The UK voting system is "Hung" out to dry, Part 3

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
The UK voting system is "Hung" out to dry, Part 3

+_+

NorthReport

This is indeed unfortunate.

 

Why the Lib Dems lost their surge

When it came to immigration, the electorate just didn't agree with Nick Clegg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/08/general-election-201...

Polunatic2

Protesters demand voting reform

Quote:
Up to 1,000 protesters demanding electoral reform have converged on Smith Square in London outside a meeting of Liberal Democrat MPs.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg is meeting his MPs and peers to discuss a power-sharing offer from the Conservatives.

 

NorthReport

Clegg is better to go down fighting rather than to not get a commitment for the first piece of legislation to be electoral reform. Ideally electoral reform gets passed immediately and then another election is called right away. Lib Dems deserve 23% of the seats.

 

 

The bitter truth is the Lib Dems failed. But Clegg could yet redeem himself

The breakthrough we hoped for was not to be. Can Clegg now promote the grown-up solution - a grand coalition?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/07/clegg-could-redeem-h...

 

NorthReport

This is getting "nasty". Smile

 

Coalition options: Views from party members

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/8670178.stm

NorthReport

Now we're talking. Step up the attacks on Brown now! Imagine the fallout if Clegg lets the Cons govern because Brown refused to step down.

 

 

Labour MP John Mann has called on Gordon Brown to agree to step down as party leader before its annual conference in September.

 

The Bassetlaw MP said the "credibility" of a potential Lib Dem-Labour alliance would be damaged if he carried on.

Mr Mann said Labour shed votes because the PM appeared to be "out of touch".

Labour's 258 seats put them in second place behind the Tories, who are now trying to seek a deal with the Lib Dems after failing to gain a majority share.

'Disaster'

Although the Conservative Party secured 306 of the 649 constituencies contested on 6 May, they are just short of the 326 MPs needed for an outright majority.

Mr Mann added it was "extraordinary" that the party had not been convened in this "emergency situation".

He told the BBC that it would be a "disaster" for Labour to try to "stagger on" while Mr Brown remained in charge.

Mr Mann told the BBC it was not "tenable" for Mr Brown to continue as leader nor for Nick Clegg to "reach an accord and prop up" the Labour leader.

He said: "He would be destroyed. That won't happen. For the good of the country and for the good of his own party, Gordon Brown needs to be making plans to stand down as leader."

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said Mr Mann was a "credible figure" within the party.

This is the first overt Labour challenge to Mr Brown's authority since the party lost 91 seats in the election.

Mr Mann said that "literally thousands" of voters had told him they wanted to support him during the election campaign but that did not mean they wanted Gordon Brown in office.

"[The Labour voters] still stayed with us but there's no way Gordon Brown can in any credibility carry on as prime minister for long and as Labour leader. He needs to go.

"We need a new leader over the summer elected to be running the Labour Party," he said.

Although he said he imagined a "large number" of fellow Labour MPs privately agreed with him, he denied being part of any plot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8670038.stm

Stockholm

NorthReport wrote:

Clegg is better to go down fighting rather than to not get a commitment for the first piece of legislation to be electoral reform. Ideally electoral reform gets passed immediately and then another election is called right away. Lib Dems deserve 23% of the seats.

 

...in whihc case the following would happen: We would hear a chorus from the media and the other parties about how "here we are in the midst of an economic crisis and all Nick Clegg cares about is more seats for the his party" and "Now we get stuck with a second election in a year - all because the leader of a party that got only 23% of the vote is having a tantrum over some arcane reforms to the electoral system". I predict that if Clegg actually followed though voting non-confidence in any party that didn't bring in PR immediately - here is what would happen: snap election, the Tories in the UK have a ton of money, Labour is virtually bankrupt and so are the Lib Dems. There would be a national wave wanting "stable government" and you would probably end up with the Tories gaining 50 seats and getting an absolute majority.

Its one thing to make demands and even force an election over a bread and butter issue that affects each individuals livelihood - but I think the British would take a very dim view of going back to the polls over something as arcane as electoral reform (which never seems to rise higher than 1% when people asked that issue is the most important to them). The thing is, if the Lib De,s actually seemed to stand for anything at all besides more seats for themselves - they might have done better in the election. If they had taken 28% as predicted and had 90 seats rather than 57 - they would be ain a much stronger bargaining position. But they don't.

