Why Liberal/Conservative talks are going well....

[Bob Singleton]

Sam Slater wrote:

"I take your point, Bob. That still leaves me with the impression that Labour made decisions that served the party rather than the people."




Would a (minority) coalition of the second and third largest parties, sometimes relying on yet other minor parties, really have been in the interest of the country?

I would prefer not to see the Tories in power, BUT, like many others, I have to admit that Labour were defeated in the election and therefore had little or no moral authority to try and form a government.

While there is uproar from those on the left who can't quite believe that the Lib Dems have done a pact with the devil, there would have been even bigger uproar had the largest party in Westminster, one that increased its share of the vote and its seats quite substantially, not been allowed to form a government.

Labour made a decision that actually DOES serve the people in so far as they have not tried to cobble together a coalition that included one party that the voters had plainly decided they'd had enough of, and another party who, in spite of a sudden surge in popularity after a TV debate, also decreased it's share of the vote from 2005.

Unpalatable though it may be, it's the truth.

[David Johnson]

"Some will see it as propping up the Tories but I see it as babysitting the Tories! Keeping an eye on them, if you prefer.

Yeah, in the scenario when the baby has stolen most of your toys.

[Sam Slater]

I don't agree. If that was Labour's plan all along then why all the promises and fawning over the Lib Dems? No, what's obvious is that some MPs (probably in safe seats) didn't mind a referendum on PR and said so while others, who'd just won their seats using the FPTP system, baulked, realising they may be signing on in the near future. We could have had a rainbow alliance, got a referendum on PR and had another general election before Christmas. Maybe sooner. I don't buy for one minute that Labour backed out in the interest of the country! Only 48 hours ago Harriet Harman and Alistair Cambell were defending Brown's sticking put in No. 10. Hey, even Gordon Brown mentioned PR, specifically. Maybe it was this that forced him out? Many Labour MPs were shitting themselves and getting Gordon out was more their idea than Clegg's!

Who knows. This sudden change of direction after all the flaunting and flirting doesn't point to decisions made to serve the nation. Sorry. They realised PR may be signing many of their own death warrants, or undermined their party and so thought it better to let the Conservatives (or Lib/Con coalition) get on with it and hope they fuck up. They realise under FPTP rules (and even AV) that they'd be in a better position battling the Tories alone, as usual, rather than both the Tories and the Lib Dems under PR.

[quote]and another party who, in spite of a sudden surge in popularity after a TV debate, also decreased it's share of the vote from 2005.[/quote]

If you're talking about the Lib Dems they increased their share of the vote. 1% if my memory serves me right. It was a decrease in seats due to the stupid FPTP system we have. 1% isn't as much as many expected, admittedly, but the Tories only increased their share by 3.8% and won 97 seats! How does a vote share difference of 2.8% go from -5 seats to +97 seats? Fucking crazy.

[Sam Slater]

I don't have any toys to steal. I'd think of a better analogy.

[Sam Slater]

Lol....so Labour didn't really oppose PR, they just had some 'wheeled out' to oppose it? Doesn't make sense. They bottled it.

Again, I said Clegg might be a 'closet Tory' if he made a pact with the Tories when Labour were offering him PR. I'll underline that for you, since you're more interested in catching me out than defending your party.

Labour were offering PR when I said put forward the possibility of Clegg being a closet Tory, if he ignored Labour's offer.

You can look back at the context in which my quote was given. I usually check myself but I don't need to. I know I'm right.

[Bob Singleton]

Well the promises and "fawning over" the Lib Dems is easy to explain away...

Holding a referendum on the alternative vote system was part of the manifesto. While probably not as far as you'd want, in terms of electoral reform, it's what the Lib Dems have agreed to with the Tories.

In the few days just prior to the election, I think everyone expected Labour to lose seats to the Tories, but for the Lib Dems to make substantial gains from the Tories too! That's why my daughter and her boyfriend voted Lib Dem in Guildford. With a Tory majority of about 345 from 2005 it was the Lib Dem's number one target seat, and they genuinely believed the Lib Dems would win the seat back with a comfortable majority, thus depriving Cameron of a seat. Instead the Tories won comfortably.

However, with the thought that, whilst losing seats to the Tories, the Lib Dems would be picking some up against them, Labour probably believed that they and the Lib Dems might muster around 350 seats between them... that's why they started talking about maybe offering more than just a referendum on AV

Then once the results were in, and it was obvious that the only possible coalition on the cards was Con/Lib Dem, Labour decided that a deal wasn't really on, and so stopped "fawning over" Clegg.

