What will be the outcome of the General Election

[Danny Wilde]

Lots of hurdles in the way for Clegg to sell a Tory-LibDem deal to his party. And this from last September shows only a minority of the LibDem grass roots would support it.

 

What say you bigfellar ?

guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 September 2009 12.26 BST

Lib Dems would prefer to form coalition with Labour rather than Tories ? poll

Survey shows fewer than one in five activists would prefer to see Clegg team up with Cameron

-----

 

Liberal Democrat activists would overwhelmingly prefer their party to enter a coalition government with Labour rather than the Tories, according to a poll published today.

Fewer than one in five said that they would want to see Nick Clegg team up with the Conservatives in the event of a hung parliament after the next general election.

The Lib Dem leader has consistently refused to discuss who he is likely to support if all parties fail to secure an outright majority.

 

But Charles Kennedy, the party's former leader, spoke out yesterday against an alliance with the Tories.

Today's ComRes poll for BBC2's Daily Politics suggest that Clegg could also face resistance to a coalition with the Conservative party among his rank-and-file.

 

In a survey of Lib Dem councillors, 31% said they would like their party to support Labour if there was a hung parliament. Only 16% backed an alliance with the Tories.

However, some 48% said they did not know who they would like the party to team up with.

 

Kennedy told a fringe event at the Lib Dems' annual conference in Bournemouth yesterday that the Tories' hostility to the European Union was "one of several straws that would break any camel's back".

"I just don't see how we could make common ground with a Cameron-Hague administration on the European issue," he said. "I mean pigs would fly."

 

Clegg has sought to close down speculation about which party he would support, but the issue is especially pertinent with a general election no more than nine months away.

[Randle P McMurphy]

It's not anti-English, they are not voting for the SNP.

 

They will not vote for who they see as the toffs/poshfolk/snobs/ even if it is better for this country. There is something wrong in that.

 

The English voters seem to be able to change from Labour to Conservative if they think they are the best on offer.

 

Labour are an absolute shambles. Scottish Labour voters have been shown up for what they are.

 

so are Scottish labour voters anti English or not? your earlier post suggests so. make your mind up.

[Randle P McMurphy]

Whatever policies the Labour or Conservative parties have is irrelevant. It is all to do with these Scottish people hating what they see as posh English folk. That is all. It is like a form of bigotry.

 

don't know how to quote multiple posts but here is your earlier effort

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Apparently, Brown has tried to bully Clegg over the phone and has killed any coalition stone dead.

 

Tories to enter No10 on LibDems 'supply and confidence' methinks.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Scotland certainly isn't a priority for the Conservatives, and we/they are sailing into very choppy waters again in terms of the relationship between Westminster and Scotland. If Cameron is Prime Minister, the Tories will once again risk appearing as little more than colonial governors. One MP in fifty-nine? What kind of mandate is that? We haven't really moved on from the 1980s, except that the existence of the devolved Holyrood parliament will throw into even greater relief the disparity between the political landscapes of Scotland and England.

 

And the irony is that the voting system which denies the Tories (and the other major parties outside Labour) far greater representation in Scotland is the one that sustains the divine right to rule at Westminster enjoyed by them and/or Labour in perpetuity.

 

 

It's an interesting one though. The Tories have the "unfair to England" card up their sleeves for any "broad coalition".

 

As blairdin said above, Cameron has no mandate to rule Scotland and Brown has no mandate to rule England.

[Cade]

Can anybody really see a Tory-Liberal coalition working for any longer than 2 hours?

 

The two parties are light years apart on far too many issues and the grass roots of both parties would sabotage it from each end.

[JamboAl]

Apparently, Brown has tried to bully Clegg over the phone and has killed any coalition stone dead.

 

Tories to enter No10 on LibDems 'supply and confidence' methinks.

 

What does "apparently" mean? Is it "synonymous" with definitely?

Sky news suggests both parties are denying this but.... carry on with your forecasts.

Incidentally one of your forecasts was that the Tories would win a landslide victory!!! Enough said.

There is an alternative which is the one presently being put forward by Alex Salmond which is Labour, Lib Dem, and the national parties. That would give an overall majority if Sinn Fein do not sit as has been the case.

 

PS: The Lib Dems have just said on Sky that your "apparently" is utter rubbish. Probably started as another Tory scare out of bitterness as their well-funded (by Ashcroft) campaign didn't fool all of the people all of the time.

[Patrick Bateman]

It's not anti-English, they are not voting for the SNP.

 

Aye, apparently wanting self-determination and fiscal autonomy is anti-English. Good one.

[Danny Wilde]

What does "apparently" mean? Is it "synonymous" with definitely?

Sky news suggests both parties are denying this but.... carry on with your forecasts.

Incidentally one of your forecasts was that the Tories would win a landslide victory!!! Enough said.

There is an alternative which is the one presently being put forward by Alex Salmond which is Labour, Lib Dem, and the national parties. That would give an overall majority if Sinn Fein do not sit as has been the case.

 

PS: The Lib Dems have just said on Sky that your "apparently" is utter rubbish. Probably started as another Tory scare out of bitterness as their well-funded (by Ashcroft) campaign didn't fool all of the people all of the time.

