Will Clegg have the bottle

[Dave Rogers]

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.

But this isn't the only possible stable combination; it's just the only stable combination that the system hasn't taught us to believe is impossible. If the Labour and Conservative parties could form an alliance, it would be a very stable government, as it would command nearly two-thirds of Parliament.

Now, I'm sure anybody reading that must think it's an insane idea. I think this is symptomatic of what's wrong with British politics. We don't see general elections as a means of electing a representative parliament of which a majority subset will form the next government, we see them as a means of deciding whether it's the Conservative party or the Labour party's turn. I understand why nobody's pointed out that the most stable government possible, in the present circumstances, would be a Labour/Conservative coalition, and I also understand why such a thing is virtually unthinkable; but the fact that I understand these things doesn't mean I think they're good things. We see our democracy as a football match, with no more or less than two distinct sides, rather than as a process of collaboration between differing interests.

Dave

 

[MarkCorrigan]

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.

If it's two faced to do that, it's been forced on them by Clegg's slightly foolish comment about the majority party having first go.

 

[Delscottio]

The longer this goes on the more divisions will open in every party. I doubt the new labour leader will want the economy, party unrest, and a fragile government to deal with. It looks like a minority tory government

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

Only if you think the Libs can hold that together. Can't see all of the Lib Dem MPs agreeing to that and you'd then end up in the same situation as with a Lab/Lib coalition if not worse.

 

[Rolfe]

If it's two faced to do that, it's been forced on them by Clegg's slightly foolish comment about the majority party having first go.

And if he'd said beforehand that the LibDems would not be prepared to go into coalition with the Tories, how would that have affected the electoral dynamics? If he'd said, we'll bust a gut to keep Labour in power rather than let Cameron in, even if the Tories have most seats and votes?

Tell you what. Most LibDem voters would have decided they might as well vote Labour.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

As an SNP supporter are you telling me that your MPs will act like spoilt children and vote against policy proposed by Lab/Lib just because they aren't in the coalition? Salmond himself said the party would vote on a policy by policy basis and surely if the Lab/Lib coalition put forward sensible workable policies then most of them will get through?

Who is acting like spoiled children now?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/scotland/8674214.stm

Rolfe.

 

[Dragon]

The longer this goes on the more divisions will open in every party. I doubt the new labour leader will want the economy, party unrest, and a fragile government to deal with. It looks like a minority tory government

In between failing to sleep properly after being at work all night I've been watching a bit of TV - Nick Robinson of the Beeb seems to think that some senior people in both the major parties would rather be in opposition for now.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Who is acting like spoiled children now?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/scotland/8674214.stm

Rolfe.

Do you not think there is a significant difference between having policy diagreements that mean you don't want to do a deal with another party and (as you seemed to be suggesting) voting against things you agree with just because you aren't in the coalition? ETA: I don't necessarily think this is what the SNP would do, but it seemed to be what you were suggesting.

It now looks as if the Lib/Lab deal is probably not going to happen anyway. I've already been onto the SNP website to see what the score with joining the party is...

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think I could possibly have suggested that the SNP would vote against anything solely on the grounds that it wasn't in coalition. Since the very idea is nonsense.

The SNP has consistently said it will not enter any coalition in Westminster, but will take each vote as it comes depending on what is in the best interests of Scotland. This doesn't rule out a "confidence and supply" agreement with Labour, though they would never touch the Tories with a barge pole.

You seemed to be suggesting that the SNP should always vote with a Lib-Lab pact, as a matter of principle, and that any other behaviour would be "spoiled brat". It doesn't work like that. While the SNP would be very very careful about supporting a Tory bill, because they know that would play very badly in Scotland, they would certainly abstain if they didn't agree with the substance of a Lib-Lab bill.

Rolfe.

PS. Read the SNP aims and manifestos, and if you are in broad agreement, pay up and get your membership card. Attend local branch meetings if you want to have influence in the party.

