Lib Dems get the offer

Post #325,814 by malraux 5/7/10 10:37:47 AM Reply	Lib Dems get the offer http://www.theregist...07/cameron_offer/ David Cameron has issued an invitation to the Liberal Democrats to form a stable government with the Conservatives, preferring long-term compromise to trying run a minority administration. If taken up, the "big, open, comprehensive offer" is likely to mean Liberal Democrats would take up cabinet positions, rather than merely agreeing to vote through key budget legislation, a so-called confidence and supply agreement. On the central negotiating issue of electoral reform, he suggested an all-party inquiry to set out options, but emphasised tweaks to the current system rather than the switch to proportional representation desired by the Liberal Democrats. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #325,906 by jay 5/9/10 1:03:55 PM Reply	And the negotiating games begin http://www.independe...form-1969467.html Nick Clegg was urged by senior figures in his party last night to back a "traffic light coalition" with Labour, Green and smaller parties amid signs that David Cameron's proposed deal to the Liberal Democrats has triggered an angry backlash among Tory and Lib Dem MPs. Senior Lib Dem figures were pressing Mr Clegg to shun Mr Cameron's overtures because the Tories would never deliver on PR. And in a major blow to the Lib Dem leader, senior Tory sources made clear there would be no further concessions on electoral reform Â presenting Mr Clegg with a hardball "take it or leave it" deal Â and that Mr Cameron would press ahead with a minority government if coalition talks collapsed. Talks between Lib Dems and Tory negotiating teams will resume at 11am today. Conservative / Lib Dem alliance is going to be hard to forge. The two parties are not a natural fit to begin with. The British political system is designed to give a single party majority rule, nobody has had to craft an alliance government in a long time. Plus, it appears the a significant part of both parties is not inclined to give much. The Conservatives have been out of power for a long time and are looking to flex their muscles. They want the Lib Dems to accept a minor partner position, getting publicity and a few minor public concessions. The Lib Dems are the king makers right now, and the rank and file expect big concessions on certain issues, particularly election reform. Jay
Post #325,907 by Another Scott 5/9/10 1:25:56 PM Reply	Didn't Clegg tie his own hands? From April 25: http://www.timesonli...rticle7107300.ece [...] However, with the Tories rallying in the polls, it now appears more likely that CleggÂs party will help to prop up a minority Conservative government. In the Sunday Times interview, the Lib Dem leader revealed that he would support the Tories if they won the largest number of seats and largest share of the votes. This would defy the constitutional convention which would give Brown first call on attempting to form a government. ÂI tie my hands in the following sense: that the party that has more votes and seats, but doesnÂt get an absolute majority Â I support them,Â Clegg said. The biggest sticking point in any deal with the Conservatives will be electoral reform. Cameron yesterday refused to rule out discussing voting reform with the Lib Dems. The Tory leader is deeply resistant to changing the system, fearing proportional representation could prevent his party from ever again winning an outright majority ever again. Clegg made it clear that a shake-up of the voting system remained a top priority Â saying Cameron would be making a Âmassive strategic errorÂ if he insisted on defending the Âclapped-out political systemÂ. [...] That seems to indicate that he would only support a Tory team; yet at the same time the Tories aren't interested in PR. If he ends up with Labour, he breaks his word. If he goes with the Tories without PR, he looks weak and pisses off LD voters. If he doesn't support either one and there's a weak minority government then he breaks his word. How is he going to finesse this? Cheers, Scott.
Post #325,909 by pwhysall 5/9/10 1:50:44 PM Reply	Easy. This is Clegg's one and only shot at the big time. He'll do whatever Cameron wants. If it goes to a Lib/Lab coalition, it'll disintegrate within months (Brown will be ousted in a very messy manner, and then we'll get yet another prime minister who couldn't win an election; cue votes of no confidence and another election) and then the Conservatives will clean up, because they're the only party with any money left to run another General Election campaign. Another GE within the next 12 months would lead to the destruction of the Parliamentary Labour Party as we know it, and probably a much-improved Liberal Democrat vote, but - critically - an outright Conservative majority, and then it'll be "off with his head" for Clegg. As for finesse? It's already done. The catchphrase is now "Political Reform", whereas before it was "Electoral Reform".