 

Unfortunately for Mr. Brown, its public knowledge over the last week that his public and private faces are completly schizophrenic.

[IMA MAROON]

so are Scottish labour voters anti English or not? your earlier post suggests so. make your mind up.

 

"posh English folk"

 

Not the whole country.

[shaun.lawson]

Lots of hurdles in the way for Clegg to sell a Tory-LibDem deal to his party. And this from last September shows only a minority of the LibDem grass roots would support it.

 

What say you bigfellar ?

guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 September 2009 12.26 BST

Lib Dems would prefer to form coalition with Labour rather than Tories ? poll

Survey shows fewer than one in five activists would prefer to see Clegg team up with Cameron

-----

 

Liberal Democrat activists would overwhelmingly prefer their party to enter a coalition government with Labour rather than the Tories, according to a poll published today.

Fewer than one in five said that they would want to see Nick Clegg team up with the Conservatives in the event of a hung parliament after the next general election.

The Lib Dem leader has consistently refused to discuss who he is likely to support if all parties fail to secure an outright majority.

 

But Charles Kennedy, the party's former leader, spoke out yesterday against an alliance with the Tories.

Today's ComRes poll for BBC2's Daily Politics suggest that Clegg could also face resistance to a coalition with the Conservative party among his rank-and-file.

 

In a survey of Lib Dem councillors, 31% said they would like their party to support Labour if there was a hung parliament. Only 16% backed an alliance with the Tories.

However, some 48% said they did not know who they would like the party to team up with.

 

Kennedy told a fringe event at the Lib Dems' annual conference in Bournemouth yesterday that the Tories' hostility to the European Union was "one of several straws that would break any camel's back".

"I just don't see how we could make common ground with a Cameron-Hague administration on the European issue," he said. "I mean pigs would fly."

 

Clegg has sought to close down speculation about which party he would support, but the issue is especially pertinent with a general election no more than nine months away.

 

There's absolutely no doubt that a massive majority of the party membership would far prefer coalition with Labour. We're a left of centre party, have far more in common with Labour than the Tories - and when we took a vote in our office on this a couple of weeks back, a few said they didn't want coalition with anyone, well over half of us favoured coalition with Labour... and no-one wanted coalition with the Tories. There won't be a formal alliance with them: it'd split the party in two, and lose all the left wing support we have.

 

Unfortunately though, it just isn't that simple. You've seen how volatile the markets are: what do they do if it's not possible to form a government? Playing Russian roulette with the future of the whole country isn't exactly a good idea. Beyond that, the country's just thrown Labour out, and would go mental if we allowed them to walk straight back into office; and you see, something happens whenever we're demonstrably left wing at elections. Labour's core support is incredibly reliable - comfortably more so than the Tories. Generation after generation of people vote Labour and always will do. Meanwhile, we just haven't been around long enough to build up similar loyalty: meaning when we go head to head with Labour, we lose in marginals against them, and lose soft Tory support in those marginals and in SW England as well.

 

Meaning, as I've said already, Clegg is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. The numbers aren't there for a workable centre-left coalition; and a PR referendum would be lost if the public are angered by Labour somehow remaining in office. I don't know how Clegg negotiates this empasse: it's almost impossible as I see it, and the party could end up being smashed at subsequent elections regardless of which way we go now.

[Danny Wilde]

Of course you'll get smashed at future elections under FPTP ... if you allow things to stand as they are.

 

Even an "unpopular" LibDem party polling 15% in a PR election would land 90 or so seats.

But an "unpopular" LibDem party polling 15% in a FPTP election ? Who knows ... maybe 30, 25 or less ..

 

PR in the future virtually guarantees a broad-left progressive system, one in which the LibDems will always get some of the things they want

 

Grab PR now - whatever the short-term cost even if its in conjunction with Labour - or get ready for a decade or two of UK-wide irrelevence.

 

There's absolutely no doubt that a massive majority of the party membership would far prefer coalition with Labour. We're a left of centre party, have far more in common with Labour than the Tories - and when we took a vote in our office on this a couple of weeks back, a few said they didn't want coalition with anyone, well over half of us favoured coalition with Labour... and no-one wanted coalition with the Tories. There won't be a formal alliance with them: it'd split the party in two, and lose all the left wing support we have.

 

Unfortunately though, it just isn't that simple. You've seen how volatile the markets are: what do they do if it's not possible to form a government? Playing Russian roulette with the future of the whole country isn't exactly a good idea. Beyond that, the country's just thrown Labour out, and would go mental if we allowed them to walk straight back into office; and you see, something happens whenever we're demonstrably left wing at elections. Labour's core support is incredibly reliable - comfortably more so than the Tories. Generation after generation of people vote Labour and always will do. Meanwhile, we just haven't been around long enough to build up similar loyalty: meaning when we go head to head with Labour, we lose in marginals against them, and lose soft Tory support in those marginals and in SW England as well.

