Tom Griffin (London, OK): It seems that Tom Nairn, Peter Oborne and our own Anthony Barnett were on to something with their suspicions that Gordon Brown would seek to shore up his authority with some kind of cross-party pact.

The Fabian Society's Sunder Katwala offers just such a proposal in this week's New Statesman:

A Lab-Lib deal is possible - but only if a pre-emptive progressive coalition is formed soon. By the time Barack Obama leaves these shores in April, Gordon Brown should invite Nick Clegg to be deputy prime minister with Vince Cable as chancellor. The coalition would govern for a year - announcing the date of the next election, and legislating for fixed-election dates, too. This year it would focus on the response to the recession, while agreeing on core progressive priorities for the next four-year parliament in both party manifestos.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Welcome to the second edition of the Carnival on Modern Liberty, chronicling the online debate in the run up to the Convention on Modern Liberty at the end of the month.

It's been a week that has highlighted the state's interest in diverse areas of our private lives, especially our online activities. There's good news for file-sharers though, as long as they're not dowloading comics...

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya): In his post yesterday, Stuart Weir referred to the ruling classes ‘self- defeating insistence on the great merit of a flexible constitution’. That insistence is also self-serving and depends on a strange and disingenuous circular argument.

By definition a flexible constitution contains uncertainties and is not definitively written down. But, say its advocates, we also embrace the rule of law and that does require certainty. And, given that we have a flexible constitution, that certainty can only be provided if somebody has the last word. That is the justification of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty encapsulated in the phrase ‘The Crown in Parliament can do anything it wishes except bind its successors’. Parliament – these days a Parliament which is largely the captive of government – has the last word and can insist on what it wants.

Stuart Weir (London, Democratic Audit): Guy Aitchison's very interesting post on Nick Clegg's speech to mark the publication of Unlocking Democracy, part history of Charter 88, part re-visiting Charter's themes today, focuses first on the dominant rhetorical themes that the ruling classes have used to submerge and disparage those of us who have been seeking democratic reform for half a century now. There is of course the notion of the 'chattering classes'; there is the idea that what we 'chatter' on about doesn't matter 'north of Watford'. There is the self-defeating insistence on the great merit of a flexible constitution, even though it is only the executive that benefits from this vaunted flexibility in amassing overweening powers that allow our governments to blunder on through political, economic, industrial and social disasters. As Nick Clegg pointed out forcibly, constitutional reform is vital to finding ways through the consequences of the series of blunders that have led the country through a new period of gross inequalities and greed to economic and industrial collapse.

Guy Aitchison (London, CML): Reading Anthony Barnett and Stuart Weir’s opening contributions to Unlocking Democracy: 20 Years of Charter 88, which deal with the early history of the organisation, one can’t help but reflect on the remarkable talent the political class in this country has for self-preservation. Over many years it has evolved a number of rhetorical techniques the aim of which is to marginalise anyone who dares challenge the basis of its authority. One favourite technique is to dismiss any concerns with the legitimacy of its power as those of the“chattering classes”, nothing that the average voter “gives a shit about” as Alasdair Campbell bluntly put it.

If that’s what constitutional campaigners are up against under normal conditions, it’s not surprising that during a time of economic crisis it’s even more difficult for them to get their message across as things like electoral reform and civil liberties are brushed aside as “luxuries” we can do without.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In The Times today, Liberal Conspiracy's Sunny Hundal lays into the BBC over its refusal to broadcast the Disaster Emergency Committee's humanitarian appeal for Gaza:

The truth is that the BBC has become afraid of its own shadow. It has become so cowed by accusations of anti-Israeli bias that it has become unsure of what impartiality even means. It has become so cowed by sniping from the Right that it has lost conviction in the integrity of its own journalism. The anti-BBC brigade in the press and politics will use any excuse to undermine the corporation. And to assauge those critics, the corporation has sacrificed its own understanding of impartiality. 

A number of bloggers have recalled an episode from 2005 as evidence of spinelessness in the BBC's recent coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Erminegate, kickbacks-to-cronies story brought back an old memory to me, from the days of "sleaze" when cash for questions tainted the Conservative government. This too involved undercover journalists trailing round the most likely suspects until they got some of them drunk, greedy or off-guard enough to agree to a deal. In the process many more were asked. This time, according to the Sunday Times, ten Lords were approached and four agreed. Some of the others refused robustly. Others simply never get back to them with anything they could go on.