 

[Reginald]

I still stick to my view that everyone should walk away, labour into opposition, Lib/Dems same, the Conservatives can try and run with a minority government.

It's growing ever more bizarre as time goes on. The old system being forced to be the new system it seems people want.

The "Hurry up" which people keep saying is being applied by the markets isn't helping. (and imo isn't as much of a pressure that is claimed).

Let Cameron have what he wants. I'm not sure he's will like it much.

Everyone else regroup and come back fighting.

 

[Ashles]

The "Hurry up" which people keep saying is being applied by the markets isn't helping. (and imo isn't as much of a pressure that is claimed).

This is very true. It's more the media wanting them to hurry up (as they don't like looking this stupid and uninformed for such an extended period of time) and blaming the markets.

I work in an investment bank (although not actually as an investment banker I hasten to add ) and there is no particular sense here of pressure for them to make a decision - they'd rather a stable government if possible.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You seemed to be suggesting that the SNP should always vote with a Lib-Lab pact, as a matter of principle, and that any other behaviour would be "spoiled brat". It doesn't work like that. While the SNP would be very very careful about supporting a Tory bill, because they know that would play very badly in Scotland, they would certainly abstain if they didn't agree with the substance of a Lib-Lab bill.

.

Not at all...what I was saying was that I couldn't understand why you seemed to think that the SNP wouldn't be generally supportive of Lib/Lab coalition proposals and would effectively bring the government down.

Unless the SNP were deliberately being obstructive then surely most things they proposed would get through? Its not the end of the world if the government lose a vote or can't get a policy approved. I don't know why we've been convinced of that in this country.

Actually having to propose sensible policies and convince people they are the right approach might actually lead to a more stable, better government? No?

Notable to me that the old arrogant Tory values of acting like complete ****s is starting to make an appearance. Upset that the country isn't doing what they are told and that upstarts like Clegg actually want to think for themselves and might ignore what the Tories want. ****s ****s ****s.

Rifkind can ***** off to *********** **** with a *********** *********** **** up his **** **** **** ****

 

[Rolfe]

Not at all...what I was saying was that I couldn't understand why you seemed to think that the SNP wouldn't be generally supportive of Lib/Lab coalition proposals and would effectively bring the government down.

What on earth made you think I was implying that? You've been reading far too much into my posts. I was merely talking about the arithmetic.

A Lib/Lab/SDLP pact (now off the table anyway according to the BBC) could not command the numbers necessary to have a majority over the Conservatives (plus their Irish allies). That is what I said and that is what I meant. Such an alliance would need the support of the SNP to even begin to get off the ground.

To say, well, the SNP wouldn't vote against such a pact anyway so it doesn't matter, is extremely naive. The SNP is perfectly capable of abstaining - indeed, will abstain if the bill in question only affects England. In addition, for a fair number of senior Labour party MPs and MSPs to go public and say that they hate the SNP so much that they'd rather see a Conservative government than come to any agreement with that party, is not encouraging.

(The mildest thing said by a Labour MP was that well, they maybe ought to hold their noses and come to an agreement with the SNP, but only if the SNP didn't expect any concessions at all for this. How naive can you get?)

Unless the SNP were deliberately being obstructive then surely most things they proposed would get through? Its not the end of the world if the government lose a vote or can't get a policy approved. I don't know why we've been convinced of that in this country.

For goodness sake, if you think the SNP is into being deliberately obstructive you need to pay attention. And maybe decide if this is a party you really want to be associated with before you fill in the application form. Why would the SNP vote for bills it didn't support, or bills affecting only England?

You seem to be suggesting that the SNP should be content to be excluded and badmouthed and ostracised by Labour, but nevertheless vote as if in coalition with them. That's ridiculous.

Actually having to propose sensible policies and convince people they are the right approach might actually lead to a more stable, better government? No?