 

Meaning, as I've said already, Clegg is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. The numbers aren't there for a workable centre-left coalition; and a PR referendum would be lost if the public are angered by Labour somehow remaining in office. I don't know how Clegg negotiates this empasse: it's almost impossible as I see it, and the party could end up being smashed at subsequent elections regardless of which way we go now.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

What does "apparently" mean? Is it "synonymous" with definitely?

Sky news suggests both parties are denying this but.... carry on with your forecasts.

Incidentally one of your forecasts was that the Tories would win a landslide victory!!! Enough said.

There is an alternative which is the one presently being put forward by Alex Salmond which is Labour, Lib Dem, and the national parties. That would give an overall majority if Sinn Fein do not sit as has been the case.

 

PS: The Lib Dems have just said on Sky that your "apparently" is utter rubbish. Probably started as another Tory scare out of bitterness as their well-funded (by Ashcroft) campaign didn't fool all of the people all of the time.

 

 

Yes, I was well out. I put that down to Cameron's crap campaign.

 

Never mind though. Labour has ruled out your grand coalition as well....

 

....apparently!

[shaun.lawson]

Of course you'll get smashed at future elections under FPTP ... if you allow things to stand as they are.

 

Even an "unpopular" LibDem party polling 15% in a PR election would land 90 or so seats.

But an "unpopular" LibDem party polling 15% in a FPTP election ? Who knows ... maybe 30, 25 or less ..

 

PR in the future virtually guarantees a broad-left progressive system, one in which the LibDems will always get some of the things they want

 

Grab PR now - whatever the short-term cost even if its in conjunction with Labour - or get ready for a decade or two of UK-wide irrelevence.

 

How do we grab PR when the country won't vote for it if advocated by an unpopular Lab-LD coalition, and the coalition itself is almost unworkable in the first place? You do realise most of the Labour Party are opposed to PR, don't you? And if a fragile coalition of the centre-left quickly fell (as I think it would), the markets would do even more damage, and you'd probably see the Tories returned with a big majority.

 

"Grab PR"? You really think it's that simple, when the public's only priority is the economy?

[leginten]

Of course you'll get smashed at future elections under FPTP ... if you allow things to stand as they are.

 

Even an "unpopular" LibDem party polling 15% in a PR election would land 90 or so seats.

But an "unpopular" LibDem party polling 15% in a FPTP election ? Who knows ... maybe 30, 25 or less ..

 

PR in the future virtually guarantees a broad-left progressive system, one in which the LibDems will always get some of the things they want

 

Grab PR now - whatever the short-term cost even if its in conjunction with Labour - or get ready for a decade or two of UK-wide irrelevence.

 

 

 

 

Is PR going to be on offer? The Tories are offering a talking shop. What would Labour offer? Referendum? That would be tantamount to turkeys voting for an early Christmas. Free vote in the House of Commons? Foregone conclusion that the old chums would band together and defeat any move towards PR.

 

The truth is, Clegg may hold the balance of power but he is the leader of a party which performed unimaginably badly at the polls. He's not really in a position to push too hard on anything, let alone an issue like PR which would have profound implications for the two "old" parties. I think both Cameron and Brown would rather go to the polls again than cede too much ground on PR - they have too much to lose.

[Danny Wilde]

We haven't seen Browns proposal on this yet, so its hard to tell of course how genuine it is. There are a large number of senior Labour politicians who genuinely could live with PR, the "progressive left" notion. I agree its not easy to find the route, but find it you must in the coming days.

 

What I do know, is that this represents your only chance to do ANYTHING AT ALL to fix this broken electoral system. And if the LibDems CAN'T achieve that as power-brokers in 2010, then they never will. Thats twice you've mentioned "the markets" in your posts ... it seems to me that the LibDems are already on the way to capitulating to the political and right-wing media pressure on this ...

 

No disrespect BF, but your post below strikes me as a bit of a bleat and sounds half-way to being the first paragraph of the LibDems UK-wide suicide note and an admission of utter irrelevancy.

 

 

 

How do we grab PR when the country won't vote for it if advocated by an unpopular Lab-LD coalition, and the coalition itself is almost unworkable in the first place? You do realise most of the Labour Party are opposed to PR, don't you? And if a fragile coalition of the centre-left quickly fell (as I think it would), the markets would do even more damage, and you'd probably see the Tories returned with a big majority.

 

"Grab PR"? You really think it's that simple, when the public's only priority is the economy?

[kitster]

Here's an idea..why don't we tell them all to **** off and go it alone?

 

Radical? not really a risk worth taking as things stand.

[Randle P McMurphy]

Here's an idea..why don't we tell them all to **** off and go it alone?

 

Radical? not really a risk worth taking as things stand.

 

who are we?

[Patrick Bateman]

Here's an idea..why don't we tell them all to **** off and go it alone?

 

Because that would involve courage and vision. Sadly, too many people are unwilling or incapable of opening their eyes, despite the obvious problems staring at them. The fact the Queen has any presence in this procedure points to how laughably outdated and quaint "Britain" is.

[kitster]

who are we?

 

 

The scottish nation. From your words I guess you are not for it. Can I ask you what is your fear?

