Hung Parliament!

[The Red Baron]

I can see only two outcomes now:

1. A Tory minority government which relies on Lib Dem support to pass a Queen's Speech and a Budget. Although they can probably agree a legislative programme, the Budget will be a real sticking point unless the Lib Dems accept the idea of some public spending cuts this year. Even if they get past that, I can't see the arrangement being particularly stable. Cameron will ultimately not give the Libs PR - even if he wanted to (which I doubt) his party will not let him.

2. A Lib-Lab coalition. Worth noting that such an arrangement would not command a majority in the commons although they could probably do enough to keep the Scots, Welsh and NI parties onside. Brown would have to go, so I could see a lot of haggling over who would be PM. There's no stand-out candidate on the Labour side and their MPs would not accept Clegg as PM. Also the \"unelected PM\" argument would come up again- with some force after a campaign where all parties focused mainly on the leader.

Neither arrangement would be particuarly stable. I suspect that option 1 will happen but won't hold beyond the summer and we'll be voting again in October/ November.

What happens to the economy in the meantime doesn't bear thinking about!

[Snods Shinpad 2]

The bookies are rarely wrong:

Tory/Lib Dem 5/6   
               
Tory Minority    5/6
         
Labour/Lib Dem   5/1

[Sandy Lane]

Filo wrote:

Sandy Lane wrote:

why wasn't Brown given the first chance to talk to the Liberals as is stated d/t the fact he is the sitting PM?  It sounds like Cameron is taking the first crack at it.

I think that Brown took a gamble when he made his statement from Downing street, he knew that the Lib Dems had constantly stated throughout the campaign that they thought that the party with the most seats should have the first opportunity to form a government, Brown was also pretty sure that the Conservatives would not bow to electoral reform, a probable major condition of the Lib Dems for forming any kind of alliance. So Brown says ok speak to the Conservatives first, taking the moral high ground and hoping that the Lib Dems don`t throw their principles away, but at the same time Brown is also saying Labour will go for electoral reform so when your talks with the conservatives fail, Labour is still here ready to talk to you


I hope that makes sense, if it does n`t, I know what i`m on about if no one else does  

Thanks for that, and I do understand.  It makes sense, and best of luck to Brown and Labour.

If the worst happens and the Tories  get in, remember the words of our ignorant, dangerous idiot:

...fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.''
—President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002.  

Barring that, there's always drugs and alcohol...  

Seriously. if there does need to be another election, what will change between now and then to produce a clear winner?  Sadly, I think If the Tories form the coalition government, they'll just need to sit tight for a few months and do nothing to upset the apple cart, and they'll be voted in as their detrimental policies will not yet have become clear.

[Filo]

If Clegg becomes Cameron`s rent boy it could spell disaster for the Lib Dems if there was an early election, the Lib Dem voters did n`t vote for a tory government, most are likely to defect to Labour in an early election

[BillyStubbsTears]

Welcome to real politics Mr Clegg.

You have two choices.

1) Support the Tory party in what will undoubtedly be extremely unpopular measures over the next couple of years. Accept policies that are diametrically opposed to the ones that you had in your manifesto, and be open to the accusation that you are untrustworthy and without principles. Don't get Proportional Representation. Deeply alienate your core support, most of whom are slightly Left of Centre. Ensure that no-one who has left-leaning tendencies ever votes for you again.

2) Support a deeply unpopular Labour minority Government. Get PR but be open to the accusation that you put your Party's best interests before those of the country. Have a shotgun put to your head by the Plaid Cymru/SNP MP's whose votes you'd need to pass legislation. Ensure that no-one who has right-leaning tendencies ever votes for you again.

Either way, you are in for a kicking from your supporters and/or the electorate.

I suspect that young Nick is in the process of realising that he's in a bit of a pickle. He's probably beginning to understand that real politics is a fcuk sight harder than looking straight at a camera on a TV show, remembering questioners' first names and making glib one-liners. It's about tough, hard, unpalatable decisions that will be used to smash you down in the future.

Come the next election, he might understand why Brown looks so knackered.

PS: There's one bright spot in all of this. Since Cameron and Clegg are flouting the conventions of our constitutional arrangements by ignoring the current PM in their discussions, they are technically guilty of treason. The Queesn must be livid. I'm waiting for them both to be dragged off to the Tower by the Beefeaters and beheaded.

