Will Clegg have the bottle

[Soapy Sam]

I think, when I see people wiling to get into bed with people they were damning as unprincipled last week, just to achieve their personal ambition, that what I'm watching is a bunch of unprincipled whores; which is pretty much what I thought before this farce of an election.

Rolfe- I do hope after dragging the poor mallard from lockerbie you at least had the decency to cook it?

 

[Rolfe]

I think, when I see people wiling to get into bed with people they were damning as unprincipled last week, just to achieve their personal ambition, that what I'm watching is a bunch of unprincipled whores; which is pretty much what I thought before this farce of an election.

That would be all of them, then?

This is a problem inherent in the FPTP system I think. It encourages very adversarial electioneering, with no thought about future co-operation. Stuff gets said, then dragged up later. I don't know how it is in countries with PR, but at least there they must realise they'll have to get along in the future to some extent.

If absolutely everyone in politics is an unprincipled whore, we are surely damned. These people must become the government one way or another. Politics is a dirty game and many people look down on any involvement in it - and then suddenly find the people they despised are in charge.

Rolfe- I do hope after dragging the poor mallard from lockerbie you at least had the decency to cook it?

Don't you start. The guys on the GTi forum were practically posting recipes.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Go with the Tories without electoral reform and it'll look grubby more than naive. In fact what Rolfe was saying last week about the Lib Dems may be very accurate (think it was Rolfe about hypocrisy etc - apologies if not!)

I do have a very low opinion indeed of LibDem politicians. I have a number of friends who are supporters and party members, and they are as honest and straightforward as the next guy. But Campbell, Steel, Kennedy, Scott, Stephen and all their English counterparts seem to me to be two-faced and duplicitous in a way I don't really recognise in any of the other parties.

LibDems at local government level as well - let's just not go there.

I don't know how or even if that will be a feature we'll see in these current negotiations, but nothing would surprise me.

I agree with this, although I don't think any damage has been done yet, as they have the get out of looking for PR and being knocked back.

At least they're talking. I was very unimpressed by their behaviour three years ago when they refused even to begin talks with the SNP unless the SNP first renounced its main policy plank. On the other hand, given the PR system in Scotland, maybe it's just as well, because they might otherwise have been in government in perpetuity, no matter which of the other parties won the election.

Interesting times, indeed.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

That would be all of them, then?

Pretty much.

If absolutely everyone in politics is an unprincipled whore, we are surely damned. These people must become the government one way or another. Politics is a dirty game and many people look down on any involvement in it - and then suddenly find the people they despised are in charge.

I honestly think virtually all politics could be done away with.
Parties, for a start. I see no reason all candidates can't be independent of any party.
I can't agree with my best friends over all political issues; the chances there's a "party" out there with whom I agree enough to identify with them is effectively zero and adding more peoples' POV to the combination decreases that figure.
Ban the lot.
They're a 19th century anachronism.

All candidates to live in their constituencies- no exceptions- and show at least 3 years prior residence before standing. Noone who can't tell me how to get from Peacock Cross to Silvertonhill gets my vote, no matter how great his or her personal charisma.

Close Westminster and sell it . MPs to work out of an office in their local burroo, with all the telecoms they need at Gummint expense. Civil servants on staff as required. No wives or kids on payroll. No payroll.
Regular meetings (in person) in major cities, on rotation, monthly, with direct public access. A Majlis. A court. That way, they don't get isolated and out of touch with reality. Any reality.

Cabinet chosen from half of the top 50 elected MPs who get the highest marks in competitive exams set and marked by the civil service. The other half will be the opposition.

No prime minister. They can take turns being first speaker. We have a head of state already. When she retires, I'd suggest promoting Princess Anne , who appears to have a lick of sense, over her idiot brother.

I feel assassination could be usefully employed in some way, if only to keep them on their mettle. This may need tweaking. Bringing back the death penalty for egregious failure is something I have long advocated.

Look- all these people have to do is manage a fairly smallish, second string country. There are folk in the real world managing companies with operations all around the world. It's a project management problem. Hell, get some bankers to do it. They're the best. That's why they're paid so much.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't particularly think the domestic English thing is an issue anymore than it was last week.

