The UK is hung - Part 4

Protesters demand voting reform

 

Continued from here.

Can one of our resident electoral system experts please confirm for me - is the 'Alternative Vote' the same 'preferential ballot'/'instant run-off' system that is currently used to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives?

Gordon Brown's resignation has freed things up.  He has actually improved chances of the Lib-Dems finding common cause with Labour. 

YES, it is the same. In Australia, it works well - people can cast a protest vote for the Green party and still preference Labour ahead of the Liberals. On the rightwing side of the equation, the National Party and the Liberal Party maintain a separate identity and in some ridings run candidates against each other - but its understood that they will always preference each other head of Labour.

Imagine a system like in canada where people could vote however they wanted as long as they ALWAYS RANKED THE TORY LAST!

In the UK they are also talking about an "AV Plus" system whereby some additional top up seats would be allocated proportionately.

AV Plus makes more sense than AV alone in my view.

There all one and the same.

AV is also known as instant runoff voting

wiki - Instant Runoff Voting / Alternative Vote / Preferential Voting

wiki - AV Top-Up

 

Sean O'Grady: Brown out. PR back on the table. Has Clegg snatched victory from the jaws of defeat?

 

The last time the Liberal party joined the Tories in a coalition the party split three ways

Sean O'Grady: Brown out. PR back on the table. Has Clegg snatched victory from the jaws of defeat?

 

More immediately, a Lib-Con deal will propel a Tory into No 10, and into all the key ministerial jobs, for the first time in 13 years. Thus Vince Cable can be allowed the job of chief secretary to the Treasury, but not the chancellorship. Mr Cable can be the man who toils in the undergrowth of Whitehall with his axe, while George Osborne gads around the G20 summits and the rest of it. Thanks, George. Thus, also, Michael Gove can nobly sacrifice his putative role as schools secretary in favour of David Laws, safe in the knowledge that Mr Laws agrees with 90 per cent of his policy anyway. Mr Clegg, Prescott-style, could be appeased with a grand but meaningless title of deputy prime minister, and left to fiddle around with the constitution. But won't Nick Clegg force through electoral reform? What about the Tories' promises?

The sad answer is that the Tories will find a way of dodging their obligations. For them the Liberal Democrats are not partners in power, but enemies to be destroyed - by stealth if necessary, as outright electoral assault has not worked. The last thing they will give the Liberal Democrats is a permanent lock on power.

Any commitments the Tories make on electoral reform will be confined to inquiries and referendums, and the Tory party itself , and possibly Cameron, will not change settled policy. Even though they have offered a referendum on the alternative vote, they might not agree to whip the Tory MPs to support the enabling Bill. And even if they did, lots of Tory MPs might ignore the whip. The sanctions imposed by the Tory leadership for such indiscipline might be light. All this, by the way, will be late in the parliament, and too late for the Liberal Democrats to do much about it.

Now, in their talks with Labour, the Liberal Democrats have the best chance of fair votes in 80 years. They also have Brown's head on a stick (which is certainly what the nation wanted), immediate legislation on electoral reform, and an agreed programme for economic recovery, probably with David Miliband as PM, Vince Cable in No 11 and Clegg as deputy PM, this time with a proper job of political reform to carry though straight away. That, it seems to me, is the fulfilment of the original Tony Blair-Paddy Ashdown "project" of 12 years ago to re-unite the progressive parties. Gordon Brown vetoed that in 1997 and 1998; he has now acted as midwife to its rebirth: a pleasing symmetry.

More immediately, a Lib-Con deal will propel a Tory into No 10, and into all the key ministerial jobs, for the first time in 13 years. Thus Vince Cable can be allowed the job of chief secretary to the Treasury, but not the chancellorship. Mr Cable can be the man who toils in the undergrowth of Whitehall with his axe, while George Osborne gads around the G20 summits and the rest of it. Thanks, George. Thus, also, Michael Gove can nobly sacrifice his putative role as schools secretary in favour of David Laws, safe in the knowledge that Mr Laws agrees with 90 per cent of his policy anyway. Mr Clegg, Prescott-style, could be appeased with a grand but meaningless title of deputy prime minister, and left to fiddle around with the constitution. But won't Nick Clegg force through electoral reform? What about the Tories' promises?

The sad answer is that the Tories will find a way of dodging their obligations. For them the Liberal Democrats are not partners in power, but enemies to be destroyed - by stealth if necessary, as outright electoral assault has not worked. The last thing they will give the Liberal Democrats is a permanent lock on power.

