andysays
Love and solidarity
That article couldn't be any more obvious if it had "advertorial paid for by the committee to save the Lib-Dems from certain oblivion at the next election" at the top of it.
Lib-Lab Coalition
- Thread starter goldenecitrone
- Start date
That article couldn't be any more obvious if it had "advertorial paid for by the committee to save the Lib-Dems from certain oblivion at the next election" at the top of it.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
andysays
Love and solidarity
Can anyone remember if the Guardian were banging the hung parliament/coalition drum in the run-up to the last election, particularly this far in advance?
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
They were keen on everyone voting Lib Dem I seem to recall. Particularly Polly Toynbee.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
She actually argued for a labour vote on a stop the tories basis and against the editorial line of support for the lib-dems. After the election she was back to covert lib-dem supporting though.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
andysays
Love and solidarity
Yeah, I certainly remember that (except the Toynbee bit...) but I'm wondering if they were leaning that heavily on the hung parliament stuff.
To be coming out with this two years before the likely next election, with the opinion polls etc as they currently are, actually smacks of counter-productive desperation to me.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
TBF, I think that part of how the Labour hierarchy would "sell" the idea of coalition to the L-Ds is on the basis of detoxifying them, especially as Labour know that some of the L-Ds will go blue come the next election. They can then sell their L-Ds as "good lib-dems", and the orange-bookers as "bad lib-dems".
Believe me, all three parties will have been planning out various coalition scenarios, and how to sell them to the electorate, since mid-may 2010.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Roger Liddle's fat little legs will be pumping away somewhere in the background too.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
My worry is that if the Labour policy review emerges with anything more substantial than One Nation, "listening" to concerns about immigration, and Glasmanesque bollocks about empowered service users, then anything good in it will have been added specifically to jettison as a pretended sop to Lib Dems in coalition negotiations. So I won't get too excited about telescreens and a muesli tax just yet.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
That's not true at all. There at least one very well established reason why it's (at the very least) unlikely to become the norm. It's called Duverger's law. Basically countries who elect their legislature via single member plurality elections (ie. FPTP) will tend towards majority governments and a two party system. The only partial exception is where there are parties with regional bases, so if it were to happen here it would be the nats whose cooperation would be required, which I expect would favour labour.
I think it extremely unlikely, almost to the point of impossibility, that the Lib Dems will ever again be king makers.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
which could, come 2016, put Labour on something of a sticky wicket.
i would think that in a political context where the Tories did not manage to get a 100 seat majority against the woeful Brown, and where Labour are not at 75% in the opinion polls given the, err... 'less than stellar' performance of the current
i'm not an enormous fan of the LD's, and i'm quite aware of who much of their vote uptil now has been a protest vote and therefore liable to go elsewhere in protest at them, but i still would not be that surprised to see them hold 20 seats in 2015.
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
Well ok maybe I was off topic because the thread is about a Lib-Lab pact but despite a fptp electoral system we managed to get no overall majority not for the first time. Its not impossible that we might end up with a Lab-Con coalition, after all Nu-Labour was about making Labour electable to voters used to voting Tory. Best outcome would be that UKIP splits Tory vote to allow in Labour majority but if UKIP do get MPs elected & Lib-Dems don't do as bad as expected, who knows?
It would be utterly irresponsible of the political parties to fail to create some sort of coalition in the event of another hung parliament, we need some sort of a credible working government.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Where LD support is entrenched and local organisation is strong, ie where they have MPs or control councils, their vote is holding firmer than where they have little local presence.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
My main point was that coalition governments will never be the norm in this country in the way that they are in, say, Germany. There's a slim chance the Lib Dems may be needed for a coalition in 2015 (though personally I doubt it - I reckon Labour will get a majority). But it's not going to become a regular thing. And it certainly wouldn't involve the Lib Dems becoming perpetual kingmakers. In my view this is a fairly safe prediction - as safe as any prediction can be in politics anyway.
Were the two main parties, or one of them, to collapse there may be a kind of transitional period of transition during which coalition governments are the norm but it won't last long - a new two form of party hegemony will soon replace it. A bit like how Labour replaced the Libs way back when. The dynamics of our electoral system make it almost inevitable. The only observed exceptions to this have been where there have been regional parties, hence the qualification re: the nats.
The only probable exception I can see is the nats becoming kingmakers - but 'm not sure how long that would last as they may use their new found power to negotiate independence, at which point they become irrelevant.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Granted. But my point is that the nature of our system dictates that it's almost inevitable that hung parliaments will continue to be the exception rather than the rule. And I'd expect the nats rather than the Lib Dems to be the important ones - I've not got time to look at the stats/forecasts but it wouldn't surprise me at all if in 2015 the nats held considerably more seats than the Lib Dems.
