Via email:
Over the past four days we have been working flat out to deliver an agreement that can provide stable government for Britain that can last.
As you know we believed it was right that the Conservative Party, as the party with the most seats and votes, should have the first right to seek to form a government and we entered into discussions with them accordingly.
Our talks with the Conservatives have made progress but so far we have been unable to agree a comprehensive partnership agreement for a full Parliament.
I strongly believe we need a government that lasts so that it can take decisions in the long term national interest. As a result, we will continue our discussions with the Conservative Party to see if we can find a way to a sustainable agreement. However, in view of the urgency of the need to resolve the situation we have opened discussions with the Labour Party to explore the possibility of a stable partnership agreement.
Our objective in all our discussions is to secure a sustainable agreement incorporating the four key principles of our manifesto and providing the long term stability that the country requires.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
161 Comments
Good! Some dialogue finally!
This is the real issue;
David Cameron is wanting to hold a snap election the instant he ever smells a majority, before the electoral reform legislation ever gets near completion. They’ll then kill it once they have a majority.
That’s the real issue. Bet on it.
You are holding the voters in contempt.
Clegg’s talks with Labour are insulting and political suicide. You will never ever get my vote again.
Well done. Conservatives was selling out. The party who is the natural partner is Labour, NOT conservatives!
The LibDems are planning talks with the party who stitched them up over PR last time?
Staggering.
I respect everything you say in the above statement, but the overriding reason I did not vote lib dem in the general election was your propsed delay in action on the economy. This is by far the biggest risk to us as a nation and action is required NOW for mine and my childrens sake. Getting into bed with labour and continuing with their excessive waste is just not the way to go. The respect you have so far gained, I personally will consider lost.
Yours sincerely
A potential future voter
My wish is that you take your time. It is wrong that the media & markets seem to dictate irrational haste on a decision as important as this.
For me, the biggest thing to come out of this election has been the unfairness of the voting system. I want my vote to be of equal worth to every other.
Is there a chance that if we can agree a fairer electoral system, that new results could be calculated and used for the creation of government? Or perhaps a new election utilising the fairer voting system?
I would love to hear clarity and truth and more openess too, so that the electorate (we the people) can be more informed and involved.
Thus far, I am happy that talks are taking place with all parties.
@ Laurence
Do you know us?
Are we centre left or centre right or centre?
Have you walked for 3 hours canvassing like I have?
What do you want?
Some of us joined the Lib Dems because we we not keen on Lanour socialism but still empathised greatly with social justice. We didn’t join because we felt ‘RightWing’. Don’t you guys ‘get it’?
But I don’t think you care.
The funny thing is that, more Labour people did vote Lib Dem as tactical voting to get the Tories out but the stuff you spout out? Please, please show me a link that came from a right wing party/press that asked for a hung parliament.
No shame. Or remorse. Or care.
Fair enough, you guys are consistent.
Also @ Laurence
You’re not the only one with family, debt etc…so please don’t insult some of the hardcore LibDem supporters who may be more socialist then you but also have family and very little.
I am flabbergasted that you guys hadn’t thought all this through before now.
For as long as I can remember, the main LD aspiration has been to hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.
Now you have achieved it, you don’t have a clue what to do! It reminds me of the invasion of Iraq, and all the generals saying “well, we’ve won, what should we do now?”
Absolutely staggering. And contemptible. Whichever way you decide is irrelevant – the voters will visit their wrath on you at the next election. If you manage to stitch together a deal that gets a referendum on voting reform, don’t bet on winning it. One look at the grubby charade of the last few days has been enough to put me off the idea.
I think there is now a clear and present danger of two “Real Time Mythologies” developing.
The first is that the next Prime Minister will have been appointed by the Liberal Democrats rather than by the voters.
The second is that balanced parliaments conclude is undignified horse trading, chaos and then end in point one.
The fact that neither of these is either true or even reasonable won’t stop large numbers of the spurned suitors supporters believing it. We now have the risk, I put it no more strongly than that, of a negative outcome which toxifies the Lib Dem brand with one end of the political spectrum and toxifies the ” Fair votes” brand with a wider section of the public. Ergo the only thing salavaged from all of this, an AV referendum will be lost before the enabling Bill passes.
I am totally disgusted and angry at todays events, Nick Clegg said he would talk with the party with the most votes, yes he has done that, but behind the Conservatives back, talks to Labour, everyone I have spoken to this evening is very angry. How on earth can The Liberal Party begin to consider joining up with the Labour Party, and all the other small parties, the whole things a farce. I now wish Cameron had gone ahead, and formed a government with the small majority of votes he has. By the way, I am a Labour voter, but I do believe in fairness. I dont think I will vote for anyone at the next election.
The introduction of Proportional Representation is the essential thing. Clegg discovered that, of the two parties, Labour was the most likely to introduce it. The Conservatives only have themselves to blame for not reforming the electoral system (a reform which would help Britain and, ironically, help Conservatives). Labour’s history of reneging on electoral reform isn’t a great thing but at least Clegg got a promise that they would support it this time around.
If Labour reneges again, the Lib Dems and the minor parties could create a voting bloc and force the issue by refusing to pass any legislation that comes their way. Labour would then have the choice of either introducing PR and ameliorating the PR voting bloc, or dealing with the Tories to introduce legislation – both of which would be a good thing.
But who will be PM? Someone from Labour? Clegg?
@Laurence – of course ‘action is required NOW’ on the economy. But slashing spending now isn’t it. It would undermine the – still fragile – recovery. How many private companies would go bust if they lost public sector contracts? There would be an ‘economic multiplier effect’ (google it) which would certainly tip us into recession again. Of course the Tory Party have always been ideologically committed to cuts, and would use the recession as an excuse to go further than hitherto, no matter what the practical consequences. I hope that LibDems in a Coalition could moderate, or even eliminate, this folly.
Personally speaking I think we should now do the deal with the Tories. Yes I want PR, but we can’t look too selfish in this and frankly the arithmetic of putting together a deal with Labour, 1 green and the nationalists just doesn’t make sense. It will scare the markets and install a PM that was never elected. We need to keep the people on side.
Let’s get a referendum on AV, win that and then go for PR. We need to show the people we are not all about dodgy back room deals.
I’ve loved seeing the WTF faces on the reporters who have been flaying around for the past couple of days. I thnk they forget there is another 2 weeks till the Queens Speech.
ie.. Chill
It’s fantastic….. possibly one of the biggest changes in the constitution since… errrrr well..
I have campaigned for many years for PR but I would not feel good if a new system were to be introduced without a referendum. Such a major change must be put to the voters.
I notice that there are large numbers of labour MPs suggesting that a Lab/Lib deal would not be acceptable and many also opposing AV.
Now the party must make up its mind and take whichever risk it feels is best. We cannot now decide to reject both suitors – if we do we will look ridiculous and lose all credibility.
All this whole situation has done is highlight to me how little the vast majority of people know about Government. I’m fed up of being asked whether we’ll go into coalition with the Tories or Labour. Chances are we won’t do either!
I liked the article, and have a further comment.
One of the most important outcomes for the Lib Dems will be how coalition government (and therefore PR) appears to the public in general. A Con-Lib Dem agreement would show that parties can work together to form a strong government for the good of the whole country; a Lab-Lib Dem agreement would suggest that short-term interests are more important to the two parties than stable government, and reinforce the idea that “first-past-the post” will serve Britain best for the future. A pact with Labour now would be suicidal.
It is a shame many people don’t understand negotiation BUT bad move to have talks with Labour reported as secret (whether they were or not).
Labour are so discredited to be associated with them at all at this time is not a good idea either. You know look as though you went to them, rather than the other way round and plenty of people in Labour have come out against a deal, something that really wasn’t happening to anything like the same degree on the Tory side.
So many people apparently LibDem supporters exhibiting the sorts of behaviour you claimed were the preserve of others and every bit as tribal and vitriolic.
Whilst voting reform is the cornerstone of liberalism, it is equally anathema to many in the other two parties. It may be more prescient to demand PR for the lords which I feel the tories would do a deal on, but thereby also making the push for PR in the commons more likely at a future datem
PR is crucial to liberalism but so is delivering an equitable tax system and genuine social reform.
Whether those of us on the left like it or not the idea of the tories becoming the opposition as a ‘rainbow coalition’ defends the celtic nations from cuts whilst at the same time pushing them through nationally reeks of injustice.
I agree with Chris. The Conservatives have proven to be willing to give ground, and seem to actually have turned quite sensible with some “moderation” through the Lib Dems.
We can either throw everything we’ve been offered away and look like a useless, self-serving “permanent opposition” party, or we can step up to the task and prove to the public that this can actually work, and that the Lib Dems might well have had a point all along…
Having, supported, canvassed, posted leaflets, etc. etc. for what seems for ever, I want the LDs to have a voice and an influence in the next government. However we must remember that the country is in a huge mess financially, more state employment than private, two gross wars which cost billions, the nanny state and risk adverse society which discourages any form of entrepreneurial spirit, quangos, legislation, legislation, legislation, and spin doctors who have brought a whole new meaning to press releases. How can we go with the Labour Party after 13 years of this sort of government? There has to be compromise and as someone who lives in the South West we should try with the Tories. If the LDs dont act soon we will be a laughing stock, a sick joke, and never have this opportunity again – certainly not in my lifetime. The country needs a decision urgently!
Any deal with Mandelson et al is like dealing with a bag of slippery eels. Better to deal with the devil in blue. At least you know what to expect from them and by having seats around the table can truncate any of their craziest ideas.
If Nick deals with Labour I shall be off to Brighton to add to the Green majority.
Grammar Police you are right about general knowledge of Government.
Unelected Prime Ministers?
On 18 October 1963 Alec Douglas-Home became Conservative Prime Minister.
On 7 November he was elected to the House of Commons in a by-election.
(After resigning from the House of Lords and being a “Commoner” for a few weeks.)
The country needs political reform. If we hold our nerve we can get it.
I have been surprised at how poorly the public image is being managed. Did these scenarios not get wargamed? Who is advising them in PR and negotiations? I know Clegg has EU experience, but this is raw public politics, and needs to be handled much, much better.
(I speak as someone who would like to see a Tory/Lib coalition as each would act as a control on the excesses of the other)
Clegg had an opportunity to move quickly and show that hung parliaments can work really well, and that it’s not true that LibDems will only ever side with Labour. This would have defeated the principle arguments against PR.