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Clegg is better to go down fighting rather than to not get a commitment for the first piece of legislation to be electoral reform. Ideally electoral reform gets passed immediately and then another election is called right away. Lib Dems deserve 23% of the seats.

 

...in whihc case the following would happen: We would hear a chorus from the media and the other parties about how "here we are in the midst of an economic crisis and all Nick Clegg cares about is more seats for the his party" and "Now we get stuck with a second election in a year - all because the leader of a party that got only 23% of the vote is having a tantrum over some arcane reforms to the electoral system". I predict that if Clegg actually followed though voting non-confidence in any party that didn't bring in PR immediately - here is what would happen: snap election, the Tories in the UK have a ton of money, Labour is virtually bankrupt and so are the Lib Dems. There would be a national wave wanting "stable government" and you would probably end up with the Tories gaining 50 seats and getting an absolute majority.

Its one thing to make demands and even force an election over a bread and butter issue that affects each individuals livelihood - but I think the British would take a very dim view of going back to the polls over something as arcane as electoral reform (which never seems to rise higher than 1% when people asked that issue is the most important to them). The thing is, if the Lib De,s actually seemed to stand for anything at all besides more seats for themselves - they might have done better in the election. If they had taken 28% as predicted and had 90 seats rather than 57 - they would be ain a much stronger bargaining position. But they don't.

If Brown can cobble together enough support (all it would take for a working majority with the Lib Dems would be Plaid Cymru and SNP for a working majority, but they would want concessions as well, however the Green Party member would probably prefer this grouping to the alternative) there wouldn't be a need for an election. Even if he were to lose a confidence vote he would probably recommend to the Queen that Cameron be asked to try to form a government. It's only if Cameron becomes Prime Minister and loses a confidence vote, that an election is more likely. Our opinions are irrelevant, it's what the British people would think of it.

 

NorthReport

So we are not allowed to voice our opinions. Jeesh!

And actually the British people now will have little say. It is up to their elites now to decide what to do.

 

What is it in particular that makes Clegg despise Brown?

NorthReport

David Cameron faces Tory party anger

Lord Ashcroft, who put £5m into marginal seats, is said to be furious with Cameron for doing TV debates and a lack of support over the 'non-dom' status row

 

 

Another senior and normally loyal Tory MP complained that Cameron's big idea for the campaign - "the Big Society", under which armies of volunteers would come together to tackle the country's ills - was "complete crap".

"We couldn't sell that stuff on the doorstep. It was pathetic. All we needed was a simple message on policy. We could have won a majority if we had not had to try to sell this nonsense."

Cameron is certain to feel the wrath of his MPs at an emergency meeting of the 1922 committee of backbenchers tomorrow, called to discuss a possible coalition with the Lib Dems.

Today, Tim Montgomerie, the editor of the ConservativeHome website, posted a blog saying that Cameron had to adopt a more collegiate style of leadership if he was to have any chance of taking the party with him in talks on a possible deal with the Lib Dems.

For months, leading Tories have complained that the election strategy was being drawn up by a narrow group around the party leader, including Osborne, Letwin, Gove, Steve Hilton, his close adviser, and his communications chief, Andy Coulson.

Arguably the most damaging for Cameron is the tension with Ashcroft. In the early hours of Friday morning, when a hung parliament had become inevitable, Ashcroft said the TV leaders' debates had been a turning point.

"I think from the time the Conservatives were ahead, we then had the debates, which has quite obviously turned everything topsy-turvy and what were natural assumptions before those debates changed the whole of the playing field," he said. "This is the type of result we are now seeing as a consequence of those debates."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/08/david-cameron-faces-tory-...

NDPP

Either Way Zionists Win

http://www.redress.cc/global/slittlewood20100508

"The battle of the Israel stooges in Britain's general elections has ended inconclusively in what's called a "hung parliament". But regardless of who finally enters number 10 Downing Street, the real winners will be the Zionists."

the same result will be the case after the next Canadian election also..

Stockholm

I don't think Clegg has anything personal against Brown. In fact, I've read some reports that the personal chemistry is actually much worse between Cameron and Clegg than between Brown and Clegg.