Any commitments the Tories make on electoral reform will be confined to inquiries and referendums, and the Tory party itself , and possibly Cameron, will not change settled policy. Even though they have offered a referendum on the alternative vote, they might not agree to whip the Tory MPs to support the enabling Bill. And even if they did, lots of Tory MPs might ignore the whip. The sanctions imposed by the Tory leadership for such indiscipline might be light. All this, by the way, will be late in the parliament, and too late for the Liberal Democrats to do much about it.

Now, in their talks with Labour, the Liberal Democrats have the best chance of fair votes in 80 years. They also have Brown's head on a stick (which is certainly what the nation wanted), immediate legislation on electoral reform, and an agreed programme for economic recovery, probably with David Miliband as PM, Vince Cable in No 11 and Clegg as deputy PM, this time with a proper job of political reform to carry though straight away. That, it seems to me, is the fulfilment of the original Tony Blair-Paddy Ashdown "project" of 12 years ago to re-unite the progressive parties. Gordon Brown vetoed that in 1997 and 1998; he has now acted as midwife to its rebirth: a pleasing symmetry.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sean-ogrady-brown-out-...

In Australia where they use AV, Labour is the current government. In Canada, AV would see politics distilled into two strong camps - left and right. This would ultimately favour the NDP as it's favoured Labour in Australia.

Under AV the NDP would win their "safe seats" where they clearly lead. In ridings where the NDP comes in first or second place under FPTP, they would be able to get 2nd votes from the Greens, Liberals, and even Conservatives.

If the NDP were able to get ahead of the Liberals in the overall vote, they would be in a very good position to form governments like Labour does in Australia under AV.

All the parties in Canada use runoff voting to select their candidates in all of the ridings and  and they use runoff voting to select their leaders. So if the political parties use AV for themselves, why don't they allow the voters to have the same privilege?

 

FPTP is even less appropriate to elect representatives.

All the parties use AV, not FPTP, to elect their representatives. Would you say that the parties should switch to using FPTP to nominate their candidates in the constituencies?

If the parties feel that AV is the best system to select their own representatives in the ridings why should they prefer a less satisfactory system for the general election?

I would agree that PR is better then AV but I would also say that AV is much better then FPTP.

PR systems such as AV top-up are better then just AV, but AV is much better then FPTP.

On the other hand, one advantage AV has over PR systems is that AV is acceptable to the vast majority of people in the UK and Canada. AV is a system most people could live with. Like it or not, many people prefer majoritarian governments.

I think the tipping point will be the probability that most Lib Dem MPs seem to be opposed to a pact with the Tories and could rebel if they were forced to go along. Apparently, any deal has to be approved by 2/3 of the Lib Dem caucus in any case which alone makes a Lib-Lab pact more likely (let's also not forget that the "Dem" part of the Lib Dems, the former SDP, came out of the Labour Party and thus is less likely to want to support the Tories) A number of MPs are cogniscent of the fact that they benefit from Labour supporters voting for them tacticly in rural or middle class ridings in order to block the Tories and that they would likely lose that support if they put Cameron into power. Even Billy Bragg said last week he votes Lib Dem because he lives in the countryside and that's the only way he can stop the Tories.

Cameron - what an arrogant idiot!

Clegg smoked him pure and simple. What a glorious day in jolly ole England.

How David Cameron was outflanked as he prepared to enter No 10 David Cameron awoke this morning believing there was an outside chance he would be prime minister before the day was out.

 

By lunchtime, the Tories were exuding so much confidence in the likelihood of a deal that rumours began to sweep Westminster that Mr Brown was about to tender his resignation. TV news stations put their helicopters on standby to film Mr Brown's car making its historic journey to Buckingham Palace to signal the end of 13 years of Labour government.

By 1pm, opinion among Mr Cameron's top team had hardened to such a degree that a planned meeting of the shadow cabinet was brought forward from 4pm to 2pm. Tory backbenchers believed it was a sure signal that a deal was about to be done, and that confirmation of a Cameron-led government would come before the day was out.

The shadow cabinet meeting broke up around 2.45pm but, for the first time, concern began to spread in the Tory ranks. A meeting of Lib Dem backbenchers, which had started at lunchtime, was still going on hours later. Something was amiss.

Tory fears were confirmed at 4pm when David Laws, the Lib Dem schools spokesman, announced that the MPs wanted "clarification" from the Tories on issues of education funding, fairer taxes and voting reform.