It now appears (to the public) as if the LibDems are playing off Tory & Labour for their own partisan advantage, and could end up declining to take part in government at all, after all that. This will not play well. It is also the best advert against PR that you could imagine.
I wonder if all your South West of England stronghold of LibDem voters will be happy that they end up taking a bigger financial hit as a result of you climbing into bed with the SNP/PC/DUP rainbow club?
I hope it collapses and Liebor take you down with them.
This is a very dangerous game.The British public will feel that a lib / lab coalition is not “fairplay” and punish us at
the next elections .After the exp scandel there is no way they will put up with it..I believe we will be seen as persuing selfintrest rather than the greater good .The goodwill that Nick generated will evaporate ,the public are shocked and are already angry and dissolusioned by politics,England is proud of its fairplay traditions, even if the electoral system is unfair, there is still a clear winner within the rules and trying to ignore the outcome will alienate
voters for many years to come .
Look, so many things on this.
To keep it simple. The media is clearly surprised at this turn of events. The limited imaginations of the lackeys called ‘journalists’ these days can’t understand these concepts.
There’s three main losing parties. They are trying to negotiate a government.
It is already known in some circles that the Cons will attempt to force a vote if they do not win.
The thing is, even their votes don’t add up to the votes of the lib dem lab alliance
So the Conservatives don’t just lack a democratic mandate in the house, they also lack it in the country.
Lab and Lib Dems will find more communality. What makes this interesting is that a PR system will actually benefit the smaller parties, and as an exercise in participative democracy I can’t help but thinking if Sinn Fein would come along and take their seats, arguing that the cons would side with the ulster unionists at a pinch, and the future of an independent ireland is ill-served by this.
I think a hung parliament could serve as a vehicle to a better form of democracy for our country. And I don’t believe the COnservatives see their best interests as served by the evolution of such a democracy.
I think a lot of you need to calm down a bit. It’s a very difficult decision to make, should the Lib Dems join the Conservatives their days as a 3rd party will be over. By talking to Labour they are merely cultivating options but frankly Reform is dead no matter what but it stands a better chance of making it under a Labour deal than having Cameron propose it then campaign against it. Ignore the talk of a coalition of losers, all 3 were losers that’s why we’re in this situation now. Brown has gone so what’s the harm in seeing what happens with the Labour party. Even if they form a coalition it will represent over 50% of those who voted. It’s not like there’d be another election soon anyway.
So David Milliband won’t be on Labour’s negotiating team. Convenient for him.
This will allow him to wriggle out of any Lib/Lab deal during his honeymoon period in the autumn and go to the country so that he’s not “unelected”. We’ll get trounced by both Labour and the Tories because of our appearance of putting Party before Country.
For heaven’s sake WAKE UP AND START THINKING OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS!!
Clegg has shown himself today to be – guess what – a politician. If that’s upset the people who thought he walked on water, more fool them.
The whiff of power has intoxicated Clegg and his party – and it’s easy to see they are not used to it.
Remember the story of Icarus – and Clegg is flying very close to the sun at the moment.
“How on earth can The Liberal Party begin to consider joining up with the Labour Party, and all the other small parties, the whole things a farce.
…
By the way, I am a Labour voter, but I do believe in fairness.”
To use a phrase I hoped I never would have to – yeah, right.
Look lets keep it simple
The public want a lib/con coalition ,by a 66% according to the Sunday Times
The public will abhour a new unelected Labour leader foisted on them
One whose polices they dont know, one who wasnt subject of the scrutiny of the leadership debates,one who is presiding over them because of backroom deals,and probably owes his election to the sinister power of the Unions
A LIB;LAB pact will be the ultimate betrayal of the public who want real change
The present negotiations are a showcase for how PR could produce the governments of the future.
The discussions started well, in statesman-like fashion: but the recent suggestions of a deal with Labour will seem to be shabby and underhand to many voters, and may well cause PR to be rejected in a future referendum.
Re: The Sunday Times poll which claimed ‘the publc’ want a Lib Dem COn pact.
It’s not what the voters said. And is this the same ‘TImes’ that told us Cameron stole the second debate, when, erm, everybody else knew he didn’t?
I’m not sure a Times survey is worth the paper-thin editorial credibility it is now printed on. Take a look at Sky’s political reportage for more of the same.
More people voted against the COns than for anyone. Same can be said for all parties, but lib dems and lab are inherently more progressive than the conservatives. HINT: You can see the COns resistance to change in their name, ‘COnservatives’/
Some contributors need to mature. The negotiations are delicate and talking to both sides is now appropriate even if there are reasons why things may not succeed. Don’t think Nick has done anything dishonourable – everyone involved knows we are talking to both sides. It sensible.
A deal is desirable and probably one involving cabinet posts – it will be more stable – the term may be the issue. It takes time to get this right and sure we may have game played / scenario planned this but I don’t think that the other parties did. Time is needed to allow people to shift their ground and sound out colleagues.
Patience is a virtue!
Chris
I agree, this move is a PR disaster for PR.
For those who think this process is a reason to avoid PR as it means hung parliaments and more of this, there are two things to remember:
1. PR is much fairer to the voters – all votes count equally – whether you get a hung parliament is dependent on how people vote. The present split represenation could easily recur again here with FPTP – its not guaranteed to prouce majorities especially with social / demographic change and breakdown in loyalty to the two old parties.
2. The parties expect to have to negotiate and anticipate this in advance so the election campaigns are not so tribal – more adult discussion about options and implementation.
Take you time Mr Clegg, the pressure to rush is bullshit. Those of us with brains and that don’t buy the right wing controlled filth rag newspapers want a fair system of voting change, parliamentary ethnic cleansing, and to clean out those hereditary Lords! This is why we voted LD, and why the country could not make a majority decision. The Tories are suffering from attacks of diarrhoea! 🙂
I ask for the nth time, when did the country start electing leaders of the political parties?
I was under the obvious (mis) apprehension that I elected an MP, and from that party a leader was elected. I obviously missed the bit on the ballot paper which said “elect David Cameron as your prime minister”. Besides if we are to follow the logic of the rubbish being spouted on here by conservatives then David Cameron is also an “unelected prime minister” as less than 37% of the country voted for him.
If you are going to troll, do it properly.
Okay peeps One element everyone is missing is this….
Cameron has doubled back on his own manifesto tonight with a complete U turn in desperation to get the keys to number 10. Labour so far have not gone back on manifesto and Brown stepping down is a clear path for talksand was something we all knew would have happened if anything was to be discussed with the Libdems.
Personally I dont have problems with Brown – as a chancellor he made living affordable and rebuilt decades of conservative damage to schools hospitals and alot of the UK infrastructure. Yes we are in debt but look at therest of the world – Labour could have killed us completely and I believe Brown as an experianced chancellor and then PM did his best and we are in his debt that we’re not Greece currently .
NOW consider this…. Why would Conservative want such a ‘wasted’ Britian – simple they want the control of the banks and to profiteer in the flotation and privitisation of the UK banks. They did it with BT and the Railways in the 80’s and they simply want to line their pockets even more. They love high percentage interest rates as they get their pockets filled thru share ownership…
FPTP secures a conservative government for at least a decade if we back the tories, and they will drop Libdem faster than you could say ‘Oops’.
PR actually is good for the tories in Scotland and in a reformed UK system they’d have a larger % than the other parties as they had a majority of 2M extra votes. But will benefit us all in fairness. We hear the ‘if we have PR we’d have debates like these libdem tory coalition talks all the time’ personally thats whats needed. none of this we’re right your not , and for god sake loos party whips let the MP’s represent their local areas, after all thats what they joined public service for.
What worries me is this ‘US and them’ Scotland/Wales/Ireland v conservative england. This is not a good way to united the country – the snp will look for independance which is not what a the majority in scotland want. A deal with snp, libdem labour and udp actually builds bridges and unites the country to work closer together and as we all need each other will keep labour spending in check and resolve the financial mess we have. I’ve jumped over to the tory blogs and they are so biggoted and anti anything thats not England.
Conservatisim has killed uk manufacturing and big industry – almost killed the NHS in the 80s leading us to private medical care if your i doubt thats why bupa even exists. BUT they complain at working with Europe and China – where else are we going to get the things we need day to day we dont make anything anymore..
Whilst your all in Media frenzy about Big bad Brown – he actually reversed 18+ years of tory abuse and has left us with a better infrastructure than we’d have had under the tories. The debt we have is the Banks and we’ll benefit when we sell the public shares in small lumps as we recover and hopefully not line the conservatives pockets too much in doing so. The other debt is down to the world economic crisis and we’d be in a worse place if the tories had been in power. I mean am I alone in thinking that George Osborne is just too young to be chancellor and still has his silver spoon firmly in his left cheek….
anyway hope Nick reads this and chooses the right path and unites the country and doesn lead us into a decade of problems.
Chris & James;
If the Traffic Light Coalition of the left works for the two years necessary to pass an electoral reform bill, then a referendum on PR will pass. This situation could be considered a trial run.
I have never written before but as a libdem supporter since I was old enough to vote I find tonight my blood boiling with the shameful duplicitous way our party has conducted itself these last few days. I consider myself a patriot and on the British side of fairness and integrity. Will someone please explain how our insane pursuit of PR & a seat at the table is a worth consigning us to the footnote of political history?
A very ‘progressive’ David Cameron and his party set aside their values and offered us an olive branch of an opportunity. All we had to do was do as nick promsed and work in the country’s interest and provide the conversation with the party with the closest pub
lic mandate.
However what did we do? We took our 57 seats ….that’s right 57 ! And got GREEDY!
We may have damaged our credibility for a generation and kicked PR into the deep long grass!
Message to Nick Clegg: if you love your party, your country and your career do the right thing and endorse Cameron by midday Tuesday and be a part of the change, Help shape the change and change the next election in your favour!t
Why endorse Cameron he’s already proved himself untrustworthy in his actions – his own manifesto has been burned in his own greed for no 10.
Unite the UK rainbow….
@Paul
Nick may not have done anything dishonourable, but that doesn’t matter as it APPEARS to the public that he has, Surely you must have learned the importance of appearances from the first TV debate?
We will have a difficult job persuading Joe Public that everyone knew with the BBC and printed media telling them otherwise. If this was thought through then it wasn’t thought through very well.
The other Parties do appear to be shifting their ground, but in particular the Tories (Hague and Gove especially) are coming across as being much more fair, open to movement and reasonable than we are. And in the eyes of the electorate they shouldn’t need to because they won. It is foolish to think that this will not have consequences at a later election.
