It occurs to me that (based on what I’ve read) both Labour and the Tories are, in their present formations, coalitions of different tendencies, forced together by the electoral logic of the first-past-the-post system. If PR were adopted, making it possible for smaller parties to make it on their own, is it possible Labour would split, into a leftist “Old Labour” party and a center-right Blairite “New Labour” party? And the Conservatives would split into a Thatcherite pro-business-interests party and an Old-Tory traditionalist party?
More than likely. Both are unwieldy coalitions. The splits, however, are not likely to be even. The Labour Party would be likely to have two parts- the larger centrist and the smaller left wing. The Tory Party would be largely a Business oriented party with a small and currently rapidly dying off Traditionalist rump. There would be some natural flow from extremes to the Lib/Dems and some the other way.
Whatever happens, there would of necessity be coalition government (as we currently have in Scotland under PR) or a minority government. Both require negotiation and compromise.
And which of those four would the LibDems consider their most natural allies and/or coalition partners?
The Lib/Dems are not far from mainstream Labour on Economics and Industry, but are closer to the more libertarian strands of the Tory Party on Individual Rights and Freedoms.
Other potential partners include the Greens, the Nationalists (at least the Welsh and Scots Nats) and any other smaller non-extreme parties that might thrive under PR.
It is worth reminding you that the breadth of mainstream British politics start at the far right of the Democratic Party and go quickly off the scale of US Liberal Politics. Most British Tories would not be that uncomfortable in the right and mainstream of the Democratic Party in the USA. I am relatively moderate left in Brit terms and very libertarian in Brit terms, but I would be on the extreme outer wing of the Dems in the States.
By “mainstream,” do you mean Old Labour or New Labour?
Most of ‘Old Labour’ has aged and gone, or just gone. Even the remaining Left Wing MPs are talking a different language to that of thirty years ago. The split now is very much ‘Modern Left’ (Everyone to the left of the Blairites) and ‘Blairites’ - Moderately centrist to Moderately rightist. By mainstream I mean all of the Blairites and a good portion of the ‘Modern Left’.
So, no chance of the old Clause 4 being restored? Ah, well . . .
Who or what are you talking about?
Tony Blair - closet Catholic - recently let on that he and God are on first name terms and in close agreement on the need to attack ME countries on specious grounds.
At least he didn’t call it a crusade. Now that would have been crass and no politician would have done that and offended Islam, would they. Oh, sorry, forgot about Bush. 
We’ll have to hope their imaginary friend isn’t now telling them how easy an invasion of Iran will be.
Returning to the original question as to the lack of religion in UK politics: too many examples of the negatives that result from a religion in politics.
Most obviously, Northern Ireland is somewhere religion is seen to be part of the political process, and doesn’t seem to have benefitted from that.
Historically - the Jacobite rebellions. James VII/II was forced off the throne because of his religion. Bloody Mary didn’t go down too well. Bound to be plenty of others.
I’d be interested in reading the exact quotation(s) where Tony Blair says he believes in attacking Middle East countries on “specious grounds”. Or, are those your words?
Of course they are my paraphrase. I find your disengenuous post verging on trolling. Google. Blair + Parkinson should do it. Then try Blair +‘dodgy dossier’ or ‘plagiarised from the internet’. Then you’ll know all about ‘specious’.
Blair and Bush both knew at the time they were making shit up just to fight a war decided upon around about 30 minutes after the first plane hit the WTC.
No democratically elected politician has any business making decisions with any participation by characters from bronze age mythology.
People who talk to imaginary friends and decide it’s okay to kill people on that basis need locking up, not electing.
Tony Blair believed he was right to go into Iraq, because the decision was made in good faith on the basis of faulty intelligence.
Well… that’s his story anway.
He also said that even though the intelligence was later shown to be false, it was still the right thing to invade, if nothing else because the world is better without Saddam.
It seems like you’re spoiling for a fight over this? 
Not sure what your beef is… there’s no little doubt that the UK govt exagerrated the case for war (particularly around WMD). There’s also no doubt that the war has involved many lives lost.
People find it hard for a christian to be happy with that - as I do, to be honest.
From The Herald:
Britain experienced several religious revivals in the 19th c. and the respectable middle classes would have been nearly all churchgoers by the end of the century. At one time Charles Bradlaugh was barred from taking up his elected seat in the House just because he refused to swear by a deity who’s existence he did not believe in.
The steep decline in churchgoing really set in after WW2 and religion became ever more marginalised in daily life as other leisure pastimes became affordable and socially acceptable.
We are a much more secular society than the USA and if our politicians have religious views we expect them to keep them to themselves and not come bothering us with them. Admitting he has no belief at all wouldn’t do many politicians any harm here
That’s 'cause you left out the Worcestershire sauce!
Badum tish!
Back to the thread… it used to be said that the Church of England was the “Tory party at prayer”, and there certainly used to be an expectation that the Prime Minister would uphold “traditional” protestant values.
Labour tended to be seen as godless socialists (or communists).
Tony Blair has recently come in for criticism for allowing evangelical christians (“fundies”?) to open state-funded schools in the UK - there’s a fear that we’re going down the ID / anti-evolution route with the consent of the government.
We’re turning into a US-style theocracy, and Blair’s latest utterances seem to indicate he’s right on board with it.