Clegg did say before the election that the party with the most votes and the most seats should make the first "attempt" at forming a government (ergo: he gives Cameron an opportunity to make him an offer he can't refuse which Cameron probably can't do because of all the rightwingers in his party). The problem is that supporting Brown is fraught with difficulty as well. Brown is personally extremely unpopular in the UK and polls show that something like 75% of Britons want "change". Labour has been in for 13 years, Brown is seen as a weather beaten, dour old coot who has been there forever. His party just lost almost 100 seats and had its second worst showing in its history. Its very hard to make the case for keeping him there - especially when Lib/Lab is not a majority and would need support from this parade of regionalist parties.

If Clegg makes a formal alliance with either Labour or the Tories - half his party will be enraged with him. He's probably best off picking up his marbles and going home and letting Cameron form a minority government.

Brian White

Just a note that the BBC had a thing about a conference (held in new zealand) where the delegates were trying to learn from the new zealand experience of "hung parliaments" .  In the pro rep situation hung parliaments is the normal way but people in fptp land are almost incapable of seeing past the one  "Winner" .

I cannot find the darn link now. But there was a canadian delegation to the conference.  And it was about finding an orderly way to get through the hanging (without the porogueing).

Britain has had pro rep for years. I think they have it for european elections too. 

(Just not in england or in national elections there is no pro rep) so when the tories there are talking about fighting against pro rep, they are really talking to the English (who they hope to keep ignorant).   The Welch an Scots, and Irish in the UK have pro rep for their regions.  As long as the english tories can keep the English voters ignorant, they get to keep fptp and majority rule on 35% of the vote.   Labour like those odds too.

Brian

Augustus

Stockholm wrote:

I don't think Clegg has anything personal against Brown. In fact, I've read some reports that the personal chemistry is actually much worse between Cameron and Clegg than between Brown and Clegg.

I've seen the opposite in some reports.  As they were saying on the BBC yesterday, Clegg and Cameron are of the same age/generation and have some things in common that Clegg does not have with Brown.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Fair Vote Canada analysis of ridiculous election results in the UK

Larry Gordon (Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada) points out that

Quote:
"As ludicrous as Britain's election results are, they are no worse than what we experience in Canada," said Bronwen Bruch, President of Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan citizens' campaign for voting system reform in Canada. "The big difference is that Britain may well move forward on electoral reform, since both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who together represent a majority of voters, are prepared to scrap the discredited first-past-the-post system. The Liberal Democrats are expected to demand action on proportional representation."

In conclusion ...

Quote:
Pressure for electoral reform has been slowly building in Britain and then the MPs' spending scandal blew the lid on. Plus, Nick Clegg, the third party leader has said electoral reform is a condition for supporting a new government. A similar mix of conditions may be building in Canada - we can only hope since Canadian voter turnout is dropping as people walk away in disgust from our dysfunctional system.

 

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the coalition for pr has a brand new web site. there is a support counter. yesterday it was 15,000, today it's double. you can scroll down for the coalition list.

http://www.takebackparliament.com/

Brian White

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8665835.stm is the link to the new zealand thing. It is kinda protocols for running a hung parliament.

Things to note for canadians, etc, and there was a canadian delegation there.  Nothing abour poroguing to prevent democracy.  (Not Kosher).

Worth a look. Brian

Stockholm

Augustus wrote:

I've seen the opposite in some reports.  As they were saying on the BBC yesterday, Clegg and Cameron are of the same age/generation and have some things in common that Clegg does not have with Brown.

It's the narcissism of small difference. Clegg and Cameron are on paper so similar (they even look kind of alike) but they are intense rivals and loathe each other like two lions fighting to be the top cat in a pride. In Ontario in 1985 a lot of people assumed that Bob Rae and David Peterson would get  along since they were about the same age and both from elite families etc...but in reality they detested each other and could barely stand to be in the same room. When the Liberal/NDP accord was negotiated in Ontario in 1985 - it was all done by intermediaries because Rae and Peterson had such awful personal chemistry that they were barely able to exchange pleasantries.

On a similar note, when Thatcher was elected PM in 1979 a lot of people speculated that she and the Queen would get along well since they were two women or almost the exact same age. Apparently they actyally had very frosty relations and the Queen thought Maggie was a snide parvenu who was trying to upstage her and didn't care for her politics either - its rumoured that the PM who the Queen had the best personal relationship with was harold Wilson!