They didnt ‘win’ they arent open they just burned their own promises..
why is it that every party loathes and i mean hates the tories to the point a rainbow alliance is even being ‘urged'(words of many rainbow leaders)
Nobodys shifting just breaking promises they made to 12million
Just remember that proportional representation will always lead to coalitions, unless one party gets 50%+ votes (The conservatives managed that in 1931, but no time since). What we are seeing now is pretty much what will happen normally in an electoral system run by proportional representation.
We need to remember that the presence of the Liberal Democrats and other minor parties will act to moderate any policies promoted by either the Tories or by Labour. If a Con/Lib-Dem coalition existed (which it won’t but I’ll use it as an example), it would not mean that the Lib-Dems would become the rubber stamps of Conservative policy. If the Tories decided to cut welfare spending by 50%, increase taxes on the poor by 200% and cut taxes on the rich by 75% you won’t see the Lib-Dems supporting it no matter what coalition they have gotten themselves into. Instead, the Conservatives will have to grit their teeth, hit a few punching bags and then produce legislation that the Lib Dems would support.
In other words, the presence of the Lib Dems in controlling the balance of power will (theoretically) prevent any horrible legislation from being passed – either by the Conservatives or Labour. This is the nature of a hung parliament, and it is the nature of almost every government using proportional representation.
I agree that PR is an essential way to make for a fairer society, but would suggest that we keep a represensitive system with much fewer representatives to stop parties like the BNP gaining a foothold , and to reduce costs and expences of course.But for the public this is not what matters now, what matters is the economy and stability,and
honesty,thats what we need to offer
No they didn’t “win” but that doesn’t matter either as the Public perception is that with a gain of nearly 100 seats and with Labour and us losing seats they won. Is this really such a difficult concept people?
If we wanted to be perceived as fair we should have dealt honestly with the Tories before we got into bed with Labour. Mandelson’s spoor is all over this – all Labour want to do is get a new leader elected and have another go. If they can make us look indecisive and duplicitous in the meantime then that’s a bonus for them.
electorial reform is MORE important than considering stability as the reform will deliver stability FPTP is give us a runaway government like the tories in the 80’s.
PR helps libdem view but it helps conservative just as much in othr parts of the country. Dont read the papers think what you’d do… the media have their own agenda to eithr fill time(the BBC and TV ) and sell newspapers..
Yes Mandelson is over this… but Labour without reform would probably not get another term. The tories will be in power for another 10 – 20 years if they get in and they wont honour electorial reform thats something I’m sure of.
65% didnt vote Conservative. Even with the worst finances in history they didnt trounce over labour they did get more turnout tho and thats something your all forgetting.
Whats annoys me most is that they used dodgy taxpayers dosh to fund their election how honest is that – an im sure lord ascroft has a plan to make triple his investment back from the tories being in power..
always thought that the lib dems were maybe a little bit different , i was dumbfounded to hear the % vote against the seats allocated – after hearing about the “secret” labour talks and the posturing no one should ever mention the way “those tories or those labour” behave – so disappointed that you are carbon copies.
floating voter but at least was someone who votes – but who cares by what method , PR, FPTP – it means nothing – its not the vote that counts its the secret deals they cut for themselves.
susan – PR makes it proportional and the vote does matter in thats scenario.
Secret tlks happen just like they do in any business an relationship….thats life the vote needs to count tho..
I don’t have much patience for those who say the Tories didn’t win, in any other walk of life they would be picking up a trophy or securing some reward for their achievement. I don’t recall my ballot paper having a box for a new party called the Progressives, just us, them and the ‘can’t stand anymore’ party!
If we are not careful, by sidelining a slumbering silent English majority in a pact cobbled together by a failed PM, Mandelson and Campbell, luring NIck into an impotent rainbow shower of a coalition will prove dangerous to us and the union. The English won’t forgive us and right now as one of them I feel very betrayed by our party , we may rue the day we flirted with Machievelli Mandy!
so why secret with labour but open about tories ? to fit in with initial statement ? why not open about both – then the public would think that at least they are cracking on with things.
joining the Conservatives will loose the party at least 8 of its 11 seats in scotland and others in wales and the few in england that are close to the wire. Conservative deal will drop seats by almost 40 – 60 %.
Okay Labour isnt great but a change of leader will renew labour support – libdem involvment will give us electorial reform and once reformed make it a better system. Labour and Cons dont like it as they have too much too loose but the country will win bettwe solutions to it’s problems.
secret is more about keeping the media away, and to see what was on the table without affecting the conservative deal… the word ‘secret’ is probably media hype they wernt wearing macs and looking like some dodgy bogart typespy or jimmy bond…
Think for yourselves avoid media nonsense……
I have to say I find this high-handed Tory stance quite an insult to the population of this country. I fully support Mr Clegg’s assertion of the ‘moral’ authority of the Conservative position. However I am dismayed at how easily Tory propaganda seems to be slipping into the mainstream. It is true that a Lib-Lab Coalition does not produce an elected Prime Minister. But neither does a Lib-Con. In this country an ‘Elected’ Prime Minister is one who receives a parliamentary majority from the ballot box, which not one party (and therefore leader) did.
As far as I am concerned all sides have acted properly (although the Tories have shown astonishing naivety). In the end this country is built on the rule of law (something Tories claim to support). So for me, Mr Cameron can scream ’til he is blue in the face about his moral authority. Labour have a constitutional legal authority, nay obligation, to form a government if no other appears able to (as Lib-Con talks stick on essential ideological issues).
For me and many others, a choice between Moral Right and Constitutional Right is no choice at all. I have faith Mr Clegg will continue his magnificently principled representation of the party and its supporters.
I hope what will transpire is this,the MPs will go to bed,wake up and realise that they cant believe they were ready to countenance a Mephistopheles deal with an unelected Labour politican like Mandy,theyll shudder ,regain some self respect and do whats best for the country. the country wants us there to keep the con honest,and theyll get the best real deal they can from them. god willing
Hi, first time poster.
Just want to ask any Lib Dem activists out there, as the smallest of the three big parties, how long are you going to hold the country and it’s peoples’ future hostage? Also what do you actually think you will gain from it ?
James as much avid fan of Top Gear I can back you on cars but not on backing the conservatives. Especially when they publically destroy their manifesto for greed and more than likley u turn on any discussions and agreements they make wih the libdems.
Thatcher aside Cameron and co are not strong doing what they did last night – theyre desperate.
apply that same leadership to running the country… nope not the stability we need.
Stability isnt always what you ‘like’ perhaps stability needs to be experiance – the cons dont have that.
I hope you are right, never confuse short term sucess with long term strategy ! Whoever is running the negotiations for us, should have learned to play chess in their past…because like in the 3rd debate, from what I can see, we’ve just been forked and soon it will be be check mate with a queen running the show !
borders guy i am thinking for myself thank you
i am not a member of a political party but always vote – so recent events make me feel all parties are the same – self interest and ego.
i don’t know all the figures and workings of this method and that – my instinct is it stinks ! I always felt that the lib dems were a more “honest” party. i just think its damaging – suppose we better hope i’m not “the average voter” .!
so i feel its not the vote that counts – its get power any which way.
pretty dismal
Fully support Nick’s stance. It is the duty of the LibDem leadership – on behave of our 6.8 million voters – to negotiate to ensure we are able to implement as much of the four priority issues and our manifesto as we can. A deal which is sustainable and supported by the majority of the population is worth spending a few days working on. Keep up the good work, I’m sure whatever is decided will be in the national interest.
Having said that (and as a generally left-leaning supporter) I think a deal with Labour will be almost impossible – they do not have the discipline within their own party for a deal to last, and have no desire to remain in power.
When you spoke on Conservative’s majority of votes over Labour and the country had shown that they no longer had faith in Labour’ being able to govern, I took my hat off to you for standing by your princibles. But as the days went on proof became clear that you do not have the countries interests at heart. We are in dire straits economically , therefore this should take priority and be the only issue at this present time. Yes there are other important issues but some of these we were led to beleive all parties seemed to agree on in their pre election speaches. The health service and care for the sick and the elderly for example. This bartering and holding the other parties to ransom does nothing but damage to your party and you have plummeted in my esteem , Should the country be plunged into yet another farcical election it will be of your doing and therefore you will not get be getting my vote
im not an activist nor a member either – Ive always backed libdem becasue of the same reasons as you did this year. I do see that the system needs PR hacing witnessed the scottish parliament and how the greens even got seats PR does just that it gives a far better way of working.
When you watch westminster its a rabble of kids – scottish parliament is far more structured and balanced. It still has its flaws but it feels fairer and looks it with the mix of MSP’s
Conservative and Labour dont want PR but to quote ‘annibel goldie’ = the conservatives were always against the idea of a scottish parliament but it’s given the conservative party a scottish platform on an MSP perspective .
PR will deliver a far better britian and we need it so badly but Conservatives just wont deliver and will kill our party to a lower number of seats than 57 – thats something I dont want to see happen..
Well we have to see if we can try to make it work with Labour then.
Good grief! If that was their ‘final offer’; the possibility of something we don’t particularly want with the caveat they’re actually going to /campaign against it/ what the heck were the earlier offers like
“We, the Conservative party, will call for a referendum on whether ballot papers should be printed in larger, sans serif fonts. Though if we manage to keep control of our backbenchers enough to get the bill passed, we will make our case against it to the country.”
Maybe a few more hung parliaments will learn them some humility. Seriously; you can’t put allow millions of public sector workers to be put out of work just because of fear history of the electorate will judge us harshly because we didn’t accept when the Tories offered us nothing.
And… in the words of Penn & Teller… and then there’s this asshole: http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2010/05/10/developments-and-observations/comment-page-4/#comment-42731 He’s put public sector workers out of business just to keep Glasgow a Labour rotten borough. Hooray for Harris! Utter, utter man-of-principle.
@Ian – I’ve been voting Liberal Democrat for all of my adult life. I’d like to see at least one of our policies enacted if we’re to go into government. We don’t think a fairer electoral system is too much to ask, is it?
wendy
you know when your a kid your parents say to let little johnny play with your toys – but you know that even when you show him how to play nice and not to wreck them he kills you favourite toys and walks away scot free without any guilt and doesnt consider others… The conservatives are little Johnny and they will wreck all your favourite toys – the economy – care for the elderly – the nhs. and why -‘because the conservatives are right’ regardless of consequence to anyone that surrounds them. Youll never hear Cameron say ‘I was wrong’ or ‘im sorry’.