Post #325,910 by pwhysall 5/9/10 1:57:02 PM 5/9/10 1:59:01 PM Reply	More on the Lib/Lab coalition Brown's head, and probably that of Alistair Darling, would almost certainly be the price of any such coalition. This is problematic for a couple of reasons; firstly, Brown can't resign because (for various reasons of tradition) that would be extremely discourteous to the Queen (yeah, go figure; it makes little sense to me). If he's ousted, the alternatives are Harriet Harman, David Miliband, Ed Balls and Alan Johnson. You know both ends of the stick are shitty when I tell you that each of these people is less popular than Gordon Brown. In particular, Ed Balls is a well-loathed figure in British politics, but the ruthlessness and scheming for which he is loathed makes him a very serious contender for the job. So we arrive at a coalition with another PM who didn't lead his party to an election victory, with a wafer-thin majority (Lib/Lab is 315, Con have 306 seats; the DUP will reliably side with the Conservatives (8 seats) and the other 20-odd independents and minor parties will go where the hell they like). The Conservatives will muller all but the least contentious legislation, and I don't reckon we'd get as far as September before the PM would have to go to the country or face a VONC. Edit: Tidied up the numbers Edited by pwhysall May 9, 2010, 01:59:01 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #325,937 by rcareaga 5/10/10 10:28:39 AM Reply	"a well-loathed figure" In that case, I think Francis Urquhart would be the perfect man for the job. cordially,
Post #325,948 by Ashton 5/10/10 1:47:13 PM Reply	I could not possibly comment on that.. I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #325,914 by warmachine 5/9/10 3:52:53 PM Reply	Except his party would block a Con-Lib coalition Alas, the Liberal party constitution requires the party to vote for any formal alliance and they think they're progressives. Combined with the decades long demand for PR and his loss of authority for losing seats this election, Nick Clegg would never get a Con-Lib coalition without a PR referendum past his party. Cameron might get a PR referendum past his party if he's lucky. Promises of greater exposure aren't going to cut it when it's unlikely names beyond Nick Clegg and Vince Cable would get high profile positions. If we get a Lab-Lib coalition (minus Gordon Brown), I can't see the minorities (except DUP) supporting a vote of no confidence because that'd lead to another election and Conservative majority. The SNP and PC may not like the Labour party but they hate the Tories even more. As I can't see a Con-Lib coalition, I can see the Liberals allying with Labour to show that coalition politics is possible and STV/AV/whatever is viable. In other words, if Nick Clegg makes a Con coalition (barring sudden PR conversion by the Tories), the party will have his head. If he makes no coalition, the party will have his head for failing to seize an opportunity. If he makes a Lab coalition that later collapses, the party will have his head as you write. His only way out is Lab coalition and make it stick. To be frank, if coalitions can't stay together, PR would never work and the British electorate deserve the infants they elect to represent them. -------------------------------------------- Matthew Greet I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
Post #325,915 by pwhysall 5/9/10 4:31:56 PM Reply	I think you're underestimating the LIB thirst for power. The minority parties are about to return to the margins of Westminster, because they don't count for shit in a CON/LIB coalition scenario, whereas they are essential to a LIB/LAB coalition - which cannot happen because Clegg has explicitly ruled it out. The available scenarios are CON/LIB coalition or minority CON government (which will be just about as successful as you'd expect). Clegg's going to sell this to his lot as a foot in the door. It's the only chance they've got; a LIB/LAB pact cannot happen, and a minority CON government would result in another election by Christmas (which isn't unlikely no matter what happens) and the smart money's on another election producing an overall CON majority, which means that Clegg and his happy campers are out in the cold again.