JKR

More FPTP stats:

The Conservatives received a whopping 40% more seats on a measly increase of 4 percentage points.

The Liberal Democrats vote went up by 1 percentage point but their seat total went down by 10%.

 

 

If the LibDems and Conservatives form a coalition government they'll be called the

 

ConDems

 

 Laughing

Fidel

I find that hard to believe, Liberals and Conservatives propping up one another in coalition as proposed. Like where else in the world does it ever happen that those two parties are mirror images of the other? Inconceivable.

NorthReport

Brown should already have announced his retirement
Labour leadership: the Michael Howard model

Labour MPs opting for an early divorce from Gordon Brown may repent at leisure. A caretaker role and clear choice are needed

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/09/gordon-brown-labour-...

NorthReport

To seize this historic moment, the Lib Dems must turn to Labour

To ensure the country's support, Gordon Brown must announce his plans to step down

The power to confer that authority rests with Nick Clegg. He should withhold it. The Tories have no greater claim to economic competence than any other party, nor any greater credibility on the deficit. They have simply shouted louder about it. Their manifesto was full of unfunded pledges; their priorities, as indicated by capricious tax breaks for the rich, suggest a flimsy grasp of what counts as fairness in austerity.

Meanwhile, there are vast gaps between Lib Dems and Tories on nearly every other aspect of policy. The Lib Dems seek sensible co-operation with the rest of Europe, for example, while the Tories prefer obstruction. Mr Cameron's party is allied in the European parliament with fringe nationalists, described by Mr Clegg crudely, but not inaccurately, as "nutters". The Observer today publishes an extraordinarily obdurate memo prepared for William Hague's first encounter with his European counterparts that indicates how their policies would guarantee confrontation. That is not in the national interest.

But surely the greatest obstacle is electoral reform? Many Tories feel existential hostility to the kind of radically realigned politics that might emerge in a new, more representative democracy. Mr Cameron's entire political career and his bearing during the campaign express an underlying confidence that, by virtue of historical entitlement, the Tories get regular turns at the levers of power. Electoral reform might end that guarantee. By contrast, electoral reform is Labour policy. So is a more judicious and fair deficit reduction strategy much more in tune with Lib Dem ideas.

There is much ideological overlap between the two parties and no constitutional obstacle to a coalition between them. The Conservatives would howl that they have been deprived their victor's spoils. But they won only the right to try to form a government, which Nick Clegg has given them. If Mr Clegg then finds it easier to deal with Labour he is free to do so. A Lib-Lab coalition could claim to have marshalled an overall majority of votes casts. That, together with their combined parliamentary weight, would grant a genuine mandate to govern.

The problem is Mr Brown. Whatever convention says about his right to continue as prime minister, the campaign has flayed his authority. The Lib Dems could not plausibly enter a coalition with Labour if the administration that emerged were seen as a rickety continuation of the one that has just been punished by voters. Any ensuing referendum on electoral reform might be construed as a plea to rubber-stamp Gordon Brown's prolonged hold on power - and be rejected.

If a Lib-Lab pact is to have any chance of survival, Mr Brown must signal unequivocally that he seeks to continue only for as long as it takes to get a new constitutional order in place. He must give clear advance notice of his resignation, stating that he will continue as prime minister in a caretaker capacity only. He must accept a timetable, no longer than two years, for a referendum on electoral reform and a new general election, in which Labour will be led by someone else.

Combined, the Liberal Democrats and Labour have the affinity on policy, the electoral mandate and the unique historic opportunity to usher in a new era of fairer, better governance for Britain. Mr Brown must offer Mr Clegg partnership in an administration of real national renewal and make the vital concession needed to secure it - a guarantee of his own departure.

Mr Clegg should accept those terms. That is how the national interest is best served after the election that nobody won.

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/08/observer-editorial-c...

NDPP

The New Battle of Britain

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2010/05/07/138...

"PARIS - Britain's confusing hung election comes as the financial storm buffeting Europe intensifies by the day.."

NorthReport

A big F Y for electoral reform from the Tories?

 

 

Clegg is urged to abandon deal as Tories rule out vote reform

 

 

Leading Conservatives react with horror to a day of shuttle diplomacy between Lib Dem leader and David Cameron as thousands demonstrate in favour of PR, joining voices calling for the creation of 'traffic light' coalition of the left

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clegg-is-urged-to-abandon-...