The only common sense to be spoken today has been that of John Reid staunch Labourite . Oh to have more men like him with principles. Listen to his words of wisdom and fairness and stop all this nonsense.
I think the thing to do is for the Lib Dems to make a deal with whoever offers proportional representation for parliament. This makes more sense as the current voting system did not create an outright winner, remembering that the Labour government only got 28% of the vote, not exactly an endorsement and mandate to govern. The whole election process has been totally shambolic.
I am sure no matter which party Nick goes with will result in another election with in the next 18 months, i would snatch Labours hand off to get AV STRAIGHT away as that will virtually guarantee us more seats in the next 18 months.
Also the possibility of the Conservatives going to the country A.S.A.P.if they think it will gain them a majority in 6 months time saying that the Liberals are stopping them from instigating cuts etc….both we and Labour with no money to fight another election would be a push over.
The choice is a no brainer with how the conservatives work
i think this will turn out like the florida election for Bush – even though the circumstances are very different – he never escaped the “Hail to the Thief” moniker.
What a moron you are borders guy….
What are you rambling on about, no doubt you still hope for labour to cling on somehow, but against the democratic will of the electorate?? I so hope we don’t prop up your rejected government, what is Nick thinking?
Yeah yeah nobody won blah blah blah.
I would hate a Tory government, but the election didn’t benefit us as much as I hoped and it certainly rejected Labour. As much as it pains me the Tories did make sweeping gains, and have the biggest mandate.
That aside the only stable governement could be a Lib/Con, as much as I would love a progressive alliance.
A true progresive Lib/Lab pact is enticing ,we are ideologically close, but not now and not in this way. Not by shameful back room deals that seem grubby and duplictous. Not to prop up a rejected and corrupt government, who have double crossed us, and would still have Gordon Brown as PM for 6 months and then a replacement nobody at the general election has seen.
As much as I am all for PR and and a progressive alliance, Nick is making a big mistake in trying to cobble that together now in this way – He made some big claims during the election campaign, about cleaning up politics etc. We are going to lose all credibility – this does seem like a stitch up and not Liberal, free or fair.
Labours manifesto Borders guy had a promise of A REFERENDUM on AV, and that the people would decide. Having intially acted with decorrum to allow the Libs to speak to the party with the most seats and most votes, Labour have done nothing other than shamelessly try and scupper those talks, hold secret talks themselves, and have
BROKEN THEIR MANIFESTO PROMISES
By not giving the public a vote on AV as promised, instead of prostituting themselves in a shameless power grab and saying they will change the voting system with no referendum. I really want something new, but I want to win the argument, not gain it by selling our soul. NuLabour also promised us in 97 and lied, everyone knows Brown was dead against it until his death bed conversion just to try and keep power by any means – the public are not so stupid that they cannot see right through this.
Labour Under Milliband in opposition may well have won the next election, and we could have formed an alliance that kept the Tories out for good, you’d be wise to head the words tonight of David Blunkett and John Reid.
Mandelson may get away with this chicanery in the next few weeks but the price to pay will be high for Lib Dems. The majority feel that Labour is maken a brazen attempt to overturn the election results (The Lib Dems will choose who governs and the Labour Party the next PM) – Nobody voted for this – for all your spinning. This is not change
We may not like the Tories (i have spent a life fighting against them), but they are the ones who have acted with most integrity in the past few days.
the current Labour administration are shameless power whores who will do ANYTHING, and it saddens me that we are proving to be duplicitous and willing bedfellows.
I reckon we will lose a vote of whatever system Labour puts forward (if they actually do), and the price at the ballot box will be huge.
A minority Lib/Lab rainbow coalition is far far more risky at this time than con/lib or supply and demand.
Sort it out Nick
I voted Liberal Democrat, even though I live in Windsor, a very safe Conservative seat with an admirable and honest MP – Adam Afriyie. Adam is a good local MP and I still congratulate him on his win.
However, I’m a Lib Dem supporter and I have a few observations that I must express – I don’t think that I’m alone in my views, and I think that I’m typical of a new breed of Lib Dem supporter:
1. I voted for the whole of the Lib Dem manifesto.
2. Even a majority government sometimes has to sacrifice or water down some aspects of its manifesto. The manifesto should be seen as an ideal – a set of aims that we strive for, but we shouldn’t get too hung up if we don’t score 100% – we also live in the real world.
3. I had no other rationale for voting Lib Dem than expressing my democratic preference as I wasn’t realistically going to get the Lib Dem candidate elected in Windsor, and nor could my vote be described as tactical.
4. I was hoping for a balanced parliament as a means of having some of the Lib Dem policies see the light of day. The various balanced parliament scenarios were all outlined before the election. Did the hierarchy not have agreed plans in advance?
5. Of course I’m very keen on some form of electoral reform as I’d like to see my vote count for more than it does, but I still do not regard the voting system as being more important than any other current issue!
6. Given that Lib Dem leaders were apparently keen on change and saw a balanced Parliament as an opportunity, I am disappointed that the party hierarchy was apparently not already largely united in its negotiating strategy! It’s very disappointing to see the 57 MPs in apparent disarray.
7. We must put the “National Interest” first or be judged very harshly. It’s OK to engage in simultaneous ‘speed dating’ but a binding and united decision still has to be made fairly quickly- even if this eventually had to go through the full triple lock process. However if we have to use the full process it might say something for our brand of democracy but nothing for our own internal unity or ability to follow an elected leader. The national interest requires decisiveness, and not be perceived as navel gazing! This is not good PR.
8. We came third and – to paraphrase that ghastly expression from the debates – “Let’s get real”. If we’d had a breakthrough in the GE – e.g. if we’d come second and if our seat tally had gone up by 10-20 seats – we might have had more bargaining power, but the only realistic stable option is a Lib-Con coalition.
9. A deal with Labour would only have been a possible option if, combined, we had enough seats to create a two-party coalition majority (323+ and preferably more) – as anything requiring more than two parties (after previous single-party government) is really stretching the general public credibility too far, not to mention the suspicion that ever smaller partners than us will also try to overplay their hands.
10. All three parties were dealt poor hands. How you play poor hand takes the greater skill. Please show some maturity and reach a quick decision and earn the nation’s respect. I simply cannot believe that petty rivalries and poor judgment risk turning our disappointment into a disaster – snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
In conclusion, I have to say that – as a pragmatic realist – electoral reform is not the biggest burning issue that I once thought it was. We can surely only earn the nation’s respect and continued support now by accepting the latest Conservative coalition offer with good grace and – in parentheses – with an expression of regret and disappointment about not achieving even more electoral reform than what is on offer. We must take this opportunity to prove ourselves to be the more creative and more effective (even if junior) partner in a Con-Lib coalition government. We need to earn national respect if we want complicated voting reform – and not just because we have needed it. We have a chance to shine – why walk away from it?
Nick – you may have to call the bluff of the “Lib Dem-Labour” support wing. Tell them to support you or to leave the party! This is all now unravelling at lightening speed and the Liberal Democrat party is looking like it may well be the biggest casualty of the 2010 election even before the Queen’s speech. Time has almost run out and a lack of Lib Dem preparedness and unity are two key reasons are they not? Please pull them all together quickly. My sense is that you have achieved all that you can from Cameron’s team, and you still need to maintain a good working relationship.
Footnote – we may have to accept that some on the left wing of the party will leave, but in return we’ll pick or more from the progressives to our right.
to steve vote 4 change
first time on any message board and accept i do not know the intricate workings of all political matters BUT your point 7 is exactly what i have been trying to get across. Perception is everything. So if i am average floating voter i now feel disappointed and see lib dems as the same as the others.
Sorry so simplistic but the damage has started.
susan
Thanks – this was my first post too. Now waiting to be flamed!
yeah but all the “technical” arguments given don’t take account of what normal people want or feel – i went from anticipation yesterday to feeling two fingers had just been stuck up at me today. Which most people already feel after the expenses fiasco.
Poor old Nick. If he leans left the right of the party WILL NEVAR VOTE LIB DEM AGAINZ and if he leans right, the left of the party start yelling the same. The worst thing he can do is stay in the middle, because then EVERYONE hates him and we get none of our manifesto pledges met.
Nick didn’t ask to be in this position, we voted him into it. So those of you claiming he has overstepped his mandate should go and check your facts. He has all the power in the negotiations, he IS the kingmaker whether you (or, frankly, he) likes it or not.
80% of the membership seem to be agreed that PR is the most important thing in these discussions. Yes, the economy is potentially a more important issue for the nation, but the parties are all agreed that that is the case and, broadly, in how to deliver recovery. For that reason, it has second place in these talks; there isn’t much to debate, where there is compromises can be found easily, and none of it is likely to be deal breaking to a coalition.
I have other opinions on which coalition I lean towards and why but, I won’t double post them. Broadly, I think the Tory party’s interests do not lie in a stable coalition and, once we help them get Cameron to No10, they will back out and choose to govern as a minority. Labour, for all that coalition looks wobbly, is probably actually the most stable choice. There’s more details here: http://goo.gl/wjHB
Just a couple of other minor things that just occurred to me:
1) If the Tories didn’t think Nick would be pursuing negotiation with Labour, they were fools. That isn’t shady or dishonest; it’s common sense, and it’s politics. Anyone claiming that they wouldn’t have done the same in Nick’s position are, quite simply, lying to themselves. Get over it.
2) Saying that Labour won’t deliver electoral reform now because they didn’t for the last 13 years is to misunderstand the realities of government. Labour could never have acted on that manifesto pledge while they were in power, it was a suicidal idea and would have made them a laughing stock; their own MPs would have revolted and voted it down in seconds. Not to mention, it simply hasn’t been a priority for the nation as a whole in that time. If Blair or Brown had taken time away from their various other activities to pursue reform, they would have been criticized. Incidentally, if we ever did usurp one of the other parties and achieve a parliamentary majority of our own, you can guarantee electoral reform would be the first policy we dropped. it simply is not practical for a party in power to deliver it.
The only way it could ever happen is via a hung parliament and a coalition. There is support for reform of some sort within the Labour party (not true of the conservatives) and now they are in a position to act upon it. The time is now.
FOUNDATIONAL CONSENSUS
A significant problem with any Liberal/Conservative agreement, is that it can only agree upon current issues. Any
reliably stable government must also be able to deal with future issues as yet unforeseen.