Let me know if you ever see a Labour government doing that.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

You know , anyone would think the Lib Dems won this election.
They didn't.
The Tories did.
Like it or not, it's a FPTP system and they were first.
I wonder how long Cameron is going to dither before he actually notices that and goes to see Lizzie?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

What on earth made you think I was implying that? You've been reading far too much into my posts. I was merely talking about the arithmetic.

A Lib/Lab/SDLP pact (now off the table anyway according to the BBC) could not command the numbers necessary to have a majority over the Conservatives (plus their Irish allies). That is what I said and that is what I meant. Such an alliance would need the support of the SNP to even begin to get off the ground.

To say, well, the SNP wouldn't vote against such a pact anyway so it doesn't matter, is extremely naive. The SNP is perfectly capable of abstaining - indeed, will abstain if the bill in question only affects England. In addition, for a fair number of senior Labour party MPs and MSPs to go public and say that they hate the SNP so much that they'd rather see a Conservative government than come to any agreement with that party, is not encouraging.

(The mildest thing said by a Labour MP was that well, they maybe ought to hold their noses and come to an agreement with the SNP, but only if the SNP didn't expect any concessions at all for this. How naive can you get?)




For goodness sake, if you think the SNP is into being deliberately obstructive you need to pay attention. And maybe decide if this is a party you really want to be associated with before you fill in the application form. Why would the SNP vote for bills it didn't support, or bills affecting only England?

You seem to be suggesting that the SNP should be content to be excluded and badmouthed and ostracised by Labour, but nevertheless vote as if in coalition with them. That's ridiculous.




Let me know if you ever see a Labour government doing that.

Rolfe.

I think we've been talking past each other then. I was arguing that the coalition WOULD work because the SNP WOULDN'T act in a childish way. You seemed to be suggesting that the coalition wouldn't work because the SNP wouldn't support it.

What I was suggesting is that the SNP should vote the way their party/members/electorate would want them to vote regardless of what Labour said about them.

The same thing I expected of Clegg however if he goes into coalition with the Tories then obviously he isn't doing that.

 

[Reginald]

You know , anyone would think the Lib Dems won this election.
They didn't.
The Tories did.
Like it or not, it's a FPTP system and they were first.
I wonder how long Cameron is going to dither before he actually notices that and goes to see Lizzie?

As you said FPTP, and no one was, first past any post so technically the Tory Party didn't win outright. Had they done so all this wouldn't have been happening.

Actually its a pretty big Kick in the teeth for the tories, they should have walked it. Ashcroft feels like he wasted his cash? He did, good.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

The Tories did.

True. Except they didn't. Nobody won.

 

[geni]

You know , anyone would think the Lib Dems won this election.
They didn't.
The Tories did.
Like it or not, it's a FPTP system and they were first.
I wonder how long Cameron is going to dither before he actually notices that and goes to see Lizzie?

Well convention gives him a couple of weeks. And if you really want to base your argument on the system we have the tories didn't win some much that as of those moment more MPs would back a Cameron lead goverment than would back a goverment lead by anyone else.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You know , anyone would think the Lib Dems won this election.
They didn't.
The Tories did.
Like it or not, it's a FPTP system and they were first.
I wonder how long Cameron is going to dither before he actually notices that and goes to see Lizzie?

Of all the many things to blame Cameron for, this isn't one.

He can't go see Lizzie till Broon resigns (accepting that he can't form a government). DC can't just turn up and say "I fancy being PM, gonnie sack that other fella, maam?"

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Only if you think the Libs can hold that together. Can't see all of the Lib Dem MPs agreeing to that and you'd then end up in the same situation as with a Lab/Lib coalition if not worse.

Nope, even if half the Lib Dems rebel, a Tory/LD coalition still has the numbers.

In a Lab/Lib coalition, even assuming they got the SDLP, Welsh & Scot Nats on board, they would have 328 votes (less probably at least two deputy speakers who don't vote). A rebellion of half a dozen would be enough to bring the coalition down. The numbers just don't work.

Also, it is incorrect to assume that all Lib Dems are nearer to Labour than the Tories.