[shaun.lawson]

We haven't seen Browns proposal on this yet, so its hard to tell of course how genuine it is. There are a large number of senior Labour politicians who genuinely could live with PR, the "progressive left" notion. I agree its not easy to find the route, but find it you must in the coming days.

 

What I do know, is that this represents your only chance to do ANYTHING AT ALL to fix this broken electoral system. And if the LibDems CAN'T achieve that as power-brokers in 2010, then they never will. Thats twice you've mentioned "the markets" in your posts ... it seems to me that the LibDems are already on the way to capitulating to the political and right-wing media pressure on this ...

 

No disrespect BF, but your post below strikes me as a bit of a bleat and sounds half-way to being the first paragraph of the LibDems UK-wide suicide note and an admission of utter irrelevancy.

 

The markets and overall economic situation are incredibly relevant to all of this. To deny that is to deny the world we live in, which no-one has come up with a viable alternative for.

 

Some people in the Labour Party (like Alan Johnson, Peter Hain or Ben Bradshaw) want PR, because they can see it'd deliver a long term progressive coalition; but most don't, because FPTP favours Labour to a disgusting degree. How would a Labour leader of a Lab-LD coalition bring their party with them on PR; and more to the point, why would they even bother, when the alternative involves renewal in opposition while a weak Tory government faces all the tough choices and gets all the blame? That Labour leader can't be Gordon Brown either, whom the public and his party haven't voted for three times over now, can't work with Clegg, but his party would be loathe to force out.

 

Note leginten's point above. Aren't both Labour and the Tories both far more likely to tempt Clegg in, then call an election before a referendum on electoral reform had even happened, and blame the Lib Dems for anything that goes wrong in the meantime?

[Randle P McMurphy]

The scottish nation. From your words I guess you are not for it. Can I ask you what is your fear?

 

no it wasn't that, I just wasn't sure if you meant the general populace or Scotland. much like I was before the general election I am kind of undecided. I can see the merits of both and haven't quite got my head round making a definite decision either way.

 

according to IMA maroon though as long as there are no posh folk (not sure if this is exclusively English or not) involved I will be up for it.

[kitster]

no it wasn't that, I just wasn't sure if you meant the general populace or Scotland. much like I was before the general election I am kind of undecided. I can see the merits of both and haven't quite got my head round making a definite decision either way.

 

according to IMA maroon though as long as there are no posh folk (not sure if this is exclusively English or not) involved I will be up for it.

 

 

I want us free from England. I'd risk it considering the disaster we're facing. Scotland? vote more Labour in. People are so scared of a tory government up here it's scaring them from the real truth.

[JamboAl]

Yes, I was well out. I put that down to Cameron's crap campaign.

Never mind though. Labour has ruled out your grand coalition as well....

 

....apparently!

 

Ah so it wasn't your fault you were wrong. It was down to Cameron's crap campaign. I think it was down to Cameron being crap/smarmy/policy-less/unconvincing/dodgy as I told you months ago. You should stop swallowing everything your newspapers write and the Tory media broadcast.

I was unaware Labour had turned down anything yet but it was not MY grand coalition.

My hope is that Dodgy Dave has to go in with a minority government and try to put through his feed-the-rich aims and is sent packing.

Meanwhile Labour will probably have a new leader and put themselves in a better position to win the next election.

 

PS; As I write I am watching a protest of Lib Dem voters outside their HQ insisting on PR which seems to be the last thing Dave (I want to be PM at any cost) wants to concede.

[Randle P McMurphy]

Ah so it wasn't your fault you were wrong. It was down to Cameron's crap campaign. I think it was down to Cameron being crap/smarmy/policy-less/unconvincing/dodgy as I told you months ago. You should stop swallowing everything your newspapers write and the Tory media broadcast.

I was unaware Labour had turned down anything yet but it was not MY grand coalition.

My hope is that Dodgy Dave has to go in with a minority government and try to put through his feed-the-rich aims and is sent packing.

Meanwhile Labour will probably have a new leader and put themselves in a better position to win the next election.

 

PS; As I write I am watching a protest of Lib Dem voters outside their HQ insisting on PR which seems to be the last thing Dave (I want to be PM at any cost) wants to concede.

 

 

hear hear

 

 

[kitster]

Ah so it wasn't your fault you were wrong. It was down to Cameron's crap campaign. I think it was down to Cameron being crap/smarmy/policy-less/unconvincing/dodgy as I told you months ago. You should stop swallowing everything your newspapers write and the Tory media broadcast.

I was unaware Labour had turned down anything yet but it was not MY grand coalition.

My hope is that Dodgy Dave has to go in with a minority government and try to put through his feed-the-rich aims and is sent packing.

Meanwhile Labour will probably have a new leader and put themselves in a better position to win the next election.

 

PS; As I write I am watching a protest of Lib Dem voters outside their HQ insisting on PR which seems to be the last thing Dave (I want to be PM at any cost) wants to concede.

 

 

GK is more on the money than you'll ever be.

[Danny Wilde]

Again, I think your post sounds defeatist, which I think is natural after the Clegg let down - and for which you have my genuine (bleive it ot not) sympathy.

 

If a meaningful deal on PR - by which I mean an agreed commitment to actual legislation - can't be cut by Clegg in the next few days, then he has to disentangle himself from all this horse-trading, and pronto. No amount of cabinet places could compensate for a lack of tangible movement on PR. If the LibDems agree in (ahem) "the national interest" that electoral reform can go on the back burner then they can give up on it now and forever. If they can't get the concessions required in this situation, then they never will. There will NEVER be an election in which PR will be the principal issue amongst the sheeple of the UK, you can bet on that. Use or lose the leverage that you have now, you may never have it again.

 

The markets and overall economic situation are incredibly relevant to all of this. To deny that is to deny the world we live in, which no-one has come up with a viable alternative for.

 

Some people in the Labour Party (like Alan Johnson, Peter Hain or Ben Bradshaw) want PR, because they can see it'd deliver a long term progressive coalition; but most don't, because FPTP favours Labour to a disgusting degree. How would a Labour leader of a Lab-LD coalition bring their party with them on PR; and more to the point, why would they even bother, when the alternative involves renewal in opposition while a weak Tory government faces all the tough choices and gets all the blame? That Labour leader can't be Gordon Brown either, whom the public and his party haven't voted for three times over now, can't work with Clegg, but his party would be loathe to force out.

 

Note leginten's point above. Aren't both Labour and the Tories both far more likely to tempt Clegg in, then call an election before a referendum on electoral reform had even happened, and blame the Lib Dems for anything that goes wrong in the meantime?

[Danny Wilde]

From The Guardian Election 2010 Live-Blog feed:

Edit: BigFellar you should be in that march NOW and not disassembling on JKB !

3.14pm: The protesters are now chanting: "We want to see Nick". Billy Bragg is telling the BBC that he is supporting the demonstration and that the Lib Dems should not go into a coalition with any party that does not promise a referendum on PR within a week. He predicts that David Miliband will be prime minister within a week.

 

3.09pm: Pam Giddy, the director of Power 2010, is on the demo. She's just said this to the BBC:

 

Live blog: quote

 

Nick [Clegg], when he spoke around the country during the campaign, ignited a feeling that people want change. They may not have voted for him because they got scared. But that's what we're saying: keep strong. Otherwise your party, the people that you've motivated, all the young people that are here today, are going to be incredibly disappdointed and politics will suffer.

 

The police are saying about 2,000 people are on the march, I'm told.

[JamboAl]

GK is more on the money than you'll ever be.

 

Maybe you could elucidate.

[Randle P McMurphy]

Again, I think your post sounds defeatist, which I think is natural after the Clegg let down - and for which you have my genuine (bleive it ot not) sympathy.

 

If a meaningful deal on PR - by which I mean an agreed commitment to actual legislation - can't be cut by Clegg in the next few days, then he has to disentangle himself from all this horse-trading, and pronto. No amount of cabinet places could compensate for a lack of tangible movement on PR. If the LibDems agree in (ahem) "the national interest" that electoral reform can go on the back burner then they can give up on it now and forever. If they can't get the concessions required in this situation, then they never will. There will NEVER be an election in which PR will be the principal issue amongst the sheeple of the UK, you can bet on that. Use or lose the leverage that you have now, you may never have it again.

 

 

 

 

I think they definitely should disengage from any cabinet positions. You can guarantee that the Tories will offer Cable the chancellor of the exchequers post or some other LD MP a high profile role in an attempt to lay off any blame for unpopular moves.

 

If they are going for any form of coalition, they would be wise to do it in a non committal way by abstaining and allowing the tory majority to carry that way.

 

 

[Danny Wilde]

I think they definitely should disengage from any cabinet positions. You can guarantee that the Tories will offer Cable the chancellor of the exchequers post or some other LD MP a high profile role in an attempt to lay off any blame for unpopular moves.

 

If they are going for any form of coalition, they would be wise to do it in a non committal way by abstaining and allowing the tory majority to carry that way.

 

However in a hung parliament situation, abstention from voting ... sitting on the proverbial hands ... is just as bad. Parties are either for or against something, they vote for it ... or vote against it. For a party to abstain on an issue appears weak and idecisive IMO. For LibDems to sit on their hands whilst Tory polices are passed in parliament will look just as bad for them.

[Danny Wilde]

Its all about the art of the possible. And its definitely possible. Spare me any pro or anti Salmond posts, we can have that any time. We're talking here about a Westminster numbers game in which its possible that a broad-left coallition of the willing could usher in electoral change.

 

 

o Jackie Ashley

o guardian.co.uk, Saturday 8 May 2010 15.20 BST

 

A progressive alliance for electoral reform is the way forward

 

Alex Salmond's intervention offering SNP and Plaid Cymru support could be what the Lib Dems need to reject a Tory deal

 

As the Lib-Dems agonise over which way to jump, a fascinating development this afternoon might make them think even harder about accepting David Cameron's offer.

 

Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, has urged the Lib-Dems to join in a progressive alliance with Labour, the SNP and Plaid Cymru to bring in electoral reform. This may seem strange, since on Friday Alex Salmond was telling the BBC's Election programme that he was not going to be part of any coalition. But what Salmond has now realised is that the numbers are just about there to bring in PR, if all those who want it get together.

 

Salmond is still not suggesting a formal coalition. But his intervention gives the lie to one of the most persuasive arguments for the Lib-Dems to join with the Conservative: the maths. Supporters of a Lib-Dem/Conservative deal argue that the maths don't add up for anything else. Labour and the Lib-Dems together would only muster 315 seats, still short of the magic 326 needed for a Commons majority.

 

Now that Salmond is offering SNP and Plaid Cymru support ? even if it is only to bring in PR ? that's another 9 MPs, bringing the numbers to 324. Caroline Lucas, the sole Green MP could be expected to join them too ? 325. Then there are 3 SDLP MPs, or the 1 Alliance MP from Northern Ireland who may lend support and bingo ? the once in a lifetime chance to change the electoral system.

 

As Nick Clegg is discovering today, his party members are far more reluctant to embrace a deal with the Conservatives than he and some of his colleagues. Interestingly, some Conservatives too are starting to voice their concern about the odd marriage of convenience. Alex Salmond's intervention could be critical at this stage ? giving Clegg the reason he needs to reject the Tory offer, and to give his party the chance of electoral reform that has been the holy grail for so many years.

[JamboAl]

Its all about the art of the possible. And its definitely possible. Spare me any pro or anti Salmond posts, we can have that any time. We're talking here about a Westminster numbers game in which its possible that a broad-left coallition of the willing could usher in electoral change.

 

 

o Jackie Ashley

o guardian.co.uk, Saturday 8 May 2010 15.20 BST

 

A progressive alliance for electoral reform is the way forward

 

Alex Salmond's intervention offering SNP and Plaid Cymru support could be what the Lib Dems need to reject a Tory deal

 

As the Lib-Dems agonise over which way to jump, a fascinating development this afternoon might make them think even harder about accepting David Cameron's offer.

 

Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, has urged the Lib-Dems to join in a progressive alliance with Labour, the SNP and Plaid Cymru to bring in electoral reform. This may seem strange, since on Friday Alex Salmond was telling the BBC's Election programme that he was not going to be part of any coalition. But what Salmond has now realised is that the numbers are just about there to bring in PR, if all those who want it get together.

 

Salmond is still not suggesting a formal coalition. But his intervention gives the lie to one of the most persuasive arguments for the Lib-Dems to join with the Conservative: the maths. Supporters of a Lib-Dem/Conservative deal argue that the maths don't add up for anything else. Labour and the Lib-Dems together would only muster 315 seats, still short of the magic 326 needed for a Commons majority.

 

Now that Salmond is offering SNP and Plaid Cymru support ? even if it is only to bring in PR ? that's another 9 MPs, bringing the numbers to 324. Caroline Lucas, the sole Green MP could be expected to join them too ? 325. Then there are 3 SDLP MPs, or the 1 Alliance MP from Northern Ireland who may lend support and bingo ? the once in a lifetime chance to change the electoral system.

 

As Nick Clegg is discovering today, his party members are far more reluctant to embrace a deal with the Conservatives than he and some of his colleagues. Interestingly, some Conservatives too are starting to voice their concern about the odd marriage of convenience. Alex Salmond's intervention could be critical at this stage ? giving Clegg the reason he needs to reject the Tory offer, and to give his party the chance of electoral reform that has been the holy grail for so many years.

 

I don't think Salmond is talking about a coalition merely an accommodation. Salmond himself cannot serve in a coalition at Westminster but it would give him more say/power than any other arrangement.

[P-Dizzle]

That would be ideal from my point of view.

 

A Lib-Lab coalition sounds the best, I don't see how the Tories could give the Lib Dems what they want.

 

Doesn't this look like a tragic situation for the Tories? After all the problems under a Labour government, even if they're not to blame for it all. All the money the Tories put into their campaign, and the lead they had. They've still not got a majority.

 

That to me, says Britain doesn't want them in power.

[Therapist]

Here's the first sign of influential New Labour figures turning against Cyclops. Hopefully Cyclops' life will be made a misery - after all, that's exactly what he's done to the population of the UK so there would be some justice in that.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8670038.stm

[JamboAl]

Here's the first sign of influential New Labour figures turning against Cyclops. Hopefully Cyclops' life will be made a misery - after all, that's exactly what he's done to the population of the UK so there would be some justice in that.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8670038.stm

 

You are naive in the extreme. Labour MPs wanted rid of him last summer and this created a stick or twist dilemna. Some resigned but the overall consensus was to stick with him through the election and I would be surprised if there was any combination that would allow Brown to be Labour leader beyond a holding period.

If I were a Tory however I'd be more worried about Cameron. Here was a man who attacked Brown personally without mercy, painted him as the worst PM ever, had a sick, venomous press in his corner and still could not get a majority even with the Lib Dem seats reduced by two. Think about it.