Minutes later, Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem energy spokesman, said he would be "surprised" if a deal was done by the end of the day, adding: "I'm sure there will be a government by the end of the week."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/770789...

As a rep of the "party of the centre", Nick Clegg seems to have a bit of Michael Bryant about him

AV may produce a better result in a particular election, or a worse result. It depends on vote concentrations even more than FPTP, in my view. AV is perfectly suitable for electing candidates, because you are only electing one position (in a single member constituency). It would be less so in a multiple seat constituency, but then STV (for the nominations), would be more appropriate.

In the case of the recent UK election, the analysis I have seen indicates that the Lib-Dems would probably have enough seats to hold the balance of power with both the Conservatives and Labour without any other Party. On the other hand, analyses of previous elections tend to show that AV might exagerate majorities even more than FPTP, even if it is more generous to third parties past a certain threshold (Lib-Dems may have been the official opposition in 1997).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8644480.stm

 

General election 2010 - live blog

 

"8.47pm: Labour's negotiating team has been meeting the Lib Dems tonight. It comprises Lord Mandelson, Harriet Harman, Lord Adonis, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls."

 

Lord Adonis? Didn't he used to wrestle with Bobby 'The Brain' Heenan?

Curious that potential leadership candidates Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are on the negotiating team but likely leadership frontrunner David Miliband is not.

The problem for the Lib Dems is that Labour is considered the loser of the election, and many people think that the Conservatives have the strongest right to be the Government.  If the Lib Dems prop up Labour, there could be repercussions.

It must be difficult to be Nick Clegg right now.

As the talking head idiots of FoxNews pointed out (there is a link on a previous thread) , the UK Conservatives "pissed away" a massive 11 point lead during the course of the election campaign. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

In that sense, measly is perfectly apt. And it's put the UK Conservatives in a foul mood; their US brethren at FoxNews were full of "tut-tuts" about such an awful waste.

lol. couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

Another take on the issue. http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/915822/-/a28ejyz/-/

This is actually pretty sad.

I'm getting all weepy just thinking about the injustice of it...  An unfair past result isn't a very good argument for another unfair result.  The Cons had their chance but they're refusing to play ball with the Lib-Dems and make unfair results less likely in the future.

The Tories and their '36% is a mandate' supporters deserve to be out of power just like their Canadian counterparts.

 

It was nice to see the recent changing political landscape both in the USA and in Australia. Canada's the only one left of the four which includes Britain that has a rabid right-wing government.

If I were Clegg I would make a deal with the Tories that at least gets a referendum on AV as a step towards further electoral reforms. I'm not saying this is what i would prefer as a British citizen, but I think that politically, its better for the LibDems to make a deal with Cameron.

Here is a very interesting analysis from the blog "leftfoot forward" in the UK about why a Lab/Lib/SNP/PC/Green/Other deal cannot work.

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/no-gold-at-the-end-of-the-rainbow...

The election showed that Britain is a progressive country but two significant interventions today make a Rainbow Coalition both unworkable and undesirable.

First, Douglas Alexander said that Labour could not work with the SNP because of “fundamental” policy differences. Without SNP support, a rainbow coalition would have just 323 seats – the absolute minimum – unless they relied on the support of the DUP. As Iain Dale highlights, it would be inconceivable for the Labour party to go into formal coalition with homophobes such as Ian Paisley Jnr....

There are also some practical objections that are well worth considering. The first, pointed out by Liberal Conspiracy’s Don Paskini, is that:

“The Labour MPs in the last parliament were the most rebellious ever. How can a coalition which depends on Jeremy Corbyn, Frank Field, Tom Harris and John Hemming all voting the same way ever get any legislation passed?”

And as highlighted by Rory Cellan-Jones on BBC, Lib Dem blogger and Left Foot Forward contributor, Mark Thompson has come out in support of a Lib-Con deal. He points out:

“Gordon Brown has promised instant legislation to bring in AV for the Commons and a referendum on something more proportional … It would only take a few Labour MPs to vote against this for it to fall. And having conversed with some Labour backbench MPs I am convinced that there would be enough for this to happen. So what Brown is promising simply cannot be delivered.”

There can be little doubt that the Liberal Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. The collective failure of progressive parties to win an additional 20 seats – which would have provided a parliamentary buffer – has scuppered their preferred option of a Lab-Lib coalition with a new Labour leader. But the Lib Dems must now hold firm and not sacrifice principle for power by getting into bed with the Conservatives. The only progressive route ahead is a Tory minority government with case-by-case “confidence and supply” from the Liberal Democrats followed by a Lib-Lab electoral pact at the next election.

