You might as well say what is the point of this democracy do-hickey if we can only have governments with minority support?
In the long run a system which regularly delivered hung parliaments would presumably lead to changes in all of the political parties, and possibly voting patterns, such that a Lib-Lab coalition isn't the only possible outcome.
Unless of course that's what people keep voting for ...
Erm, no - most of the govs we've had haven't been minority ones.
I agree on the "long run" principle you outline, but the long run takes time, and right now, I'm not sure we've got the time, with the economic problems the country faces.
I voted Liberal. I didn't vote for a coalition with Labour.
Not a parliamentary minority, but certainly a minority of support in the country. Assuming a stable coalition with either large party emerges it'll be the first government in a long time with more than 50% of the popular vote behind it.
As a Liberal voter, what outcome were you expecting? In the event of a hung parliament there were always going to have to be these kinds of negotiations and a LibLab coalition was always a distinct possibility.
Sadly, there's no, "not the Labour Party", option in elections. That's who would get my vote.
I think I was expecting Labour to be out. That was what I wanted. I thought that there was enough common ground economically betwixt Clegg and Cameron that worked for me.
Where is it written that a Liberal voter must agree with the Labour party? I ask as that's the line I seem to be hearing in the media a lot.
I've no idea whose fault it is, because I'm not involved in the negotiation process; all of which has been undertaken in private with most MPs being quiet, and various unelected people making statements.
Going on the media coverage, I just have more questions... 1) do the negotiators have the mandate from their people to be able to negotiate? 2) was the negotiation between the Conservative and Liberl parties ever going to be anything other than a waste of time? 3) was the Gord always intending to resign as the supreme leader of t' the labour party when he said he'd give the other two parties time to talk?
Absolutely yes. MPs are returned to Parliament to join a debating chamber and hack things out amongst themselves. Negotiation amongst various factions and tendencies should be part of the job - after all, the bigger UK political parties are nothing more than formalised coalitions in the first place.
No. In the sort of PR system the Lib Dems have been advocating, the onus is on the biggest party start building a coalition (rather than the incumbent PM's faction, as is the UK precedent). It'd be somewhat hypocritical for the Lib Dems to not let the Tories make the first move.
I think your guess is as good as mine.
Putting my cynic's hat on and trying to put myself in the three leaders' positions gives me the following impressions:
The Lib Dems want to get as much as they want without coming across as too greedy, and I'm not so certain they can actually do that. I suspect they want to shack up with the Tories, but need to make a few overtures to Labour to, er, put the fear of Gord into them. Labour are currently way too publicly "tainted
( ... )
For 1), I meant "by their parties" (and not "by the people") - as it is coming across that the liberal and conservative negotiators are having to go back to their parties for approvals. *shrugs*
I noted from the Beeb that now a bunch of Labour MPs are saying that they don't want to be in a coalition anyway; must be the first time a politician has said, "nah, power's not for me..". The world's coming to an end...
I suspect it's a straight up North South bias that's upsetting you. In the South, where the media comes from, the Lib Dems are an alternative to the Torys. In the North, their an alternative to Labour.
Looks like you got what you want. I think it's probably the best decision for the country given the way the voting went.
Comments 14
In the long run a system which regularly delivered hung parliaments would presumably lead to changes in all of the political parties, and possibly voting patterns, such that a Lib-Lab coalition isn't the only possible outcome.
Unless of course that's what people keep voting for ...
Reply
I agree on the "long run" principle you outline, but the long run takes time, and right now, I'm not sure we've got the time, with the economic problems the country faces.
I voted Liberal. I didn't vote for a coalition with Labour.
Reply
As a Liberal voter, what outcome were you expecting? In the event of a hung parliament there were always going to have to be these kinds of negotiations and a LibLab coalition was always a distinct possibility.
Reply
I think I was expecting Labour to be out. That was what I wanted. I thought that there was enough common ground economically betwixt Clegg and Cameron that worked for me.
Where is it written that a Liberal voter must agree with the Labour party? I ask as that's the line I seem to be hearing in the media a lot.
Reply
Reply
Going on the media coverage, I just have more questions...
1) do the negotiators have the mandate from their people to be able to negotiate?
2) was the negotiation between the Conservative and Liberl parties ever going to be anything other than a waste of time?
3) was the Gord always intending to resign as the supreme leader of t' the labour party when he said he'd give the other two parties time to talk?
Reply
Putting my cynic's hat on and trying to put myself in the three leaders' positions gives me the following impressions:
Reply
For 1), I meant "by their parties" (and not "by the people") - as it is coming across that the liberal and conservative negotiators are having to go back to their parties for approvals. *shrugs*
I noted from the Beeb that now a bunch of Labour MPs are saying that they don't want to be in a coalition anyway; must be the first time a politician has said, "nah, power's not for me..". The world's coming to an end...
Reply
Looks like you got what you want. I think it's probably the best decision for the country given the way the voting went.
Reply
"Be careful what you wish for".
I just hope that it doesn't apply to me.
Reply
Leave a comment