[shaun.lawson]

Again, I think your post sounds defeatist, which I think is natural after the Clegg let down - and for which you have my genuine (bleive it ot not) sympathy.

 

If a meaningful deal on PR - by which I mean an agreed commitment to actual legislation - can't be cut by Clegg in the next few days, then he has to disentangle himself from all this horse-trading, and pronto. No amount of cabinet places could compensate for a lack of tangible movement on PR. If the LibDems agree in (ahem) "the national interest" that electoral reform can go on the back burner then they can give up on it now and forever. If they can't get the concessions required in this situation, then they never will. There will NEVER be an election in which PR will be the principal issue amongst the sheeple of the UK, you can bet on that. Use or lose the leverage that you have now, you may never have it again.

 

You're right: I am down about all this, more because of what the numbers say and how little room we have for manoeuvre than the result itself. We've wanted a hung Parliament for years and years - then the moment one comes along, we're faced with an almost impossible decision! Incidentally, if only Labour were the biggest party in a hung Parliament, electoral reform would be easy; it's because the Tories are that things look so precarious.

 

From The Guardian Election 2010 Live-Blog feed:

Edit: BigFellar you should be in that march NOW and not disassembling on JKB !

 

 

If the campaign gathers momentum, I'll be marching, you can be sure of that! In my defence though, I'm half dead after all that campaigning, and nursing an injured ankle. Hours and hours going up and down high rise tower blocks in some of London's most deprived areas can seriously damage your health.

 

I think they definitely should disengage from any cabinet positions. You can guarantee that the Tories will offer Cable the chancellor of the exchequers post or some other LD MP a high profile role in an attempt to lay off any blame for unpopular moves.

 

If they are going for any form of coalition, they would be wise to do it in a non committal way by abstaining and allowing the tory majority to carry that way.

 

Totally agree with this. Cabinet positions should be the last thing on any Lib Dem's mind: this is about policies, not patronage.

[Danny Wilde]

Good for you BF. Great respect for you in having gone out there and campaigned in the way you did.

 

A day ot two of R&R, a couple of lazy days of beers and curries are probably what the doctor ordered.

 

If I were a LibDem'r though I'd be concerned that Clegg and Laws .. the Orange wing ... might try to bounce the LibDems into this Con-LibDem arrangement. The "triple-lock" isn't looking so daft after all just now....

 

 

You're right: I am down about all this, more because of what the numbers say and how little room we have for manoeuvre than the result itself. We've wanted a hung Parliament for years and years - then the moment one comes along, we're faced with an almost impossible decision! Incidentally, if only Labour were the biggest party in a hung Parliament, electoral reform would be easy; it's because the Tories are that things look so precarious.

 

 

 

If the campaign gathers momentum, I'll be marching, you can be sure of that! In my defence though, I'm half dead after all that campaigning, and nursing an injured ankle. Hours and hours going up and down high rise tower blocks in some of London's most deprived areas can seriously damage your health.

 

 

 

Totally agree with this. Cabinet positions should be the last thing on any Lib Dem's mind: this is about policies, not patronage.

[Therapist]

Labour MPs wanted rid of him last summer

 

 

Which simply demonstrates that even jellyfish have more backbone than your average Labour MP. Such ditherers and cowards do not deserve to govern and is one of the main reasons the country is in the state it's in.

[JamboAl]

 

Which simply demonstrates that even jellyfish have more backbone than your average Labour MP. Such ditherers and cowards do not deserve to govern and is one of the main reasons the country is in the state it's in.

 

You'll se what spineless means as Dave tries to become PM; what a dismal failure of a man.

[Therapist]

You'll se what spineless means as Dave tries to become PM; what a dismal failure of a man.

 

 

Given that Mr Cameron increased the Conservative's seats by 90, while Cyclops lost a similar number, there's only one "dismal failure" out of the three party leaders.

 

Imagine what the damage would have been if Scotland's zombie voters hadn't stuck their X in the Labour box like they always do.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Senior Lib Dem figure tells the party to get real (see link)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/wales/8669826.stm

 

Of course they could refuse the offer from the conservatives and go into a coalition with either the unelectable (Brown) or the unelected (Milliband, Balls etc), oh and the SNP, Plaid, DUP, SDLP, Greens and whoever else is going to form the 'progressive' majority.

 

As Shawn has correctly pointed out Cleggs hand is rather weak in all this and it appears this eventuality (which has been on the cards for a while) may not have been fully thought through by the senior LDs.

[kitster]

That would be ideal from my point of view.

 

A Lib-Lab coalition sounds the best, I don't see how the Tories could give the Lib Dems what they want.

 

Doesn't this look like a tragic situation for the Tories? After all the problems under a Labour government, even if they're not to blame for it all. All the money the Tories put into their campaign, and the lead they had. They've still not got a majority.

 

That to me, says Britain doesn't want them in power.

 

 

England does though. Look at the map. Damn us pesky Celts we always bugger things up

[IMA MAROON]

 

Given that Mr Cameron increased the Conservative's seats by 90, while Cyclops lost a similar number, there's only one "dismal failure" out of the three party leaders.