If so, look for fireworks within the LDP.... and not just in the immediate aftermath. Like now, again in several months.... 

Stands to be a LONG 3 years inside that tent.

So they'll have a bunch of people who get to be Ministers and Secretaries, plus all the staffers that go with that. Plenty to keep the party apparatus in line despite lots of grumbling and turnover.

Abd they'll have the security of 3 years without an election. Plenty of time to beleive the drop in fundraisng and shoring up your weak organisation stll has time.

While the rest of the party stews and festers. It will hardly matter whether or not there are formal splits.

If this comes to pass I wonder if Ignatieff will be kicking himself that he didn't demand six cabinet positions and the post of Deputy PM in a Harper-led government after he decided to prop up the Tories last year. At least Clegg looks like he will get something in return for his support - the hapless Liberals in canada just prop up Harper in exchange for NOTHING.

i will believe it when i see it..

Gordon Brown resigns as UK prime minister

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8675913.stm

Democracy Now interview with Tariq Ali

TARIQ ALI: Well, Amy, what is essentially going on here is that you have three mainstream parties: Labor, which has been defeated; the Conservatives, who have the largest popular vote and more seats in Parliament than anyone else; and the Lib Dems, the Liberal Democrats, who hold the balance. And they’re all maneuvering—the Lib Dems, in particular—to see who is going to offer them more cabinet positions, who and, more importantly, which of the other two parties are in favor of changing the electoral system to proportional representation, so that in the next election, the members of Parliament are elected on a proportional basis, which is what happens in most of Europe and which is certainly more democratic. Both the Conservatives and Labor are offering changes to the electoral system, provided the Lib Dems decide to back them.

And these sort of games are going on, are very entertaining to the television journalists and people who report them, but a more fundamental point is this: all these three parties agree with each other on the economic measures that have to be taken, i.e., massive cuts in social welfare public spending, which will hurt the poor, and to support the banking system and the financial system in this country. All three are agreed on that. All three political parties are agreed that the war in Afghanistan has to continue as long as the United States says it has to continue, backing the United States in Afghanistan. On smaller issues, there are odd differences in nuance, but there are no differences in substance. So I’m just bemused when I hear talks of a progressive coalition. What is going to be progressive of about it? All three parties are going to do more or less the same thing, which is attack the poor.....

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/11/tariq_ali_on_britains_political_de...

There isn't really a comparison. For the LDP it was just opportunity, not saavy. When you have 3 parties, and the big two don't have a majority- bingo.

Because of the Bloc the NDP is never even potentially in that situation, let alone has it after an election.

Been reading comments from Billy Bragg and some of his supporters.  Doesn't sound like the group supporting electoral reform is all that happy with the Lib/Dems and their cozing up to to the Tories.  This may turn out to be a big mistake by Clegg if nothing is achieved on the PR front.

Leading article: An unlikely partnership that could mark the start of a treacherous era

 

 

We should not imagine that this will be an easy arrangement. The social democratic wing of the Lib Dems and the Tories' unreconstructed Thatcherites will make for awkward benchfellows

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-an...

There isn't really a comparison. For the LDP it was just opportunity, not saavy. When you have 3 parties, and the big two don't have a majority- bingo.

Electoral reform has been the wedge issue of the LDP for far longer than this last post-election week. They identified that the British parliamentary system was broken, they stuck with the issue and they`ve grown the issue and their party to the point that we`ve witnessed this week where they are setting the terms of debate.I lived in Europe three of the last ten years and I saw those disenchanted with Labour little by little gravitate towards the LDP based purely on their reformist stance. This didn`t happen overnight.The NDP has been in a position where it has bargained with Martin and Harper for conditions to their support and they`ve avoided making democratic reform key to their demands, they had the same opportunity, I fail to see how the Bloc changes that.

 

Its a wedge issue for the range of people that might like Babble. We are manifestly not ideologically diverse.

Among the ideologically diverse electorate electoral reform manifestly is anything but a wedge issue, and is the antithesis of 'refreshing'. It isn't even that among the spectrum of people who either do or consider voting for the NDP, Greens, or smaller parties.