A Liberal/Labour alliance would have a more “Foundational Consensus”, that would provide a reliable stability.
We must also remember that we need more than confidence in our government, we also need the world to have confidence in the reliable stability of our country.
Graham Mantle
I hope it is now clear that the most Labour or the Conservatives are able to offer is a public referendum on AV.
Aside from the fact that this rainbow coalition doesn’t add up, we’d frankly look rather churlish to reject a Lib/Con coalition now, with a comprehensive set of compromises, cabinet seats & the same offer on AV as Labour offer. And at least Hague was honest about keeping the option open to campaign against it, because Labour would likely do the same.
What a morally deficient position. So, it’s okay to double-deal ‘cos everyone else is doing it? All within the rules, as MPs said when they flipped their homes.
Those saying they wouldn’t have done so might actually be telling the truth, because they recognize that they have been elected as public servants and that there are other ways to hold the State the account than grabbing personal positions for themselves. Especially if they’re MPs.
Excellent post by stevevotes4change at 2:26 says it all really.
What I don’t understand is what all the babies who are going to leave the Party if we deal with X or Y are doing there in the first place. Look at the name – Liberal DEMOCRATS. Part of being a Democrat has to be respecting the wishes of the majority and, lets be honest for a moment, the majority were always going to vote for other parties last week. We were rejected by 77% of the electorate for heaven’s sake, so let’s just get on with doing the right thing by the country (not necessarily the Party) before the other 23% get fed up too!!
It is now clear that a referendum on AV is what we’d get from either party. There already is a set of other concessions with the Tories worked out, do we really need to lose the last of our credibility by starting drawn out “negotiations” with Labour when that party has voiced clearly that THEY can’t see this working? Never mind the fact that the numbers just do not add up!
stevevotes4change – well said, and just think maybe the Conservatives will also shed some of their extremists.
LD membership went up by some 5000 recently so to be blunt they can probably afford to lose those hypocrites who insist on PR at all cost while at the same time proving themselves incapable of actually working with the results of such a system, eg two parties forming stable coalitions, cooperating, talking to each other And making compromises.
Or a Con-Lab… go on, it could work!
Alec – I don’t have the link but there was a funny blog post to that avail over the weekend…
A Lib-Lab deal is untenable in so many ways, that it is sad to see so many Lib Dem members arguing for it .
1) Lib Dem members should be in_favour_ of our values, not members because they are _against_ the Conservatives. I’m a member myself and am usually fighting Conservatives. But I’m fighting for our values, not because I’m “anti-Tory”. If my fellow members can’t see the difference, then they should cease to be members.
2) The votes for Lib-Lab don’t add up. Any deal, whether on voting reform or another issue, _will_ fall on a handful of rebels. This is no way to run a country, and Lib Dems would look terrible for it.
3) Changing the voting system without a referendum is utterly unacceptable. As the party of liberal democracy that should be totally obvious. That some members are arguing for it is, frankly, obscene.
4) Gordon Browns resignation plan changes nothing. Nick Clegg would be concluding a deal with GB with no idea who the new leader would be. Why would a new leader want to sign up to the same deal? I expect at least one candidate would argue for breaking the deal. And can anyone actually picture the chaos of holding a leadership election while holding together a minority coalition deal? This is nonsense, plain and simple.
5) Many in the Labour party _want_ to go into opposition. Just listen to David Blunkett or John Reid. It should be clear as to why this is beneficial to them – they need a rest from Government – a time to recover. Frankly, those on the left of the party should consider Labour going into opposition to be a good thing, as it will allow them to be stronger next time around.
In summary, its time to make a decision. I sense that the public were comfortable with the process until yesterday, but are now getting restive. There is a Con-Lib deal there. Of course its not perfect – we didn’t get 326 seats, so it won’t be!!!
Its time to show we are a real political party and not just a group of malcontents. Its time to say YES to the Conservatives and Govern.
LD membership went up by some 5000 recently so to be blunt they can probably afford to lose those hypocrites who insist on PR at all cost while at the same time proving themselves incapable of actually working with the results of such a system, eg two parties forming stable coalitions, cooperating, talking to each other And making compromises.
That’s a bit of a nonsense statement. You can’t bitch that people who don’t want a coalition with the Conservatives are incapable of working with another party when the other solution requires us to work with many more!
What a morally deficient position. So, it’s okay to double-deal ‘cos everyone else is doing it?
No. It’s ok to do it because it is the most logical and sensible thing to do. Cutting yourself off from making the best deal possible because it requires negotiating with two people at once is daft. Personally, I see no need to keep the Labour negotiations secret, but I certainly don’t see it as morally bankrupt either; you don’t hand your opponents all the cards in a game of poker.
Ellie, I was referring to people against either coalition. If people voted for Lib Dems and or insist on PR at any cost, and now spit their dummies because we’re actually faced with exactly the kind of situation that would inevitably result from this sort of system, you just have to ask yourself how those two mindsets can work together.
I’m a floating voter who has voted Lib Dem in the past, but who voted Tory in the GE. In my opinion the Lib Dems are already damaged by yesterday’s events and will be punished next time round. The question is how much – if they settle on the Tories they will redeem themselves a little, if they go with Labour they will be crushed next time.
I actually voted Lib Dem in the local elections this time, but would find it hard to do so again given the dishonest actions of the party yesterday. It’s a shame – I welcomed real three party politics, and don’t have a problem with reform of the voting system but I think that both of these are now dead in the water – way to go, Lib Dems.
Stephen C,
Why are the people arguing for a ConDem coalition any less for Lib Dem values than those arguing for it? Certainly our philosophy as a party is closer to Labour’s than the Conservatives.
The numbers do add up, we just have to do it with even more parties involved. Tricky, but not impossible. No, it won’t be as strong as a ConDem coalition but the data (and last time I checked, one of our biggest strengths was basing our decisions on evidence rather than ideology) shows strong governments actually create more debt and are worse at tackling deficits than weak ones. Counter-intuitive as it may sound, a slim majority might be better for the economy than a large one.
I said I wouldn’t post the same thing I said about motivation to stick to a deal on another thread, but it seems to bear saying again.
The Tory party know that electoral reform is death for them. It is toxic. They need a coalition for the time it takes to get Cameron into No10 and then they have no reason whatsoever to maintain it. If you think Cameron will keep it together “in the National interest”, you are a fool. All parties think them having the most power is in the national interest, and as soon as that is a possibility, we will be dropped like hot bricks. They will cause the coalition to break apart, weather the storm in the press (won’t hurt them much, most of their voters want them as a minority government anyway) and scrap all their hollow promises.
Labour, on the other hand, do not have enough seats to govern as a minority. Without us they will face a vote of no confidence, trigger a general election and we’ll be back where we are now, or worse.
It doesn’t matter what Cameron offers, he can’t deliver on it. Labour are offering a better deal, and it is one they simply cannot back away from. It also happens to fit with their own philosophy anyway. Don’t forget, a referendum on AV is in their own manifesto. There may be some old dogs who haven’t yet worked out it’s better to be seen to be part of the revolution than standing against it, but I doubt Labour will find it as hard to deliver as some are suggesting. Even old dogs will choose reform over the destruction another election would bring for them.
I’d expect Clegg to negotiate with both sides.
BUT I’d also expect Cameron or Hague to ask him if he’s negotiating with Labour as well. It’s not unreasonable to ask whether you’re in a bidding war, or just hammering out a deal.
If that question WAS asked, I’d expect Clegg to answer honestly. It’s an illustration of integrity and good faith.
I have absolutely no problem with the LDs asking both Conservatives and Labour about possible terms – it’s not “double-dealing”, just sensible negotiation. But I do have a problem if Clegg or Alexander were dishonest.
The fact that Laws was left to swing in the wind with his statement about “clarifications” without mentioning talking to Labour doesn’t look good. The fact that it was Brown who announced Clegg had called him, rather than Clegg himself, also doesn’t look good.
Speak for yourself, Ellie. You’re setting low expectations for yourself, and expecting others to follow.
It may be logical for a selfish individual to push for their best deal, but it’s not sensible because most people are not selfish.
DeanB,
I agree completely with everything you say.
How much time elapsed between the call and the announcment? If the chain of events went from the phone call, to telling the Tories to telling the press with little delay, then that all seems fair and above board to me.
Nick had no obligation to warn the Tories before he made the call and they clearly knew it had happened before we did.
OK, so I rubbished it before but but I start to see how a deal with Labour and the national parties could work. It will be a huge stretch for all concerned but the gains are well worth reaching for.
There needs to be a cast-iron agreement on a limited and short-term programme. The cornerstones would be legislation for AV, but for just one election, and achieving cross-party agreement on a full and realistic deficit reduction programme. Once the new Labour leader is in place and the spending round is agreed an election would be called using AV.
The election would be combined with a referendum on the voting system for future elections; should it be FPTP, AV or STV. (The referendum itself would need to be AV.)
To make this work the national parties (SNP, Plaid, SDLP) need to sign up to a “share the pain fairly” agreement on the deficit reduction plan. But they would each get the opportunity to get some favoured legislation without major financial implications through Westminster.
The result could be a major step towards continuing power for the progressive majority in this country. To carry it through the parties will have to face a huge onslaught from Murdoch, Rothermere and their media jackals. It will require some gravity-defying politics but the prize could be the biggest shift of power in this country since the Great Reform Act of 1832.
Well worth a try.
I have to smile, after reading some posts…
What do I think…not that it matters that much in this sea of rage that is going around at the moment…
Well I think the majority of the country gave a collective sigh the morning after the election, it is obvious that the country does not want or need the blue tide of conservatism, another point is anyone that is going to vote Tory has done so, this was their best chance to regain political power and Tory voters know this, and they failed, the way the right wing press has reacted is disgusting… the UK media and press has lost its impartiality, including Adam Bolton(rage man) who needs a chill pill…
Nick and his advisors have run into a brick wall it’s called their own party and their core beliefs, I don’t think Nick could carry the party as whole to the Tory camp, some will be disenchanted about labour as well but it looks like the least worst option overall.
There is a downside to supporting any potential Tory government, even doing the best Nick can it is obvious he will lose core Lib Dem people, not just voters but card carrying Lib Dem people who cannot accept sleeping with the enemy.
Sadly I think this will be more than anyone thinks, there is a seething undercurrent of feeling about sleeping with the enemy.
