clegg-tories-coalition%3A1442788&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Coalition+Liberal-Conservative+coalition%2CLiberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CNick+Clegg%2CEconomic+policy%2CPolitics%2CSocial+mobility+%28Society%29%2CSociety%2CUK+news&c5=Society+Weekly%2CCredit+Crunch%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CSocial+Care+Society&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F08%2F24+02%3A10&c8=1442788&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Lib+Dems+must+agree+to+publicly+disagree&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Nick Clegg should admit our economic differences with the Tories in public or the coalition will become rudderless</p><p>Pity the poor Liberal Democrat. Denounced by Labour politicians and supporters and accused of immorality by our own party leader for having the temerity of happening to believe that the economic policy in our own manifesto is still essentially correct, it can feel pretty lonely at times. Back in May when Nick Clegg and David Cameron promised us a bold era of untribal, undogmatic "new politics" this isn't, truth to tell, what I thought they had in mind.</p><p></p><p>Clegg's suggestion that it is "<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/aug/16/nickclegg-liberal-conservative-coalition" title="Guardian: Nick Clegg's first day – as it happened">morally wrong</a>" to pass a debt on from one generation to the next deserves some scrutiny. Of course, in an ideal world, we would want to avoid this, but we don't live in one. The UK finally <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-pays-off-final-instalment-of-us-loan--after-61-years-430118.html" title="Independent: Britain pays off final instalment of US loan - after 61 years">paid off its last instalment of the Marshall Plan</a> at the end of 2006. Far from feeling disgusted at my grandparents' generation for such irresponsibility, I think most people are pretty grateful they saddled us with it. Equally, if the choice amounts to living debt-free as one of the long-term unemployed or paying slightly higher taxes in return for a decent job training scheme, I suspect most young people would prefer the latter.</p><p></p><p>Talk of morality in economics seldom causes more light than heat. Deficit reduction, like spending, is neither moral nor immoral in and of itself; it is what you do with it that counts. Is it moral to foist cuts on people because of the irresponsibility of Labour's numerous <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/13/nhs-pfi-65-billion-bill-repayments" title="Guardian: NHS faces 65bn bill for PFI hospitals">disastrous PFI schemes</a>? And if the key principle at stake is intergenerational justice, why are youth services being slashed while pensions are being increased?</p><p></p><p>Clegg has done a tremendous job of trying to put a gloss to it, but there is sadly no hiding from the fact that the government is currently set on an aggressive deficit reduction plan that is desperately lacking in vision. That the government is embarking on a programme of deep cuts is not in question; but nobody seems to be able to explain what it is all for. The coalition can't explain because, frankly, the coalition can't agree. That's why the government's "vision" has been dominated by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/20/local-councils-public-sector-cuts" title="Guardian: Clegg and Cameron's illiberal 'Big Liberal Society'">empty flannel such as the "big society"</a>, which can somehow mean both liberalism and an aggressive full-frontal assault on the state at the same time.</p><p></p><p>Clegg's <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2010/100818-socialmobility.aspx" title="Cabinet Office: Deputy Prime Minister to champion Social Mobility">speech about social mobility</a> last week was welcome, but it was largely notable for what was not in it. There was only one, very vague reference to welfare reform. Reforming benefits could both allow people to escape the poverty trap and save the taxpayer billions in the long run; sadly, doing so would almost certainly cost billions up front – something <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11056753" title="BBC: 'Row' between Duncan Smith and Osborne played down">George Osborne appears to be finding hard to grasp</a>.</p><p></p><p>Clegg had even less to say on housing. Despite alluding to a tax system that makes "fairer demands on unearned wealth" this amounted to little more than increasing capital gains tax and minimising tax avoidance. A proper debate on social mobility cannot duck the impact that the budget is likely to have on the poorest in society, yet thus far this new government has shied away from its statutory obligation to hold equality impact assessments on its policies. There is always a risk with talk of "social mobility" that the scope is too narrow and it quickly degenerates into a justification for inequality rather than as a means for tackling it. This must be resisted at all costs.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, social mobility cannot be bought at the cost of increasing relative poverty – the greatest single cause of social immobility we have. We will be debating how the government should address this at the <a href="http://socialliberal.net/2010/08/20/conference-motion-ensuring-fairness-in-a-time-of-austerity/" title="Social Liberal Forum: Ensuring fairness in a time of austerity">Lib Dem conference next month</a> and I look forward to seeing how the Conservatives respond in kind.</p><p></p><p>It is not tribal or anti-coalition to admit that the two coalition parties are divided on the overall direction of government. If we don't debate this difference in public, the coalition will quickly become rudderless as it obsesses over the lowest common denominator and the electorate will respond with contempt. Clegg needs to find the confidence to articulate the differences and resist the temptation to restrict himself to areas where he agrees with Cameron. To prevent the coalition from collapsing from its own internal contradictions, both parties need to start being much more frank with the public and each other on where they disagree.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberal-conservative-coalition">Liberal-Conservative coalition</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg">Nick Clegg</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/economy">Economic policy</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/socialmobility">Social mobility</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Liberal-Conservative coalition Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Economic policy Politics Social mobility Society UK news guardian.co.uk Comment Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:10:15 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/24/lib-dems-nick-clegg-tories-coalition James Graham Comment is free 2010-08-24T13:10:15Z Article 366067099 Liberal-Conservative coalition, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, Economic policy, Politics, Social mobility, Society, UK news Handout/Getty Images 'It is not tribal or anti-coalition to admit that the two coalition parties are divided on the overall direction of government.' Photograph: Getty Handout/Getty Images 'It is not tribal or anti-coalition to admit that the two coalition parties are divided on the overall direction of government.' Photograph: Getty http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/28/labour-self-defeating-gerrymander-accusations <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/86074?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Alabour-self-defeating-gerrymander-accusations%3A1432219&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Electoral+reform%2CLabour%2CJack+Straw%2CUK+news&c5=Not+commercially+useful&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F07%2F28+02%3A00&c8=1432219&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Labour%27s+accusations+of+gerrymandering+are+self-defeating&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Jack Straw has put party interest above public good. The voting reform bill deserves more serious scrutiny</p><p>Every time a Labour politician uses the word "gerrymandering" a puppy dies. There is a lot of cant being fired off on both sides of the debate raging around <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/parliamentaryvotingsystemandconstituencies.html" title="Parliamenet: Parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill">the parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill</a>, but <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/27/shadow-cabinet-to-oppose-voting-reform-bill" title="Guardian: Shadow cabinet to oppose voting reform bill">the "gerrymandering" charge</a> is perhaps the most overblown aspect of it.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering" title="Wikipedia">Gerrymandering</a> is the act of deliberately fixing a boundary in order to give a political party an unfair advantage. Yet the proposed changes will not to lead to any more political interference in the boundary review process. If anything, by speeding up the process and narrowing the scope of the Boundary Commission, they will lead to less interference.</p><p>It is true that the Conservatives want to change the way we draw up boundaries because they perceive it gives Labour an unfair advantage. In that respect, at least, they are correct. If both parties had got equal votes in the last general election, Labour would have won a clear plurality of the seats. This situation has existed for quite some time and was not reviewed during either of the boundary changes presided over under the last Labour government. It would be a cheap shot to call that Labour inaction "gerrymandering" yet it would be no less true than their own current allegations.</p><p>Things aren't quite that simple however. First of all, there is the question about whether this boundary review will actually correct the imbalance. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/dec/21/cameron-plan-bias-electoral-system" title="Guardian: Cameron's plan to remove anti-Tory bias in electoral system 'won't work'">According to two recent academic papers</a>, the answer is "no" – or at least not by much. That of course begs the question about whether it is strictly necessary, but it equally forces us to ask why Labour is making dropping the proposals such a precondition to them supporting the referendum on the alternative vote, which was their own manifesto commitment. There are Labour supporters of electoral reform who seem to genuinely believe they are opposing a very deep injustice, but I hope they are open to the suggestion that they are to an extent being manipulated by opponents of electoral reform who are cynically whipping up hysteria within the party in a bid to derail the referendum itself.</p><p>There is a second, more fundamental issue. One of the main effects of the new bill is to base constituency boundaries on electorate size, rather than population size. The review is to be completed before the 2011 census will have even been published. There is nothing new about the phenomenon of "<a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/87111/The-completeness-and-accuracy-of-electoral-registers-in-Great-Britain.pdf" title="Electoral Commission: The completeness and accuracy of electoral registers in Great Britain (pdf)">electoral deserts</a>" – another problem that Labour took no action over in 13 years – but the effect of this proposal will be to formally deny the existence of millions of people within the electoral process. Constituency MPs with large unregistered populations will end up with disproportionately large caseloads; just because you aren't on the electoral register, it doesn't mean you don't still have housing problems or nuisance neighbours. Indeed, since electoral deserts tend to go hand-in-hand with social problems, those (mostly urban) MPs will be hit by a double whammy.