howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
harry
there are many different versions of proportional representation.
we have it during the european elections, it works out that smaller parties like ukip and the bnp get representation due to the spread of votes.
it also seems to mean that we do not choose our own mp.
blues and reds love the present stitch up, either can get a third of the vote and gain power, the likelihood is that if pr comes into force, there will rarely be a majority government.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
if cameron rejects pr compleatly i can see clegg talking to brown who go some way towards pr.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
stone bolt certainty brian.
the deal would include gordon resigning and someone like david milliband taking the house at number 10.
that would save face for nick clegg, otherwise he would be accused of propping up a failed premier.
nick cannot go back to his team without proportional representation guaranteed in some form.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Brian and Howard - I would love to see that result as it would destroy both Labour and the Libdems and we would be heading towards a new general election by October. Pity it would economically destructive and therefore irresponsible otherwise it would be my preferred option.
A coalition of losers would have no democratic legitimacy and would be unstable. Clegg knows this and that is why he will go against the wishes of his membership and do a deal with DC. I do not expect a coalition as such because PR will not be be agreed but for the LibDems own electoral survival they will have to allow a Tory Queens speech (with a few face savers thrown in...)
Whatever happens there will certaimly be another election witin a couple of years, maybe even this year at a time of DC's choosing.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,699
but an arrangement between a loser and a sort of winner is more legitimate and acceptable?
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
barry
with all due respect you are clutching at straws on this one.
nick clegg does not have the authority to go against the membership, they are run on a democratic basis.
my guess is that nick is going through the motions with the blues(not literally) and will do a deal with the reds that will involve electoral reform.
the administration will fail after a year or so, an election will be called.
due to the new voting system, no party will have an outright victory, concensus politics will be here to stay.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
I think that any coaltion formed will not have a long shelf life but as others I shall wait and see and hope to be proved wrong.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
There won't be an actual coalition but instead a minority Conservative Government.
Ross - no is the answer, it is wrong that a small party be in the position the LibDems are in and that is whu PR is wrong because that will happen every time.
The only party to have democratic legitimacy is the Conservatives, a vote share larger than Blair's in 2005 and the largest number of seats. The combined Lab/Libdems will not have as many seats as the Conservatives and the deals that would be needed to bring the nationalists into the deal to get an overall majority would be shabby and everyone would realise that.
Like I say is that Lib/lab pact was to emerge then it would longer term be great for the Conservatives but terribly damaging for the country.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,do i hear a note of sour grapes here,you seem to be running scared here.by the way nothing with pr here bring it on.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Just stating the facts Brian, facts that perhaps you dont want to acknowledge.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
what ever the facts are barry its not looking good for cameron and the conservative party.haig is the wrong person to be in the team thats talking to cleggs bunch,he needs replacing by someone with a better attitude.
Hague is exactly the right man in my view. He is a first class negotiator and has a wealth of parliamentary and constitutional knowledge; he knows how the House works. If there is to be any form of deal, the practical side of it needs to be agreed up front. Outside of William there is probably really only one other with the stature and knowledge to sort this type of thing and that is Wedgie Benn, who of course couldn't be expected to help.
If there is any fear being demonstrated it isn't coming from the Tories. This is a win/win situation for them, not as good as an overall majority type win, but a win/win nevertheless. If anyone is getting that "touching cloth" feeling it will be Labour who see their dreams of further tax and spend and innefective government coming to an abrupt halt. Hurrah!!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i see that gordon and nick have had a face to face chat already.
love to be a fly on the wall at the meeting this morning, even more interesting would be listening on the meeting this afternoon between nick and his party executive.
sid, i think you are having a laugh with the win/win bit, the yellows will only go in with blues if david agrees to a lot of their demands.
should the coalition go ahead, i would give it 6 months at best.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - it is not that easy for the Libdems at all......their position is a lot weaker than you suggest.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i don't see their position as weak at all.
if the yellows went with the red, their members would be happier, they would get the proportional representation voting system that they crave and seats in cabinet.
gordon would have to be replaced though to appease the members.
As an interesting historical fact forumites might like to note that Winston Churchill formed his wartime coalition seventy years ago today.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
similar positon today with the the economy, not a time for party politics, just responsible government.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - imagine how a coalition of loser would go down with the voters...... the party that obtained the largest share of the vote and the highest number of MPs excluded from Government... Not only that it would be unstable as they would need too many other minor parties as part of a rainbow coalition each with their own special interests they will want protected. This would not have the confidence of the markets and would be economically damaging and, if not for that, I would be hoping for this solution. A new election assured within a year and a Tory landslide a certainty.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
sid,hauge is a little snot and you know it,benn/clark would have been a better option.
barryw,i like rainbows.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Brown has just announced he will resign - in four months time. This is just a low attempt to keep Labour as the Government. This is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful and shows what they'll do to hang on to power.
Brian, how on earth can you say that about William Hague, that is such an awful thing to say
Roger