The other thing… it does not matter who forms the next government, whatever way Nick decides; he has to look for at least 3 years, 4 years would be better to offer some stability, not just get the deal and cut and run as soon as it is possible to call an election with any new reform, that would look bad.
Today I find I don’t care that much, I did my job by voting, now it is the up to the politicians to do their job, the media and press should back off and let the process work instead of trying to influence the outcome
Of course, the Evil Genius, the Prince of Darkness, Mandy, to use three of his many titles, will come up with an offer hard to refuse: AV+, fresh election in 9 months time and a safe run in each other’s key marginals! We will refuse with honour, but the temptation will be great!
Just joking… I think!
Les – I agree that either way it will lose members and voters, but if we cannot prove we are a valid, sensible party who are actually capable of active & productive government, and more importantly capable of dealing efficiently with the sort of coalition situation that naturally arises from most PR systems, then we will not be taken seriously at the next election, and frankly would not deserve people’s votes again until we’ve had a massive rethink of priorities.
To be honest, the Tories have given us 3 of our 4 key “fairness” agenda points, they are making concessions in our 4th, “fair votes” and they have negotiated with honour in good faith. They did sort of (well almost) “win” the election (whatever that means under FPTP) and together we would command a strong majority in the Commons.
And meanwhile loads of Labour MPs and former MPs have come in front of the TV camera the last couple or three days and said that they don’t want a deal, they would prefer opposition. I don’t think the Labour whips can square that one, it’s looking increasingly fantasy politics.
We should take the honourable and commonsense course. The electors will remember us in the future for playing a firm – but not unreasonable – hand, sticking to our campaign pledges and still dealing honourably. There is only one sensible choice: let’s take it, now.
Makes me smile a little for people who smell long term power and seem to forget that if we go with the Conservatives its the country and tens of thousands of jobs that will suffer…….. or do you actually think that the Tories will want to allow the small signs of growth to shoot before cutting before cutting buning similer to Thacher
“No. It’s ok to do it because it is the most logical and sensible thing to do. Cutting yourself off from making the best deal possible because it requires negotiating with two people at once is daft. Personally, I see no need to keep the Labour negotiations secret, but I certainly don’t see it as morally bankrupt either”
Gosh, with morals like that I wouldn’t want to be your bf/gf. Good relationships have to have a foundation of trust, and once you start two-timing people, that is inevitably undermined.
New politics, fairness….
Can i presume Clegg and the libdem voters are quite happy for all the cuts to fall on England?
To get a deal with the nationalists the government would surely need to promise no cuts in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland: the English taxpayer, who voted overwhelmingly Tory on Thursday will be stiffed once again.
Shamefull…
It may be logical for a selfish individual to push for their best deal, but it’s not sensible because most people are not selfish.
Oh Alec, I appreciate your naivete, really I do.
A so called Rainbow alliance is what PR is all about…if you don’t like the sound of it keep the current system that normally gives us first past the post and occasionally a coalition of 2 parties
Paul:
“We should take the honourable and commonsense course. The electors will remember us in the future for playing a firm – but not unreasonable – hand, sticking to our campaign pledges and still dealing honourably. There is only one sensible choice: let’s take it, now.”
Even if you rule out Labour there are two choices.
Why do you think a coalition would be better than a “supply and confidence” agreement? After all, before the last few days it was widely assumed that the latter would be the preferred course.
Some good points made, particularly by Ellie!
As a lifelong Liberal (since Jo Grimond’s days) frankly, it always seemed to me, generally speaking, that the most principled Conservatives were on the right wing of the party and the most principled members of the Labour party were on its socialist wing. Even though I disliked their principles at least they were not afraid to stand up and be counted. Think Thatcher, Tebbit etc. and (Tony) Benn, Mikado etc. Now Clegg has to stand up for his views and hopefully these largely coincide with those of the party membership. At least on one issue there MUST be no compromise: a binding referendum on AV as a minimum for a genuine coalition. If 50.001 % vote in favour of AV, then there must be no way out for the Tories. Of course the ghastly Murdochian media will campaign against AV which will make it tough for its advocates. Yes, I’d have loved us to have been the largest party but sadly, we are not. Failing that, I would have preferred a Lab-Lib deal, but we simply don’t have enough seats between us. If the Cons are genuine concerning a referendum on AV, then we should be prepared to enter a formal arrangement with them to allow responsible government to follow immediately. If we can’t agree on this, then we talk again with Labour and the smaller parties.
Living now in Australia, I like the fully-elected upper house idea. Beats the H of L hands down. And AV which is used here (as is compulsory voting) is not THAT bad, although it is conceivable that we may not benefit to any great extent from it . But it is a lot fairer than FPTP as it stands in the UK.
If we go in with Labour we will be forever “putting lipstick on a pig”.
the public however will still smell the skunk.
Take a look around, this fiasco has killed your chances of PR people are outraged…
lipstick on a pig, it just isnt KOSHER
Anthony,
No. Better to get our policy pledges implemented. 70% of the electorate are going to get £700 p/a in their pockets next year, thanks to the 6,800,000 who voted Liberal Democrat. Let’s remind them at the next election.
The benefits trap is that work really does not pay for a lot of people. May people could get a low paid job, but they would lose more than they would gain, because they will be taxed heavily. Neither Conservatives nor Labour have really addressed this issue. The Liberal Democrats are about to change this, by raising the threshold at which income tax becomes applicable to £10,000. The Conservatives conceded that point last night. This will produce a genuine huge boost to the economy, that tinkering with the VAT system, for instance, couldn’t. Real free market economics, yet real social justice at the same time, all in one simple measure. You will have an extra £700 in your pocket next year, achieved without Thatcher’s mass unemployment and years of misery, thanks to the 6,800,000 people that voted Liberal Democrat last Thursday. Lets not forget to thank them.
People should refer back to what happened in 1923. At the Election the Conservatives had 37.1% of the total vote with 248 seats, the Liberals had 29.6% with 158 seats and the Labour Party 30.55 with 191 seats
The Liberals decided to support Labour,but the parties soon fell out and another election followed within 10 months. The Liberals were crushed and the Conservatives won overwhelmingly
The Liberals should revisit this experience.
The public spoke loudly against the Labour goverment and yet a Lib-Labour arrangement is being considered. If this goes ahead expect a public outcry and forget the stability required. Whatever the outcome, major cuts are required with the ensuing pain. We need to face up to the situation we are in.
I have been a lifelong floating voter so vote for whoever I think can best govern the country. However, and I regret to say this, I cast my vote negatively rather than positively on the basis that I wanted Labour out!
The electoral mandate is, without a doubt, suggesting that should be a LibDem/Tory coalition. In England, the Labour Party were routed and I do not want to see a so-called ‘Progressive Alliance’ established on the basis of results predominantly from Scotland and Wales. I believe in electoral reform but insistence from the LDP that anything but PR is not enough puts party and principle before the urgent and pressing needs of the country. Further procrastination and posturing risks placing the country in an economic and international position that wil lead to an immense amount of pain over and above that that is already unavoidable.
At a time when the country faces immense financial uncertainty and possibly bankruptcy, I find it extremely saddening that the LDP will not accept what has already been offered and get down to being part of a Government that will have to address this. Putting Party over Country is tantamount to treason and, should the LDP get into bed with Labour ( who reneged previousy on PR) I hold the opinion that the silent majority of England will neither forget nor forgive, punishing the LDP to the extent that the Party will be pushed, if it survives, to the very periphery of English politics.
NIck Clegg is mounting a suicide attack against democracy. In most such operations, the institution survives the damage while the perpetrator and his supporters suffer terrible consequences.
If Clegg and Co. take us into a coalition with Labour they can have my membership card back.
Like many, I am deeply uncomfortable with entering into a coalition with the Tories. I oppose all they stand for. But I also oppose all of what Labour stands for. This idea that we are closer to Labour is a myth perpetuated by the SDP rump which unfortunately seems to dominate the parliamentary party. The Tories believe in a small state which leaves the vulnerable unprotected and a social conservatism which deigns to tell people how to run their lives. Labour believes in a top-down statism which ignores the individual, and which has been artfully mixed in the last decade with a reactionary authoritarianism which has seen them trample all over our liberties. BOTH PARTIES ARE WRONG. That’s why I joined the Lib Dems.
But amidst all the trouble and turmoil of the last years, I have prided myself on belonging to a party or principle. A deal with Labour would wreck this – it would be an act of grubby, self-serving politics to secure our personal aims. It would run counter to everything Clegg has said publically. It would award victory to the losers and the electorate would never forgive us.
Clegg – this really is a choice between head and heart. Do not betray your principles for short-term gain. It would be an act of political suicide. And it would be just plain wrong.
Suffragist – how -by accepting the verdict of the public and seeking to form a stable Governmnet which carries majority support? Sounds okay to me.
The ‘old guard’ in the Tories and Lib Dems seem to have joined an unholy alliance with New Labour (Mandelson, Campbell etc) to screw up the ‘new politics’ that Clegg and Cameron promised and were within a gnats whisker of delivering. No one in their right mind can see a Lib/Lab pact lasting even till Gordon Brown leaves Number 10. My bet is he’ll actually still be there in 12 months time. He ain’t going nowhere till the SAS remove him.
I am a southern supporter of the Lib Dems – none of them would ever vote or support the Labour Party. Lib/Lab coalition would turn England south of the Mersey totally blue at the next election.
Liberal Neil, Quite simply it will not be OK because Clegg said during the campaign and immediately following the election that he would deal ONLY with the party voted the most seats. The public made it clear they wanted Labour out. A large proportion of the populace distrust ALL politicians; should the LDP now do a deal with Labour it will, no matter your misguided interpretation of “majority support”, Clegg will have lied and the LDP will not be trusted. It will be political suicide – and well deserved!
I am 58 years old. I have always voted liberal (or Lib Dem). For all of 30 years I have believed in Proportional Representation. Yesterdays news fills me with horror. When my local candidate (Nigel Qunton) came to my door we chatted and I thought ‘yes its about time I really tried to get involved and do more than just vote for the politics I believe in.
Now PR seems ‘shabby’.
Can the Lib Dems really ‘sell their souls’ with the Labour party just do get PR or an form of it? The answer aooears to be ‘yes’.
Lib/Lab coalition means that the voters in England will have been deserted. The Scottish/Welsj Nationalists are on my TV screen regularly telling us they will ‘fight for their respective interests’ in a rainbow coalition and their support will be needed. They already have their assemblies….the vote in England itself was overwhelmingly Tory but apparently that doesn’t matter.