</p><p>The way the coalition is planning to mitigate this is by redoubling government efforts on electoral registration, but thus far no concrete plan on how they intend to do this has emerged. What's more, as the director of Democratic Audit, <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/stuart-wilks-heeg/reduce-and-equalise-why-electoral-geography-matters" title="Open Democracy: Reduce and equalise? Why electoral geography matters ">Stuart Wilks-Heeg, has written</a>, by switching to individual voter registration in 2014 (as opposed to the current household system), the electoral roll and the constituency boundaries will no longer bear any relation to each other by the time of the next election. We effectively will have gone back to square one.</p><p>So there are genuine social justice problems that need to be ironed out of this legislation. Unfortunately, by focusing on the false gerrymandering charge, Jack Straw puts party self-interest above the public good and only ensures that the debate in parliament becomes more heated. In doing so, the possibility of MPs working across parties to give the bill proper scrutiny recedes. It is at best self-defeating and at worse a deeply cynical attempt to derail the coalition which has nothing to do with the real issues that are at stake. Labour reformers should think carefully before going along with this ploy; the stakes are simply too high.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/electoralreform">Electoral reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour">Labour</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/jackstraw">Jack Straw</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Electoral reform Labour Jack Straw UK news guardian.co.uk Comment Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:00:43 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/28/labour-self-defeating-gerrymander-accusations James Graham Comment is free 2010-07-28T13:04:18Z Article 365262923 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/02/alternative-vote-referendum-electoral-reform <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/8709?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Aalternative-vote-referendum-electoral-reform%3A1421021&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Electoral+reform%2CPolitics%2CUK+news%2CAV+-+alternative+vote%2CAV+referendum&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F07%2F02+10%3A30&c8=1421021&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=On+electoral+reform%2C+it%27s+AV+or+nothing&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">To suggest there is a viable alternative to the alternative vote system is simply naive</p><p>Last Saturday, Earl Kitchener, great-nephew of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Kitchener,_1st_Earl_Kitchener" title="Wikipedia: Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener">famous military commander</a> who never quite worked out that it is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kitchener_Wants_You" title="Wikipedia: Lord Kitchener Wants You">rude to point</a>, rose to his feet at the annual general meeting of the Electoral Reform Society to speak on one of the weighty issues of the day. The topic? To deplore the fact that the society had taken no action over the past year to implement its commitment "to prepare a comparative account of the method of <a href="http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/stvrules/" title="Cix: How to conduct an election by the single transferable vote">Newland and Britton</a> and that of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_Single_Transferable_Votes#Meek.27s_method" title="Wikipedia: Meek's method">Meek</a> for counting STV elections".</p><p>To democracy campaigners, it is an eerily familiar situation. Far too often individuals – generally a minority but sometimes not – get completely obsessed with the detail and subsequently confuse the wood for the trees. To the extent that the outside world cares at all, we must look utterly bizarre.</p><p>Oddly, in recent weeks Comment is free has been holding is own exercise in psephological obscurantism. John Wilheim wants the government to abandon its plans to hold a referendum on the <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55" title="Electoral Reform Society: Alternative Vote">alternative vote system</a> in favour <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/22/forget-av-approval-voting" title="Cif: Forget AV, we need approval voting">of another one called approval voting</a> in which you can vote for as many candidates as you like, but can't express a preference between them. Sam Smith meanwhile would like us to adopt what he has called <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/29/electoral-reform-alternative-vote" title="Cif: AV might kill off the Tories. There is a fair alternative">the alternative additional member system</a>, which he assures us "produces stable, decisive government". The citizens of Greece and Italy, who use strikingly similar systems, might disagree.</p><p>We could debate what system is best until the cows come home, but to seriously suggest that there is a viable alternative to AV at this stage is simply politically naive. AV is on the table because of a classic British compromise: it is a Labour policy being introduced by the Conservatives (who oppose any meaningful electoral reform) and the Liberal Democrats (who would like to go a lot further). This has only happened because of a unique set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated any time soon and, like it or not, we can't unpick the coalition agreement now. Labour would be liable to vote down any other system and, with the help of the inevitable Tory rebels and abstainers, the bill would fall through.</p><p>Regardless of what might happen in five, 20 or 50 years time, at this precise moment you are faced with a choice between AV and the status quo. There can be no fence-sitters in the debate. I have to admit that initially <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/electoral-reform-gordon-brown" title="Cif: Who will fight for electoral reform?">I was quite uninspired</a> by the prospect of fighting a referendum on such a modest, if meaningful, change. But two things have changed my mind.</p><p>The first was the election itself, which was in many ways the most blisteringly negative one we've had in years. All those bar charts, exhortations not to "waste" your vote and arguments that if you vote for X you'll get Y all served to reinforce the message that the system is designed to deny people choice. Tactical voting has become the norm in this country – we've grown wise to the fact that the system conspires against us. We've stopped casting our votes for the candidate we genuinely prefer and instead have started to treat our votes like punts at the Grand National. If we end up treating voting like a game, it is no surprise that the politicians we end up with so often disappoint.</p><p>In my constituency in Hendon, I was faced with the stark choice of supporting the Liberal Democrats, who looked like they might have been on the verge of a breakthrough, or vote for the incumbent Labour MP who had a wafer-thin majority against a doctrinaire Tory. I chose to vote positively for the Lib Dems, but their surge proved to be a mirage. By voting with my heart and not my head, the system punished me by ensuring the Conservatives won by just 106 votes. There are lots of things wrong with our voting system, but if we just managed to prevent people from being put in that invidious position, we will have taken a decisive step forward.</p><p>The other thing that has changed my mind is the <a href="http://www.takebackparliament.com/" title="Take Back Parliament">growing purple movement</a>, which I had a small hand in pump priming but which has grown beyond all our expectations. Never in a million years did I expect to be one of thousands of people marching on to Westminster to demand electoral reform, as happened in May, or that it would lead to dozens of parallel demonstrations sparking off around the country.</p><p>Take Back Parliament is rapidly evolving into a national network of young, energetic campaigners who, while they might want to see the country eventually adopt an even fairer electoral system, are very determined to win the referendum. And they aren't sitting around holding stuffy committee meetings and seminars, but rather taking to the streets, making a noise at festivals and, starting next Friday, <a href="http://www.power2010.org.uk/page/event/detail/takebackparliament/wrrh" title="holding music gigs">holding music gigs</a>.</p><p>Those who argue that the devil is in the detail are completely wrong. The "devil" is letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. The existing first-past-the-post system wasn't developed by a panel of academics any more than deliberating endlessly about what systems we might replace it with will get it changed.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/electoralreform">Electoral reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/av">Alternative vote</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/av-referendum">AV referendum</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Electoral reform Politics UK news Alternative vote AV referendum guardian.co.uk Comment Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:30:34 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/02/alternative-vote-referendum-electoral-reform James Graham Comment is free 2010-07-02T10:14:18Z Article 364477131 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/12/lib-dems-coalition-labour <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/38968?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Alib-dems-coalition-labour%3A1398180&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Liberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CGeneral+election+2010%2CConservatives+tories+tory+party%2CLabour%2CWelfare+%28Politics%29%2CPolitics%2CElectoral+reform%2CTax+and+spending%2CHung+parliament+%28Politics%29%2CCoalition+Liberal-Conservative+coalition&c5=Personal+Finance%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CSocial+Care+Society&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F05%2F12+10%3A59&c8=1398180&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=Cif+at+the+polls&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Refusal+to+enter+Lib+Dem+coalition+was+Labour%27s+final+failure&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2FLiberal+Democrats" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Overall, the deal with the Tories looks a good one, but I feel let down by Labour, which has retreated to introspective opposition</p><p>This is a truly historic moment. The first Liberal or Liberal Democrat members of a UK government since 1945; a whole swathe of Liberal Democrat policies to be implemented; a Conservative party largely defanged. So why do I feel (and I am by no means the only one) as if someone has just died?</p><p>That bittersweet feeling is partly because I wonder what might have been. Despite everything, right up to the last minute I did feel that Labour would have made more natural allies. The Social Liberal Forum executive, of which I am a member, <a href="http://socialliberal.net/2010/05/10/slf-statement-on-the-opening-of-formal-talks-with-labour/" title="Social Liberal Forum">issued a statement</a> welcoming the start of formal talks with Labour on Monday evening. What we did not know at the time, however, was that at that same moment Labour negotiators were making it clear they had nothing to offer. Over the weekend, it would appear, Labour's appetite for power evaporated, and that rather than interpret Gordon Brown's resignation as a sign that a deal with the Lib Dems could be struck, they took it as a starting gun for an introspective leadership contest from the safety of the opposition benches.</p><p>For me, this represents a final let-down by the Labour party after 13 years of disappointments. It has become a hollow shell of what it once was. There is hope that it can now reinvent itself as a genuinely progressive party that rediscovers the enthusiasm it once had for individual human dignity. Sadly, however, the early signs show that it is going to retrench into a tribalist sect interested only in gaining outright power for itself. The fact that two of the things the Labour negotiating team would not even contemplate was dismantling the database state and ending the detention of immigrant children makes you realise quite how corrupted the party has become in office.</p><p>Let's be clear about one thing: the one thing the Liberal Democrats are not doing by forming a coalition with the Conservatives is seeking personal advantage. To be sure, we are certainly ambitious about expanding our policy programme, but as students of political systems where balanced parliaments are the norm, we are well aware that junior partners of coalitions are typically punished at the ballot box. The fact that this government will have to preside over the toughest deficit reduction spending round in decades makes this look even more likely.</p><p>If we had managed to secure a fair voting system, such a hit would have been balanced out by proper representation in the next parliament; as it is, our current voting system is likely to exert an extremely heavy toll. Of the 57 MPs who unanimously endorsed this plan early this morning, most did so in the knowledge that there is a strong possibility they were voting for their own political annihilation.</p><p>Three key areas concern me about this agreement. The first is welfare reform, where we have signed up to the Conservatives' <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7176844.stm" title="BBC: Q&A: Tory work for benefit plan">workfare agenda</a> (it should be pointed out that Labour's manifesto committed it to supporting a workfare regime as well). I am concerned at how draconian these measures may be for a generation already taking an unfair share of the pain for the economic downturn.</p><p>The Lib Dem pledge to raise personal allowance has been kept, albeit not as something to be introduced in year one, but some of the progressive taxation measures we were committed to implementing to pay for it have not. We must not end our government in office having increased the gap between rich and poor.</p><p>The third area is of course electoral reform. Regardless of the merits of the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/may/10/proportional-representation-alternative-vote-plus" title="Guardian: the alternative vote, AV plus and single transferable vote explained">alternative vote</a> system (and there are a few, despite it not being proportional), it is hard to see how such a referendum can be won. Meanwhile, the enthusiasm amongst the public for genuine voting reform is <a href="http://www.takebackparliament.com" title="Take Back Parliament">growing exponentially</a>. I hope the Liberal Democrats in government will not begrudge the fact that many of us will not take this lying down, and use every measure at our disposal to force parliament to offer the public a proper choice.</p><p>But overall, the deal looks like it is a good one, and a liberal one. If we can make this of all coalition governments work, then the case against hung parliaments – and thus one of the strongest arguments against electoral reform – will have been destroyed. I worry for my party, but am immensely proud of it this morning. And if that means being called traitors on a daily basis by a perfidious Labour party, which now faces years in the political wilderness, so be it.</p><p></p><p>• <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/general-election-2010-cif-at-the-polls" title="Guardian: Cif at the polls">More election comment from Cif at the polls</a></p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/general-election-2010">General election 2010</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives">Conservatives</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour">Labour</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/welfare">Welfare</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/electoralreform">Electoral reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/taxandspending">Tax and spending</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/hung-parliament">Hung parliament</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberal-conservative-coalition">Liberal-Conservative coalition</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Liberal Democrats General election 2010 Conservatives Labour Welfare Politics Electoral reform Tax and spending Hung parliament Liberal-Conservative coalition guardian.co.uk Comment Wed, 12 May 2010 09:59:54 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/12/lib-dems-coalition-labour James Graham Comment is free 2010-05-12T10:02:01Z Article 362538656 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-liberaldemocrats <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/12832?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Ageneral-election-2010-liberaldemocrats%3A1396031&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=General+election+2010%2CLiberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CNick+Clegg%2CElectoral+reform%2CPolitics&c5=Not+commercially+useful&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F05%2F07+07%3A31&c8=1396031&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=Cif+at+the+polls&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Election+2010%3A+A+cruel+result+for+the+Lib+Dems&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2FGeneral+election+2010" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">The young people who said they'd vote for the party stayed at home. Yet we seem to have increased our share of the vote</p><p>What can I say about <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/07/liberal-democrats-failure-convert-votes">this result</a>? I'm bereft. It isn't even a result so awful that the Lib Dems could sit by the sidelines and let everyone else sort out the mess the country is in. That, at least, would be easy. In fact, just to make things even more galling, we seem to have actually increased our share of the vote to a level that we would have been delighted with a month ago. What a cruel result.</p><p>What we have instead is a big muddle and one which is unlikely to even be sorted out by holding another election. If elections using this broken system are going to throw up such random results, it isn't merely that it is manifestly unfair; it no longer serves as a viable mechanism for deciding on who should govern the country.</p><p>It would appear that the enthusiasm that both the pollsters and Lib Dem canvassers were detecting was only skin deep. The once consolation appears to be that for the most part the young people who said they were voting Lib Dem and didn't stayed at home rather than switch to another party. There is at least a base out there waiting to be inspired and mobilised. Even at the height of the campaign it was clear that the Lib Dems were pretty much relying on them to organise themselves. Clearly this was expecting too much.</p><p>For a brief moment, it looked as if Nick Clegg had managed to capture the public mood in a similar way to how Obama did in 2008. In fact, a closer analogy would be Howard Dean's bid for the Democratic nomination in 2004. Like Clegg, Dean found himself at the centre of an enthusiastic youth movement that he didn't really know what to do with. If, like Dean (who went on to become chair of the Democratic National Congress and played a crucial role in that party's electoral successes in 2006 and 2008), the Lib Dems spend the next couple of years harnessing that potential, we could yet turn this moment of despair into something positive and lasting.</p><p>But that is scant consolation to those candidates and former MPs who were defeated this morning. It's been a heavy blow and yet the party only has a few hours to recover before the thorny talks to decide who will be sitting in Downing Street must begin. Some difficult decisions will have to be taken this weekend; what the outcome will be is anybody's guess.</p><p>• <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/general-election-2010-cif-at-the-polls">More Guardian election comment from Cif at the polls</a></p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/general-election-2010">General election 2010</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg">Nick Clegg</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/electoralreform">Electoral reform</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> General election 2010 Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Electoral reform Politics guardian.co.uk Comment Fri, 07 May 2010 06:31:10 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-liberaldemocrats James Graham Comment is free 2010-05-07T09:24:25Z Article 362324594 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/05/hung-parliament-change-lords <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/38022?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Ahung-parliament-change-lords%3A1394815&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=General+election+2010%2CPolitics%2CUK+news%2CHouse+of+Lords%2CLords+reform%2CConservatives+tories+tory+party&c5=Not+commercially+useful&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F05%2F05+12%3A48&c8=1394815&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=Cif+at+the+polls&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Election+2010%3A+Cameron+plans+to+stuff+the+Lords+with+Tory+peers&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2FGeneral+election+2010" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">The reformed upper house has become an effective legislative chamber – but this is under threat</p><p>With all the excitement about hung parliaments during this election, a crucial fact has been missed: we have had a hung parliament since the majority of hereditary peers were thrown out of the House of Lords in 1999.</p><p></p><p>Over the past decade, the government has repeatedly been forced to make concessions to the Lords – often on quite fundamental aspects of civil liberties. It has transformed the upper house from a tawdry combination of gentlemen's club, retirement home and rubber stamp, to an active and effective legislative chamber.</p><p></p><p>The fact that the Conservatives have decided to turn this election into a referendum on the desirability of hung parliaments brings that positive reform under renewed threat. It has always been official Conservative policy to return to single party control in the Lords: the Conservative policy for Lords reform is to elect a "substantial" number of members of the second chamber by first-past-the-post. With a mandate to prevent hung parliaments, it is clear that they will now advance this policy even before such reforms take place.</p><p></p><p>Last autumn, the Times reported that the <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6863685.ece" title="Times: David Cameron preparing to appoint record number of peers if Tories win">Tories plan to appoint a record number of peers</a> if they win the election, at least 35 in year one. The website Conservative Home has been encouraging its readers to make suggestions for a list of <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/one_hundred_tory_peers/" title="Conservativehome: Search for 100 peers">"100 peers</a>". This list contains a number of the mad, the bad and the dangerous to know, including most of the Tory commentariat, Boris Johnson's dad, Andrew Roberts (the closest thing we have to a Dalek in human form) and, amazingly, Robert Edmiston – <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1530410/Police-wanted-to-talk-to-80-people-in-peers-inquiry-but-many-refused-reveals-donor.html" title="Telegraph: Police wanted to talk to 80 people in peers inquiry but many refused, reveals donor">the Tory backer who was blocked by the Lords appointments panel</a> following the "cash for peerages" scandal in 2006.