Will Clegg have the bottle

Jaggy Bunnet said:
Technically yes, but Bercow is included in the Tory seats total as reported on the BBC of 306 (with one seat to come which they will win).
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I distinctly remember him being listed as 'speaker' on their election night results analysis and assumed he was lumped in with the others?
 
It's not the SNP who are acting like spoiled children at the moment. While Robertson and Salmond have offered fair and square to look at a deal with a possible Lib-Lab coalition (probably a confidence and supply arrangement), Scottish Labour MPs have been saying straight up that they'd rather see the Tories in government than exchange two civil words with the SNP.

It's back to the arithmetic. For a stable government, you need an overall majority of about 20 seats. This allows for back-bench rebellions and by-elections and MPs being elsewhere or off sick and so on. This suggested "progressive alliance" doesn't go anywhere near that. And you can't expect the SNP to vote slavishly with Labour on every vote. They may not vote with the Tories, but if they don't like something they're perfectly capable of abstaining. And remarks such as were being bandied aound last night aren't really calculated to get the SNP's co-operation, are they? Oh yes, and the SNP will always abstain on England-only legislation.

Believe me, I'd like this deal if the arithmetic worked, even in spite of what Tom Harris (and others) said last night. There's simply no way the votes add up. The LibDems are just using the stick of "negotiations" with Labour to extract further concessions from Cameron.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Believe me, I'd like this deal if the arithmetic worked, even in spite of what Tom Harris (and others) said last night. There's simply no way the votes add up. The LibDems are just using the stick of "negotiations" with Labour to extract further concessions from Cameron.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that for a second and I'm amazed that you do. Nick Clegg isn't stupid, he knows that he's got more in common with Labour than the Tories and he knows that a large majority of his supporters and his own party wouldn't want to touch the Tories (especially under Cameron) with a ten foot pole.

If he's playing for anything, he's playing for a revote.
 
What, another general election, soon? Informed opinion on Radio 4 this morning was the LibDems will be wiped out if that happens.

I think he's playing to get as much as he can from the Conservatives, and if they don't offer enough for a formal coalition, it's likely to be a Conservative minority government, with some sort of confidence and supply arrangement.

If the non-Tory parties really do try to gang up against the Tories (whether in formal coalition or informally against a minority government) we will be back to a re-run of the election, and if I was Nick, I wouldn't be relishing that thought one tiny little bit.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
It's not the SNP who are acting like spoiled children at the moment. While Robertson and Salmond have offered fair and square to look at a deal with a possible Lib-Lab coalition (probably a confidence and supply arrangement), Scottish Labour MPs have been saying straight up that they'd rather see the Tories in government than exchange two civil words with the SNP.

It's back to the arithmetic. For a stable government, you need an overall majority of about 20 seats. This allows for back-bench rebellions and by-elections and MPs being elsewhere or off sick and so on. This suggested "progressive alliance" doesn't go anywhere near that. And you can't expect the SNP to vote slavishly with Labour on every vote. They may not vote with the Tories, but if they don't like something they're perfectly capable of abstaining. And remarks such as were being bandied aound last night aren't really calculated to get the SNP's co-operation, are they? Oh yes, and the SNP will always abstain on England-only legislation.

Believe me, I'd like this deal if the arithmetic worked, even in spite of what Tom Harris (and others) said last night. There's simply no way the votes add up. The LibDems are just using the stick of "negotiations" with Labour to extract further concessions from Cameron.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

So what's your solution? The people of the UK did not vote for a majority government and that's the way arithmetic works out.

If the Libs met the Tories and don't like the agreement offered what are they supposed to do? Agree to support them just because?

If the Libs met Labour and DO like the agreement offered should they not agree to work together just because?

If the Lib/Lab coalition form a government and put forward sensible workable policies then many of them will be passed into law, some won't. Is that such a bad thing?

What's the superior alternative? Maybe the SNP and PC should join with the Tories to work out the arithmetic? Why is that not a possible solution?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
If he's playing for anything, he's playing for a revote.
Click to expand...

I wonder how helpful redoing the election would be for the Liberal Democrats. They couldn't capitalise on their supposed surge of interest first time round and at one point it looked as though they'd actually reduced the number of seats they held; have they not just strengthened the meme that "a vote for the liberal democrats is a wasted vote"?

I think Clegg's best - and perhaps only - bet is to use this position now for everything it's worth to get PR on the table, in order to give them a chance in future elections.

Furthermore, if he spends days and days in discussions with both of the other parties now but doesn't reach an agreement, then if they have to go toe-to-toe again in October I think he'll be presented as a ditherer who can't negotiate and can't make decisions.