If the Lab/Lib arrangement happens.
1. It will not sustain and provide the enduring stable government we so desperately need.
2. The whole idea of PR will be devalued for people like me.
I will be unable to support the Lib Dems again. I must rethink my views on PR.
They must be many like me
Did anyone else hear late last night that Cameron has brought back into his shadow cabinet 3 right wingers ?
Lib Dems, you really are missing the public mood here……. You may get a dream Lib/Lab coalition, but you will be doing so with G brown at the helm of a minority government that was trounced at the GE, then foistering another PM who the public haven’t seen before.
Progressive alliance was not voted for, this is spinning – you could easily argue that more people voted for a Con/Lib coalition.
MR clegg went very big on “new politics”, “cleaning up politics”, and being “different this time”.
Most people in the country this moring are rightly disappointed, this is seen as duplicitous and in the party self interest – above national intersst.
As much as the spin machines of LibDem and Labour will try and convince otherwise, this is a political error of huge proportions for the partty. Sweeping cuts in England that appease nationalists will be severely rejected.
A duplictious coalition that sees the governement, whom the electorate roundly rejected back in power will not be forgiven
Labour voices will be tribally excited to keep out the tories or to cling on some how, but really the public have long memories and in the thrid parties gamble to try and profit themselves, you will lose the electorate, who can see right through this.
At a time of national crisis you put party politics first.
Liberal Neil,
I am apopleptic today,
There is one certain to this equation, forget the cons seats, forget our percentage of the popular vote.
The country definately did vote Labour out of office. They gave us a real chance with the hung parliment. and now we will return the defeated Labour government because of some idelogoical principles and personal gain.
If now Nick sign with the defeated Labour governement, now it widely known he ws double dealing, we may be resigned to being a cecltic party only.
I hated the conservative government of 97, but we will be propping up a government that will soo take on those proportions, what we say about having majoritys, the public did vote for the tory party mro than any other party. This progressive alliance is an excuse, it looks cheap and self serving. And for all our words, the public will not see it the same. They will see it as underhanded despite the maths.
I am a lifelong Lib Dem voter and have voted this way at each election despite living in a Lab-Con marginal seat. I am keen for the party to make progress with talks and obviously electoral reform would benefit someone like myself whose vote has never counted. However, I am rather dismayed by the turn of events and think that the party could end up looking grubby instead of adopting its usual pricipled stance. Although my sympathies lie marginally more with Labour than Conservatives,, I think that a coalition involving nationalists would be a disaster. As someone living in England with relatives in both Northern Ireland and Scotland I am well aware of the preferential treatment and funding given to other areas – if this was to be magnified I think there would be an outcry in England. Furthermore, it would be difficult for the country to swallow an arrangement involving an unknown future prime minister. Please go with the Conservatives for the sake of your standing with the voters, if nothing else.
If there was a referendum on PR today the British public would vote AGAINST it.
Why? Because in less than 24 hours the Lib Dems have managed to bring the ‘new politics’ into disrepute.
All those years of campaigning for a better system blown away in an instant because Paddy Ashdown and Simon Hughes are neo socialists.
People want a fair electoral system combined with a government with a mandate. The shabby discussions with the Number 10 squatter and his henchmen are disgraceful.
Nick should go with his instincts, join the Tories in a coalition and if his party wont go with him he should resign and leave them to their fate – political obscurity.
So correct me if I’m wrong P.R. doesn’t involve cutting deals and talking……………
Unlike many people posting here, I am posting under my own full name, it is an easily Googleable name, so anyone can see from things I have posted in the past or my views expressed elsewhere I really am a Liberal Democrat supporter, not a Labour or Conservative supporter posting anonymously and pretending to be a Liberal Democrat.
Obviously we are in a difficult situation, but one that was entirely predictable and that many of us had thought through previously. As those of us who thought about this seriously said, it was silly to ask in advance “Which would you support in a hung Parliament?” because very different answers would have to be given depending on the arithmetic and the willingness of the other parties to accept the situation the British constitution has given. The other two support this constitution as it is, we do not. They should equally well have planned for this as we did, they did not.
Politics IS about compromise. It IS about dealing with the case that many people think many different things and somehow we have to come together and find the most acceptable path. Anyone who moans about talks and compromises really hasn’t thought through democracy. If you want politics to be about one leader whose word is law and there are no discussions or compromises, then be honest and say that. Say it is what you support and give it its name – fascism.
My view following the election was that the arithmetic in the new parliament made anything but a Conservative-led government very difficult. I say this as someone who is on the left of the party and would always make Labour my second choice in any preferential voting system. However, the Conservatives were never asked the question and never wanted to answer it “What would you do in a hung Parliament?”. From what we have heard it seems they are unwilling to give anything but the most trivial concession to the fact that they don’t have a majority in Parliament, let alone that their candidates had the votes of only just over one in three of those who voted.
I always supposed this would be the case, therefore from the start I thought a supply and confidence arms-length support of a Conservative minority government should be our option rather than any sort of coalition. But even that requires an agreement which ties us to remain with this arms-length support and them not to go rushing to call an early election before we have had a chance to see what their government is like. Another election would be on the grounds “You the people got it wrong, now we the government order you to vote again and get it right”. We need to make sure that if they did that they would be treated with the contempt they deserve, and that can only be done by making it clear we will not bring them down on a whim.
The Conservatives had a choice whether to accept or not what agreement we would require from them for this to work, just as we had a choice to go for this rather than to go for the rather more unlikely coalition of all but the Conservatives. If we do go that way instead, then I feel it has to be a coalition, since Labour are obviously too weak for them to run a minority government, and it has to be a coalition which recognises our electoral strength in terms of numbers of votes, not numbers of seats, and this in preparation for electoral reform which establishes that sort of relationship as how seats in Parliament are in future allocated.
If Labour are unwilling to concede that, well, we’ve tried, back to arms-length support of minority Conservative government. Their choice.
Anyone who is a true supporter of the Liberal Democrats has to accept that this sort of thing was going to happen. Anyone who says instead “The only option is to support Labour” or “The only option is to support the Conservatives” regardless of anything else ought to have gone off and joined that party in the first place.
“Keith”
People want a fair electoral system combined with a government with a mandate. The shabby discussions with the Number 10 squatter and his henchmen are disgraceful.
Yes, I read the Daily Mail and The SUN too, but only when someone leaves a copy on the train, I wouldn’t pay money to buy Conservative Party propaganda. Unlike you, however, I have a functioning brain and I understand democracy.
Well said Matthew Huntbach
Ad
The well said ref was to your longer post 🙂
“johann”
The country definately did vote Labour out of office. They gave us a real chance with the hung parliment. and now we will return the defeated Labour government because of some idelogoical principles and personal gain
On the same lines, they definitely did not vote the Conservatives into office. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives received anything like half the votes of the people.
Having a functioning brain and understanding democracy, unlike you, I am capable of seeing that a coalition with a 3-2 Labour-LibDem balance reflecting the national vote is not the same thing as “returning a defeated Labour government”.
“Adam”
Lib Dems, you really are missing the public mood here……. You may get a dream Lib/Lab coalition, but you will be doing so with G brown at the helm of a minority government that was trounced at the GE, then foistering another PM who the public haven’t seen before.
Since unlike you I understand both democracy and the British constitution (even though unlike Labour and the Conservatives I’d like to make big changes to that constitution), I understand that we do not live under a presidential system. We live under a Parliamentary system. The Prime Minister is whoever can best get the support of those elected as Members of Parliament, he or she is not a dictator, Parliament remains ultimately collectively in control. It is the duty of the Queen to pick whomever may best gain that collective agreement to be Prime Minister, who may indeed not be an obvious person well known to the public. That’s how our constitution works. If you don’t like it, propose to change it. As I have already said, the name for that system where one person is in undisputed complete control is “fascism”. All those arguing here for what is in effect fascism please be honest and give it its correct name. I prefer Parliamentary democracy.
We cannot possibly consider for a second doing a deal with a headless Labour party and all the other tiny parties. As a Liberal Democrat since the age of 5 campaigning for my father, I have been fighting Tories but it is nonetheless clear to me that there is no honorable alternative to going into government with the Tories. The country requires stable government at this time; Lib / Con is the only path to that. The Labour party has been defeated, it is exhausted and out of energy and ideas – time to go and rejuvinate – if they have to. Let them pass; let’s not play their dishonourable game.
“Keith”
I am a southern supporter of the Lib Dems – none of them would ever vote or support the Labour Party. Lib/Lab coalition would turn England south of the Mersey totally blue at the next election.
Well, gosh so am I a southern supporter of the LibDems. One of the reasons I came to support the Liberal Party years and years ago was that though my sympathies tended towards Labour I was really really angry with an electoral system which gave every constituency in my home county of Sussex, and also in neighbouring counties to the Conservatives. We non-Conservative voters in the south were twisted out of anyone to speak for us in Parliament. And the Labour Party supported this on the grounds there was a similar distortion in their favour up north.
So, was I supposed to be happy that some Yorkshire or Scottish MP could speak for me and my family living in poverty in the south represented by only Tory MPs who knew and cared nothing for us? No, they damned well never spoke for us. That is why I became a Liberal and a support of electoral reform and remain so to this day.
Your belief that everyone in the south is a Tory just shows the typical Tory attitude, you don’t know or care about people who aren’t like you, you are too thick to have the basic numeracy and logical ability to see how the electoral system so twists things and distorts representation silencing people like me.
Voted Lib Dems since the early 1980s so not a closet Tory. My Great uncle was Keir Hardie’s election agent in West Ham in 1892 so family was in at ground floor of socialism.
Realism of 2010.
Realism is the Lib Dems join with Tories and act as a brake on any excesses. If that breaks down there is no need for another general election because the threat to the Tories is the Lib Dems could join the Labour party in another coalition. By then the new leader of the Labour party would be in place and so much more acceptable to the general public.
“Long term Lib Dem”
But I also oppose all of what Labour stands for. This idea that we are closer to Labour is a myth perpetuated by the SDP rump which unfortunately seems to dominate the parliamentary party.
Unlike, I very much suspect, you, I was involved in a minor way with the negotiations which led to the formation of the Liberal Democrats. I was a member of the Liberal Party at the time, I did not like the SDP, and in the end I voted against the merger.