</p><p></p><p>But this is just the beginning. To prevent the House of Lords from being hung, <a href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/05/02/do-the-tories-have-a-secret-plan-to-prevent-hung-parliaments/" title="Quaequam Blog: The Tories' secret plan to prevent hung parliaments">they will have to appoint 300 new life peers during their first term</a>. To make up the numbers, Cameron will almost certainly be turning to his failed parliamentary candidates (bringing into question the whole point of having elections in the first place) and of course those who have bankrolled his election. Don't be surprised to see <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/02/conservatives-philippa-stroud-gay-cure" title="Guardian: Rising Tory star Philipa Stroud ran prayer session to 'cure' gay people">a Lady Stroud</a> or <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/02/secret-christian-donors-bankroll-tories" title="Guardian: Secret Christian donors bankroll Tories">Lord Farmer</a> in ermine next month if Cameron wins.</p><p></p><p>This is what all the Tory talk about opposing a hung parliament means: parliament stuffed to the gills with placemen and less governmental scrutiny than we've seen in over a decade. Be very afraid.</p><p></p><p>• <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/general-election-2010-cif-at-the-polls" title="Guardian: Cif at the polls">More election comment from Cif at the polls</a></p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/general-election-2010">General election 2010</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/lords">House of Lords</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/lordreform">Lords reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives">Conservatives</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> General election 2010 Politics UK news House of Lords Lords reform Conservatives guardian.co.uk Comment Wed, 05 May 2010 11:48:54 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/05/hung-parliament-change-lords James Graham Comment is free 2010-05-05T11:50:23Z Article 362217654 General election 2010, Politics, UK news, House of Lords, Lords reform, Conservatives Stephen Lock/AP The Conservatives would have to appoint 300 life peers to stop the House of Lords being hung. Photograph: Stephen Lock/AP http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/liberal-democrats-labour-sweat <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/15966?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Aliberal-democrats-labour-sweat%3A1390905&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=General+election+2010%2CLiberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CNick+Clegg%2CLabour%2CGordon+Brown%2CElectoral+reform%2CPolitics%2CUK+news&c5=Not+commercially+useful&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F04%2F26+05%3A17&c8=1390905&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=Cif+at+the+polls&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Lib+Dems+will+make+Labour+sweat&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2FGeneral+election+2010" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Labour are waking up to the fact Nick Clegg will be nobody's patsy, and must stop arguing themselves into political oblivion</p><p>It is a clear sign of the pressure Labour politicians and their media supporters are facing that Nick Clegg now only has to state the bleeding obvious to send them into a tailspin. Yesterday, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/26/nick-clegg-electoral-system-election" title="Guardian: Clegg: I will not prop up Labour if they come third">Clegg declared</a> that the party that comes third in terms of popular vote (note, not second) in this election will have no right to govern. Rather than take this as a clear signal that they need to redouble their efforts, Labour politicos have reacted with shock. It is a genuinely curious response.</p><p></p><p>Up until this point, it would seem, Labour had assumed that as long as the electoral system could deliver them the most MPs, it didn't really matter how people actually voted. Regardless of the eccentricities of our broken voting system, why did they think for a second that was remotely a political possibility? Just to compound matters, Labourites have now concluded that Clegg is angling to form a coalition with the Tories.</p><p></p><p>Of course, Clegg has said no such thing. His position is quite clear: the party with the biggest mandate has the first right to try and form a government (as opposed to automatically form a government) and that any deal with the Lib Dems will be contingent on getting as much of the Lib Dem manifesto passed as possible.</p><p></p><p>Are the Tories more likely to deliver that? I don't think so, and I am surprised so many Labour frontbenchers seem to disagree; at the very least it represents a near fatal loss of confidence. But does that mean Clegg should rule out co-operation with the Tories? Absolutely not; that would be irredeemably stupid.</p><p></p><p>To start with, we won't know what the lay of the land will be until after all the votes have been counted on 7 May. We don't know if a Lib-Con government is even arithmetically possible. Anyone still determined to make predictions about what will happen ought to remember that two weeks ago, nobody would have predicted the Lib Dems coming first or second in nearly every single opinion poll just a few days later. But second, the Lib Dems cannot afford to be seen to be offering Labour a blank cheque. Clegg represents change in this election; Brown the status quo. It would be a betrayal of a great deal of the electorate, not least the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/24/youth-vote-election-politics" title="Cif: I'm 19: here's my view on the youth vote">younger people who for the first time are being motivated to vote</a>, if Clegg were to prop up the prime minister many have come to loathe.</p><p></p><p>If Labour is slowly waking up to the fact that the Lib Dems will be nobody's patsies, that's great. I like to think that Labour can bring itself back from the brink over the next 10 days and will stop arguing itself into political oblivion. As their newly exhumed supporter Elvis says, it's now or never. What they have to wake up to, however, is the fact that there are a lot more possible scenarios out there than either a Cameron or a Brown-led government. Every time they oversimplify and insist that a Lib Dem vote is a vote for Cameron, they merely discredit themselves by mirroring the Tories who are insisting that the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/20/election-2010-david-cameron-hung-parliament" title="Cif: Election 2010: 'Vote Clegg, get Brown'">Lib Dems are a proxy for Brown</a>.</p><p></p><p>There are only two things I am certain of in this election. First, every vote for the Liberal Democrats is not just a vote for more Lib Dem MPs, but will strengthen Nick Clegg's negotiating position. The time for tactical voting has passed: it is time to vote positively for a fairer, grown-up form of politics.</p><p></p><p>Second, not only will Nick Clegg drive a hard bargain in the case of a hung parliament, but his party will hold him to it. With strong leadership, the notorious Lib Dem "<a href="http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/03/the-full-text-of-the-lib-dem-triple-lock/" title="FT.com: The full text of the Lib Dem triple lock">triple lock</a>" won't slow down the process; it doesn't work like that. What it will do is concentrate minds.</p><p></p><p>If Labour, languishing in third place in the polls, are so concerned about the prospect of a Cameron government, then it is time they started offering some serious concessions. Until they do, they will continue to argue themselves into political oblivion. What we have seen over the past 24 hours is Labour going through a massive crisis of confidence and are in the grip of disabling panic. That isn't a reason to not vote Liberal Democrat. Quite the opposite.</p><p></p><p>• <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/general-election-2010-cif-at-the-polls" title="Guardian: Cif at the polls">More Guardian election comment from Cif at the polls</a></p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/general-election-2010">General election 2010</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg">Nick Clegg</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour">Labour</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gordon-brown">Gordon Brown</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/electoralreform">Electoral reform</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> General election 2010 Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Labour Gordon Brown Electoral reform Politics UK news guardian.co.uk Comment Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:17:53 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/liberal-democrats-labour-sweat James Graham Comment is free 2010-04-27T15:55:51Z Article 361891285 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/general-election-2010-liberaldemocrats1 <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/803?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Ageneral-election-2010-liberaldemocrats1%3A1387043&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=General+election+2010%2CLiberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CElectoral+reform%2CNick+Clegg%2CPolitics%2CUK+news&c5=Not+commercially+useful&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F04%2F18+05%3A11&c8=1387043&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=Cif+at+the+polls&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=A+new+politics+is+up+for+grabs&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2FGeneral+election+2010" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">When my computer freezes, I hit reset. Voting Lib Dem this time is the equivalent of pressing a bloody great reset button</p><p>I got incredibly excited by the <a href="http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/politics/latest-voting-intention-16-april">Sun/YouGov poll</a> published yesterday - and then despondent when I put the figures through the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm">BBC's seats calculator</a>. What the latter showed was that despite Labour coming third with 28% in that poll, if it was repeated in real votes on 6 May, Labour would end up the largest single party with the Lib Dems languishing in third place and struggling to get representation in three figures. Regardless of how hopeless calculators based on universal national swings are, this is a terrible indictment of the electoral system. It also opens up the debate about whether a Lib Dem vote outside of target seats are wasted or not.