Here's the deal -- the LibDems have to say they tried to make terms with the Conservatives. They need to do that because of their continued insistence during the campaign that most votes/most seats has first kick at the can.
But the Conservatives won't give the LibDems a guarantee of proportional representation.
Labour will.
So the LibDems must be seen trying the Conservatives and then, after that fails, joining a coalition with Labour and the nationalists where PR is a given. The nationalists will be ok with this -- so long as PR is by region (Scotland and Wales) -- so we may well see Gordon Brown staying as PM.
(Makes our Lib/NDP discussions seem tame)
http://nyti.ms/aEKC61
LONDON - Talks about forming a new government resumed on Saturday amid concern that continuing uncertainty would roil world financial markets when they reopen Monday, but the prospects of a deal between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats by that deadline appeared slim.
As an intensive round of talks among the parties' power brokers began Saturday, the Conservatives remained elusive on the Liberal Democrats' main demand: a change in the voting system to help smaller parties gain representation in future parliamentary elections.
The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, appeared set to squabble over whether a union with the Conservatives was viable when they could instead join up with the Labour Party, which is more of an ideological soulmate on many issues for the left-leaning Liberal Democrats than the Conservatives. Some Liberal Democrat officials interpreted party rules as meaning that a governing pact with another party would require the support of three-quarters of the Liberal Democrat members of Parliament - an improbable target for a party that has prided itself on its freewheeling and often chaotic attachment to internal policy debate.
14 comments:
Correct. While labour failed and LibDems shrunk, it must be said that the majority rejected the policies of the Tories. PR exists already in parts of the UK and in other levels of government and it's time to implement it everywhere. The LibDems will be the ultimate victors in this debacle and how they leverage that will be the mark of them.
I am not so sure.
Although this has been denied by Labour sources, it would seem that Clegg has told Brown that he should resign.The reporter suggested that although the Lib-Dems are closer to Labour in ideology it may be impossible to work with Brown.
This is no doubt Browns reputation.
Further the Libdems + Lab does not equal a majority.Since not having a "plurality" is the reason given for the tories not to govern the same logic should apply with this "coalition".
There are even Labour MP's saying publicly Brown should resign.
I can't help but wonder how much of your position is a proxy for the Canadian situation?
How can anyone argue that the two parties who lost seats in the election have a stronger mandate to govern than the party that gained votes, gained seats, and clearly has the electoral momentum? That would be patently ridiculous. If this is how things end up in the UK, there will be another election before the year is out, as there should be.
The Tories get first kick at the can, not because Clegg said so, but because that is how it must be in our system of government.
But the Tories don't have to form a coalition, they could negotiate some support from smaller parties to maintain a Parliamentary majority, or govern on a vote-by-vote basis like Harper. Both would be preferable to a governing coalition made up of the parties that lost the election.
Of course, the same applies here in Canada.
"How can anyone argue that the two parties who lost seats in the election have a stronger mandate to govern than the party that gained votes, "
Because between them they have the majority and because of parliamentary tradition. I expect David Milliband (sp?) to take over from GB as part of a deal that would satisfy the majority of ppl in the UK. Good too that the DUP, Alliance in NI would be called upon to steer the ship for a while. Prop Rep is a must in the UK.
Because between them they have the majority and because of parliamentary tradition
Well, no actually, they (Labour-LibDems) don't; last I read, it still fell about 10 (give or take) seats short of that majority; they would need a third party.
I also read in Curious Cat's blog just now, that perhaps Clegg will get into bed with Cameron, even if Cameron won't reform parliament as Clegg would like. It is said that Clegg's resentment toward Brown, however petulant that may be, would be strong enough to join Cameron.
What is so complicated about the Westminster system? Whoever gets the most people to vote their way gets to form the government. If the Conservatives have less seat than a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition, they don't get to govern.
It is not going to happen.
One, there would need to be at least one other partner.
Two, I am sure many in Labour camp are happy with the results. The Conservatives did not get a majority and the Conservatives take over a troubled economy. Let them wear the cuts they are so eagar to make. Furthermore, the loss provides Labour with the pretext of getting rid of a real dud of a leader.
Three, Labour lost 89 seats and 7.4% of the popular vote in England and picked up a mere two seats. To have Scotland, and Whales rule of England is not going to reverse that trend.
The third parnter would have to be the Scottish National party -- think the Bloc in a kilt. No one in their right mind is going to saddle up to any of the parties in Ireland and the Welch party is not big enough. Even then, Brown would have the smallest majority possible. Indeed, if they loose the last undecided seat, they would have 321. 6 + 57 + 258.
I agree that Labour and the Lib Dems make more natural partners than the Lib Dems and the Cons, but as pointed out they need a highly unstable coalition of smaller left wing and nationalist parties to hold power.
On the one hand these smaller parties are pantingly eager to sign up. This exact scenario has been the tantalizing possibility that has kept them going as long as they have.
The two deciding factors are the hasty calculations Labour and Lib Dem party strategists are making right now about various nationalist compromises and deals and what level of public backlash a coalition could survive. Cameron is making the same feverish calculations about what kind of progressive compromises and electoral system changes his right wing base could accept.
Electoral Reform, making people's votes really count, is the enemy of right wing politics and they know it.
Even the worst case scenario from a progressive point of view leaves the Conservatives bound by a partner that could not allow too right wing a government to survive with their support. Cameron is already more Joe Clark than Stephen Harper and his late in the election tack to the right was based more on tactics than conviction.
It certainly wasn't a great election for Labor, but its worth pointing out that they did a lot better than even optimistic predictions suggested they would, even after the failures, squalid little scandals, compromises and foreign policy betrayals of principle by New Labour, the British people still didn't want to give the Tories unchecked power again.
Sounds familiar.
Not much has happened but the pressure is increasing to get some kind of parliament underway. I think GB did the strategically right thing by allowing DC enough time to fail and then quickly conclude a deal to keep Lab in power. I don't think DC has sufficient room to bring about a coalition, and he'd be wise to leave Lab with the mess he says "they created".
LibDems prize will be the implementation of PR. Without it the LibDems have lost all right to ever expect to be in power. DC cannot deliver on this issue, so he will fail.
258 seats for the Labor + 57 seats for LD - that's 315; still some 10 seats short of a stable coalition. They'll have to bring one or two smaller parties on board. LDs may try however to pass PR bill, regardless of who forms the government. (There they are a lot more likely to get the smaller party support.)
The DUP in NI would find it hard to side with DC since the Tories have indicated they would significantly reduce funding to NI. The DUP are essentially a working class Party and have sided in the recent past with Lab, (surprisingly because of sectarianism in NI politics). The SDLP in NI are also natural allies of the Lab Party.
The SNP in Scotland would LOVE to play a role in Westminster shennanigans.
I think these links have already been forged and would be revealed as soon as DC fails to woe the LDs. If the LDs abandon their mantra of PR they will suffer at the next inevitable General Election.
Exciting weekend, eh, all this and Coronation Street!
http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/05/10/will-the-dup-join-the-party/
Great stuff!
Post a Comment