[Mercader76]

I'm not a Lib Dem but I do have some sympathy for the party's plight at the moment. I can't see any good coming out of you being in coalition with the Evil Party. Most Lib Dem voters I know are seriously angry about the whole thing and the party's bound to suffer for it.
And yet, what choice did you have? Back Labour? The maths didn't add up and Labour had clearly lost anyway. Force another election? That wouldn't have been popular either.
You're in a lose-lose scenario here. I'd do everything you can to get PR asap and then get out while you still can.

[Shadowfax]

Yes, I feel the same way.

They took a HUGE gamble to try to get P.R. and I hope they get it. A lot of their M.P's are looking very uncomfortable supporting Tory policies at the moment, especially on VAT where they campaigned against any rise. They are beginning to look like chancers hanging on to a little bit of power to make themselves look important

If they dont get P.R- the party could be destoyed at the next election and sink without trace.

[Thincat]

I think the problem comes when there's another General Election - in 2015 or before. The Lib Dems then have to cut themselves adrift from the Tories. I think we can take it as a given that PR won't have been introduced (Cameron isn't as nice as some people think - he'll shaft the Libs like Labour have done in the past) so the LDs will be back to square one. But at least people will know who one or two of them are, so that will be an advantage - maybe they'll be on square 1.5.

[PeteBrant]

May 2011 for a referendum on AV , then.

[cahill]

Too late for the Lib Dems now. I too know people who voted for them, including my wife, and to a person they are all furious and deeply embarrassed. As Harriet Harman says sold themselves for a few ministerial cars. Clegg, Laws , Cable et al will be condemned by history

[Shadowfax]

Yea, its funny really. A few days after the election produced the coalition government, pundits were saying that Clegg and his merry men had negotiated a disproportionately large share of the ministers and power and Cameron had caved in to Libdem pressure.

Now that Osbourne has announced his budget, it seems that the LibDems didnt negotiate much of a deal and that The Tories are going to do pretty much whatever the hell they like. In fact Cameron said the other day that he is going to campaign against P.R.
This would leave the LibDems with nothing if they cant get P.R. through and would spell the end of the LibDem party

[Am_Fìobhach]

Unfortunately, SF, whatever the upshot of the next 4 to 5 years shenanigans, it will not spell the end of the Lib-Dems. They may, indeed, be considerably weaker after the next few sets of local, regional and national elections, but a few will survive.

Many of us up here in Scotland (and I understand the same is the case in Wales) are somewhat perturbed by the current plan to hold a vote-change referendum on the same day as our parliamentary elections. Even in much of England, the referendum would be on the same day as local elections. If this proposed vote-change is really an important issue, it should have its own, unique day for a ballot - rather than be foisted onto sundry regional and local elections.

My view? It seems the change being offered is the one I've always felt to be the best system - the Alternative Vote. However, I have a fundamental objection to the idea of holding a referendum on anything. I elect MPs to take the decisions and I judge them on overall performance, not on any particular issue.

[Shadowfax]

Am_Fìobhach wrote:

regional and local elections.

My view? It seems the change being offered is the one I've always felt to be the best system - the Alternative Vote. However, I have a fundamental objection to the idea of holding a referendum on anything. I elect MPs to take the decisions and I judge them on overall performance, not on any particular issue.

I understand your point BUT we are never going to get our M.P's to vote for their own demise. They just aint that noble. Once they have have been elected by the f.p.t.p system, they will fight like hell to keep that system. Tony Blair was pro P.R and had a deal with Paddy Ashdown until he won a landslde and realised he didnt need Ashdown and suddenly didnt like P.R so much.



Therefore, a referendum is the only way to get P.R/A.V

[Am_Fìobhach]

No, SF. Quite apart from the fact that Parliament can choose to ignore any referendum, this one is hardly about MPs voting for their own demise! It's just asking about a slight change to the voting system.

To put it into context, when the three regional assemblies were set up, they had a previously untried (in the UK) voting system. There was no referendum about that.

At one time, MEPs were elected in single-member constituencies by FPTP. Now they are elected in multi-member constituencies, by FPTP in the UK mainland and by PR in Northern Ireland. Again, there was no referendum about those changes.

In Scotland, the way that local councils are elected has recently changed, from a single-member system to a multi-member system, with STV. There was no referendum about that.

So, why the hell are we being subjected to a referendum about changing the Westminster voting system? Why don't they just introduce a Bill with the changes in it?

[Shadowfax]

Am_Fìobhach wrote:

So, why the hell are we being subjected to a referendum about changing the Westminster voting system? Why don't they just introduce a Bill with the changes in it?

Cos none except The LibDems would introduce it and Labour and Conservatives wouldnt support it.

Cleggo has taken the only opportunity available to try to force the issue out in the open in the hope that the electorate will force a voting change upon Parliament.