 

Imagine what the damage would have been if Scotland's zombie voters hadn't stuck their X in the Labour box like they always do.

 

I think you are being too kind. They know exactly what they are doing, they are bitter and twisted.

[shaun.lawson]

Good for you BF. Great respect for you in having gone out there and campaigned in the way you did.

 

A day ot two of R&R, a couple of lazy days of beers and curries are probably what the doctor ordered.

 

If I were a LibDem'r though I'd be concerned that Clegg and Laws .. the Orange wing ... might try to bounce the LibDems into this Con-LibDem arrangement. The "triple-lock" isn't looking so daft after all just now....

 

Indeed not! It exists in the first place because party activists were suspicious of how far Paddy Ashdown wanted to go in co-operation with Labour: correctly so given he was seriously discussing a merger with Tony Blair. There is no chance on earth of a formal deal with the Tories surviving the triple lock; and even an informal arrangement would struggle mightily to get through.

 

Anyway, having played fantasy budgets last week, let's play fantasy negotiations now. If I were Nick Clegg, what would I do?

 

1. Have a sine qua non that we would not enter into government with anyone without a written commitment to proportional representation, a referendum on it within one year in which the coalition advocated a 'yes' vote, and general election immediately following it.

 

2. Drag out talks with the Tories as long as possible, while putting out feelers that if Brown stood down, we'd enter negotiations with Labour. Hopefully, Labour MPs would pick up this baton and get the message to him: we could not prop Brown up under any circumstances.

 

3. If we were not given the commitments we were looking for by either the Tories or a Brown-less Labour, my final option would be to call for a three-party government of national unity, ideally suited to deal with the economic problems. It would be a lot harder to demand electoral reform in such circumstances; but I would assume this option had no chance of being put into practice anyway.

 

4. In the absence of any of the above, we'd reluctantly allow the Tories to govern via a stance of armed neutrality, in which we'd abstain on most issues, but oppose anything too extreme or right wing. This option has to be a fall-back, because in my opinion, the Lib Dems above all literally cannot afford another election to happen quickly.

 

Trouble is, from all I've heard of Clegg over the last couple of days, I'm unconvinced he's pushing PR anything like as much as he should be. I think he believes our negotiating position is too weak, and he's already looking at option 4 or a variation of it in order to preserve the party's future prospects, with electoral reform forced through at a later date. But if not now, when?

[P-Dizzle]

England does though. Look at the map. Damn us pesky Celts we always bugger things up

 

The Scottish and Welsh seats weren't enough to change the outcome if the Tories had done better in England.

 

The Conservatives won back a large number of seats, they should've walked this election. They must've known that the central belt seats would be hard to win, but they focused more on these marginal seats down south. They didn't win enough. They were something like 4.5% off the swing they needed.

 

I can understand Clegg wanting to give the party with the most seats first shot at forming a government. But if they can only win back "Middle England" after all the trouble that's been caused, they've not done enough.

[ToadKiller Dog]

The media would go into overdrive if there champion "Dave " is denied the keys to number 10 by the proposed group of super friends lead by Gordon Brown .The lib dems best option (for them maybe not the country ) would be to let Dave and his gang run with a minority government and have the

same sort of agreement the Torys/greens have with the SNP in Holyrood . To get in bed with Dave would mean suicide for the lib dems come the next election as the torys will not agree to electoral reform as they would like never get back in power under a PR system and they know it .

 

Interesting times for Scotland as the English wont like the Scots Labour mps decide votes on english issues ,i expect they will hit Scotland hard with

cuts as a punishment . Might end up a good time for the SNP in a few years as a tougher English standpoint with create a tougher Scottish standpoint .

 

Interesting times indeed .

[leginten]

Trouble is, from all I've heard of Clegg over the last couple of days, I'm unconvinced he's pushing PR anything like as much as he should be. I think he believes our negotiating position is too weak, and he's already looking at option 4 or a variation of it in order to preserve the party's future prospects, with electoral reform forced through at a later date. But if not now, when?

 

I said during the campaign that I thought he was strangely muted on this, the issue most likely to strike a chord with the millions of people in the UK who regard themselves as disenfranchised by FPTP. Whether or not pushing it further up the campaign agenda would have changed the election outcome I've no idea, but I think any Lib Dem insistence on PR as a precondition for co-operation/coalition is now considerably weakened by the issue's low profile before the election.

[The Mighty Thor]

 

Given that Mr Cameron increased the Conservative's seats by 90, while Cyclops lost a similar number, there's only one "dismal failure" out of the three party leaders.

 

Imagine what the damage would have been if Scotland's zombie voters hadn't stuck their X in the Labour box like they always do.

 

Many of Scotland's zombie voters have power of recall and remember what Scotland was like when Dave's heroine was trying to run this country into the ground.

 

Speaking of desperation lets watch Cameron as he's kept waiting for what he feels is his divine right. His pips will be squeaking by Monday and by midweek next week we'll get a great insight into Cameron the man once his mask slips.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Here's an idea..why don't we tell them all to **** off and go it alone?

 

Radical? not really a risk worth taking as things stand.

 

No thank you William Wallace.