I'm not saying that's exactly how it happened, just that it's just as valid a scenario as you accusing them of self interest and "bottling it".

[Sam Slater]

[quote]my daughter and her boyfriend voted Lib Dem in Guildford.[/quote]

They sound like sensible, intelligent people. Give them my regards and best wishes, and tell them not to feel too down about how things have gone. We cannot defeat the parties of the establishment, but we can influence and cajole from within.

[quote]With a Tory majority of about 345 from 2005 it was the Lib Dem's number one target seat, and they genuinely believed the Lib Dems would win the seat back with a comfortable majority, thus depriving Cameron of a seat. Instead the Tories won comfortably.[/quote]

That's a damn shame. It seems many are still scared of moving away from the two old parties. I think PR would have gone a long way to change that. That's why I'm mad at Labour.

[quote]However, with the thought that, whilst losing seats to the Tories, the Lib Dems would be picking some up against them, Labour probably believed that they and the Lib Dems might muster around 350 seats between them... that's why they started talking about maybe offering more than just a referendum on AV[/quote]

But Labour MPs have talked about PR a lot from Friday night right through to Monday morning. They only started backing away as news came through that the Lib Dems were in formal discussions with Labour. The general attitude and murmurings in the press changed pretty quickly.

[quote]I'm not saying that's exactly how it happened, just that it's just as valid a scenario as you accusing them of self interest and "bottling it".[/quote]

I'd agree with that if Labour MPs had stopped talking about PR on the Saturday morning. It seemed, to me, that no one mentioned PR UNTIL it looked like a hung parliament was the most likely result. Certainly Brown didn't mention it in any of his talks in the leaders debates and I can't remember reading much about PR from any other Labour MPs during that time.

None of us know the full story, of course, but given what we do know, and what articles have been written and interviews aired, my conclusion is still that a good number of Labour MPs were scared of losing their seats and pointed out that PR might not be best for the future of their party; that they'd rather face off against the Tories as has been the case for over 65 years, without having to worry about an emerging party taking seats and voters away in a PR system, where it would hurt them much more than the system we have currently. Basically, it's not in their interest....just like the Tories.

23% of the country voted Lib Dem and they only get 8.7% of the seats. That tells me it wasn't in Nick Clegg's interest to have pretend talks if Labour had anything of value on the table. And in our world 22% of the vote means 5 more seats than 23% of the vote! Fucking backwards!

[Bob Singleton]

Sam Slater wrote:


[quote]I'd agree with that if Labour MPs had stopped talking about PR on the Saturday morning. It seemed, to me, that no one mentioned PR UNTIL it looked like a hung parliament was the most likely result. Certainly Brown didn't mention it in any of his talks in the leaders debates and I can't remember reading much about PR from any other Labour MPs during that time.[/quote]

To be frank, the questions most politicians were asked by the public and journalists in the run up to the election were about the economy, immigration, law and order and public services (such as NHS, education etc). For the vast majority of the public, electoral reform is pretty low down on the list of priorities.

Labour did have a promise for a referendum on a change of electoral system in its manifesto, but what would have been the point of talking about PR at any great length prior to Thursday when that's NOT what the vast majority of the public were concerned about?


[quote]None of us know the full story, of course, but given what we do know, and what articles have been written and interviews aired, my conclusion is still that a good number of Labour MPs were scared of losing their seats and pointed out that PR might not be best for the future of their party; [SNIP]....just like the Tories.[/quote]


I agree we don't know the full story.

I agree SOME Labour MPs are opposed to PR.

However, I still maintain that once it became obvious to Labour that their talks with the Lib Dems were nothing more than a charade, they decided not to budge an inch on any of their manifesto pledges. That would, of course, have included discussing PR

[David Johnson]

Toys = manifesto pledges which the Lib Dems sold to the highest bidder in return for seats in the Cabinet.

[David Johnson]

Ignore PR it appears to be causing you problems.

Try to answer this question without mentioning the words "bottling" or "Pr". Difficult for you, I know.

1. Have the Lib Dems agreed with the Tories to have a referendum on AV which is not proportional representation. Yes or No.
2. Was exactly the same in 1 on offer within the Labour referendum.
Yes or No.
3. Is AV irrelevant as far as pr is concerned? Yes or No.
4. Is the Lib Dems manifesto diametrically opposed to the Tories compared to the Lib Dem/Labour manifesto relationship? Yes or No.
4. Have the Lib Dems decided that given they have demonstrably had little or no purpose in politics since their creation in 88, they are prepared to give up large parts of their manifesto to get into Cabinet? Yes or No.

I will be looking to references to "bottling" and "PR"

D