[Johnny Brown]

Better than a coalition

How so?

I'd prefer a permanently hung parliament, with no overall control and where the support of smaller parties is always needed. That way we might get some sensible compromise rather than swinging left then right every ten-fifteen years and enthusiastically reversing for the first five.

[i.munro]

I'd prefer a permanently hung parliament, with no overall control and where the support of smaller parties is always needed. That way we might get some sensible compromise rather than swinging left then right every ten-fifteen years and enthusiastically reversing for the first five.

That was my thinking 5 years ago when I almost voted LD as a result.
However rather than a "sensible compromise" we then got a govt far to the right of any in post-war Europe.

[Oldmanmatt]

"None of the above" would be a great option.

But only if it meant something.

We really ought to have the "Go away and try again" option.

So, if too few show up to vote, or too many vote "none of the above", then the parties should be sent back and given, say, four weeks, to come up with policies people can vote for.

I don't get this. What do we judge on? One of the problems with the current system, particularly the current govt, seems to be that manifestos are no longer even a genuine description of the parties hopes/intentions.

That was, in part, my point.

We are not able to pick policies under the current system. At best we may pick the better of a poor choice.

The election system at the moment allows only an "all or nothing" approach.
What if we really could say "no, none of you have thought it out to our satisfaction"?
And then, after a year, judge them on their delivery?
The 5 year window is too long, it lets the incumbents sit on their benches (infrequently) and twiddle their thumbs until a couple of months before the next election; by which time most people have forgotten the name/face of their MP and lost interest.
Give them a vote of no confidence, after a year, that (for instance) forces a cabinet  reshuffle or leadership change. Make them work for their fifth year in office. Keep the parties from becoming complacent and give people a feeling that they have some recourse beyond the five yearly hurdle.

[Stubbs]

I'd prefer a permanently hung parliament, with no overall control and where the support of smaller parties is always needed. That way we might get some sensible compromise rather than swinging left then right every ten-fifteen years and enthusiastically reversing for the first five.

That was my thinking 5 years ago when I almost voted LD as a result.
However rather than a "sensible compromise" we then got a govt far to the right of any in post-war Europe.

So you don't buy the argument that the Lib Dems moderated the Tories to some extent and that it could have been a whole lot worse?

[Johnny Brown]

What Stubbs said.

The alternative was a re-election, which would have meant an overall conservative majority and even further right government. After 13 years of labour a swing right was inevitable, say what you like but it would have been worse without the Lib Dems.

[i.munro]

Am I wrong in remembering that another alternative was a LD-lab coalition?

[Will Hunt]

Am I wrong in remembering that another alternative was a LD-lab coalition?

I don't think JB is quite correct that there would have had to have been a re-election, however there were reasons that the LDs might not have wanted to form a coalition with Labour.
Firstly, a Lab-LD coalition would have occupied 315 seats Vs the Tories' 307. i.e. still a minority government and potentially quite ineffective once you've accounted for MPs rebelling etc.
Secondly, a Lab-LD coalition would have kept Gordon Brown in No. 10. Questions of legitimacy amongst the electorate if a party who has just come runner up still holds the seat of power (Cons took 47% of seats, Labour took considerably fewer at 40% of the Commons).

[Oldmanmatt]

Am I wrong in remembering that another alternative was a LD-lab coalition?

You're not wrong.

And there was no swing right.
It was hung.



Given, that such a swing could have been predicted/expected and that it did not, speaks volumes...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[slackline]

From an article in todays Guardian...

While polls remain open please refrain from disclosing your voting choices. Any comment declaring how you cast your vote will be removed by moderators owing to restrictions on polls and reporting, set out in article 66A of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Once all polling stations have closed this restriction will be lifted. Thank you for your cooperation.

[i.munro]

In that case I fear that the LDs, rather than a moderating influence,  are responsible both for choosing to put this govt in power and for keeping it there when it became clear just how loony right-wing it was.

[Johnny Brown]

Clearly there was a swing right from the previous election results, or there would have been a clear labour majority.

The graph above also shows why a LD-Labour coalition was not a serious proposition. The conservatives had a clear lead over labour that a LD-Labour coalition would barely have exceeded. Although coalition governments are rare in the UK I don't think one has ever been formed without including the biggest party.

All the informed opinion I read at the time, and since, suggested that the alternative to a LD-Con coalition was another election, which the conservatives would very likely have won outright. Anyone criticising the LD's record the last five years needs to bear that in mind.

I should point out I'm neither a LD nor a Con supporter.

[i.munro]

I'm willing to accept that, in the midst of a financial crisis, Clegg felt that this was the best option at the time  but nothing excuses continuing to support them when it became clear just how crack-pot far to the right of even their own manifesto they turned out to be.

[Johnny Brown]

And what do you think the result of Clegg withdrawing his support would have been?