I think the domestic English thing has the potential to be a huge issue. It's the West Lothian Question, in spades. The arithmetic suggests that a grand anti-Tory alliance would be on a knife-edge even for UK-wide legislation, and I can't see how it could work for English legislation.

There has been huge concern about the West Lothian Question ever since the Scottish parliament was set up, and the chickens would be coming home to roost in flocks with such an alliance.

I'm not saying I'm personally unhappy about any of these possibilities. You said it yourself.

A Lib/Con coalition might well see me joining the SNP next week.

The voting discrepancy between Scotland and England is now so great that the relationship is likely to be strained any way you slice it. Minority Tory government imposing draconian cuts - Thatcher's days are back. Tory/LibDem alliance, much the same, but with the LibDems suffering in Scotland for their alliance with the Torys.

I don't know how this would play out, because Labour is much more overtly unionist than it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Then, the party concealed its unionism, apparently out of a fear that voters would desert for the SNP if they realised Labour would prefer there never to be a devolved parliament at all, than for the country to be independent. Now, they're quite open in their bad-mouthing of independence. People tend to vote for them anyway, regardless of position or policy. And they have more credibility than in these earlier years, having been in government for 13 years.

Nevertheless, an unpopular Tory government in Westminster might well break the current stalemate. Things could get interesting.

Alternatively, the grand anti-Tory alliance might be tried. The aggrieved parties then, would be the English Tories and the English Tory press. We could see some very nasty stuff coming from there, that could drive a wedge through the union faster than anything the SNP might engineer.

I've often thought that Scottish independence was likely to happen as a result of "events, dear boy", rather than simple campaign slogging by SNP activists. It might even be that one of the other major parties might do a volte-face and embrace the concept, though it seems less likely Labour might be the one than it did 15 years ago.

Events seem likely to happen, one way or another.

Rolfe.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I think, when I see people wiling to get into bed with people they were damning as unprincipled last week, just to achieve their personal ambition, that what I'm watching is a bunch of unprincipled whores; which is pretty much what I thought before this farce of an election.

The one thing that got more tired than political platitudes during the election were the vox poxes of apathetic voters.

 

[Rolfe]

Soapy, very eloquent, but about as realistic as the one-world-government advocates, in the timescales we have to live by.

Factions and parties are how human beings seem to operate. Children figure it out in the school playground. Those who sit aloof and demand independent members, get shafted by the cabal who all agreed to vote the same way.

So, starting from here and operating in the world we actually live in, how do you think this current dilemma could/should play out?

Rolfe.

 

[Matthew Best]

Children figure it out in the school playground.

As Alfie McKenzie (future leader of some party or other presumably) said in the Guardian:

"If I mention anything remotely related to the government or governments past to my friends, I get the same response: "Who cares about politics? They're all corrupt." Sometimes it's not even a verbal answer: there's a specific look of disappointment that gets the message across."

 

[Soapy Sam]

The one thing that got more tired than political platitudes during the election were the vox poxes of apathetic voters.

No- one of the many things that were more boring was the stoic avoidance by everyone of the fact that drastic political reform in this nation state is about 60 years overdue, but that the only people wanting to instigate change are those who stand to benefit from it.
That's perfectly understandable, it's merely gutless.
The British population is free to go on electing gutless politicians if they wish. I can't believe it's wise though.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Soapy, very eloquent, but about as realistic as the one-world-government advocates, in the timescales we have to live by.

Factions and parties are how human beings seem to operate. Children figure it out in the school playground. Those who sit aloof and demand independent members, get shafted by the cabal who all agreed to vote the same way.

So, starting from here and operating in the world we actually live in, how do you think this current dilemma could/should play out?

Rolfe.

There is no dilemma.
36% of the people have spoken. Cameron wanted to govern. Now he has to get on with it. Nobody said it would be easy.

And yes- the only sort of government worth having is a world government. It's also the kind we need for 6 billion people. We won't get it, because we are pack scavengers and don't (perhaps can't) think in terms of numbers like that or area like that. The few individuals who can appear to be Alexanders or Napoleons.
Sad, but there it is.

Ultimately, you're an optimist. I'm a Darwinist. In the long run, I'll be right.*
Meanwhile, Cameron needs to stop faffing about, take the bull by the horns and attempt to govern.

*There was meant to be a wink smiley there, but it didn't work.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I think the domestic English thing has the potential to be a huge issue. It's the West Lothian Question, in spades. The arithmetic suggests that a grand anti-Tory alliance would be on a knife-edge even for UK-wide legislation, and I can't see how it could work for English legislation.

There has been huge concern about the West Lothian Question ever since the Scottish parliament was set up, and the chickens would be coming home to roost in flocks with such an alliance.

I'm not saying I'm personally unhappy about any of these possibilities. You said it yourself.




The voting discrepancy between Scotland and England is now so great that the relationship is likely to be strained any way you slice it. Minority Tory government imposing draconian cuts - Thatcher's days are back. Tory/LibDem alliance, much the same, but with the LibDems suffering in Scotland for their alliance with the Torys.

I don't know how this would play out, because Labour is much more overtly unionist than it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Then, the party concealed its unionism, apparently out of a fear that voters would desert for the SNP if they realised Labour would prefer there never to be a devolved parliament at all, than for the country to be independent. Now, they're quite open in their bad-mouthing of independence. People tend to vote for them anyway, regardless of position or policy. And they have more credibility than in these earlier years, having been in government for 13 years.

Nevertheless, an unpopular Tory government in Westminster might well break the current stalemate. Things could get interesting.

Alternatively, the grand anti-Tory alliance might be tried. The aggrieved parties then, would be the English Tories and the English Tory press. We could see some very nasty stuff coming from there, that could drive a wedge through the union faster than anything the SNP might engineer.

I've often thought that Scottish independence was likely to happen as a result of "events, dear boy", rather than simple campaign slogging by SNP activists. It might even be that one of the other major parties might do a volte-face and embrace the concept, though it seems less likely Labour might be the one than it did 15 years ago.

Events seem likely to happen, one way or another.

Rolfe.

While there might be some gnashing of teeth regarding the WLQ I can't honestly see it being a huge issue - is there any significant England-only legislation likely to be hugely controversial in the next couple of years? I have no sympathy for the Tories complaining about this anyway - they are the ones who want to keep the Union after all!

I can't particularly work out whether PR would make it more or less likely that Scotland became independent or have no effect. I can even decide exactly what effect it would have on SNP influence/support.

Given the political alignment of the parties I can't really see any coalition other than the 'anyone but the Tories' actually working. How long would a Lib/Con coalition last when the Tories get all Nick Griffin-lite on immigration for example? A minority government won't work either.

The way the political spectrum in the country is right now it really is Tory vs Everyone else.... unless the Tories get a majority I don't see any way they can govern.

A progressive alliance might be unpopular but its about the only alliance that has a chance of working in my opinion. Unless Clegg total sells out, in which case his party might as well close down.

 

[Rolfe]

It's simple arithmetic that makes me feel a grand anti-Tory alliance wouldn't work. A Labour/LibDem coalition doesn't have enough votes - it really has to be pretty much all the non-Tory parties ganging up in solidarity. What are the chances? Herding cats, and then some.

Look at Nick Robinson's blog post, and then think about the sums.

No party has enough seats to win votes in parliament without the support of members of other parties.

The Conservatives are the largest party with a total of 306 seats in the Commons - which would go up to 307 -- if they win the delayed election in Thirsk and Molton - until now, at least, a safe Conservative seat.

If they tried to govern alone they would, in theory, face a combined opposition of 343 MPs.

In reality it's somewhat different. Sinn Fein won 5 seats - and they don't take their seats in the House of Commons - so the opposition benches reduce to 338.

A Con/Lib Dem coalition would give them a total of 364 - enough to govern comfortably.

A looser arrangement in which the Lib Dems agreed not to vote against a Tory Budget or the Queen's Speech would mean 306 or 307 Tories facing a depleted opposition of 281 (that's 338 - 57 Lib Dems)

If a Lib Dem/Conservative deal fails, Gordon Brown will try to form a government.

If Labour and the Lib Dems joined forces - the extra 57 votes are not enough to make them the biggest force even with the support of the Northern Irish SDLP (who sat on the government benches in the last parliament) and the one new Alliance MP who is allied to the Lib Dems. Together that's 319 votes.

With the support of the nationalists from Scotland and Wales they would reach 330.
If the DUP joined too and the independent unionist and the new Green MP this alliance would have 338 votes in the Commons.