Edit: and before articul8 comes along and uses this to claim we should have voted for AV, as it would have broken down the two party system, I'll just point out that there's no evidence whatsoever that says this would be the case and Duverger's explanation for why this happens also fits AV, since that's also single member, winner takes all - all it really does is artificially manufacture a majority - which actually means this dynamic would be strengthened rather than weakened.
This constant assumption, indeed desparation, that the Lib Dems will retain any influence at all after the 2015 steamrollerthon election, is absolutely the weakest apsect of these cringeworthily arselicking articles from Wintour and others.
Here's another one of that type. (apols if that link has already been posted). According to Rawnsley, Miliband is too left wing
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
This constant assumption, indeed desparation, that the Lib Dems will retain any influence at all after the 2015 steamrollerthon election, is absolutely the weakest apsect of these cringeworthily arselicking articles from Wintour and others.
Here's another one of that type. (apols if that link has already been posted). According to Rawnsley, Miliband is too left wing
But they will retain seats. As said before, their resilience in areas they've held for a while is considerable, and Eastleigh demonstrated that localised performances can produce victories even with considerable swings against them. The fact that the tories were second in the vast majority of their seats held is a great advantage to them. With projected Con-UKIP swings negating that threat, they will probably retain a significant number of their 57 seats.
Significant? Over 30?
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
With all the usual caveats, I think so.
Before the by-election, Eastleigh was their 37th safest seat and would have been tory with a 'mere' 7.2% swing, but they retained it suffering a 14% swing because the swing from the tories was very nearly as big.
UKIP are essential to the LDs for their survival as a parliamentary party.
Interesting, but that could be very different in LibDem seats where Labour are the main challenger (I appreciate there are fewer of those, but still ... )
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's the stuff not covered by caveats I worry about. Stuff like Clogg sealing a Satanic pact.
They're gone in Bristol West. Completely stuffed, council seats being eaten up by Tories, Labour and Greens. They're fucked here
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
probably 25-30 seats>
First, as Brogdale pointed out, there's the UKIP factor. Second, LiB Dems are astonishingly good at constituency and community politics. That one phrase explains how the Liberals came back from near-oblivion in the 1950s, to 55 MPs, and coalition, in 2010. Their sitting MPs and councillors are also brilliant at that sort of thing,. and so they tend to have a large 'personal' vote. It's not enough to save hundreds of councillors, but it should work to save about - like I said - 25-30 parliamentary seats.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Have a look at Labour target seats here, then tory target seats here, then lib-dem defences here.
I reckon there's 15 nailed on gains in the first. Another 15 seats where the anti-tory/labour tactical vote is 100% propping them up and 11 more where i think they are from the second and third - and i haven't even done the straight tory/lib-dem battles where labour make no difference. If they perform brilliantly they may keep around 20, no more - only about 5 seats are safe through a combination of local work and the state of the other parties. They don't have a whole bunch of eastleigh conditions to save them.
I reckon there's 15 nailed on gains in the first. Another 15 seats where the anti-tory/labour tactical vote is 100% propping them up and 11 more where i think they are from the second and third - and i haven't even done the straight tory/lib-dem battles where labour make no difference. If they perform brilliantly they may keep around 20, no more - only about 5 seats are safe through a combination of local work and the state of the other parties. They don't have a whole bunch of eastleigh conditions to save them.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Interesting discussion about the political 'legitimacy' of any potential 2015 Lab/Lib coalition on ""Newsnight last night. Following the chatter around the Glasgow conference Stratton picked up the vibe that the (Booker) leadership were keen to rubbish the Lab-pact notion on the basis that the 'senior' partner would (probably) have won the largest number of seats on the second-best popular vote, whilst the junior partner would have amassed some seats whilst trailing 4th in the popular vote. Revealing stuff.
A couple of narrow blue leads in the polls and immediately they start assuming Labour will be second in the popular vote? Same agenda as the Guardian there, the dicks.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Amenable to swapping partners? They are whores. They sleep with whoever pays the fee. In bed with Labour in Scotland, then with the Conservatives in Westminster. I despise the Lib Dems, their moral standards would outrage a sewer rat.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Really? Has it escaped your notice, that Labour intend to carry on with the crucifixion of Civil Service pay, marched into the Lobby with the Conservatives on an overall welfare cap and has stated that the attack on the working poor will continue under their rule?
Similar threads