Post #325,917 by jay 5/9/10 6:11:44 PM Reply	He will probably try Clegg's going to sell this to his lot as a foot in the door. Clegg will probably try, but if he can't get some real concessions from the Conservatives, I don't think it will amount to anything. The Lib Dems run a big risk of looking like suckers if they don't get some major offices and some of their platform into the new government. A Labour/Lib Dem alliance is more natural, but I don't think it can be made to work given the way the vote came out. They would either be a minority government, which the Conservatives could wreck in short order, or a many way alliance. A government made up of half a dozen parties is not going to last unless it has a strong leader to hold it together, and there doesn't seem to be one right now. It is a nasty situation all around, the British have really voted themselves into a near deadlock situation. The only thing I would really be willing to say is that no matter what government goes in, another round of elections will happen shortly. Jay
Post #325,926 by warmachine 5/9/10 8:58:41 PM Reply	Citation needed Citation needed on Clegg explicitly ruling out coalition with minority parties. Also, I don't think they're essential for Lab-Lib coalition. Without the Liberals, the Conservatives can't get a majority coalition and a Lab-Lib minority coalition would still be larger than a Con-DUP minority coalition. Just. That leaves the remaining minorities as troublemakers but it is a possible scenario. It would be ugly but not quite as ugly as a Con-DUP minority coalition as the other minorities are nearer to Labour than Conservative and demand less. Why would a minority Conservative government result in another election this year? Labour and Liberal won't be dumb to try a vote of no confidence because they know the electorate would slap them and put in a Conservative majority. Better to leverage the balance of power with every bill. It's ugly politics but concessions in a Con-Lib coalition have to be better than this. If a vote of confidence is called, the Liberals keep Cameron in power. Balance of power in a minority government is better than opposition to a majority government. -------------------------------------------- Matthew Greet I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
Post #325,931 by pwhysall 5/10/10 12:41:47 AM 5/10/10 12:44:37 AM Reply	Re: Citation needed if the British people say none of us have an outright majority, that party, whichever it is, which has got most votes and most seats, it seems to me, to have the moral mandate to seek to govern first Â now it might fail to do it, it might want to do it on its own, it might want to reach out to other parties. In an interview from here (and subsequently repeated elsewhere): http://johnrentoul.i...78315.html#cutid1 It's hard for me to see how this doesn't proscribe forming a coalition with the party that doesn't have most votes and most seats. As for why would a minority CON government result in an election? Well, one of two things will happen, I reckon. Either Cameron would get sick of the constant twatting about in the lower House, and go "fuck you guys, I'm going ~~home~~to the country" or else the LIB/LAB coalition would be exactly stupid enough to table a VONC, with the same result. Edit: typos that made it all make no sense! Edited by pwhysall May 10, 2010, 12:44:37 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #325,960 by warmachine 5/10/10 7:29:57 PM Reply	No explicit rejection of coalition with minority parties The quote states no explicit rejection of any coalition. Instead, it states that the party with the most seats and votes can seek to govern first, inferring that another party can seek to govern second. It does not say that the party with the most seats has the moral mandate to govern full stop. This is why Nick Clegg negotiated with the Tories first, then negotiated with Labour second. As for a minority Conservative government resulting in early elections, we can discount a vote of no confidence by Labour and Liberal because they're not that stupid. As for the first mechanism, if Cameron called an early election because of political difficulty, he'd be laughed at for being a cry baby. -------------------------------------------- Matthew Greet I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
Post #325,971 by pwhysall 5/11/10 1:23:43 AM Reply	Well, it's anyone's guess now. Senior Labour politicians are describing the idea of a LIB/LAB coalition as "disastrous". I think they've got a point; a coalition of some 7 parties would mean that you'd have LIB and LAB dancing around like twats to the tune played by the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties. Madness. Couldn't last. You can't discount anything on the grounds of "too stupid", especially where UK politicians are involved.
Post #325,972 by static 5/11/10 2:19:52 AM Reply	Well Britain does have the Monster Raving Loony Party... Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #325,980 by boxley 5/11/10 8:39:48 AM Reply	britain has discovered the israeli method of government :-) If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #325,984 by pwhysall 5/11/10 11:44:19 AM Reply	Aaaaand the LIB/CON love-in is back on. I can't possibly be the only one getting dizzy.
Post #326,001 by Another Scott 5/11/10 3:14:09 PM Reply	It's over. Brown's out. Now to see what Clegg gets in return... http://www.nytimes.c...12britain.html?hp Cheers, Scott.
Post #326,004 by pwhysall 5/11/10 3:30:00 PM Reply	It's probably too early to say "I told you so", but... ...what the hell. I told you so!
