Jonathan Friedland talking sense in the Guardian.

Reading Jonathan Friedland's piece "This could be a blip. But if not, British politics will be changed for ever", we finally some sense from a journalist. I'm a little bored with Guardian journalists writing that a big LD vote will make no difference to parliament or politics.

Brown and Cameron can't have it both ways. They have to accept that when the electorate give a result that is unique in recent years, then that is still a valid result.

People want a hung parliament. PR is likely on the way if the LDs get ~100 seats and hold the balance of power.

In the end it's a red herring for the Tories to say that Cameron should be PM if he gets more votes than Brown but has less seats. Cameron is in favour of FPTP, so he more than anyone should accept it's inconsistencies. If Labour get the most seats then the normal process would be for the head of state to ask him to try and form a government. In doing this he has the right to make a minority government work, or to try to negotiate a coalition with the LDs.

If he fails then normally Cameron would try to form a government, again he'd probably end up negotiating with the LDs.

But these negotiations are a give and take situation, they will not be able to demand that the LDs support their government, and give nothing in return, especially if the LDs end up with a 30% voteshare and are only a couple of points behind the Tories.

That probably means that the LDs will demand PR, and that means that the Labour or the Tories will have to negotiate that point.

It doesn't necessarily mean STV (though I'd like it). But it will mean introducing a proportional system that the LDs coalition partner can live with. I'd be happy with MMPR or open lists or STV myself.