Oh man this is getting good!

Come on Nick, don't bottle it!

I wonder if, privately they are a bit gutted that the cons offered a referendum? Means they're kind of obliged to form a government with them now after all they said during the campaign.

Ashcroft and the media would sway the population away from PR.

I think we can guess which way Boulton voted

A political commentator losing his cool? What a prize pudding, he actually helped Campbell sound reasonable.

I didn't think the LibDems wanted PR, they want a Single Transferrable Vote, don't they?

It might have something to do with the fact that STV would give them three times as many seats as they have at the moment. Perhaps if PR offered them a greater advantage, they'd want that instead.

Thanks, Heather, that really brightened up my day... classic!

"Adam, calm down.... dignity.... dignity!"

I'm actually having to watch that in, like, 40 second chunks they're such a couple of pricks

Wouldn't it be funny if Clegg was actually thinking all along, 'We'll string Labour along so they get rid of Gordon, then we'll do a deal with the Tories anyway!'

Or maybe the Tories put them up to it

Normally I find Campbell irritating but he was reasonable in this interview. The Tory education spokesman Michael Gove irritates me beyond belief.

Single transferable vote is a form of proportional representation.

It's seen as a balance between the two systems, which is why I think that's what they are pushing for (if indeed that's the version of PR they are looking to implement - I've not heard them mention a specific system, but to have them push for any form of PR is great in my view).

Personally, I'd rather just see full proportional representation and each party issuing a ranked list of candidates they would put forward. Seeing as this appears to be how most people vote anyway (IE for the party not the specific MP) then it makes sense to me.

I'm getting sick of the media.

Frankly I think a LibDem/Labour coalition would be bad for both parties and would be a strong a Government as a Tory/LibDem coalition. I say this even though my political leanings are towards LibDem and Labour rather than Conservative.

However, what I'm sick of is when it's mentioned they keep harking on about a Labour PM who would be 'unelected'. What absolute tosh. We have a Parliamentary system, not a Presidential one. MPs get elected, a party chooses a leader and if that party is in power the leader takes the role of PM.

That is how the system works, the Tories have done it, Labour have done it, that's our frickin' system!

Another rant while I'm at it. The media talk as though talking to Labour is absolutely shocking. I would find it shocking if the LibDems didn't. I'm speaking from a noegotiating point of view, you don't go into negotiations letting the other party thinking it holds all the cards. If you make it clear there could be competition then of course that is a fantastic negotiating tool, it would be foolish not to.

Media reporting, jeez. It comes to something when the politicians appear to be more reasonable and sensible than the media reporting them.

Personally, I think there will be a Tory/LibDem coalition and they will accept AV+. It would at least be progress, more representative and yet would still please those that want to keep the current system as it can allow for one party to have overall power.

Interstingly the 1998 Jenkins Commission suggested AV+ which the LibDems accepted as being progress towards a more representative system and William Hague, who reported the offer yesterday, described the report as 'a dog's breakfast' and Cameron (May 26 2009) rejected AV+ completely.

Churchill was an unelected PM.

I've started to think it's time to consider the way our democracy works. Electing people by ballot to represent us in parliament is all well and good, but is it fair? Is it completely free from coercion and backhanders?

Take a peep at the way democracy was born in ancient Greece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_democracy

Each citizen could be selected to serve by lot, not entirely unlike our current jury service system. We could make it so that each selected citizen served for, say six months, paid an allowance so they don't lose out through not being in work. There'd have to be some kind of get-out clause to avoid service, as the jury service system allows, of course.

If the system was an ongoing drawing of lots, rolling around the country, there'd be overlap of people serving, so continuity is maintained. The civil service would still be running the important stuff, but the legislature would be made up of ordinary taxpayers.

As I type this, I can see all kinds of problems arising, such as how would it be decided who is suitable to be placed in the allotment system and so on. However, I don't think such things are insurmountable.

I was just talking about Plato yesterday. People moan and it's funny how Greece is now a dirty word in Europe. But Greece was the cradle of western civilization. Politics and philosophy were born there. Yet nobody knows anything about it and nobody reads any more.

Truth is, a lot of people don't care about politics. As long as their lives stay as they are they are fine with whoever is in charge. And amongst the "evil, evil" politicians there are some who work very hard to keep the country together. It's very unlikely most people would be bothered to do that kind of work.

Also how do you have a long term policy if your government changes every 6mths? See the mess Belgium is in right now

I think I covered that by having the selection process a rolling system, so there's always maybe two-thirds of the allotted people in place at any one time.

I was just daydreaming. I don't for one minute think such a system would ever be put in place. There are too many vested interests in maintaining the current systems, for a start.

Have an effective second chamber.

Good plan. The second chamber could be elected on the current model.