Post #326,006 by Another Scott 5/11/10 3:44:23 PM Reply	:-)
Post #326,009 by jay 5/11/10 5:05:50 PM Reply	It looks like he got the big concession http://news.bbc.co.u...wales/8675383.stm The Conservatives have offered the Lib Dems a referendum on changing the voting system from the existing "first past the post" system to the alternative vote system (AV). Under AV, voters rank candidates in a constituency. If no-one gets 50% of votes the candidate finishing last gets eliminated and their second preferences are awarded to the remaining candidates. This continues until one candidates passes the 50% mark. If this promise is actually meaningful, it is should be approved by the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems would have probably preferred a straight fully proportional Parliament, but AV will be an easier sell and is an improvement over the current situation (both in the sense of being more fair and being easier on minor parties). Jay
Post #326,013 by pwhysall 5/11/10 5:43:25 PM Reply	Nah. It'll never, ever get through the house; electoral reform is a load of handwaving to make the coalition get past the triple lock of the LD constitution. AV would mean the final destruction of Labour in Scotland (in favour of the SNP) and there are plenty of Tories who will rebel. What he got was Deputy PM and four other Cabinet positions.
Post #326,028 by jay 5/11/10 10:41:26 PM Reply	It wouldn't surprise me I stuck a very big conditional on the original statement because there are all kinds of ways that the Tories can back out or sabotage it later. They could just do it in a way that insures it fails or point to some economic/political/military crisis that makes it impractical. Either way, if that happens the government probably blows up, because even if Clegg wants to hold it together, I don't think he can keep the party in line. The only way I can see the Conservatives supporting it is if they are calculating that the damage will be so much worse for Labour then the Tories that the Tories will come out ahead. I really don't see that happening. What could happen though is that the Conservatives weakly follow through with their agreement, putting it to a national referendum without any real Conservative support at all. In this case they are hoping the Lib Dems can't sell the referendum nationally on their own and lose the vote. From Static That sounds like`Instant Run-Off. As far as I can tell, it is just a British term for the same thing. Jay
Post #326,018 by warmachine 5/11/10 7:03:56 PM Reply	I'd have never believed that would ever happen I thought Cameron would never, ever get AV or any other voting system past his MPs. They, along with Labour, would lose seats. However, the devil is always in the detail. I think the referendum will take place but budget cuts will cripple any civil service explanatory campaign, an underfunded Electoral Commission will lead to mistakes and create a bad atmosphere, and controlled timing combined with coalition difficulties will allow co-ordination with the Murdoch papers to run anti-PR propaganda at full speed. -------------------------------------------- Matthew Greet I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
Post #326,022 by static 5/11/10 8:53:15 PM Reply	That sounds like`Instant Run-Off. That's we use for most Australian elections. Election analysts know how that works and it's not much more complicated than what FPTP is, either to cast or to count. We have most of our electorates counted within six hours of the booths closing. True proportional voting (we use a variation of that for our Senates) is much more complex and takes a few weeks for counting to finish. You'll get a lot of horse-trading between smaller parties about default preferences, though. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #325,949 by jay 5/10/10 2:11:58 PM Reply	Gordon Brown takes the necissary step http://news.bbc.co.u..._2010/8672859.stm Gordon Brown has said he is stepping down as Labour Party leader - as his party opens formal talks with the Lib Dems about forming a government. Mr Brown, prime minister since 2007, said he hoped a successor as Labour leader would be in place by September. The Lib Dems have been negotiating for days with the Tories - who won the most seats and votes in the UK election. But the Lib Dems have asked for formal talks with Labour. Mr Brown said it was in the "national interest" to respond. Mr Brown's statement will be seen as a move to smooth the way to a deal between Labour and the Liberal Democrats to form a government. Brown is trying to finesse the situation, arrange an orderly transition for himself rather then a public sacking to secure a deal with Lib Dems. He was pretty sure to be removed no matter what happens, so this is probably a smart move. For their part, the Lib Dems look like they are going to try and play the Cons against Labour. The Lib Dems have been talking to Labour all along, but moving to formal negotiations means that the deal making with the Tories is not going well. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!