This also is a prevalent assumption by some on babble-that only those of us here are tuned in to the need for democratic reform and that outside of this clique the `masses`are unaware that Canadian democracy is in need of repair. I strongly disagree, I think it`s become increasingly obvious to a growing number of Canadians and will only continue to do so. It`s not going to fix itself and the LDP has correctly anticipated this and got ahead of the issue.

Nor did it have any general traction in the UK. It remains to be seen even whether it can maintain the profile that the present outcome has suddenly brought it. The LDP was no more effective in building the issue than has been the NDP.
I`m sorry but I don`t see how you can say that the LDP has not been effective in building this issue. It`s being discussed constantly now throughout the media where only a short time ago it was completely off the radar. I agree with Bookish Agrarian that if the Lib-Dems do not gain serious concessions on this issue than they are done and will return to obscurity. Their future success depends on this and they will sink and swim with it.

I agree with your last comment.

Thats nothing more than a presumption that PR-as-panacea skeptics here dont think there is a general sense that democracy is 'broken' or empty. We dispute that there is any more than a potential for a link between that, appetite and some actual traction out there for PR focused electoral reform.

People want results, not PR. They could see PR as the path to results, but we are not there. 

Thats the unspoken self-referential loop. The LDP talking about PR and that appealing to its supporter base does not make it a wedge issue.

I think you overstate the LDP's growth in the first place. But to the degree it did grow, there is compelling evidence that has more to do with the sad alternatives than with any issue... and zero evidence the LDPs stand on PR did anything other than please its base.

And again, when you bring in the NDP you are not comparing apples to apples. The NDP has never [since the 1970s] been in a 'kingmaker' position. Bargaining over a short term time frame for specific legislation is nothing like the position the LDP is in now. Not to mention that there is tremendously more resistance in the Liberal Party of Canada to PR than there is in the Labour Party. Many Labourites can and do make arguments that PR would deliver pragmatic benefits for the party's [selfish] interests as well as being the right thing to do. Not only is there no such voice in the LPC, its all too obvious that PR is very much not in their interest. Another couple election cycles of degeneration for the LPC may change that, but we're not there now. And until they get there, a demand from the NDP on the LPC of PR moves or else would be a deal breaker for any potential governing agreement.

AV actually IS a form of FPTP. I agree that I like it better than pure FPTP, but it is no more proportional than the status quo - it just makes it easier for left of centre voters to gang up on the most rightwing party.

Having anything different in the UK would still open possibilities here. Turning the questions into something not alien would be a substantial step.

..3rd day in and 52,001 have signed on to pr.

http://www.takebackparliament.com/

If you beleive any of this I've got a bridge to sell you. AV is by definition not a form of FPTP. AV is a majoritartian system, FPTP is a single member plurality system. AV can also enable right of centre voters to gang up on the left of centre party. It was used to keep the CCF out of power in BC, and in an example of unintended consequences, allowed Wacky Bennett to get elected the first time.

AV is actually a single member case of STV.

If the NDP, BQ and Greens maintain their current levels of support, the Liberals will eventually support electoral reform.

It's a good thing that the NDP support PR in its platform like the Liberal Democrats did in theirs. If the next election in Canada produces a minority situation where the Liberals and NDP have more seats then the Conservatives, electoral reform will suddenly become a bargaining chip like it did in the UK. Going by their self-interest, the Liberals will support AV while the NDP will support MMP. Layton and Ignatieff will then bargain away and some kind of compromise on electoral reform will ensue.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Liberals put AV in their platform.

 

It is much easier to sell AV to the public then it is to sell PR systems.  All you have to do to sell AV is tell people that it requires that each person elected receive 50% of the vote. Selling PR systems like MMP and STV are much more difficult. And a lot of people just prefer majority governments.

 

AV does not resolve the issue of proportional representation any better then FPTP but it does resolve many other important issues such as vote splitting and strategic voting. These are also very important issues. During elections they are what causes a lot of grief as people fight about issues such as strategic voting.

AV is infinitely better then FPTP. It stops all this "Vote Layton, get Harper" nonsense.

If the next election in the UK is fought using FPTP Labour is going to get a lot more seats by shouting "Vote Clegg, Get Cameron". On the other hand, if the UK ends up using AV, Labour will politely ask Liberal Democratic supporters to choose Labour as their first or second choice and choose Cameron last.

The next election might also be the first one to see an elected House of Lords. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have supported an elected House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats have supported using STV to elect members to the H of L and they have a real good shot at convincing the Tories to agree. Here in Canada Harper proposed using STV to elect Senators.  So maybe Cameron is another Conservative who would support using STV to elect members of the upper house?