</p><p>Except... maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. That result would be a travesty, and I wouldn't be the only one to think that. What would happen if we found ourselves in that situation on 7 May? A lot of Labour people <a href="http://twitter.com/UKLabourParty/status/12304692931">seem to think</a> it would be a glorious victory for them. For the political establishment (right and slightly less right), what matters is not how people voted but bums on green leather benches. But why would the public think the same way? Would they calmly accept that the election had been stolen? Or would they be outraged? </p><p>I predict that the level of anger we saw last year over MPs' expenses is nothing in comparison to the reaction if the electoral system delivered such a dysfunctional result. The pressure would be on them to reform, or enter a sustained crisis of legitimacy and risk (dare I say it?) revolution. History suggests the reform route and of course at that stage it becomes a question of how far they would be prepared to go and how quickly (our work as reformers will have only started), but the argument for the status quo will be shot to hell. Even half measures such as the <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55">Alternative Vote</a> will be out of the door, a system that would result in very different but equally random and undemocratic results.</p><p>Today's polls confirm that the leaders' debate on Thursday has become a game changer. Ever since 1983, much of the focus on the progressive end of politics has been on tactical voting to prevent the "left" vote from splitting. But as we move towards a genuinely multi-party system, that method loses its effectiveness whilst promoting cynicism. Increasingly it has lead to a Labour party which feels it can take the support of progressives for granted and can instead focus on attracting swing voters from the centre right. Vote any other way and you may as well stay at home and people have done precisely that in increasing numbers. Stick with the tactical voting paradigm and encouraging people to make the most of a bad system, and we give Gordon Brown carte blanche to continue in that vein.</p><p>What we've seen over the past 48 hours is the possibility of a genuinely new approach. Instead of playing by the political establishment's rules, we have a real chance now of doing something genuinely disruptive. Not only would more it lead to more Lib Dem MPs voting for a genuinely democratic political system, a high Lib Dem share of the vote will illustrate perfectly why one is so badly needed.</p><p>I respect the aims of initiatives like <a href="http://hang-em.com/">Hang 'Em</a> but there is a danger they will end up failing in their own terms if they don't get their tactics and messages right. Some of their suggestions are... curious, such as their call for people to support David Davis in Haltemprice and Howden and Suzanne Moore in Hackney North. Fundamentally, their approach of giving people different advice depending on which seat they are in is likely to be as effective as when <a href="http://www.strategicvoter.org.uk/">Strategic Voter </a> tried the same thing in 2005: a complex message that simply not enough people will understand and act on. Greg Callus' <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/vote_2010/voterampaposs+guide+to+engineering+a+hung+parliament/3615887">article</a> on Channel Four News perfectly illustrates the problem: if you try marshalling people to vote for a hung parliament in Labour-Tory marginals, and get it wrong (very easy to do as it depends on how accurately opinion polls reflect what is going on the ground), the result could be that tactical voters end up shoring up a Labour or Tory majority. You might just as well toss a coin and hope for the best.</p><p>By contrast, if you want a "well" hung parliament, your strategy should be very simple indeed: vote Lib Dem. Not only will that guarantee a Lib Dem bloc in parliament holding the balance of power, it will discredit the electoral system itself. Worst case scenario: a truly phenomenal number of people end up voting a Lib Dem government into office which will have a clear mandate to introduce proportional representation, Lords reform, stronger local government, more direct democracy and, in effect, give its own power away. So not much of a risk at all then.</p><p>That is why I suspect the far simpler message of the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113749985304255#!/group.php?gid=113749985304255&ref=mf">Rage Against the Machine/Vote Lib Dem</a> Facebook group is having more resonance amongst the public. What is needed at this stage is not nuanced psephological arguments but a clear, disruptive, brutal message: vote Liberal Democrat and change the system.</p><p>When my computer starts doing odd things, I don't spend hours faffing about trying to debug the operating system. I hit the reset button. When my phone jams, I hit the reset button.</p><p>Courtesy of Nick Clegg's phenomenal performance this week, a vote for the Liberal Democrats has just become the equivalent of a bloody great big reset button. You can either press that button on 6 May or sit there in your respective comfort zones complaining about nobody has any real power to change things. It really is up to you now.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/general-election-2010">General election 2010</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/electoralreform">Electoral reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg">Nick Clegg</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> General election 2010 Liberal Democrats Electoral reform Nick Clegg Politics UK news guardian.co.uk Comment Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:11:47 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/general-election-2010-liberaldemocrats1 James Graham Comment is free 2010-04-18T16:11:47Z Article 361603451 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/08/digital-economy-bill-exposes-broken-system <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/37329?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Adigital-economy-bill-exposes-broken-system%3A1382540&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Digital+Economy+Act%2CIntellectual+property+%28Law%29%2CInternet%2CTechnology%2CElectoral+reform%2CConstitutional+reform%2CHouse+of+Commons%2CHouse+of+Lords%2CLords+reform%2CLaw%2CUK+news%2CLiberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CPeter+Mandelson%2CPolitics&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CUnclassifed+Contributors&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F04%2F08+09%3A00&c8=1382540&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Digital+economy+bill+exposes+broken+system&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">The Lords had no expertise. The MPs' attention was elsewhere. We ended up in this mess. Time to vote for new politics</p><p>You would be hard pressed to find a better example of how broken our current political system is than the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/08/digital-economy-bill-passes-third-reading" title="Guardian: Digital economy bill rushed through wash-up in late night parliamentary session">passage of the digital economy bill through parliament</a>. A vast sprawling bill made to order on behalf of the so-called creative industries in the face of opposition from pretty much everyone else, it has all the hallmarks of legislation carved up between Sir Humphrey and a minister with an ego of monstrous proportions (only Lord Mandelson would consider Henry VIII-style powers as something to aspire to in the 21st century).</p><p>One modern myth is that the existing "semi-reformed" House of Lords, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999" title="Wikipedia: House of Lords Act 1999">post-1999</a>, is a bastion of expert sobriety that stays above the party political fray with a view to curtailing the government's worst excesses. In reality, the government only fails to get its own way when the Lib Dem and Tory whips unite to thwart it. In the case of the <a href="http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/digital-economy-bill/" title="BIS: Digital economy bill">digital economy bill</a>, the lack of expertise in the Lords about how the internet works in practice was all too apparent. Rather than hear evidence from all sides in the debate in the way most democratic senates around the world do, the Lords' own self-importance lead them to fall back on their own inadequate experience instead. As a result they only succeeded in getting into <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/16/digital-economy-lords" title="Guardian: Concern as Lords pass digital economy bill to Commons">even more of a muddle</a>.</p><p>At least the Lords does actually scrutinise legislation though. In the Commons the government whips work on the basis that no legislation should be amended ever, even on matters the government is willing to concede in the Lords, lest backbenchers get any ideas above their station. As such, the public bill committees that are set up to scrutinise bills are for the most part a formality. When it comes to the wash-up, such control freakery takes on even more absurd proportions.</p><p>Liberal Democrat MPs have received criticism for not fighting enough of a trenchant battle in the Commons in an attempt to thwart Labour and the Conservatives' cosy conspiracy to force the digital economy bill through its second reading and it is fair to say that the Lib Dems' own record on the bill over the past few months is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/10/liberal-democrats-digital-economy-bill" title="Cif: The Lib Dem assault on online liberty">far from spotless</a>. But to sit there in the Commons simply to make noises in all the right places would be an object in futility. Parliament doesn't need hairshirt politics.</p><p>The real lesson from this experience is that we need a more representative and responsive political system. Digital rights will always be one of those Cinderella issues while the voting system focuses politicians' attention solely on a handful of swing voters in a small number of marginal constituencies. And we desperately need a House of Lords that is accountable to the public, not torn between the conflicting and equally wrong-headed instincts of too many of its members to be both patrician and open for hire to the highest bidder.</p><p>Don't let anyone fool you that the problem is one bad law or some debilitating nonsense about all politicians being the same. The system stinks and only a vote for the Liberal Democrats in this election will help to do anything about it.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/digital-economy-act">Digital Economy Act</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/intellectual-property">Intellectual property</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/electoralreform">Electoral reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constitution">Constitutional reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/houseofcommons">House of Commons</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/lords">House of Lords</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/lordreform">Lords reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/peter-mandelson">Peter Mandelson</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Digital Economy Act Intellectual property Internet Technology Electoral reform Constitutional reform House of Commons House of Lords Lords reform Law UK news Liberal Democrats Peter Mandelson Politics guardian.co.uk Comment Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:00:01 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/08/digital-economy-bill-exposes-broken-system James Graham Comment is free 2010-04-08T08:03:01Z Article 361247317 Digital Economy Act, Intellectual property, Internet, Technology, Electoral reform, Constitutional reform, House of Commons, House of Lords, Lords reform, Law, UK news, Liberal Democrats, Peter Mandelson, Politics Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images Peter Mandelson speaks at the London School of Economic. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images Lord Mandelson's digital economy bill has been passed by the Commons. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/10/liberal-democrats-digital-economy-bill <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/88876?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Aliberal-democrats-digital-economy-bill%3A1370029&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Liberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CPolitics%2CInternet%2CIntellectual+property+%28Law%29%2CTechnology%2CPiracy+%28Technology%29%2CCivil+liberties+-+UK+%28Law%29%2CLaw%2CUK+news%2CDigital+Economy+Act&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F03%2F10+04%3A32&c8=1370029&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=old+liberty+central%2CComment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=The+Lib+Dem+assault+on+online+liberty&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2Fliberty+central" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">A Lib Dem-backed amendment to the digital economy bill would help make the internet less free, not decrease piracy</p><p>Have the Liberal Democrats been taken over by the Flat Earth Society? This weekend, Liberal Democrat conference-goers will have to put up with being <a href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/03/03/another-slap-in-the-gob-scientologists-to-proselityse-at-lib-dem-conference/" title="Quaequam blog: Another slap in the gob: Scientologists to proselityse at Lib Dem Conference">lobbied by the Church of Scientology</a> over their war on psychiatry; previously the Scientologists have only paid to exhibit at Conservative conference. Meanwhile, just over a week ago the party issued a statement – quickly retracted – denouncing the science and technology select committee's call for homeopathy to be assessed like any other potential medical treatment, insisting that instead it should be, um, treated <a href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/02/27/what-the-lib-dem-policy-on-homeopathy-is-not/" title="Quaequam blog: What the Lib Dem policy on homeopathy is not">like any other medical treatment</a>.</p><p></p><p>Doffing forelocks to Scientologists and homeopaths might be embarrassing but amounts to little more than that. More far-reaching is the fact that last week Lib Dem lords worked with the Conservatives to push through an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/04/web-lockers-digital-economy-liberal-democrats-wrong" title="Guardian: My Lords, you can't please the entertainment industry and sustain privacy">amendment to the government's digital economy bill</a>. This amendment removes Lord Mandelson's proposals to grant himself open-ended powers that he can change at will and replaces it with a clause empowering the courts to block websites hosting a "substantial" amount of user-generated content (UGC) that is in breach of copyright. This move has resulted in a strong <a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/confirmed-web-blocking-in-digital-economy-bill" title="Open Rights Group: Confirmed: Lib Dems and Conservatives force web blocking into the Digital Economy Bill">reaction from digital rights campaigners</a>, <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html" title="Lib Dem Voice: 25 Lib Dem PPCs sign letter asking Lib Dem Parliamentarians to think again on Digital Economy Bill">Liberal Democrat bloggers</a> and prospective parliamentary candidates.</p><p></p><p>It is important to keep the hyperbole in check in this debate, particularly as the authors of this amendment, Lords Clement-Jones and Razzall, have seized on some of the more effervescent criticisms to <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-parliamentarians-reply-to-prospective-candidates-18200.html" title="Lib Dem Voice: Digital economy bill">justify their actions</a>. So let's be clear: this amendment probably won't lead to YouTube being shut down overnight. What it will do is shift the balance of power even more away from the creators of UGC and towards anyone with the money and a vested interest in shutting it down.</p><p></p><p>We've seen repeated examples in recent years of how the UK's libel laws can be used to bully web hosting services into shutting down blogs, <a href="http://www.chickyog.net/2007/09/20/public-service-announcement/" title="Chicken Yoghurt: Public service announcement">regardless of the actual grounds</a>. The vague scope of the Lib Dem amendment is likely to have a similar chilling effect on websites which, at the end of the day, are there to make money, not spend thousands of pounds in legal fees investigating every single complaint levelled at one of their users. This amendment will have the ultimate effect of making the internet just that little bit less free and more in the hands of big business while failing to achieve its stated objective of cracking down on internet piracy.</p><p></p><p>Why has this happened? My view is rather less conspiracy-focused <a href="http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2010/mar/6/lib-dems-make-digital-economy-bill-even-worse/" title="Pirate Party: Lib Dems make the Digital Economy Bill even worse">than some</a>. I suspect it has to do with the craven need of some Liberal Democrats to gain approval from the political establishment. That same need nearly prevented the party from taking a clear line against the Iraq war back in 2003 (for example) and results in us continuing to nominate people to the House of Lords itself, thus lending it greater respectability, despite spending the past 100 years calling for it to be replaced with something vaguely democratic.</p><p></p><p>No doubt Clement-Jones and Razzall felt that making bad less awful was the only responsible thing to do. In fact, forcing us to choose between judges and lawyers having to interpret a bad law and ministers making it up as they go along is no choice at all. After five years of one of the most depressing parliaments in living history, the last thing the Lib Dems can afford to do is to present themselves as the nicer, slightly less unacceptable face of the establishment. Leave that to David Cameron.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/intellectual-property">Intellectual property</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/piracy">Piracy</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/uk-civil-liberties">UK civil liberties</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/digital-economy-act">Digital Economy Act</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Liberal Democrats Politics Internet Intellectual property Technology Piracy UK civil liberties Law UK news Digital Economy Act guardian.co.uk Comment Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:32:29 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/10/liberal-democrats-digital-economy-bill James Graham Comment is free 2010-03-10T16:32:53Z Article 360262462 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/electoral-reform-gordon-brown <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/81190?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Aelectoral-reform-gordon-brown%3A1345919&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Electoral+reform%2CGordon+Brown%2CConservatives+tories+tory+party%2CLabour%2CLiberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CPolitics%2CUK+news%2CAV+-+alternative+vote&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful&c6=James+Graham&c7=2010%2F02%2F03+07%3A00&c8=1345919&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=A+new+politics%3A+blueprint+for+reforming+government&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Who+will+fight+for+electoral+reform%3F&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Gordon Brown has pledged a referendum on the alternative vote system – but who is passionate enough to campaign for it?</p><p>The <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/02/gordon-brown-electoral-reform" title="Guardian: Gordon Brown confirms plan to reform voting system">alternative vote</a> is a small but significant step forward in the ongoing campaign for a fair electoral system fit for the 21st century. On a good day. Maybe.</p><p>In many ways, AV is the perfect <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/02/vote-to-give-politics-back-brown" title="Guardian: Gordon Brown: A vote to give politics back">electoral system for Gordon Brown</a>. It enables him to look in two directions at once: supporting a system which ensures that fewer votes are wasted while being resolutely non-proportional. Superficially it sounds like a big deal, but in most elections it will probably only change the result in a handful of seats. And, like all Gordon Brown policies, it has a fair chance of blowing up in his face; because of AV's habit of <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/stuart-weir/2009/06/09/brown-and-the-av-stitch-up" title="Open Democracy: Brown and the AV stitch up">exaggerating swings</a>, the system is as liable to decimate the Labour party as much as the Conservatives.</p><p>There appears to be an expectation that the Liberal Democrats would welcome this move. The reality is rather more complex. As well as AV not being proportional, it also falls far short even of the system Labour dangled briefly in front of Paddy Ashdown in the late-90s, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Vote_Top-up" title="Wikipedia: Alternative Vote Top-up">AV+</a> (which combines AV with a slightly proportional element). Over the last ten years of Labour's repeated botched and abandoned attempts to reform the political system, it is hard to get excited by this sudden reformist zeal for a system which isn't that earth-shattering itself.</p><p>But don't be entirely fooled by the <a href="http://libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Liberal_Democrats_will_fight_for_proportional_representation_says_Huhne&pPK=700bb819-e9c5-443f-9d77-8612c33044fa" title="Lib Dems: Liberal Democrats will fight for proportional representation says Huhne">bravado</a> coming from the Lib Dem front bench. For one thing, the AV "project" has been something which a handful of Labour and Lib Dem politicians have been working quietly on for years. Several senior Lib Dems – notably Lembit Opik and Simon Hughes – are opponents of proportional representation, while supporting AV. The party, wrongly in my view, has failed to make the case for PR for the past decade out of a fear that it is perceived as only having a single issue. Last but not least, it is an open secret that the one party which is most likely to do well out of AV are the Liberal Democrats (if you look at the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London, the Lib Dems have consistently failed to adapt their campaign tactics to suit a PR ballot).</p><p>So while you might see a lot of Lib Dem huffing and puffing over the next few weeks, there is no doubt that they will support Labour in getting the measures through. Whether there is enough time for the amendment to pass all the stops and become law before the general election is another matter. On this subject, Gordon Brown has raised his characteristic dithering up to an art form and his decision to come off the fence now may well prove to be too late.</p><p>But the real question is what happens after the general election. In the bill is enacted and the Tories go on to win they will no doubt attempt to repeal it, but may find spending their first few weeks in office blocking an attempt to make politicians more accountable will cost them much needed political capital. If no party can form a majority after the election, all bets are off. Will Nick Clegg content himself with the AV referendum, push for a more proportional system, or repeat his call for a citizens' convention to decide the matter? It is likely he feels he cannot afford to spell out his intentions and risk getting embroiled into endless questions about coalitions. We are unlikely to get much more out of him than coded messages but any attempt to water down the party's historic commitment to PR is unlikely to be accepted by the grassroots without a major fight.