 

NorthReport

 

So, David Cameron, why did you fail to seal the deal?

 

 

You started out against the most unpopular PM of recent times. The Lib Dems were running at less than 20 per cent in the opinion polls. The right-wing press was uniformly behind you and you had a double-digit lead for most of the four years you have led your party

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/so-david-cameron-why-did-y...

NDPP

good question...

NorthReport

Now things are getting more interesting as Clegg just met with Brown. Laughing

Polunatic2

This wasn't included in the quotes from that excellent Guardian article above.

Quote:
.Mr Clegg is right to insist on a substantial commitment to reform as a condition of participation in government with either of the two bigger parties. Mr Brown has shrewdly acknowledged that imperative and offered a referendum on proportional representation – a system that would fairly allocate seats in Parliament according to votes cast.

That's huge, if not historic news. While it may prove difficult to win a referendum (i.e. it may be 'easier' to let the coalition gov't implement PR), it's very difficult to argue against the notion of letting the voters decide through a referendum. Should this process begin, can we expect Labour to do it properly? Or might they turn to Campbell and McGuinty on how to undermine a reform process? 

 

aka Mycroft

326 seats are needed for a majority, however, because Sinn Fein MPs don't take their seats, 323 MPs are needed for an effective majority:

For 323 seats, a Labour led coalition could either exist as:

Labour+SDLP+LibDem+Plaid+Alliance+Green

Labour 258+

SDLP (already caucuses with Labour) 3=261

Lib Dem 57= 318

Plaid Cymru 3 = 321

Alliance 1 = 322

Green 1 = 323

or Labour+SDLP+LibDem+SNP with other parties (PC, Alliance, Green) being optional)

Labour 258+SDLP 3+LibDem57+SNP 6 = 324

aka Mycroft

Given that a Labour led government would not only need the support of the Lib Dems but also of various smaller parties such as teh SDLP, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance Party and the Greens in order to be stable the possibilities for such a government are much slimmer than a Con-Lib Dem pact. The only way a Labour led coalition is possible is if the Tories refuse to relent on having a referendum on PR and Labour gives an iron-clad commitment.

The SDLP already caucuses with Labour so they aren't a problem and the Alliance MP would probably gravitate towards Labour (or at least the Lib Dems) as well. The real problem would be Plaid and SNP. While both parties are social democratic in orientation, and Plaid is already in a coalition with Labour in the Welsh Assembly, both parties are nationalists and could insist on either an acceleration to devolution or even referenda on Scottish and Welsh sovereignty which Labour may not be able to agree to. (No indication that these demands are being made but I'd be surprised if they weren't advanced by the SNP at least).

Sinn Fein has five MPs but they do not take their seats because MPs must take an oath to the Queen. I wonder if Brown would be willing to rewrite the oath in order to give a possible Labour led coalition more support?

BTW, it's interesting that while the notion of the BQ supporting a Liberal-NDP coalition was the kiss of death the possibility of relying on support from Scottish and Welsh separatist MPs hasn't (yet) raised any eyebrows in the UK.

In practice, I think a Lab-Lib Dem minority government coalition is unlikely to be defeated since the Tories would have to muster the support of alll the smaller parties to defeat it but would the Lib Dems enter into a minority coalition?

Stockholm

"BTW, it's interesting that while the notion of the BQ supporting a Liberal-NDP coalition was the kiss of death the possibility of relying on support from Scottish and Welsh separatist MPs hasn't (yet) raised any eyebrows in the UK."

I could yet raise eyebrows if it actually happened - right now its completely hypothetical. I think that a Lib/Lab government reliant on support from Sinn Fein would be even more problematic since they are widely viewed in the UK as the IRA wearing suits (which they are).

Just you wait - if the LibDems pulled out of all talks with the Cons and a Lib/Lab/SNP/PC/SF government started to be a real possibility - the tabloid press and the Tories would go haywire about "deals with the IRA" etc... and it would be 10 times worse than anything we saw in Canada during our coalition "crisis".

The other reason why there isn't as much controversy about the SNP and PC is that they are soo small. They have 9 seats between them out of 650! Compare that to the BQ with its 50 out of 308.

takeitslowly

I think it is more likely more libdem to support the Cameron party, and a Cameron led government would lead to a majority conservative government after the next election, i think it is only a matter of time, just as i think the Conservative is likely to gain a majority in the next Canadian federal election because the voters become more comfortable with the idea of the conservative in  charge.

