What an extraordinary development. Clegg manages to boot out Gormless Gordon, and then the Tories (in a state of panic I should think) offer a referendum on PR !

Wouldn't it now be amazing if the Libs did a deal with the Tories (because remember a Lib / Lab pact would STILL fall short of a majority !)

Why would the Tories be in a state of panic? A referendum on PR was mentioned as an option by one of the MPs on the morning after the election. Nick Clegg's influence is limited. He knows his party has the support of less than a quarter of voters and that an alliance with Labour would still not make a majority. To include various smaller parties, each wanting their own concessions, would make any alliance so fragile that it would be unworkable. He has one real option for sharing power, and that is to deal with the Conservatives. The alternative is a fresh election which might leave him with even fewer seats than he has now.

I am a Lib Dem voter but agree with most of what you say above, Emma.

However, why did William Hague appear on tv very soon after Gordon Brown's announcement publically offering something new to the Lib Dems.

My own personal feeling is that, right or wrong, we will end up with a Con-Lib Dem coalition, or a Con minority governement selectively supported by the Lib Dems.

This election demonstates that Britain more than ever needs a referendum on PR..and a very good education campaign before it happens.

PR gives a country the most stable governments and this present drama would not be happening if the voters accepted it.

But Emma Bee is probably corect. Another election soon and voters would galvanise to one or the other of the main parties and the Lib Dems would be the losers.

The UK is quite a fortunate position. It has 3 main political parties and 2 potential oppositions who can go tough on the government but at present no matter what people think of the Lib Dems their small number of seats compared to their vote is a disgrace.

veritas wrote:

PR gives a country the most stable governments.

Sorry but that's a stunningly misleading generalisation. PR in itself doesn't do any such thing. If the constituencies are divided up in a certain way, and if the type of PR is chosen appropriately, and if the electorate understands it extremely well and votes accordingly, and - the biggest if - the parties respond to results in precisely the most responsible manner in terms of civic virtue, then, yes, maybe, a relatively just and relatively stable, but by no means necessarily effective, government might follow, but I'm sure you know full well, from a cursory comparative and historical survey, that is by no means what always, or even often, happens.

I don't think it's helpful for any supporter of any system, at this stage, to claim anything more than that their own favoured system has its own strengths and weaknesses, and encourage further discussion and research in terms of what best suits the needs of this particular political culture. There's no need for wildly bold claims of superiority from any faction.

Emma Bee wrote:
[quote]Why would the Tories be in a state of panic? [/unquote]

Seeing their "opportunity" disappear now that the LibDems are talking to Labour (and have gone as far as to ditch their leader in order to make a deal more palatable) ?

Emma Bee wrote:A referendum on PR was mentioned as an option by one of the MPs on the morning after the election. Nick Clegg's influence is limited.

The Tories have offered a referendum on PR (which may not be adopted by the public).

The Labour Party have offered a Bill - ie PR guaranteed (if it passes the Commons)

There is a huge difference !

Nick Clegg has, so far, behaved magnificently.
He knows that although his party is naturally more linked to Labour, the Tories have the mandate (and could actually govern without the LibDems, if the DUP (natual allies) support them).

He also knows that Brown - who was never elected in the first place - has now been thoroughly rejected by the public. I think he is making a big mistake if he backs the Labour Party.

The Labour Party has no mandate ... to prop them up (for short term gain) will not be forgiven by the public.

david wrote:
My own personal feeling is that, right or wrong, we will end up with a Con-Lib Dem coalition, or a Con minority governement selectively supported by the Lib Dems.

Putting all personal preferences aside ... this is what the public actually voted for so should happen.

In The Know wrote:
david wrote:
My own personal feeling is that, right or wrong, we will end up with a Con-Lib Dem coalition, or a Con minority governement selectively supported by the Lib Dems.

Putting all personal preferences aside ... this is what the public actually voted for so should happen.

Where did it say on the ballot paper 'a Con-LibDem coalition' or 'A Lib-Lab coalition'? I didn't see a box for either. 'The public' didn't actually vote en masse, and - as far as we know - it didn't vote individually for anything other than for (or in some cases against) one party. One just can't jump from that fact to any presumption that another result was in some sense intended collectively by all who took part.

But, JK, the public didn't vote for the losing party (Labour) to remain as winner either !

These ongoing "talks" are getting squalid and shabby and denying the public what they actually chose.

Considering that the LibDems have always claimed to be against Labour's policies on ID cards, the DNA database, stop and question, monitoring our emails and phone calls, increased surveillance, detention without trial and other civil rights abuses, it would be quite alarming if they now do a deal with the devil just to have a slice of power. But I guess that's what people usually deal with the devil for.

Aside from Europe and PR I have never seen a great deal of difference between Conservative and LibDem policies, despite all the talks of the gulf between the parties.

I must say that the young ginger haired LibDem negotiator appears to be thoroughly enjoying his stint in the limelight.

An interesting rumour emerging is that the grandees of the LibDem party - the likes of Steel, Ashdown and Campbell - are the ones pushing for the link with Labour, while the current leaders - Clegg, Cable and others - are much more inclined to go with the Tories. I'm a bit surprised if Ashdown has that much influence these days - he was loathed by a large proportion of his own colleagues when he was leader, and I doubt if he's much more popular now!

Francis D wrote:


Aside from Europe and PR I have never seen a great deal of difference between Conservative and LibDem policies, despite all the talks of the gulf between the parties.



How about Lib Dem tax policies- miles apart from the Conservatives.

LibDem MPs and Peers to meet tonight at 7.30pm

Tories MPs to meet at 8.00pm

Cameron to be announced as PM in time for the Ten O'Clock News ?