It would be the Liberal Democrats.
There, I've said it.
There are people in the LibDems the Tories can do business with, even if some of their more left wing MPs might prove troublesome. I could not conceive of joining up with Labour as they would be discredited and share very few of the values I hold dear.
See, Nick, that wasn't so difficult for me, why is it so difficult for you? Tom Harris has the best explanation...
I couldn't have put it better myself.I’m not a fan of chick flicks, so I’ve not been watching Nick Clegg’’s speech to whatever conference he’s speaking to this afternoon.
But I’ll make a wild stab in the dark and guess that he’s going to be no clearer on which party he would choose to support in the event of a hung parliament. David Laws, the LibDem MP, said on Any Questions on Friday that any such decision would not be taken until after polling day.
Thank you, David. Thank you for confirming what I’ve been saying for years about the undemocratic nature, not only of the LibDems but of their most precious policy – proportional representation.
It’s entirely consistent of Laws to say that the public will not be consulted before the LibDems make a decision. That’s the essence of PR: let the little people have their vote, then ignore what they say and start bartering away the very policies they voted for behind closed doors and without reference to them.
Refusing to come clean about which of the main parties the Liberals would support if they got the chance is the opposite of transparent and democratic. But it’s entirely consistent for the Liberals
PS: I still think a Conservaative majority is the most likely outcome, albeit a relatively narrow one.
21 comments:
Iain,
To be totally fair it is a little easier for you since you dont lead a party that would in all liklihood splinter apart when the cookie crumbles....so glad you didnt say Labour though and everything you said makes me feel insanely comfortable in that party :)
It's harder for Clegg because he's the leader of a national party, and you don't personally run the risk of infuriating thousands of your own supporters if you side with a party they hate!
Is it a possibility that by saying they would side with a particular party it may make members of the electorate think "why vote for the Lib Dems if they're going to prop up a party I dislike - back to Labour/Tory I go"?
I have to confess I didn't read Tom Harris' piece so sorry if he's said something similar.
I hope we never have proportional representation in this country.
I want truly adversarial politics; it's the only way to ensure that the governing party are kept in check. Unfortunately, the opposition parties have forgotten how to oppose. It's not pleasant but it is the least worst option. Just like democracy.
Talk about Hobson's choice.
It may take another five years of Labour for the Conservatives finally to come to their senses. A bitter pill indeed, but barring an outright Tory win (and a chance to reform the party while in government) all other options seem far worse to me.
I do hope Nigel wins in Buckingham.
I don't think that's entirely fair. The Lib Dems can't pledge to one party or the other at this stage. In a sense that would be undemocratic. They have pledged to seek to work first with the party with the strongest mandate (although I accept there is ambiguity in this).
Lib Dem voters know Mr Clegg won't be Prime Minister, but they do need to place some responsibility in his hands. If he indicates his leaning now, he weakens his hand and does his voters a disservice.
This Iain is the same LibDum party in Scotland that is for devolution and maximum devolution at that but will not vote to allow the Scottish voters to be given the chance to express their democratic preference as to the extent.
The Lib Dems, neither Liberal nor Democratic.
The LibDems will sell their political souls for a Ministerial Mondeo, at least that is the proven evidence of their behaviour in Scotland during the years before the SNP became the (minority) Government.
The proportional representation system in Scotland was designed to hand a perpetual coalition to Labour and LibDems and the result of the last Holyrood GE gave the SNP a majority but not overall majority. The LibDems were so pissed off that they refused to be part of any coalition and just stamped their feet.
Labour has thrown the dummy out of the plan and just votes against anything the SNP proposes, including what they actually also want. Work that one out democratically and Gordon Brown will not speak to Alex Salmond at all.
Two party Punch and Judy politics is the death of the UK except now that there is no difference between the two parties and any difference is just sound bites and theatrics.
I wonder what would happen if the BNP do get one or two candidates elected. Now that would make for an interesting king maker situation.
Unless Cameron gets his act together then the Libdims will be supporting Brown.
This will give the Tories time to ditch Dave and get some real policies instead of the dross that passes as 'policy' for under the Boy King.
Then I may vote for them.
Given the frequent, almost hysterical LibDem-bashing on your blog, I should think uppermost in the LibDems demands would be a stipulation that Iain Dale nowhere figures in a Tory administration! Not even as an advisor...!