PPS: The editor of The Sun should follow them to the gallows. This stupid shite they are putting on their front page about how Brown shouldn;t be allowed to \"squat\" in No.10. Utter, infantile crap. Brown has NO OPTION but to stay as PM until things are sorted out. Where would we be if he did what The Sun suggests and says, \"Ah f**k it. I've had enough. I'll leave the keys under the bin for you lot when you are ready.\"? It doesn't work like that. He has a DUTY to stay on as PM until there is a viable Government to replace him. Yet another example of Murdoch's rags pursuing their own interests by keeping the general population in ignorance. They COULD have used this situation as a way of helping to educate people about how our political processes work. Some f**king chance of that eh?

[Mark Time]

I agree that Lib Dem/Tory coalition is a bad idea, most LD supporters are left wing can't see it going down well with Clegg's party.
As an aside I personally believe Ed Miliband should go for Labour leadership as I believe this would restore at least some of Labours popularity. Brown should and will go after that result and rightly so. I'm Labour at heart but even I thought twice about voting for them on this occasion, in the end I did but through gritted teeth.

[The Red Baron]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Welcome to real politics Mr Clegg.

You have two choices.

1) Support the Tory party in what will undoubtedly be extremely unpopular measures over the next couple of years. Accept policies that are diametrically opposed to the ones that you had in your manifesto, and be open to the accusation that you are untrustworthy and without principles. Don't get Proportional Representation. Deeply alienate your core support, most of whom are slightly Left of Centre. Ensure that no-one who has left-leaning tendencies ever votes for you again.

2) Support a deeply unpopular Labour minority Government. Get PR but be open to the accusation that you put your Party's best interests before those of the country. Have a shotgun put to your head by the Plaid Cymru/SNP MP's whose votes you'd need to pass legislation. Ensure that no-one who has right-leaning tendencies ever votes for you again.

Either way, you are in for a kicking from your supporters and/or the electorate.

I suspect that young Nick is in the process of realising that he's in a bit of a pickle. He's probably beginning to understand that real politics is a fcuk sight harder than looking straight at a camera on a TV show, remembering questioners' first names and making glib one-liners. It's about tough, hard, unpalatable decisions that will be used to smash you down in the future.

Come the next election, he might understand why Brown looks so knackered.

PS: There's one bright spot in all of this. Since Cameron and Clegg are flouting the conventions of our constitutional arrangements by ignoring the current PM in their discussions, they are technically guilty of treason. The Queesn must be livid. I'm waiting for them both to be dragged off to the Tower by the Beefeaters and beheaded.

PPS: The editor of The Sun should follow them to the gallows. This stupid shite they are putting on their front page about how Brown shouldn;t be allowed to \"squat\" in No.10. Utter, infantile crap. Brown has NO OPTION but to stay as PM until things are sorted out. Where would we be if he did what The Sun suggests and says, \"Ah fcuk it. I've had enough. I'll leave the keys under the bin for you lot when you are ready.\"? It doesn't work like that. He has a DUTY to stay on as PM until there is a viable Government to replace him. Yet another example of Murdoch's rags pursuing their own interests by keeping the general population in ignorance. They COULD have used this situation as a way of helping to educate people about how our political processes work. Some fcuking chance of that eh?

I agree with your analysis except in one respect: what Cameron and Clegg are doing is NOT unconstitutional at all. They are trying to see if they can produce either (a) a coalition which would have a majority in the Commons or (b) terms under which a minority Tory government could work at least for a time. Brown and Clegg together could not achieve either because the combined total of Labour & Lib Dems would not have a majority.

If Cameron and Clegg can't agree the next step would be talks between Brown and Clegg, but such a Government would be highly unstable and could fall as soon as it tries to present a Queen's Speech.

A lot of commentators (and some politicians) are treating this as though this is some kind of academic exercise. it is NOT. My guess is that unless by the end of the day there is some sort of statement from the Tories and Lib Dems that they have the basis of an agreement, that the pound will drop through the floor when the markets open and shares will follow them. And in case you don't think that affects you, the response from the Bank of England will have to be a sharp rise in interest rates.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I was just being a bit daft with the unconstitutional comments. But there is a very important issue here, and it highlights Clegg's lack of substance as a serious politician.