 

 

 

aka Mycroft

True, the smaller parties don't need to be a formal part of the coalition (though the 3 SDLP MPs already take the Labour whip) but there would probably need to be some commitment that they wouldn't defeat a Lab-Lib Dem government for a period for a time. No constitutional requirement but probably a political requirement to ensure stability.

And while both Plaid and SNP are small - they also both happen to be in government in their respective countries. Interestingly, I don't recall any hue and cry about Labour "being in bed with separatists" when they formed a coalition with Plaid in Wales.

Sinn Fein wouldn't be part of the coalition, formally or tacitly, or support them from the outside, since they don't take their seats though it might be tempting for Labour to agree to change the MP's oath in order to allow SF to take their seats and give Labour an extra buffer.

KenS

takeitslowly wrote:

I think it is more likely more libdem to support the Cameron party, and a Cameron led government would lead to a majority conservative government after the next election, 

If you think that ultimate outcome is so likely, then it is also one widely expected. And if its so widely expected, why would the LDP step in front of the oncoming train?

aka Mycroft

I think the big risk for the Lib Dems in joining a Tory coalition is that they would basically be setting the stage for a Tory majority and risk both ending up without electoral reform and losing many of their left-leaning voters who would be disgusted by Clegg propping up Cameron (indeed, it's possible such a deal could even split the party). There has been vocal opposition in the press by Lib Dem members to a pact with the Tories. I don't think there has been any similar outcry against a possible Lib-Lab pact.

KenS

The other parties do not have to be in a coalition with Labour, they just have to not vote against it. That is even technically true of the LDP, though not in practice. But the smaller parties are not needed in the coalition.

I don't think there is any serious chance of Labour doing a McGuinty/Campbell betrayal. This is the UK. And Labour is at worst ambivalent about PR... they don't have the deeply entrenched material interests against of Canadian Liberals.

I think the real sticking point of a Labour/LDP coalition is the need both parties have to not be going into an election very soon- especially the LDP. So they need more stability than is available to them. But as far as that goes, a Conservative minority government does not promise any more to keep them out of elections. So even looked at generally, I think there is a definite possibility.

If Brown and Clegg think they can craft at least minimal stability, then that will also serve to set aside the issue of Clegg changing his mind around who gets LDP support. It would be long a non-issue by the time of an election.

Without thinking much about the specific pieces, or knowing much about what is at hand, it would seem that a coalition ought to be able to craft enough of an agenda to justify a 2 year mandate- with 18 months being a worst case scenario for what they can expect to get.

Thats enough time for a referendum and for Labour to choose a new Leader, and her to get established. And enough time for the LDP to recharge and rethink.

KenS

Planning for the future with a Labour-LDP Coalition, the LDP would face a dilemna of what to do if the referendum loses and the election surely follows soon. Labour will have a basic agenda to follow either way. Trickier for the LDP: being the junior partner is hard enough in the following election, let alone when your big issue has been turned down by the voters.

But its not like they have any easy options, let alone sweet ones. And they are really set if the referendum wins, or even gets close.

takeitslowly

oops double post!

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Just as a general remark, I'm impressed by the willingness in the UK of the oppositional forces not to be goose-stepping behind the Conservatives at the first opportunity. The myopia of Canadian discussions is refreshingly absent.

takeitslowly

KenS wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

I think it is more likely more libdem to support the Cameron party, and a Cameron led government would lead to a majority conservative government after the next election, 

If you think that ultimate outcome is so likely, then it is also one widely expected. And if its so widely expected, why would the LDP step in front of the oncoming train?

 

I think it is because Nick Clegg insisted on running a morally pure campaign in which he said the party with the most votes get the chance to form a government first, and he is being consistent, moral purity and a sense of justice , I think, is what Nick Clegg wants to define himself with, kind of like Jack Layton. Moral victories don’t translate to electoral victories, of course. LibDem didn`t win enough seats to be have a  strong bargaining power, he can win a small chance of electoral reform, or behave like a typical traditional party (and lose the young idealistic voters base) , go back on their words and suffer even worse defeats by joinning the Labour.