[dave]

As i've said before, the LDs going in with the Tories was more than justified in my opinion because it gave us the AV referendum, which should have been the biggest gamechanger in british politics since parliamentary democracy begun. Would have effectively consolidated a left and centre-left vote and made it FAR less likely for a Tory govt to get in. Hence why Murdoch and the Tories shat themselves inside out and embarked upon the biggest media brainwashing campaign in living memory against it.

After that, they were going to be shit on either way. Murdoch press were always going to demonise them, anyone with a left-leaning bone in their body would demonise them knee-jerk fashion for "selling out", anyone who'd ever been to university or has designs on going to university would demonise them knee-jerk fashion over the tuition fees thing (as if Clegg is the only politician to break a promise! ha ha) etc etc. Hardly surprising they've not won any popularity contests, despite the fact that they have tangibly reigned in some of the most bonkers Tory ideas, but lets not let facts cloud the discussion.

[Muesli]

And what do you think the result of Clegg withdrawing his support would have been?

Yes had the LD's withdrawn their support and forced an election  the Tories may well have got a majority.


But the LD's would have come out of it with a lot more credibility than they seem to have now and might not be facing the electoral annihilation as punishment for helping the tories that is widely predicted for them today.

[Muesli]

And I don't buy the LD party line that by not withdrawing their support they were doing what was best for Britain. I think that they chose to stay with the tories come what ever was due in no small part to NC's personal vanity as deputy prime minister.


Had they pulled the plug I would have considered them when the next election came around.

[36chambers]

And what do you think the result of Clegg withdrawing his support would have been?

Yes had the LD's withdrawn their support and forced an election  the Tories may well have got a majority.


But the LD's would have come out of it with a lot more credibility than they seem to have now and might not be facing the electoral annihilation as punishment for helping the tories that is widely predicted for them today.

As i've said before, the LDs going in with the Tories was more than justified in my opinion because it gave us the AV referendum, which should have been the biggest gamechanger in british politics since parliamentary democracy begun. Would have effectively consolidated a left and centre-left vote and made it FAR less likely for a Tory govt to get in. Hence why Murdoch and the Tories shat themselves inside out and embarked upon the biggest media brainwashing campaign in living memory against it.

After that, they were going to be shit on either way. Murdoch press were always going to demonise them, anyone with a left-leaning bone in their body would demonise them knee-jerk fashion for "selling out", anyone who'd ever been to university or has designs on going to university would demonise them knee-jerk fashion over the tuition fees thing (as if Clegg is the only politician to break a promise! ha ha) etc etc. Hardly surprising they've not won any popularity contests, despite the fact that they have tangibly reigned in some of the most bonkers Tory ideas, but lets not let facts cloud the discussion.

[benno]

Yes had the LD's withdrawn their support and forced an election  the Tories may well have got a majority.

But the LD's would have come out of it with a lot more credibility than they seem to have now and might not be facing the electoral annihilation as punishment for helping the tories that is widely predicted for them today.

Really? Taking one for the team and reining in the excesses of the inevitable Tory government seems much more worthy of the electorate's respect than a self-serving ploy to maintain your popularity. Basically, I agree with dave.

[slackline]

But the LD's wouldmight have come out of it with a lot more credibility than they seem to have now

That is pure speculation based on generalising  your stance to the rest of the population.

Just as any statement in advance by any party of what they would do in the event of entering into negotiations to form  a coalition.

[Muesli]

Its a fair cop Slackline,


In my opinion they would have come away with more credibility  and I would have considered voting for them again.


Getting vote on AV was a major achievement and I salute them for it but why keep in collation after the AV vote had been lost ?

[slackline]

Getting vote on AV was a major achievement and I salute them for it but why keep in collation after the AV vote had been lost ?

Its called "an agreement" sometimes written out as "a contract".

Its incredibly childish to agree to something and then, after having had your "fun", run away with the ball when you don't like the way the game is going.

[Muesli]

Does this contract exist is it in the public domain?



More seriously are the deals done to make collation legally binding

and as stated on another thread politicians are not above a bit of childish behaviour when they think in is in their/party interests

[slackline]

Does this contract exist is it in the public domain?



More seriously are the deals done to make collation legally binding

Go and look it up yourself, I've not got the time nor inclination to do the leg work for you, especially when you have access to the same information I do. 

[Johnny Brown]

Yes had the LD's withdrawn their support and forced an election the Tories may well have got a majority.

But the LD's would have come out of it with a lot more credibility than they seem to have now and might not be facing the electoral annihilation as punishment for helping the tories that is widely predicted for them today.

Hmmm. So people who really didn't want a tory majority would respect the Lib Dems for breaking government to give them a tory majority? And wouldn't we then have had five years of that unrestrained majority? Such people are stupid.

If you don't like tory policy blame the tories. If you are upset they got in power blame labour for losing.

[i.munro]

Baffled by this asumption that the Tories would win a majority in a second election. Surely all the LD voters who were hoping for a lib-lab colaition (a big chunk I supect) would shift to Labour?