According to convention (we don't actually have a constitution of course, just a set of commonly agreed ways of doing things according to precedent) the sitting PM has the first chance to try to create a workable majority in the House. Brown COULD do that with support from the Liberals, Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Not ideal by a long stretch, but it's more ideologically coherent than an alliance between Tories and Liberals.

Clegg has blown this option out if the water and flouted convention by a thoughtless, off the cuff remark during the election campaign. Had he NOT made that remark, he could have kept his options open now. As it is, he has painted himself into a corner and made it pretty much inevitable that he will have an arrangement with the Tories.

As I say, he's going through a painful transition from being an amateur politician whose comments don't mean much, to being someone who is not able to make a single slip without it coming back to bite him (and the country) in the arse.

Anybody really think he's up to it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Repost

[Dagenham Rover]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

I was just being a bit daft with the unconstitutional comments. But there is a very important issue here, and it highlights Clegg's lack of substance as a serious politician.

According to convention (we don't actually have a constitution of course, just a set of commonly agreed ways of doing things according to precedent) the sitting PM has the first chance to try to create a workable majority in the House. Brown COULD do that with support from the Liberals, Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Not ideal by a long stretch, but it's more ideologically coherent than an alliance between Tories and Liberals.

Clegg has blown this option out if the water and flouted convention by a thoughtless, off the cuff remark during the election campaign. Had he NOT made that remark, he could have kept his options open now. As it is, he has painted himself into a corner and made it pretty much inevitable that he will have an arrangement with the Tories.

As I say, he's going through a painful transition from being an amateur politician whose comments don't mean much, to being someone who is not able to make a single slip without it coming back to bite him (and the country) in the arse.

Anybody really think he's up to it?

As you say under the \"constitution\" (for want of a better word) Clegg should be talking to  Labour and Gordon Brown as the sitting PM.Then if no agreement is reached he is free to talk to the Torys.

\"Constitutionally\" Gordon Brown is entirely correct and is dutybound to remain as PM untill some agreement is reached with someone.


All this crap from Clegg about I'm going to talk to the Torys cos they have the most number of MP's is not the correct way of doing things.


The only thing anyone can say with any certainty is we'll all be voting again fairly soon!

[BobG]

Which raises the interesting prospect of bankrupting one or more of the political parties. State funding for parties next chaps?!

One of my pet hobby horses actually that is. I'm all in favour. It would, 'at a stroke' remove the corruption of vested interests funding parties of their choice and subsequently wielding unhealthy influence in government. 'Donations' would, for me, then be a criminal offence. And while we're on the subject, I'd pay every MP a quarter of a million a year or so and abolish the equally contemptible practice that lots of them indulge in of accepting shed loads of directorships and advisor posts in return for yet more shed loads of money - and selling of influence. That's just about the most corrupt practice of all.

BobG

[Dutch Uncle]

BobG wrote:

Which raises the interesting prospect of bankrupting one or more of the political parties. State funding for parties next chaps?!

One of my pet hobby horses actually that is. I'm all in favour. It would, 'at a stroke' remove the corruption of vested interests funding parties of their choice and subsequently wielding unhealthy influence in government. 'Donations' would, for me, then be a criminal offence. And while we're on the subject, I'd pay every MP a quarter of a million a year or so and abolish the equally contemptible practice that lots of them indulge in of accepting shed loads of directorships and advisor posts in return for yet more shed loads of money - and selling of influence. That's just about the most corrupt practice of all.

BobG

Totally with you on that one Bob. The people who govern our country are important and we need the best. If you pay peanuts you shouldn't be surprised if you get monkeys. Give them a representative salary and absolutely no expenses and they have no excuses.

Only just joined this interesting thread and I have just shown the exchanges between BST and TRB to my horribly precocious daughter (all A* last year at GCSE and now taking History and Politics among other subjects at A level - intellectually she has completely left her Mathematical Dad behind for dead)

She was interested and impressed (but unable to admit to it) - not sure she will be able to give VSC as a primary source in her upcoming exams...........

P.S. Edit: Of course Holland is used to Coalitions and Dutch politicians are used to the pragmatism and bargaining and compromises that go with it and which are needed to make it work. It works a significant amount of the time....but long term stable it is not.