Stockholm

When did the "oppositional forces" in Canada goose-step behind the Conservatives here? You may recall that that on election night 2006 Paul Martin (unlike Gordon Brown) resigned on election night as PM and as Liberal leader and advised the GG to call upon Harper to form a government. he didn't even try to stay in power. Whether the NDP and BQ would have let him is another question.

KenS

There is more political sophistication and commitment in the UK for the parties to tap into. And it is a general demand on them.

Stockholm

BTW: I think what we MIGHT see in the UK is not a coalition between the Tories and the LibDems - but some sort of agreement whereby the Lib dems allow confidence votes to pass and there is a commitment that no snap election will be called for two years - robbing Cameron of the ability to call a snap election and get a majority.

KenS

I can see that working. The easy way for Clegg.

Going back on his statement to support the party with the most seats is easily doable. But everything else about the Coalition is risky for them. So when you're shell shocked- take the easy way.

NorthReport

The elephant in the room - Brown!

 

Brown is sure to go, but who will take the reins?

 

 

If the Tories and Lib Dems agree a deal, it will be the end of the road for the PM and spark a campaign to succeed him

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-is-sure-to-go-but-wh...

NorthReport

Augustus

It is basically because of Scotland that the Conservatives did not win a majority.  The Conservatives are obviously very popular in England as they won the majority of seats there, and since England is the biggest and most powerful player in the UK, that fact is what gives David Cameron the strongest hand.

Brian White

I hope that Brown does the right thing. Resigns as labour leader. Then I hope that Clegg and labour make a deal for a referendum on some sort of pro rep in about 2 years time.  Labour more by long tradition and the lib dems by what they believe are British partys.  The Tories is an ENGLISH reactionary  party. They recoil at the idea of a united europe, they recoil at the idea of scotland and wales having any kind of local government and they wish for the old glory days when England lorded it over the world and kicked the buts of the irish, scottish and welch at will.

If english people want Brittain to survive as a unit, why are the voting for the Tories at all?  I look at British politics and see english nationalists (tories) scottish nationalists, welch nationalists,  Irish nationalists  and a kind of  reactionary northern protestant nationalist group.

Very few real  brits among those partys!

It is a dead end for clegg to join with the tories.  They should go for pro rep as non negotiable. (The liberal dems cannot survive under  fptp) .

Fptp means death to the 3rd party in england. Labour after brown will return to being second pary because of tradition.

The liberal dems only hope of survival  (and a lot more seats reflecting the number of votes they get) is pro rep.

So it is a labour lib dem coalition and referendum deal or death for the lib dems.

Labour might not like it but I am sure there are a few of them who do not want to be out of power for a generation.  Cons at 38% would mean they have a full majority and they balkanize Britain. An upswing of terrorism in northern ireland, Welch burning of english second homes in wales would increase (it happens all the time on a low level)  (Churchill sent the troops in to break up strikes in the coalmines in ww1  and lots of people remember) and the scots would go completely nationalist.  Leaders tend to go on ego trips (nobody speaks truth to authority) but if clegg can get over his ego, the others wait a little for their country to get independence  and brown is forced out, then Britain can get a decent government and last a few years longer.

I think it will eventually break up anyway but much nicer to go gently  like the Cheks and Slovaks than in mayhem like the southern slavs.

 

NorthReport

Cartoon

takeitslowly

I read that it was David Cameron that decided to give Nick Clegg an equal amount of air time for TV debates, he didn’t want a tv debate to begin with, so Nick might feel like he has to return the favour to the Tory. He already paid like two visits to Cameron’s house, I think there’s a deal coming soon. My guess is that Clegg and Brown dont get along , and Clegg might respect Cameron even though he sincerely has idealogical differences with him.

 

During the election campaign, some of the labour party mps actually told labour voters to support libdem in tight tory libdem races, its hard to imagine the Liberal party of Canada would do that kind of thing for the NDP.

NorthReport

I just don't see how the Lib Dems can deal with the Cons, as they are totally opposed to each other on the issue of electoral reform, and how could Clegg promote a deal with the Cons with no PR as part of the agreement.
Lab and Lib: a dream team

Progressives will never forgive Labour and the Lib Dems if they flunk this historic chance to form an alliance

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/09/labour-liberal-democ...

Pages

Topic locked