Nick Clegg appears to everyone to be too young, inexperienced and downright incoherent to be a credible coalition partnership manager anyway. Which makes me think it's all unviable and even if Cameron did have an overall minority, he would just want to press on as a minority government and take it back to the electorate in 6 months or a year. That may create market turmoil though, so it will be worrying.
I don't share your confidence about a simple Tory majority as I suspect Labour will hold up better in the marginals than you currently believe - not least because the Tory front bench have also proved themselves to be both disorganised and incoherent of late.
The reality is we have three incompetent leaderships on offer and it might be best to have a national government of all the talents with the good people drafted in from each party. I wish Frank Field would get together with Ken Clarke and Vince Cable for example.
So will we get the same "clarity" from Cameron on this question?
Why should the Conservatives go into coalition with anyone? If the party is the largest single party in the House but with no overall majority, it makes sense to govern as a minority administration. There is no obvious reason why a coalition should be negotiated and various arguments against it. It would not be in the interests of either Labour or the Liberal Democrats to combine to try to bring down the Government or to cause so many problems as to justify the Government seeking a fresh election.
@BNPELECTIONRESULTS
The SNP are way ahead of you in that area and are already talking to the other "Celtic Nations" parties about some sort of common ground.
Also don't forget the DUP and various Peoples' Judean Front sub groups.
I disagree I woud be far happier with some parts of the Labour Party.The Liberals cannot , repeat cannot , be trusted .
I could do business with a Purnell ( if he was not a crook and gone ) a Frank Field , a Gisella Stuart even , at a pinch maybe David Milliband .
Norman Baker , when I asked him at a meeting recently ,made it very clear to me that he considers himself to the left of Labour
No no Iain , never the Liberals . Rather those New Labour left overs sulking in their tents as old Labour rises like a lycanthope in the moonlight.
Incidnetally has it occurred to you that with a new EU referendum in the pipeline and one for PR/ AV , left and right might well be combinign against the damned Liberals pretty soon anyway
"I wish Frank Field would get together with Ken Clarke and Vince Cable for example."
I can't see it working. Field is too much to the right of the other two.
The pathology of hung Parliaments can be seen clearly when you understand - the smaller the shortfall the greater the leverage. That is to say a shortfall of one MP gives one MP leverage over the nation. An Ester Ranson Paradox.
If Nick Clegg seriously thinks he could be a partner in a Coalition Government led by Gordon then he is unfit to run for office never mind be elected
@BUGGER
I just remember watching a programme from the 70s I think it surrounded the no confidence vote in the current government of the day, and that MPs were coming over from N.Ireland at the bequest of the government who normally never attended.
Seeing how close some votes can be in those times, what if the tories could only get 325 even with the celts votes and labour the same with lib dem and others. I can only imagine the ructions if the BNP MPs had the casting vote.
Much wringing of hands, just how many magazine subscriptions would be cancelled?
But the Lib/Dems are 100% backing a national road pricing scheme and their council in Richmond is one of the most anti-car in the world.
Anyone who drives or uses a car can never vote or support the Lib/Dems and Labour's record on punishing and raising taxes on drivers is well known.
For this reason alone, the party of Clegg can never be allowed to hold the balance of power.
So the new Tories have moved so far left it now has more in common with the libdems than the old tory party?
I wonder what the grassroots think of a situation where their party now believes a coalition with the libdems is acceptable?
A very light blue at best party that bears no resemblance to the grassroots idea of what a tory party should be, more social democrat than tory, more socialist in nature than tory, more tepid watered down policies designed to appeal more to a class of voter that would rather quaff a bottle of bleach than vote tory.
WTF? I mean WTF?
I know, lets have one big party called the liblabcon party where it rules in perpetuity over us a charade like musical chairs type deal and imposes policies and narratives that the big unitary party all agree on, the ultimate consensus party designed and built to look after the interests of...er...uhm...? After all what do the proles know eh? they should be guided and directed as children, they dont really know whats best for them do they? Naaaah, its best for everyone if the new unitary party decides everything and the electorate simply obeys!
I do not know whether to laugh or cry at the utter Alice in wonderland madness of it all.
But of course...
The idea of a Con/Lab coalition is preposterous. So why would you need to say that you "could not conceive of joining up with Labour" . I'm sure that there is nobody in the Labour party who would want a coaliton with the Tories and that the vice versa applies as well. So why do you need to say it?
Post a Comment