But your idea that it was the SDP who were to the left economically at the time and the Liberal Party who was to the right is completely wrong. It was actually the other way round. Many of those who opposed the merger with the SDP from the Liberal side did so in part because we felt the SDP was too right-wing, and we could see its leadership becoming fascinated with simplistic free market economics, foreshadowing the way Tony Blair turned his party into Tory-lite.
Amongst all the rhetoric, conjecture and personal opinion where is the voice of the general public. The nearest indicator I can find is an article by the Times on 14th April 2010, under the headline “Tory Lead Narrows Amid Voter Disenchantment, Times Poll Finds”
The extract, most relevent to the LIb Dem position, seems to be:
“The latest poll shows that 32 per cent of the public now hope for a hung parliament (as opposed to expecting one), against 28 per cent wanting a Tory majority and 22 per cent a Labour one. Lib Dem voters prefer a deal with Labour than the Tories in a hung parliament, by 44 to 31 per cent. The public is evenly split 40 to 42 per cent about whether they want Labour or the Tories in either a majority or a minority government.”
Can anyone find a more recent poll relevent to the present situation ? Not a rhetorical question.
A system of proportional representation often results in deal making. The Lib Dems have to demonstrate that deal making can work if they want to persuade the electorate to support them in a PR referendum. If the SPD (social democrats) can work with the CDU/CSU (conservatives) in Germany for 4 years, then the Lib Dems can work with the Conservatives.Neither party will be happy and will have to hold back on some favourite policies but they will enjoy public support for taking a grown up attitude. I suspect that a deal made with Labour will smack more of putting party first and will lose public support for the Lib Dems.
Why the haste? The CDU/CSU and the FDP took 4 weeks last autumn. Though I admit that that taxed the Germans’ patience!
The mix of first past the post constituency MPs forming half of the parliament and proportional voting for the remaining MPs from party lists seems to work here in Germany. Stability never seems to be a question in regard to the government.
I do have a UK vote and I voted LibDem
I am amazed by the naivete of those arguing that a Labour-LibDem coalition “reflecting the national vote” is not the same thing as “returning a defeated Labour government”. Summation of the number of votes cast for Labour and the LDP does not reflect the prevailing mood of the nation. The current LDP/Labour party political posturing serves only to reinforce the disenchantment that the majority of us have with lying, conniving, self-serving politicians who DO NOT have the interests of the nation at heart.
Nasty Nick posters looking good, spotted them earlier in shop window, nice little touch the Gavel coming down on the English
The Conservatives have a majority of both seats and votes in England. It would be a constitutional outrage if laws applying only to England are forced through by a Lib/Lab Government with the support of Welsh and Scottish MPs.
When are Lib Dems going to support the restoration of democracy to England by providing that purely English bills are only voted on by English MPs. In your manifesto there is a commitment to devolving more power to Wales and Scotland but only the delaying tactics of a Constitutional Convention for England.
Matthew Huntbach
“Since unlike you I understand both democracy and the British constitution (even though unlike Labour and the Conservatives I’d like to make big changes to that constitution), I understand that we do not live under a presidential system.”
That is insulting, I absolutely understand how democracy works I have a degree in political science. And I understand that constitutionally the Lib Dems are doing nothing wrong. But politics dear boy which you seem to severly grasp is ALL about public PERCEPTION, not constitutional niceties.
You are more than entitled to turn whichever you choose, that is within your constitutional perogative.
Howover I am certain that the wider public perception will be that this was an underhand and grubby deal that put party interest ahead of self interest.
You are right the cons did not receive a majority, though Labour did in 2005 with a lower percentage of the vote. You are right the electoral system is patently unfair and needs change.
But public PERCEPTION will not be with you, when the PERCEIVED coalition of losers forms.
In the UK today, love it or loathe it, it is FPTP, In England the conservatives have a majority of 59 seats over all the others. What do you think the PERCEPTION will really be when the realise that your flaky minority colaition has to make consessions to nationalists (which means they don’t get cuts and England does).
I guess we both now how a palimentary democracy works dear Matt, but you fail to grasp thekey element in politics. Public Perception.
My wife and I were first time Lib Dem voters, who moved from Labour in this election. My wife is a teacher and I am upper/middle managment and we had to compramise many of our long held beliefs and convictions on issues like immigration, defense etc to make that vote. Based on the result of the election I was in admiration of Mr Clegg in how he handled the poor result and how intended to stand by his comments to invite the Tories to open talks. I watched with enthusiasm how cordial and positive the Sat and Sun talks with the Tories were progressing. Although not a Tory supporter I felt with Nick Clegg keeping the Tories in check a Lib Dem/Con coalition was probably in the best interest of stable Governement and getting some reform.
The last 24 hours has left us feeling duped by Mr Clegg as a stable governement is obvioulsy not his priority. My young family is now on the verge of being stitched up with a Lab/Lib Dem coalition which will not provide my family with a voice or security. Instead we are going to have to give our taxes to Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties only to get increased financial pressures and lame Labour policy at home.
Any coalition with Labour will see us never consider a Lib Dem vote again and I know from disucssions with friends we are not alone. A Lab/Lib coalition will only drive middle income families like us to vote for minority parties so that we can best protect our rights and living standards if this hung parliament situation ocurrs again.
Britain really is breaking!
Take a look around, hatred of Brown is switching to nasty Nick.
I voted LibDem last Thursday in the hope we would get the fairer politics we all want and everyone is talking about. Surely that means sticking to what was said about the party with the most votes/seats etc. A deal between the second and third parties would still not bring a stable government and would lead to a huge swing against the Labour and LibDems at the next election. There is absolutely no guarantee that the Labour party would endorse PR. WhiIst find it hard to say – a deal with the Conservatives , with lasting concessions, will show that the LibDems can be responsible and can be a party of government in the future. Any outcome that lets Gordon Brown cling to power for a few months before we have another unelected PM will be a disaster for the Lib dems in future elections.
I would like to think that Clegg and other senior LDP members lack neither intelligence nor the ability to sense the increasingly impatient mood of the electorate. But I’m beginning to doubt it. This should not be a game, so what are they playing at and what is their motivation? I can guess – but I sure don’t like the answer!!
A coalition of losers – direct action and oppostion group is forming this afternoon, details will be announced shortly.
We will be encouraging all English voters off all parties to stand up, fiercly oppose and take direct action.
Our intention is publish all MP’s in the coalition and all their votes – we will urge you to write to you MP and to publish exactly how they vote.
In the meantime it our intention to organise public demonstrations against this, if you want the people to have their say, then they will.
If you want to put your coalition to public test, lets see how many people are willing to take to the streets against it.
This is NOT what the electorate voted for in England.
This will not be allowed to quitely happen without severe opposition.
You had better be prepared to really fight for your coalition and for your MP’s to justify their votes.
Taking to the streets, direct action, fighting talk; we have a ‘Hung Parliament’. Not quite – yet. With which politicians and their lackeys should we start?
jeff – of course not today. but facebook group and twitter is ready. pending numbers, next step would be direct action
Local paper, mother contacting her sons commanding officer, says she wants him brought home, does not want him risking his life in Afghanistan , says she does not want him in danger trying to help Afghanistan democracy, when here in England some people got shut out when wanting to vote, and now this farce going on with Brown and Clegg.
Protest Group: I was being ironic – hung as in hanged (from the nearest tree or lampost!)
In response to Jeff I think the first MP ProtestVote and his friends will want to hang is Nick Clegg.
He has made such an unbelieveable mess of this he has set our electoral prospects back 20 years and the PR argument back 50 years. people are not going to forget this, I fear, perhaps the Libs should change leader too?
It will probably be too late for a public protest – political suicide will have been comiitted. However in the event of Lib/Lab pact I will certainly be writing to the Lib Dem candidate I voted and the Lab Mp elected asking for how they were guided and which way they went.
It’s a shame Nick won’t action his words and go for stable government. Lib Dem credibility with the electorate is falling into the abyss. Wished I had’t wasted my vote on the LibDems last week .
Adam (in response to me)
In the UK today, love it or loathe it, it is FPTP, In England the conservatives have a majority of 59 seats over all the others. What do you think the PERCEPTION will really be when the realise that your flaky minority colaition has to make consessions to nationalists (which means they don’t get cuts and England does).
I guess we both now how a palimentary democracy works dear Matt, but you fail to grasp thekey element in politics. Public Perception.
If you had bothered to read what I have written elsewhere, you would have found that it is for this reason that I am arguing for LibDem “supply and confidence” to a Conservative minority government, and felt from the start that a coalition of all the rest was unsustainable. I posted that opinion on Friday morning, I haven’t changed it since then.
I might not like the support of a Tory government, it would not be my option if Labour and Tories were closer in numbers of MPs, but it’s what the arithmetic as people voted gave us as the only really sustainable option.
Jeff
I am amazed by the naivete of those arguing that a Labour-LibDem coalition “reflecting the national vote” is not the same thing as “returning a defeated Labour government”.
It would not be because it would only happen if Labour agree to very substantial modifications of their policies and a government in which LibDems are represented in proportion to number of votes cast i.e. 2 LibDems to every 3 Labour.
i voted for lib dems ( dan rogerson ) to keep the tories out and if nick cleg does a deal with them they will never win in north cornwall again..
I’ve never voted LibDem before …….
And never will again I’m afraid. Going in with the Tories is not what I voted for so will stick to Labour in the future.
Cameron and the Tory press will unleash the forces of hell upon SV, AV or whatever goes before the electorate. That’s if things get that far – you’ve seen the bile come out of the Tories in recent times – they can’t and won’t work with anyone, as they are the born rulers. So they think.
‘Long Term Lib Dem’ needs to realise that those of us who were members of a predecessor party (the Social Democratic Party and The Liberal Party for those of us under the age of 40) are an EXTREMELY small minority in in the Party. 13 years ago, I seem to recall it was over 2/3 that had joined the party after merger. Now it must be 80% or more. There IS no ‘SDP rump’. The very idea is risible.
And in any event not all of us who were in the SDP were disappointed socialists, just like not everyone in the Liberals had a woolly jumper and a pair of sandals. Personally, I discovered in the LibDems a natural home for my principles — both liberal and democratic. And one of the few MPs who was previously in the SDP (but was elected in 1997 as a Lib Dem.) is one of the staunchest liberals I ever met.
Some (I think it may have been a well-known LibDem) once said that there were really 5 parties in the mix in the UK, not 3.
Don’t make it six. It’s really not helpful.