OK, Labour/LibDem/SDLP could beat the Tories if the other parties sat on their hands. However, it doesn't look anything like a stable government to me.

Rolfe.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

It's simple arithmetic that makes me feel a grand anti-Tory alliance wouldn't work. A Labour/LibDem coalition doesn't have enough votes - it really has to be pretty much all the non-Tory parties ganging up in solidarity. What are the chances? Herding cats, and then some.

Look at Nick Robinson's blog post, and then think about the sums.




OK, Labour/LibDem/SDLP could beat the Tories if the other parties sat on their hands. However, it doesn't look anything like a stable government to me.

Rolfe.

Do you not feel it would be more stable than a government in which one half of the coalition has fundamental political disagreements with the other half?

Another option (though unlikely I guess) would be for the Libs/Labs/Cons to sit together and thrash out a economic policy they could all sign up to in the interim while they organise another election but I couldn't see the outcome of another FPTP election in the next 12 months being significant different in terms of an overall result.

 

[Rolfe]

If they agree to a coalition, it would appear the differences are not so fundamental. If they don't, we'd have to see what would happen.

A coalition which still doesn't have an overall majority can't be a stable government no matter how well its component parts are in agreement.

I'd also point out that while Alex Salmond was the one to suggest the progressive alliance, the nationalists wouldn't go into actual coalition, even if asked. However, the converse is likely to be the case. The Labour party hates the SNP with poisonous venom, and Salmond has in effect been told to take a hike.

Rolfe.

 

[Dragon]

A looser arrangement in which the Lib Dems agreed not to vote against a Tory Budget or the Queen's Speech would mean 306 or 307 Tories facing a depleted opposition of 281 (that's 338 - 57 Lib Dems)

My money's on this outcome of the talks and a minority Tory government with another general election within the year. The sticking point between the Lib Dems and the Tories will be electoral reform, so no coalition. However, they will do enough of a deal on the economy and other issues for the Lib Dems to abstain in the Queen's Speech and budget votes. The next election could be as a result of Cameron calling one or an event which triggers a vote of no confidence in the Commons. I'm hardly going out on a limb here, I know, but it seems to me that this is the only outcome of the talks that the leaderships could sell to their parties.

 

[Rolfe]

"Confidence and supply" can produce reasonably stable minority governments. I wouldn't bet too hard on a re-run within the year if such an agreement was reached.

Rolfe.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

If they agree to a coalition, it would appear the differences are not so fundamental. If they don't, we'd have to see what would happen.

My concern is that somehow they are railroaded into a coalition or agreement due to some sense of national duty and the need to form a stable government and some mixed up idea that the Tories 'won' this election rather than a political agreement on the way forward for the country.

I don't necessarily think that the coalition on the other side would particularly need to be all that stable in any case. The only key agreement needed would be on a referendum on PR ASAP. After that the coalition could be quickly dissolved.

 

[Dragon]

...
Another option (though unlikely I guess) would be for the Libs/Labs/Cons to sit together and thrash out a economic policy they could all sign up to in the interim while they organise another election but I couldn't see the outcome of another FPTP election in the next 12 months being significant different in terms of an overall result.

More likely is the Libs/Cons thrashing out an economic package which would be difficult for Labour to vote against. As I understand it the main difference between them all is on the timing and balance of the cuts/tax rises. We all know that there's going to be a period of austerity and the room for manoeuvre is limited.

 

[Lothian]

Another option (though unlikely I guess) would be for the Libs/Labs/Cons to sit together and thrash out a economic policy they could all sign up to in the interim while they organise another election but I couldn't see the outcome of another FPTP election in the next 12 months being significant different in terms of an overall result.

Can't help but feeling that in another election the Labour party would do better as they will be led by someone who is more popular than Gordon Brown (pick any 1 from 257). However they would not do well enough to get a majority and we would have another balanced/hung parliament.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Can't help but feeling that in another election the Labour party would do better as they will be led by someone who is more popular than Gordon Brown (pick any 1 from 257). However they would not do well enough to get a majority and we would have another balanced/hung parliament.

I think you would see a swing from Lib Dem to Lab/Con but not sure it would have an effect on the overall balance of seats between the two.

I wouldn't even bother voting. Finished with FPTP elections and won't vote again unless its changed or I move to a marginal seat.