Except his party would block a Con-Lib coalition

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!