It's now or never, as far as I can see.
 
richardm said:
I wonder how helpful redoing the election would be for the Liberal Democrats. They couldn't capitalise on their supposed surge of interest first time round and at one point it looked as though they'd actually reduced the number of seats they held; have they not just strengthened the meme that "a vote for the liberal democrats is a wasted vote"?

I think Clegg's best - and perhaps only - bet is to use this position now for everything it's worth to get PR on the table, in order to give them a chance in future elections.

Furthermore, if he spends days and days in discussions with both of the other parties now but doesn't reach an agreement, then if they have to go toe-to-toe again in October I think he'll be presented as a ditherer who can't negotiate and can't make decisions.

It's now or never, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
I completely agree actually, I was saying that they would rather a revote than side with the Tories, because they won't ever give them PR.
 
Rolfe said:
Labour are also apparently saying that they won't offer PR but merely a switch to the AV system, which is what the Conservatives were offering to Clegg as well. The main difference is that the Conservatives were offering a referendum on the proposal while Labour say they'll just buldoze it through.
Click to expand...

In fact that's not the whole story; there is actually a significant difference between Labour and Conservative on this.

The Conservatives are offering a referendum on AV and that's yer lot.

Labour are offering an immediate and unconditional switch to AV, and then will follow that up with a referendum on PR.

That must seem like a better carrot to take a nibble on, if PR is your aim.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
So what's your solution? The people of the UK did not vote for a majority government and that's the way arithmetic works out.
Click to expand...


We have to work with the arithmetic we're given, and yes, the "progressive alliance" doesn't have the numbers.

Last of the Fraggles said:
If the Libs met the Tories and don't like the agreement offered what are they supposed to do? Agree to support them just because?
Click to expand...


Do what they did in 2007 and announce that they're out, no deal, no coalition. I'll remind you what happened next. The largest party (the SNP) formed a minority government.

Last of the Fraggles said:
If the Libs met Labour and DO like the agreement offered should they not agree to work together just because?
Click to expand...


They can agree all they like, but if they don't have the votes to carry it, it isn't worth a button. They can go to the Queen and try to form a government on that basis if they like, but it's blindlingly obvious it'll have the lifespan of the proverbial snowball in hell.

Last of the Fraggles said:
If the Lib/Lab coalition form a government and put forward sensible workable policies then many of them will be passed into law, some won't. Is that such a bad thing?
Click to expand...


The Tories will be trying to bring them down any which way they can. The arithmetic says they'll succeed, sooner rather than later. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, I don't fancy Cameron any more than you do, but a bit of realism is needed here.

Last of the Fraggles said:
What's the superior alternative? Maybe the SNP and PC should join with the Tories to work out the arithmetic? Why is that not a possible solution?
Click to expand...


Because the SNP and PC will not work with the Tories, and have said so. If the LibDems won't work wth the Tories, they should say so too.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
We have to work with the arithmetic we're given, and yes, the "progressive alliance" doesn't have the numbers.




Do what they did in 2007 and announce that they're out, no deal, no coalition. I'll remind you what happened next. The largest party (the SNP) formed a minority government.




They can agree all they like, but if they don't have the votes to carry it, it isn't worth a button. They can go to the Queen and try to form a government on that basis if they like, but it's blindlingly obvious it'll have the lifespan of the proverbial snowball in hell.




The Tories will be trying to bring them down any which way they can. The arithmetic says they'll succeed, sooner rather than later. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, I don't fancy Cameron any more than you do, but a bit of realism is needed here.




Because the SNP and PC will not work with the Tories, and have said so. If the LibDems won't work wth the Tories, they should say so too.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


I think I've misunderstood your argument then. I believed you were suggesting that the Libs should form a coalition with the Tories to create a stable government.

I think now I understand you want the Libs to either do the above or simply withdraw and allow the Tories to be a minority government. However, if your objection is arithmetic then how is a Tory government with less numbers than the Lib/Lab coalition going to help in that area?

A Tory minority government surely has less chance of sticking than a Lib/Lab coalition? Nor would it help the Lib Dems achieve any of their political aims.

If the Libs can't come to an agreement with the Tories then surely the next best alternative is an agreement with Labour?
 
It looks to me we'll be having another election within 18 month either way, the lib dems might as well get the biggest concession as they can now. If that means an unstable agreement with everybody but the tories then so be it.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
I think I've misunderstood your argument then. I believed you were suggesting that the Libs should form a coalition with the Tories to create a stable government.

I think now I understand you want the Libs to either do the above or simply withdraw and allow the Tories to be a minority government. However, if your objection is arithmetic then how is a Tory government with less numbers than the Lib/Lab coalition going to help in that area?

A Tory minority government surely has less chance of sticking than a Lib/Lab coalition? Nor would it help the Lib Dems achieve any of their political aims.

If the Libs can't come to an agreement with the Tories then surely the next best alternative is an agreement with Labour?
Click to expand...