</p><p>Finally, there is the question of the referendum itself. Very few people who think AV would be an improvement are actually passionate about it, so who will fight the campaign for a "yes" vote? Labour's botched attempt to introduce a regional assembly in the north-east in 2004 is instructive here. Despite polls indicating that the overwhelming majority of people supported an <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1883944.stm" title="BBC: English 'want regional parliaments'">assembly</a>, the eventual proposals were so weak that the 'yes' campaign lacked any passion and the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/nov/05/regionalgovernment.politics" title="Guardian: North-east voters reject regional assembly">ballot was lost.</a> If Labour are serious about winning this referendum, they have got to give people a reason for getting out of bed to campaign on it. If Brown's system of choice bores campaigners, what hope is there of inspiring the public?</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/electoralreform">Electoral reform</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gordon-brown">Gordon Brown</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives">Conservatives</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour">Labour</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/av">Alternative vote</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Electoral reform Gordon Brown Conservatives Labour Liberal Democrats Politics UK news Alternative vote guardian.co.uk Comment Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:00:00 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/electoral-reform-gordon-brown James Graham Comment is free 2010-02-03T09:20:08Z Article 358859730 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/17/simon-cowell-politics-x-factor <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/31517?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Asimon-cowell-politics-x-factor%3A1320018&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Simon+Cowell+%28Media%29%2CX+Factor+%28TV+and+radio%29%2CEntertainment+%28TV+genre%29%2CPolitics%2CMedia%2CHouse+of+Commons%2CTelevision+%28Culture%29%2CTelevision+and+radio+TV%2CTelevision+industry+%28Media%29%2CCulture%2CUK+news&c5=Not+commercially+useful%2CMedia+Weekly%2CTelevision+Media%2CTV&c6=James+Graham&c7=2009%2F12%2F17+10%3A30&c8=1320018&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=No%2C+Simon+Cowell+is+not+a+saviour&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Engagement via entertainment is a failed model – shouldn't we be talking about how to make politics less like the X Factor?</p><p>All hail <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/dec/16/simon-cowell-politics" title="Guardian: Can Simon Cowell save democracy?">Simon Cowell, saviour of democracy</a>. This all sounds a bit familiar. During the height of the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/26/big-brother-dropped-channel-4" title="Guardian: Big Brother axed by Channel 4">Big Brother</a> phenomenon, the then Endemol producer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bazalgette" title="Wikipedia: Peter Bazalgette">Peter Bazalgette</a> was similarly feted and even wrote a couple of pamphlets on behalf of the Hansard Society on how to give parliament a kick up its Mother of All Bottoms. Anyone who, at the time, suggested that maybe the appeal of Big Brother would pass after a while and that parliament should perhaps be looking at more than gimmicks risked being dismissed as elitist and out of touch. Yet, to the astonishment of everyone involved, Big Brother is now just a few months from being cancelled while parliament – warts and all – somehow endures.</p><p>It is faintly depressing to hear Cowell being talked about in similarly hushed and reverent tones. I'm not sure Cowell himself can be blamed for this – in his <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8413007.stm" title="BBC: Extended Simon Cowell interview">Newsnight interview</a>, he seemed more interested in making good television than sorting out politics. It is <a href="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6404661.ece" title="Times: Brown phones Cowell to check up on Susan Boyle">Gordon Brown</a> and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6818317/David-Cameron-politics-needs-talent-like-Simon-Cowell.html" title="Telegraph: Cameron: politics needs talent like Simon Cowell ">David Cameron</a> who have elevated him to this status.</p><p>If we are to have this debate again, shouldn't we be talking about how best to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/x-factor-simon-cowell-politics" title="Guardian: How to give politics that X Factor">make politics less like the X Factor</a>? The public perception of MPs and X Factor contestants is remarkably similar: both are regarded as vapid, essentially interchangeable, only in it for the money and the glory, bitchy, having laughable hairstyles and as <a href="http://www.sylviayoungtheatreschool.co.uk/" title="Sylvia Young Theatre School">all coming from the same school</a>. Would getting MPs to go the extra mile and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnyAUXx40tU" title="YouTube: The X Factor John and Edward Jedward Ghostbusters">dress up as Ghostbusters</a> really make that much of a difference?</p><p>ITV has already experimented with this sort of thing with its <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/jan/16/broadcasting.raceintheuk" title="Guardian: TV's new political idol accused of being racist">Vote For Me</a> show in 2005. Rather than use the show to explain a bit about how politics works in practice, the producers in their wisdom instead went for a populist route. The eventual winner, Rodney Hylton-Potts, was a sort of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/susan-boyle" title="Guardian: Susan Boyle">Susan Boyle</a> character but with <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-334309/Is-silver-tongued-extremist-really-voters-want.html" title="Daily Mail: Is this silver-tongued extremist really what the voters want?">nastiness and a conviction for fraud</a> in place of any discernible talent.</p><p>In reality, the X Factor could only dream of having as many voters as we take for granted in UK elections. Ten million votes may sound like a lot, but it is only two-thirds the number of people who voted in the European parliament elections this year and a third the number of people who voted in the 2005 general election. The campaign to get <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/dec/15/rage-against-the-machine-christmas" title="Guardian: Can Rage Against the Machine compete with Joe McElderry?">Rage Against the Machine's Killing In The Name</a> to deny <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/dec/14/joe-mcelderry-the-climb-x-factor" title="Guardian: Does The Climb lack the X Factor?">Joe McElderry</a> the Christmas No 1 also suggests that the X Factor can alienate the public as much as any <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/mps-expenses" title="Guardian: MPs' expenses">MPs' expenses</a> scandal.</p><p>Cowell's actual proposals don't sound very much different to a prime time version of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisha_Goddard_%28TV_series%29" title="Wikipedia: Trisha Goddard (TV series)">Trisha</a>, with a tacked-on phone vote and a hotline to the PM. Indeed, his idea appears to jettison the one aspect of his TV shows that are actually admirable: the way the public are encouraged to participate in a lengthy, deliberative debate in which the candidates are rejected, one by one, over a series of weeks. By contrast, Cowell's suggestion of a "bear pit" and instant, knee-jerk responses sounds like just more of what has increasingly become the norm online and on television.</p><p>The blurring between politics and entertainment is a process that has been going on for decades. As a method of engagement, it has comprehensively failed. Maybe, just maybe, people will only start taking politics seriously again when its exponents start doing the same.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/simoncowell">Simon Cowell</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/the-x-factor">The X Factor</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/entertainment">Entertainment</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/houseofcommons">House of Commons</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/television">Television</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/television">Television industry</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Simon Cowell The X Factor Entertainment Politics Media House of Commons Television Television & radio Television industry Culture UK news guardian.co.uk Comment Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:30:01 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/17/simon-cowell-politics-x-factor James Graham Comment is free 2009-12-17T10:30:01Z Article 357006046 Simon Cowell, The X Factor, Entertainment, Politics, Media, House of Commons, Television, Television & radio, Television industry, Culture, UK news Getty Images/ Photomontage Maxton Walker/Getty Is this the future of politics? Photograph: Getty Images/ Photomontage Maxton Walker/Getty http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/23/nick-clegg-hung-parliament <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/57502?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Anick-clegg-hung-parliament%3A1308995&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Nick+Clegg%2CLiberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CConservatives+tories+tory+party%2CAndrew+Marr+%28Media%29%2CGeneral+election+2010%2CDavid+Cameron%2CPolitics%2CLabour%2CMedia&c5=Not+commercially+useful%2CMedia+Weekly%2CTelevision+Media&c6=James+Graham&c7=2009%2F11%2F23+04%3A30&c8=1308995&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Lib-Con+pact%2C+or+just+a+Marr+moment%3F&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">The idea that the Lib Dems want to jump into bed with Cameron is a fantasy. But multiparty politics is likely to be the new norm</p><p>There has been much excitement at Nick Clegg's decision on Sunday to state the bleeding obvious. When asked by Andrew Marr if he would seek to work with whichever party got the strongest mandate at the last general election, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8372838.stm" title="BBC: Nick Clegg says poll shows next election 'not shoo-in'">Clegg confirmed that he would</a>.</p><p>This less than earth-shattering announcement has lead to some <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2741871/Nick-Clegg-I-would-back-Tories-in-hung-poll.html" title="Sun: Clegg: I would back Tories in hung poll">very excited headlines</a>, with <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clegg-reveals-lib-dems-are-prepared-to-back-cameron-1825917.html" title="Independent: Clegg reveals Lib Dems are prepared to back Cameron">left and right leaning papers</a> all concluding that this clears the way for a Lib-Con pact. But does it even count as news? Clegg has been saying similar things for 18 months. Back when Charles Kennedy said something almost identical on the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4495759.stm" title="BBC: Kennedy rules out Blair coalition ">eve of the 2005 general election</a>, it was spun as meaning the party was ruling out the prospect of a coalition. Now we are told the same policy means the party is itching to jump into bed with David Cameron.</p><p>If you really want to understand Clegg's thinking on the subject you should read his pamphlet, <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/the-liberal-moment" title="Demos: The Liberal Moment">The Liberal Moment</a>, not leap to conclusions on the basis of a couple of soundbites on Sunday morning telly. In that, he makes it clear that while he regards Labour as rivals he would dearly like to replace, the Conservatives are our common foe.</p><p>Despite the public perception that the Lib Dems are chomping at the bit for a hung parliament, the truth is the party views the situation with a great deal of ambivalence.</p><p>It would be nice to think that the Lib Dems could sweep into coalition government on the promise of full proportional representation and the scrapping of Trident, as in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nrrrt" title="BBC Radio $: Afternoon Play">Radio 4's serial Number 10</a>, but in reality the Lib Dems will have a far weaker hand. Our current system means the prime minister holds all the trump cards and can unilaterally hold a general election at the slightest hint of trouble.</p><p>There is no enthusiasm within the party for co-operation with the Conservative party, but working with Labour is almost as unenticing a prospect. To be seen propping up a government which has just lost the election after 13 years of office would cost the Lib Dems almost all their political capital.</p><p>For the party to put its neck on the line in this way, it would need some pretty concrete guarantees. Sunder Katwala of the Fabians has made <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/01/lib-labour-coalition-election" title="New Statesman: Leaders of the pact?">a list of necessary policy changes</a> that would be a good start – but thus far Labour isn't offering any of it. The idea expressed by some other Labour supporters that the Lib Dems should be offering them some sort of blank cheque to carry on as usual on the simple calculation that the Tories would be far worse is simply laughable, and typical of the sort of pigheadedness that has got Labour into the mess it is now in.</p><p>This dilemma is likely to stay with us, whether we change the electoral system or not. Back in 1951, 97% of voters supported one of the big two parties on an 87% turnout. In 2005 those figures were 68% and 61% respectively. In Canada, which also uses first past the post, hung parliaments are now the norm and the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8313035.stm" title="BBC: SNP 'open' to referendum options ">SNP's stated electoral strategy</a> is to end up with the same linchpin role that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois" title="Wiki: Bloc Québécois">Bloc Québécois has there</a>. Even the Greens have a shot at <a href="http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/10-09-2009-Lucas-campaign-launch-for-Brighton-Pavilion.html" title="Green party site: Caroline Lucas launches campaign for Brighton Pavilion">making a breakthrough</a> in 2010. This is a trend which has been speeding up in recent years: multiparty politics is here to stay.</p><p>Until our system begins to reflect this fundamental shift, all we have to look forward to is political instability. Again, look at Canada: three elections in six years, with another just around the corner. No party committed to business as usual is an attractive coalition partner; if that's what they want then a German-style red-blue alliance is the only viable option.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg">Nick Clegg</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives">Conservatives</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/andrewmarr">Andrew Marr</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/general-election-2010">General election 2010</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davidcameron">David Cameron</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour">Labour</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats Conservatives Andrew Marr General election 2010 David Cameron Politics Labour Media guardian.co.uk Comment Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:30:01 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/23/nick-clegg-hung-parliament James Graham Comment is free 2009-11-23T16:30:01Z Article 355963642 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/22/problem-vince-cable <div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/64729?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Aproblem-vince-cable%3A1280310&ch=Politics&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Liberal+Democrat+conference+2009%2CVince+Cable%2CLiberal+Democrats+Lib+dems%2CNick+Clegg%2CLiberal+Democrat+conference+lib+con%2CEconomic+policy&c5=Credit+Crunch%2CPolicy+Society%2CNot+commercially+useful&c6=James+Graham&c7=2009%2F09%2F22+01%3A30&c8=1280310&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=The+tricky+problem+with+Vince+Cable&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FPolitics%2FLiberal+Democrat+conference+2009" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">The Lib Dem shadow chancellor remains popular, but his bewildering shifts on economic policy could damage the party</p><p>How do you solve a problem like St Vincent? His <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/ldv-preconference-members-survey-3-how-you-rated-the-lib-dems-shadow-cabinet-16220.html" title="Liberal Democrat Voice: LDV pre-conference members' survey">approval ratings</a> both inside and outside of the party are huge. Yet very little of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-502505/After-quickstepping-Alesha-acting-Lib-Dem-leader-Vince-Cable-tells-dancing-gave-strength-endure-death-wife.html" title="Mail Online: After quickstepping with Alesha the acting Lib Dem leader Vince Cable tells how dancing gave him the strength to endure the death of his wife">Twinkle-toes Cable's stardust</a> seems to be settling on the Liberal Democrats in terms of improving poll ratings. It is a conundrum that is superficially quite puzzling but there's nothing magic about it. In his six years as party treasury spokesperson, this former economics advisor to Kenya and chief economist of Shell has failed to come up with a coherent and consistent economic policy for the Liberal Democrats. To paraphrase J K Galbraith, the answer is so simple the mind is repelled.</p><p>I've counted at least 11 very significant shifts in the Lib Dem front bench's <a href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2009/09/22/the-liberal-democrat-post-credit-crunch-economic-policy-a-blow-by-blow-account/" title="Quaequam blog: The Liberal Democrat post-credit crunch economic policy - a blow by blow account">position on the economy</a> in two years, most of which aren't actual party policy. Some of the blame clearly lies in Nick Clegg's tendency to manufacture hostages to fortune on an industrial scale. But there are no indications whatsoever that Clegg has ever acted without his treasury spokesperson's blessing. And then there is the question of how the never-published £20bn list of government "waste" being hyped up last year has transmogrified into a £14bn list of "savage" cuts which involve scrapping cherished liberal commitments such as universal child benefit.</p><p>Why was Cable pushing for us to commit to tax cuts last year which it now appears he had no way of funding? And why is it that the economic situation is so serious that there is no alternative to do anything other than think the unthinkable when it comes to spending cuts, but when it comes to tax rises we are so timid? Even the Orange Book keepers-of-the-flame Centre:Forum have been <a href="http://www.centreforum.org/publications/a-balancing-act.html" title="Centre:Forum: A balancing act - Fair solutions to a modern debt crisis">urging the party this summer to consider a combination of a property tax and a change to the capital gains rules</a> which would raise £6-10bn a year . Cable's proposal would raise a measly £1.1bn, so why bother?</p><p>I have huge admiration for Vince. Six years ago, when I was experiencing a credit crunch of my own, the fact that there was a single politician out there who understood how badly banks were behaving in encouraging people to get into unmanageable levels of debt meant a tremendous amount to me. But he is not infallible. He's not, whisper it, even indispensable.</p><p>Despite this, he eschews the collegiate discipline of party policy development in favour of going out on a limb and trusting his own judgment to carry him through. There seems to be almost no strategic thinking behind how he presents his shifts in position whatsoever. He hasn't been articulating a party position; he's been engaging in punditry. The latter may make you incredibly popular with John Humphries and Jeremy Paxman, it may even acquire you rock-star status, but it isn't the job the party requires him to do.</p><p>We need to recognise this for what it is: hubris. But is Vince himself capable of seeing this? I was struck by one MP this week saying that Cable was having a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Owen" title="Wikipedia: David Owen">David Owen moment</a>". In Liberal Democrat circles that is about as harsh a judgment as is possible to make about a colleague. Despite the adoration of the party faithful, Cable has certainly been looking harassed, suggesting that on a personal level the week has been taking its toll. There is hope yet that he has quietly realised that he has made a grave error this week.</p><p>As a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism" title="Wikipedia: Georgism">Georgist</a>, I'm delighted that Vince is now publicly making the case for a land value tax. As a democrat, I'm appalled. He had plenty of chances to challenge the received wisdom within the party in favour of a local income tax in the past few years; eight months before the general election it is now simply too late. The party's democratic policy-making process may look eccentric to a cynical, dying media, but it has consistently stopped the party from degenerating into factionalism. The Napoleonic approach of Labour and the Conservatives by contrast has resulted in both parties to be riven by festering sores beneath the surface. It also, frankly, leads to better policy by ensuring that major new policies are detailed enough so that they can withstand basic media scrutiny.</p><p>Speaking at a fringe meeting this week, David Laws MP talked about how the Scottish Liberal Democrat's tortuous decision-making process caused a lot of tensions when negotiating a coalition with Labour in 1999 but ensured that the following eight years of government went ahead remarkably smoothly. By contrast, Clegg and Cable seem determined to drive a steamroller over the party's system of checks and balances. Demolishing the delicate culture of trust and accountability within the party in this way could make negotiating its way through a hung parliament situation almost impossible. The consequences to the party could be, well, quite savage.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberal-democrat-conference-2009">Liberal Democrat conference 2009</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/vincentcable">Vince Cable</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liberaldemocrats">Liberal Democrats</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg">Nick Clegg</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/libdemconference">Liberal Democrat conference</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/economy">Economic policy</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesgraham">James Graham</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" /> Liberal Democrat conference 2009 Vince Cable Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Liberal Democrat conference Economic policy guardian.co.uk Comment Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:00:00 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/22/problem-vince-cable James Graham Politics 2009-09-22T15:00:00Z Article 353281912 Liberal Democrat conference 2009, Vince Cable, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat conference, Economic policy Guardian Lib Dem shadow chancellor Vince Cable … might he be thinking of another change in the party's stance on cuts?