And there would be no less electoral justice in that than in a Tory government. Rather more, in fact.
No one is saying that the Lib-Dems and Labour don’t have the right to form a government. Obviously, they do. People are saying that they shouldn’t…that more people voted for the Conservatives than for Labour, so that the Conservatives should be in the government.
No it’s not. Conventionally it would fall to the incumbent PM to take the first opportunity to form a government in the case of a hung parliament (though this isn’t formally codified). Gordon Brown instead opted, not unfairly, to give that opportunity to the Tories, though this doesn’t sit very well with the inflammatory hyperbole of ‘defying the will of the people’. Nevertheless I’m sure Curtis won’t let inconvenient facts get in the way of casting his political aspersions.
Understand the sentiment but I don’t agree with it.
The people have had their say. It was called an election. Your representatives are just negotiating the consequences of what you’ve told them.
The UK didn’t feel sufficiently comfortable with the Tories to, collectively, give them a working majority. Government isn’t a prize for almost winning.
Not my electorate, but I would have thought a minority Tory government would be a sound outcome, if either combination couldn’t consumate a working relationship.
Patently they wouldn’t push any of their hard-line policies. You’d have the very model of a compassionate conservative government. If they were pragmatic and practical they could significantly enhance their next election chance. And the Lib-Dems have a two-edged opportunity to create or blow their chances of a reformed political environment they need.
I’d far prefer a workable minority government than say Tories needing a bare handful of votes and cutting a deal with the BNP or a couple of independents who won on intensely local issues and find themselves kingmakers on national policy.
The Tories are panicking over the LDs talks with Labour, offering the AV system.
The Tories can’t cut a deal with the BNP at the mo, as the BNP don’t have any seats. Of course, if we had a PR system, the BNP would get seats (NOT, incidentally, an ethically valid reason to oppose PR, unless you baldly state that the purpose of a voting system is to exclude the parties you personally detest). But
-
I’m pretty confident they’d only get a dozen seats in the FIRST parliament elected under PR. Nothing like a turn in the sunlight to fry those vampires. In subsequent parliaments they’d be lucky to get three seats, and we can tolerate that. And
-
Not even the Tories would ever cut a deal with them. Nobody would cut a deal with them. If Cameron wanted to commit electoral suicide like that it’d be quicker just to turn up to the Commons dressed as Hitler for a couple of days.
ETA: I quite agree, jonusb2, the importance of Toronto Asian escorts in our electoral process cannot be overstated. And that last sentence will look particularly cryptic once the mods have gone medieval on your ass.
Not true. Most PR systems have what’s called an “election threshold” (in Germany it’s known as the “five percent clause”).
This requires smaller parties to gain a certain minimum percentage share of the vote (either nationally or locally) before they can have a seat.
The BNP only received 1.83% of the popular vote, which would mean no seats under pretty much all PR systems.
If we’re going to reform the voting system I think we should get with the times. There should be at least a couple of parliamentary seats reserved for reality show winners.
As for the current negotiations I think a Conservative government with co-operation for the Lib. Dems. as a moderating influence would be the best solution. Labour need replacing IMO.
As political thrillers go, this is turning out to be a good one. We’ve got the Tories with a not-quite-majority, forced to dealt with their ideological opposites the LibDems. We’ve got Labour, running second but still just barely close enough to pass the Tories if they can get the LibDems on board, and offering enough tempting morsels (and Gordon’s head on a platter) to worry the Tories that they’ll do it. We’ve got the LibDems who can play kingmaker for the first time in a long time but need to tread very, very carefully or they could destroy their own party at the next election. We’ve got the electorate who have varying degrees of comfort with the potential compromises to be made with either sort of coalition and who are getting progressively noisier by the day. And we’ve got the markets, which get more nervous the longer this situation goes on, threatening the UK’s AAA sovereign status and the strength of the pound. Definitely lawnchair and popcorn time.
Oh, and you’ve got the press who are starting to crack under the pressure. Did anyone see either of Adam Boulton’s little outbursts yesterday?
Admittedly Campbell makes me furious on a regular basis too, but I suspect Boulton’s biases are showing here (someone from the Murdoch press with a bias? Inconceivable!).
I’m still torn about the outcome I prefer. A Tory-LibDem coalition won’t move toward electoral reform to the degree that I’d like but will at least scrap those horrible ID cards. Labour is promising significant movement toward PR but the ID cards stay, plus I am currently hating Labour a lot for various reasons. And a minority Conservative government will struggle enough to help the other parties at the next election, which will be soon. We’ll see how it goes. I’m just hoping that Nick Clegg is still retaining the option to walk away if the deal isn’t good enough.
Not one I would trust from the whole sorry bunch. IMHO the worst thing that ever happened to the Labour Party was John Smith dying and allowing Blair and this bunch of used car salesmen types to take over.
Am I the only one whose skin crawls when David Miliband appears on TV?
I do like the Guardian’s take on Boulton Vs. Campbell - link
I think the only honourable thing Clegg can do is to walk away and allow the Tories to form a minority government, they can then debate each issue as it arises.
Any other option would potentially put the Libs into an untennable position for the future.
If they join with Labour they will form a minority government without a real mandate form the people. A Lib/Con pact could form a stable government (assuming part of the deal is to stay for 4 years) but would alienate many Lib voters who did not want a Tory government.
By walking away they allow the Tories to build a, relatively, stable minority government which may last long enough to allow everyone to fight a second election in 12-18 months time. Making backroom deals in order to gain power at any costs will backfire in the long run.
I’m thinking we might be going for Round 2 in a few weeks time.
Nope. And Ed Balls is Brown without the scowl, and Harriet Harman…well, just no.
I’d probably look to see Alan Johnson heading a coalition government if it happened, to be dumped unceremoniously when Labour goes full Opposition (and probably replaced by Miliband, D.).
I generally agree with the idea of the LibDems agreeing to a non-coalition minority Conservative government - except that I think we’d never get a chance like this for electoral reform in a long, long time. Damned if you do, etc.
It would be great to have Prime Minister Balls, though. A headline writer’s dream.
*“Balls Up!”
“Balls To The Wall!”*
Yes, it would be somewhat amusing.
From the Tories’ point of view, it might be wise to let Brown & Co. make themselves more unpopular over the next few months by trying to carry on, implementing the harsh cuts necessary to tackle the deficit.
“Sweet of him to provide his own punchline”. 
And whilst I normally don’t feel that consideration of a putative PM’s name is the best way to serve the cause of democracy, I have immediately shelved this principled stand.
I Want Balls! Give me Balls now! You’ll have to pry my Balls from my cold dead hands! This country needs Balls!
And so on. I’m very glad though, that my constituency no longer has Hands.
Balls is damned by association with Brown, and is in a marginal seat.
Yes, no one would be able to say the government lacked Balls.
“Lib Dems refuse to get in the sack with Balls!”
These thing write themselves.