I don't want any paticular outcome. I'm discussing what's possible. The only stable combination is a Tory/LibDem coalition, and if a return to the polls is held to be a bad idea then that's the one to go for.

I don't think a progressive alliance has the votes to stand in government against the Tories and their supporters. A more rational solution would probably be a Tory minority government, and see whether the progressive parties could form an effective opposition.

If you're trying to figure out what I want, you're on a bad wicket because I'm not discussing what I want.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't want any paticular outcome. I'm discussing what's possible. The only stable combination is a Tory/LibDem coalition, and if a return to the polls is held to be a bad idea then that's the one to go for.
Click to expand...

In terms of numbers i d agree but in terms of policy they are anything but stable.
 
Delscottio said:
How would they be two faced? Thats what they fought the election on. If the tories wont deliver that then they go to the next party.
If anything they ve kept every pledge talk t cons if no agreeable deal they move on.
Click to expand...
Two faced if they went into the talks with the Tories whilst really planning for a deal with Labour. I'll admit I might have moved from scepticism to cynicism on this. It may just be that the Lib Dem leadership concluded that the deal wouldn't wash with the membership.
 
richardm said:
I think Clegg's best - and perhaps only - bet is to use this position now for everything it's worth to get PR on the table, in order to give them a chance in future elections.
Click to expand...

This

Furthermore, if he spends days and days in discussions with both of the other parties now but doesn't reach an agreement, then if they have to go toe-to-toe again in October I think he'll be presented as a ditherer who can't negotiate and can't make decisions.

It's now or never, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

And this.
 
Delscottio said:
In terms of numbers i d agree but in terms of policy they are anything but stable.
Click to expand...
That's it in a nutshell. A mess. And we don't have much time to sort this out, given state of the economy and public finances.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't want any paticular outcome. I'm discussing what's possible. The only stable combination is a Tory/LibDem coalition, and if a return to the polls is held to be a bad idea then that's the one to go for.

I don't think a progressive alliance has the votes to stand in government against the Tories and their supporters. A more rational solution would probably be a Tory minority government, and see whether the progressive parties could form an effective opposition.

If you're trying to figure out what I want, you're on a bad wicket because I'm not discussing what I want.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Replace 'want' with 'what you think they should do at this juncture given the situation' or 'preference' if you will.

There are clearly 4 possible outcomes here:

1. A stable Cons/Lib coalition in which Libs go along with the Tories for no real benefit until they get tired of it. Result of this is surely that Libs upset their own support and get shafted at the next election and clegg could even get booted out of the leadership.

2. A not-very stable Lib/Lab coalition in which the Libs get politicial reform. Probably won't last all that long and might make the Libs unpopular with people who don't vote for them anyway. A future PR election within 2 years?

3. A conservative minority government - which lasts maybe a year? The Lib Dems are seen as being a national irrelevance and suffer at the next Non-PR election.

4. Give up and try again with another election straight away.

Which is YOUR personal preference and, in Clegg's position, which would you go for?
 
Dragon said:
Two faced if they went into the talks with the Tories whilst really planning for a deal with Labour. I'll admit I might have moved from scepticism to cynicism on this. It may just be that the Lib Dem leadership concluded that the deal wouldn't wash with the membership.
Click to expand...

I believe Clegg went into talks with the Tories hoping he could get enough major concessions to appease his party and allow him to join them. It seems the Tories weren't actually willing to concede on anything important.

He's now going along with his Party's wish to talk to Labour.

I think the most likely outcome now is that they don't do a deal with either and we get a minority government propped up by Libs supply and confidence.

Which will probably please Tory voters, but not the majority of Lib Dem ones.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Which is YOUR personal preference and, in Clegg's position, which would you go for?
Click to expand...


I don't really have a personal preference among this lot. I think it's all a bloody mess. My personal preference is for a nice thumping SNP majority, and failing that for whatever outcome emerges to work for the best advantage to Scotland. Not having a crystal ball, I don't know the answer to that.

Much as I loathe the idea of a Tory/LibDem coalition, there is an argument that says the best thing for the economy (and that's everybody's economy) is a stable government that can get legislation passed, and they're the only game in town for that one.

The alternative is a period of bickering, feuding and infighting between two rather evenly-balanced groupings. In one scenario the Scots are miffed because they voted Brown and got Cameron (minority government), and in the other the English are miffed because the "Celtic fringe" has imposed Labour on them again even though England voted Tory. Not pretty either way. That goes on for a few months, and then we have a re-run. That isn't very palatable either.

So I'm far more interested in discussing what's possible and what might happen, than what I personally favour.

If I was Nick Clegg? Well I'm not. I wouldn't be a LibDem for all the tea in China. I don't like LibDem politicians one tiny little bit.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom