What will the LibDems demand of Cameron?

[Andalublue]

Given that the UK election has delivered an inconclusive result and a hung parliament, the most (only?) prospect of a stable government would be a Conservative-LibDem coalition. In such circumstances, what do you think the LibDems will demand in order to participate in such a government?

 

[Djoop]

If they're wise, electoral reforms.

 

[Laila]

Electoral reform/constitutional changes (including written/HOL reform/fixed terms)

I do hope Brown resigns tho, it'll be a stitch up if Labour stays in power.
Have you lot been listening to Mandelson? Oh my God. Talk about power hungry.

 

[PeteEU]

Electoral reform hands down. If they get it, then it will be the end of the tory party as a so called majority party.

 

[Andalublue]

It is now sounding like the LibDems may agree to a parliamentary agreement in which they support the Tories on economic measures, allow them to form a minority government and then ensure that other Tory policies are decided on a case-by-case basis. The Tories could count on LibDem support on a Queen's Speech (the laying out of the new government's programme) provided it limits itself to the issues the two party programmes that coincide with one another.

In other words, the Tories in government but barely in power.

 

[PeteEU]

It is now sounding like the LibDems may agree to a parliamentary agreement in which they support the Tories on economic measures, allow them to form a minority government and then ensure that other Tory policies are decided on a case-by-case basis. The Tories could count on LibDem support on a Queen's Speech (the laying out of the new government's programme) provided it limits itself to the issues the two party programmes that coincide with one another.

In other words, the Tories in government but barely in power.

Yea, imo the Lib Dems are stupid and short sighted.

Then again the Torries wont last long, since the differences are so huge.

 

[Djoop]

I've read this dutch opinion piece saying that there's not much debate in UK parliament. The writer said it's a fav passtime of both parties to ridicule Clegg before he even says anything.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity for Clegg and his party, can't imagine they're not aware of it.

 

[Demon of Light]

They definitely going to demand electoral reform. It is actually quite ridiculous that the Liberal Democrats can get 23% of the vote but don't even get 10% of the parliamentary seats.

 

[gunner]

Electoral reform/constitutional changes (including written/HOL reform/fixed terms)

I do hope Brown resigns tho, it'll be a stitch up if Labour stays in power.
Have you lot been listening to Mandelson? Oh my God. Talk about power hungry.

If the country, as a whole, were feeling that way he would have been on a train home by now. The magic 326 was not reached so Mandelson is simply playing the Machiavelli 'politics' game. I feel there may be twist or two yet, but Clegg should strike a strong bargain and grasp what he can. Irrespective, it seems we will be back voting within 18-months or less.

Paul

 

[digsbe]

I have a question, as an American I don't completely understand the UK parliament system. Can party members not vote individually on things? Or must the vote vote as an entire political body? I'm pleased to see that the conservatives won a majority, but it would be a shame if they had to compromise good policy with garbage to get the votes of others.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

That last sentence echoes my views exactly.

Party disciplinarians, the 'Whips', can lead the MPs to vote the way the party bosses want. However, they can vote the way they wish anyway, sometimes actually being allowed to without comeback.

Individual MPs can also bring up a Private Member's Bill for debate and vote. usually the policies come from on-high, especially now when most laws are rubber-stamped for the EU, or designed with the EU in mind so as not to be 'illegal' in the eyes of our new masters.

 

[Andalublue]

I have a question, as an American I don't completely understand the UK parliament system. Can party members not vote individually on things? Or must the vote vote as an entire political body? I'm pleased to see that the conservatives won a majority, but it would be a shame if they had to compromise good policy with garbage to get the votes of others.

Of course the individual members can vote as they see fit. The point is, and this might be a little different from the US, party discipline is strong. MPs are not really voted in so much as individuals, as members of a party. Personality is less important. An MP that votes against the party whip (how the party decides the official line) too often will lose that whip and, should they leave the party and stand as an independent, lose their seat.

The conservatives DID NOT win a majority. That's the entire story of the election. The Conservatives SHOULD have won a huge landslide majority. Many people were talking about shooting fish in a barrel. The Tories (Conservatives) had the barrel, put the fish into it, had the shotgun... and missed.

They will now have to compromise, and that's a good thing as they had a lot of fairly extreme policies in their programme. The LibDems and Tories together might find a balance of left and right policies, but I wouldn't hold your breath. You might say 'good policy', I might say 'garbage', and vice versa. The large part of the rest of the democratic world calls it compromise and negotiation.

 

[Demon of Light]

I have a question, as an American I don't completely understand the UK parliament system. Can party members not vote individually on things? Or must the vote vote as an entire political body? I'm pleased to see that the conservatives won a majority, but it would be a shame if they had to compromise good policy with garbage to get the votes of others.

Well, technically each party is supposed to vote as a bloc, but the UK is not that strict about party rebels. In the case of a coalition they would have to get the support of a majority naturally and so they are likely going to compromise with one of the two major parties.

They will now have to compromise, and that's a good thing as they had a lot of fairly extreme policies in their programme. The LibDems and Tories together might find a balance of left and right policies, but I wouldn't hold your breath. You might say 'good policy', I might say 'garbage', and vice versa. The large part of the rest of the democratic world calls it compromise and negotiation.

Well the Tories are in a pretty pickle. They need the LibDems otherwise they will have to ally with at least one of the nationalist parties, not likely. This gives the LibDems a great deal of leverage. Of course, a LibDem alliance with Labour would require an alliance with two or more nationalist parties and would even then only be a slim majority.

 

[Andalublue]

Well, technically each party is supposed to vote as a bloc, but the UK is not that strict about party rebels. In the case of a coalition they would have to get the support of a majority naturally and so they are likely going to compromise with one of the two major parties.



Well the Tories are in a pretty pickle. They need the LibDems otherwise they will have to ally with at least one of the nationalist parties, not likely. This gives the LibDems a great deal of leverage. Of course, a LibDem alliance with Labour would require an alliance with two or more nationalist parties and would even then only be a slim majority.

Yup, the Tories can choose to ally with the LibDems and create a stable majority. To do so would mean being realistically open to the LD demands for electoral reform. If they choose not to compromise then they will need the support of the DUP, SNP, PC and SDLP to reach a 1-seat majority... they'd be better off negotiating with one opponent rather than 4, wouldn't they? In any case the SNP and PC would have the same demands as the LDs, i.e. some form of PR electoral reform.

I just hope Nick Clegg and his advisors are going to be strong enough to recognise the winning hand they have been dealt and play really hard ball with the Tories. (Please forgive all mixed metaphors in the preceding post).

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

There's a way to get your outright victory under the party who could have won, but failed to get that magic 51% in Parliament:

1. Have Cameron appear to 'cave in' and instigate electoral reform: PR.

2. Call an election.

3. See the likes of the BNP gain a handful of MPs and witness the other politicians scream in unity.

4. Abolish PR and call another election.

5. First Past The Post again and no BNP MPs again. Everyone up there will be too busy breathing sighs of relief at having 'united against fascism' to notice we're back as we started again, perhaps with a proper Tory majority this time.


** RESULT FOR YER TRUE BLUES!! **

 

[Andalublue]

There's a way to get your outright victory under the party who could have won, but failed to get that magic 51% in Parliament:

1. Have Cameron appear to 'cave in' and instigate electoral reform: PR.

2. Call an election.

3. See the likes of the BNP gain a handful of MPs and witness the other politicians scream in unity.

4. Abolish PR and call another election.

5. First Past The Post again and no BNP MPs again. Everyone up there will be too busy breathing sighs of relief at having 'united against fascism' to notice we're back as we started again, perhaps with a proper Tory majority this time.


** RESULT FOR YER TRUE BLUES!! **

Your obsession with the BNP is not shared by anyone else in the country, bar the 500,000 who voted for them (and perhaps the 852 who voted for your Howard Thomas candidate chap. You're not Howard, are you RoP?).

You fail to recognise that the vast majority or LibDem, Green, SNP, and PC voters, plus a smaller majority (but majority nontheless) of Labour voters would have no problem with the BNP and UKIP being represented in Westminster. After all, both those parties take votes away mostly from the Tories.

The only ones clamouring to keep FPTP are Tories.

 

[Demon of Light]

Yup, the Tories can choose to ally with the LibDems and create a stable majority. To do so would mean being realistically open to the LD demands for electoral reform.

I'm not sure that's all they would have to commit to in order to have a stable majority. If they do not reach a much broader compromise they will basically end up being useless.

If they choose not to compromise then they will need the support of the DUP, SNP, PC and SDLP to reach a 1-seat majority... they'd be better off negotiating with one opponent rather than 4, wouldn't they?

The Unionists might not be a hard sell, but working with the various nationalist parties would be a tall order. They are all more distant politically from the Tories than the LibDems.

In any case the SNP and PC would have the same demands as the LDs, i.e. some form of PR electoral reform.

They may try to get some commitments on devolution as well.

 

[Blueangel]

I've read this dutch opinion piece saying that there's not much debate in UK parliament. The writer said it's a fav passtime of both parties to ridicule Clegg before he even says anything.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity for Clegg and his party, can't imagine they're not aware of it.

There's a lot of truth in that as anyone who has watched Prime Minister's Question Time can clearly see.

Clegg is the new kid on the block but he has the full backing of some of the finest minds in British politics. To my mind, as I have said for many years now, Paddy Ashdown is the finest Prime Minister we never had, and he backs Clegg.

So what concessions by the Tories...

I will be exceptionally surprised if it happens and hope to see a new election within 6mths, which will also not happen.

The biggie for the 27yrs I have voted Lib is proportional representation.
We all agree that everyone has the right to a vote and we should also agree that every vote matters, but that simply isn't the case under our current voting system. 23% of the national vote should get you 23% of the seats in an ideal World. But the Tories will never go down that route in my lifetime and it's the ultimate deal breaker for us Libs.
However, they have proposed a committee to discuss the matter...Whoop-I-do!!! More public money wasted before they even have the keys to No.10. Now why doesn't that surprise me?

Vince Cable as Chancellor would be fantastic, but also a million steps too far for the Tories.

Show me a team stronger than Clegg, Cable, Campbell and Ashdown in British politics and I'l show my backside in an exceptionally public place :mrgreen:
And please...don't throw the Milliband name into the arena.

 

[samsmart]

The point is, and this might be a little different from the US, party discipline is strong.

Absolutely. The reason for this is because the UK electoral system allows for multiple parties, while the US electoral system allows for only two viable parties.

This means the different UK parties can write a very specific platform that is easy for party MPs to follow. And if there isn't a party for someone of a particular political belief to follow, it's rather easy to make a new party and run it and get representation in Parliament.

This is unlike the US, in which our winner-take-all system demands the highest votes possible, and discourages spoilers. This is why we have two broad parties - the Democrats and the Republicans. However, the party members don't always follow party discipline. This is why the Democrats have the Progressive Caucus, which is made up of the party's progressive and liberal members, and the Blue Dogs, which is made up of the Democrats' conservative members. While the Republican Party does not have any formal factions, individual members of the GOP lie on some spectrum between conservative and moderate on a variety of issues.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the US used a different electoral method, such as Instant Run-off Voting, in order to promote more third parties and prevent the spoiler effect. Also, it'll prevent the US from having to deal with spiteful condemnations of being a "RINO" or "DINO" since one politician of a party may disagree with one or a few issues of the party's platform.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Vince Cable as Chancellor would be fantastic, but also a million steps too far for the Tories --

Cable did really well up until he had to face questions about Lib Dem policy.

-- Show me a team stronger than Clegg, Cable, Campbell and Ashdown in British politics and I'l show my backside in an exceptionally public place :mrgreen:

Do we get to name the location?

 

[Blueangel]

Do we get to name the location?

Not only that, you get to pay the air fare! :lol:

I'm thinking something along the lines if this...

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pb37sFwilM"]YouTube- VERY FUNNY Newsnight 5th May 2010 Witney Michael Crick live fail[/nomedia]