 

Going to five-year term seems undemocratic. Fixed terms are usually for 4 years or 3 years as in Australia. The UK usually has elections every four years, so going to 5-year fixed terms will mean fewer elections. Not very democratic.

Cameron and Clegg must think that there's a good chance that they're going to be unpopular during the first few years of their term as they cut spending drastically.So they're they're putting off an election for as long as possible hoping they can regain their popularity toward the end of their term.

I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP and the BNP get more popular during the next few years as dissapointment with the Conservatives increases because of their huge spending cuts. If that happens a lot of Conservatives will prefer AV as a way to keep out parties like UKIP and the BNP.

 

Britain's Hung Politics: The Death Throes of Parliamentary Democracy

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19101

"Despite the seeming ongoing ambiguity in the wake of the British national election, one thing is clear. The spectrum of British polity has now officially shrunk to a meaningless, narrow band of monochrome politics, where the majority of citizens have no choice or influence on any important areas of policy. Democracy is being expropriated from the electorate. The choice people make on their ballot sheets now pointedly has no bearing whatsoever on how they are to be governed.."

different no difference parties..

 

Sage advice for right-wingers, Stockholm. As usual.

... rather obvious. lol.

Stockholm has it right here-- the issue is one of balance of power not the ability to crown only one option.

The NDP has to have enough seats to decide what the next government will look like. Put simply the goal would be: whatever the BQ has plus the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives plus one. That would be the number needed to have a real balance of power. As you can see it is a tall order. If the difference between the Liberals and the Cons is say fifteen seats and the BQ has 40 seats then the NDP would need 56 to have the balance of power where they could bring either side to govenment as a majority.

Less than this might still allow a functional minority but only if the BQ agrees not to oppose it which means an arrangement that invovles them.

Kepe in mind that it was a major stretch for the LibDems to form a coalition with the Tories - and they are the MIDDLE party in the UK. For the NDP which is the LEFT party in canada - to reach across and form a similar coalition with the Tories putting the Liberals in opposition would be out of the question.

Of course, Canada's Liberals could always form a coalition with the Tories - the ideological distance between the Liberals and Conservatives in Canada is if anything quoite a bit narrower than the distance between the Lib Dems and Tories in the UK!.

"They said that Parliament was hung!"

"And they was right!"

/oblig

//Mel Brooks FTW

It will be very interesting to see how this coalition works out in the coming months. As I've said before, I think there is a silver lining here for Labour in that all parties lose power eventually - better to lose with a good chunk of your support intact rather than getting wiped out a la the BC NDP in 2001 or the UK Tories in 1997, and then having to spend the next 2-3 election cycles just getting to the point where you are actually in a position to challenge for government. Labour now has the chance to replace an unpopular leader with a fresh face and revitalize itself. If this coalition falls flat on its face, Labour will be there to pick up the pieces (so to speak). Not to mention that Labour can now paint itself as the sole 'progressive' party given the apparent eagerness of the Lib Dems to jump into bed with the Tories.

On our side of the pond, I think the UK experience could (assuming, again, that the coalition doesn't fall flat on its face) be positive for smaller parties like the NDP in that it might underline for Canadians that coalition governments in a Westminster-style Parliament are workable and should be seen as a legitimate alternative in minority government situations. I think that (somewhat ironically) the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in the UK could pave the way for a potential future Liberal-NDP coalition in Canada, without all the squawking about 'undemocratic, unelected' coalitions of 'losers, liars and separatists'.

A coalition with the Tories may deeply hurt the Lib Dems. Coming from The Guardian, it's a Labour-friendly analysis, but interesting nonetheless. The planned redistribution of seats in Scotland could see some truly vast and odd constituencies drawn up (Orkney and Shetland, for example, would be roped together with most of Sutherland), where people at one end of the constituency would have lives and concerns substantially different from those at the other end. Apart from conducting the last rites for any sort of Tory caucus from Scotland, and spelling deep trouble for the Lib Dems, this is a heaven-sent opportunity for the SNP to break out of their strongholds in north-east Scotland, and speak for the Highlands and Islands.

Lewis Baston is right when he says Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey could be vulnerable to a 'Portillo moment' (where a senior/notorious Tory MP was defeated in the rout of 1997), but brushes over the fact that the SNP could be the benefactors, not Labour. They were only 1600 votes behind Labour this time around.