As i said earlier, The LibDems have taken a huge gamble to try to get A.V. and I hope thay succeed. If he hadnt taking that gamble, we would have f.p.t.p for decades more. M.P's will never vote to get rid of a system that elected them. They aint that noble

[Am_Fìobhach]

Shadowfax wrote:

M.P's will never vote to get rid of a system that elected them. They aint that noble

As I said before, they're not being asked to do so. The system isn't up for discussion - whatever, there's still likely to be a system whereby we get to choose, by some method or other, who gets to sit in the House of Commons. And that means relative security for MPs, come what may. As they say, whoever you vote for, the government always gets in.

So, why all the fuss? Just get on with it - do it!

[Mercader76]

I'm increasingly less sympathetic towards the Lib Dems now. How far are they prepared to let things slide before they walk out of the government? In fairness, perhaps they're just waiting until a Tory defeat looks inevitable. Or perhaps when Labour gets its leader.

[Moncrieff]

Mercader76 wrote:

I'm increasingly less sympathetic towards the Lib Dems now. How far are they prepared to let things slide before they walk out of the government?

Probably quite a way further! Principles and the Lib Dems are strange bedfellows.

Their party conference in a few weeks' time may be meaningful for a change. I wonder if David Cameron will give a speech?!

[DanConservative]

Any LibDem that is angry about the coalition is stupid. One defining principle of being a LibDem is PR and coalition governments. It makes sense to form a coalition with the party that has the strongest public support which at this election was the Conservative Party and therefore it's the LDs opportunity to get as much of their agenda across as possible, it was also one of the only chances they were ever going to have.

Also people need to remember that the Liberal Democrats is a very broad church, a coalition of its own rights, with Economic Liberals (Orange book Liberals - a lot more in common with Conservative, esp Thatcher) and democratic sociaists that broke away from Labour and have more in common with socialism and the left of the Labour party.

So any Lib Dem that didn't know Clegg and Cable were more Orange book than democratic socialist, shouldn't have ever joined the party!

[DDave3]

DanConservative wrote:

It makes sense to form a coalition with the party that has the strongest public support which at this election was the Conservative Party

What amused me throughout the election was David Cameron's - and indeed the Conservative party as a whole - warning with almost apocalyptic language the dangers a hung parliament would cause. We had Cameron saying on a daily basis that we needed a "decisive Conservative government" before warning hung parliaments would only lead to "bickering, horse-trading and arguing". Or take Ken Clark who consistently predicted economic doom and even suggested a Labour victory was preferable to a hung parliament.

As we have since seen, it was all pathetic scaremongering. And the irony really is, Conservative politicians were the same ones would day after day during the general election warned us about the dangers of a hung parliament and the lauded the ability of the first-past-the-post electoral system to clear out unpopular governments now find themselves in the first coaltion government since the war - produced by their beloved system.

[Shadowfax]

DDave3 wrote:

As we have since seen, it was all pathetic scaremongering. And the irony really is, Conservative politicians were the same ones would day after day during the general election warned us about the dangers of a hung parliament and the lauded the ability of the first-past-the-post electoral system to clear out unpopular governments now find themselves in the first coaltion government since the war - produced by their beloved system.

Ummmmmmmmmm I hope you are not suggesting that Cameron and the rest of The Tories are lacking principles and would cling onto power at any cost? (Ken Clarke excepted)

[DanConservative]

DDave3 wrote:

we have since seen, it was all pathetic scaremongering. And the irony really is, Conservative politicians were the same ones would day after day during the general election warned us about the dangers of a hung parliament and the lauded the ability of the first-past-the-post electoral system to clear out unpopular governments now find themselves in the first coaltion government since the war - produced by their beloved system

Think you will find you are completely wong here.

1) we do not have a hung parliament, we have a parliament with a ConservativeLibDem government that has a majority.

2) Before the coalition formed, the market did indeed lose confidence it was on practically every news channel, but maybe you decided to block that bit out?

3) The horse trading and backroom deals did go on and now we have a government with a plan of action that absolutely nobody voted for.

Which party set out a manifesto pledge for a referendum on AV? Not the LibDems, and not the Tories so neither parties loyal voters got what they asked for!

Which party pledged a spending review on Trident? Well again it wasn't the LibDems (they wanted abolition) and it wasn't the Conservatives.

So you were pretty much wrong on all 3 counts there.

[DDave3]

Dan wrote:

1) we do not have a hung parliament, we have a parliament with a ConservativeLibDem government that has a majority.

The coalition agreement was formed because of the result of the general election - which was a hung parliament.

Dan wrote:

2) Before the coalition formed, the market did indeed lose confidence it was on practically every news channel, but maybe you decided to block that bit out?

Politicians, rating agencies and analysts totally overblew the dangers posed to the financial markets by a hung Parliament. The pound fell against the dollar sharply in the twilight of the election night, but it wasn't drastic enough to warrant comments like Ken Clarke's that a hung Parliament could result in "financial panic" that could be "catastrophic." During the election all the main political parties shared a very broad consensus that we need to engage in fiscal consolidation. The similarities between them on the fiscal situation far outweigh their differences. Deficit reduction was always going to be at the apex of the agenda, whichever party won, and the fears were magnified and totally overblown because it was election time and the need for hyperbole was strong.