Tomorrow dawns a bright and brilliant new day in British Politics. The Liberal Democrats stand ready to consult the rank and file about the proposed Lib-Con coalition. Whilst we don’t know anything about the deal it’s been evident since this morning through the language Clegg and the two parties have been using that some kind of conclusion is being reached.

David Cameron has been addressing his shadow cabinet perhaps warning them of any potential job losses and the exact nature of the detail, with William Hague and the negotiating team having just arrived. Earlier today Nick Clegg met the prime minister to update him on the nature of talks, and perhaps to finally tell him that it was time to walk the plank.

But the critical thing is whether or not the rank and file of the Liberal Democrats will agree. Jane Watkinson a prolific liberal democrat blogger had this to say “Well, personally, if Clegg continues these talks and actually does what it appears he is going to do – and that is back the Tories – he hasn’t listened to us. He has stabbed his party members in the back, most of who have campaigned on policies that are essential for political reform. If he joins the Tories, all those hopes and aspirations will die, it, in my opinion, will start the destruction of this party.” Many people have voiced the same concerns, but the real question is how many in number they are, considering that Lord Paddy Ashdown and several other MPs have continued to voice concerns about the scale of the debt and the importance of tackling it. Now that this issue becomes more and more tantamount, perhaps people will vote in an attempt to deal with the deficit, rather than with their hearts.

It looks like there’ll be no more news for today, but the parties have already decided what will happen, and now it’s time for their members to say yes or no. Are you a member of the Liberal Democrats? Which will you say? Comment below or add us on twitter.

Out in Trafalgar Square today from 2pm there was a demonstration with around 1000 people intent on Proportional Representation from Take Back Parliament. But has anyone explained to you just what proportional representation means, and of which kind we’re likely to receive? On side note, I will not explain the political consequences of each, as that as yet is simply a matter of opinion.

The Liberal Democrats appear to advocate full Proportional Representation, of a system similar to that of Israel. Your vote would go to a party which would then select its own representatives from that. The main advantage of this system is that it allows parties to have a number of candidates according to their share of the vote, and coupled with a system of election in each constituency allows for some responsibility (ie a version of our own system with fewer and larger constituencies), but obviously this leaves 50% of the MPs directly unelected.

Labour favour an Alternate Vote system whereby one member of parliament is elected for each constituency but candidates are ranked by order of preference, and the winning candidate must not only get a majority of votes but over 50%. If this is not achieved on first choices alone (something which would only happen in truly safe seats) the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The principal disadvantage of this are that minority parties still have some difficulty getting representation equal to their share of the vote, but it is somewhat alleviated. There is responsibility on the other hand though which in the wake of the Expenses scandal and similar is crucial.

There are other options and you can click here to find out about them.

In a move hailed by many as the greatest play for power of the past century, Cameron has decided to begin outlining his plans to form government at 14.30.  Having looked at the individual seats it seems certain that Cameron will reach his total of 306. Whether he can expand on it is anyone’s guess, but his decision to outline his plans shows that he has something up his back pocket, like for example the rumoured 10 seats in Northern Ireland.

Not only does it show that he has something in his hand, it will also force the question of the legitimacy of a Labour attempt to take power, and most likely lead to a defeat at any forthcoming general election, which there is likely to be due to the small majority the Conservatives would be able to reach.

The Liberal Democrats are still trying to ascertain what Cameron is offering, and a meeting on Sunday should decide whether whatever is proposed is accepted. Proportional Representation is the price. There are other offers that could be on the table such as fixed term parliaments.

Yet none of that is enough. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies are at odds, with their priorities differing vastly. Green Issues, Non-doms and a Mansion tax, are three things the Lib Dems stand for, and the Tories against. One represents a party of Europhiles, and the other of Eurosceptics. Reconciling those differences, considering that in terms of vote share 39.1% of the coalition’s electors would be Liberal Democrats, will be so key that a parliament is unlikely to be formed efficiently or quickly. The Tories have long been divided over Cameron’s shift closer to Labour, and this could truly emphasise that shift, perhaps in extreme resulting in certain MPs revolting to UKIP.

Gordon Brown remains ‘prime ministerial’ according to the BBC and continues to talk about fairness, though whether this message is being received is still unclear. The electorate have not yet answered anyone’s call.

Finally someone has the right idea.

MPs are to be offered a pay rise of 1.5%, to £65,737 every year – but they are probably going to turn it down. Thousands of public sector workers are suffering from pay freezes, and perhaps the House of Commons has actually learned its lessons from the Expenses Scandal.

Many people have blamed MPs’ comparatively low salaries – considering their important jobs – for encouraging them to fiddle with their expenses. But in the current climate it would be grossly insensitive to claim an extra £1000 every year, and as an election draws close, they seem to realise this. Perhaps it is the imminent threat of losing their jobs, but something has made them actually pay attention to public perception.

Opening old wounds?

We can only hope that this will last. One day, MPs’ pay should rise, but surely it is possible to do this at the same time as showing a degree of sensitivity and accountability to the public’s anger?