Indeed, the benefits of not making foolist committments is indicated by Tom’s post above in which he suggests that the Tories as largest party would govern alone “(provided that Labour is stupid enough to threaten to bring them down in a vote of confidence….)”. This seems utterly bizarre to me – is Tom really saying that if a minority Tory government proposed savage cuts for deficit reduction, the Labour party would just sit on its hands and let them do it? Can’t see it myself although it would be pretty interesting to see a minority Tory government being opposed by Lib Dems with Labour presumably abstaining……

Still, as Mohandas K. Gandhi is supposed to have put it, “first they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win”.

Gordon Brown has said that he will campaign for a Yes vote. The rest of us must hope that this AV Referendum promise will not go the way of the Labour and Lib Dem EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty referendum promises. It is annoying to be cheated and treated as idiots by modern politicians.

It is interesting that you tell us that you will not campaign for a Yes vote yourself and that you are reliably informed that the Labour Party will not necessarily do so. I hope the party manifesto will make that clear to voters.

I guess it means that any kind of cooperation with the Lib Dems is less likely than it appeared at first sight. On the other hand, in order to keep X voting instead of Preferential Voting if Gordon Brown wins the election, you would presumably have to oust him before the promised referendum, which might be difficult for you..

An interesting comment, since it must clearly have come as a piece of reassurance to restive Labour backbenchers from a minister of senior whip, and just goes to prove that the promise of a referendum on AV was simply yet another of Gordon Brown’s supposedly clever bits of politicking, either aimed at making the LibDems more sympathetic to the prospect of backing a minority Labour government, or at allowing the Tories to portray the LibDems as being more likely to support a minority Labour government.

Incidentally, the one option that would not sensibly be open to a prime minister of a minority Labour government would be to call a second election within a short space of time: it would be committing political suicide.

No, we’re committed to holding a referendum on whether or not to introduce AV. But I am reliably informed that the party will not necessarily campaign for a Yes vote. I certainly won’t.

Rather a cocky way of not being as helpful as all that, thank you! You say:

“If the Tories are the biggest party in a hung Parliament, I expect they’ll govern alone (provided Labour isn’t stupid enough to threaten to bring them down in a vote of confidence and thus force them into a pact with you lot).”

What would be wrong with saying:

“If Labour are the biggest party in a hung Paliament, I expect they’ll govern alone (provided the Tories aren’t stupid enough to threaten to bring them down in a vote of confidence and thus force them into a pact with you lot).” ?

You seem to see things only from your own party’s point of view – probably a natural way of thinking from a party that has undeservedly benefited from X Voting over the years. You will have to think again, particularly once you have introduced Preferential 1,2,3..Voting, to which your party is now committed.

Anyway, whatever you do, don’t let the Lib Dems, if you have a coalition with them, undo Gordon Brown’s good work of keeping us out of the Euro, which the Lib Dems would have joined! What a disaster that would have been! Currency flexibitily has saved us in the present crisis.

None of the above. If Labour win an overall majority, we’ll govern alone. If Labour are the biggest party in a hung parliament, we’ll govern alone. If the Tories are the biggest party in a hung parliament, I expect they’ll govern alone (provided Labour isn’t stupid enough to threaten to bring them down in a vote of confidence and thus force them into a pact with you lot).

Anything else I can help you with?

“INSANE EUROPHILIA!!!!” is putting it a bit strongly, perhaps! But the problem is there. The EU and the Euro, together with the economy and Electoral Reform, would seem to make a Conservative / Lib Dem coalition, or a Conservative government with Lib Dem support, particularly difficult and unstable.

A Labour / Lib Dem coalition or a Labour government with Lib Dem support would seem from the outside to be likely to be much more stable, and would lead, it seems, to STVS / AV Electoral Reform. That is surely a prize worth voting for – whatever that may take in individual constituencies on this occasion.

And how much better for social stability at a difficult time of cuts and tax rises to have a government concerned for the single poor rather than one which would increase Inheritance Tax exemption to two million pounds for wealthy married couples!

Now then, who would you prefer to go into coalition with? Us, the Tories, the SNP? Given your clear desire for transparency, I’m sure you are chomping at the bit to tell us.

Tom, you’ve been told that your party’s support or opposition for these policies will make a difference to our attitude to your party. So until you clarify that support or opposition, how can you expect us to answer your question?

I could not possibly care less about whatever the LibDems’ 4 principles are this month, same as I didn’t care last month. If, after the election, they wish to support Labour’s programme for government, fine.

But isn’t there a single LibDem out there who actually has a preference between a coalition with Labour verses one with the Tories? Not one of you even has an opinion on the matter? Seriously?

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/manchesterwitherington

The partisan twaddle is from the Lib Dem commentator, by the way. That’s apparently all we’ve got to fill the void where our policies should be.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+labours+election+pledge+cards/507807

And a perfectly good tactic it is too, for us and for democracy, and one which I’d be quite happy to admit we’d ripped off from Labour.

What you’ve got to realise is this: the other two parties hate us more than they hate each other. If you mention the Lib Dems on somewhere like UK Polling Report, you’ll get a tirade that goes something like this:

‘Bar charts! no policy whatsoever except for their INSANE EUROPHILIA!!!! Unprincipled! Hate the Constitution and want to destroy it and replace it!!?! Bar charts! Unprincipled dutbin. Bar charts! They should be EXTERMINATED, and Britain restored to the state of two-party government which is the NATURAL ORDER!!!’

Apart from the massive internal contradiction there (we’re either unprincipled bastards or crazed idealogues, but not both), there is the arrogant presumption that if one has any principles, they can be neatly reconciled in the two party system, and that anyone who chooses to work outside it is automatically unprincipled. I actually think that large sectors of the rank and file, particularly in the Tories, would prefer a Lab-Con coalition rather than working with us unprincipled careerists (and our eevul bar charts).

Where’s the contradiction? I’m not sure how I can explain it any more clearly.

(1) For years the party has been rightly saying that a party with less than 50% of the popular vote doesn’t have a mandate at all.
(2) Now we have all this discussion about how strong the mandates of the other parties would be in various scenarios in which their popular votes would be somewhere in the mid 30s.

This isn’t just an academic point, because Nick Clegg has started to talk about the “moral right” of minority parties to try to form governments. I think it’s nonsense. A minority is a minority, and it doesn’t confer any mandate whatsoever to govern.

And in any case, I believe the constitutional position is that the sitting prime minister will have first crack of the whip.