Toriers & Lib Dems, deal by Monday morning?

[Diamond]

Why were the lib-dems negotiating on the basis of AV if they had been told at previous party meetings it was not acceptable? Or were they negotiating on that basis precisely because they'd been told at those meetings that it was acceptable? Either way, someones being massively devious or dishonest here.

In negotiation you start off with your template and then go for your targets.

Start with AV, on the understanding that it's a prerequisite and then screw it higher into what you really want.

If they don't budge, you consult and come again.

Otherwise if you don't even have AV as your prerequisite when negotiating with the Tories, you certainly are not going to get anything more.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Oh really? Middle England to march on Westminister? Will there be scones?

deluded. When have Tories rioted?

*cough*

 

[Stoat Boy]

Want to apologise for my earlier comments. There was no need for the one about the Union flag.

Just a tad het up this evening but now, well I wish Labour and the Libs the best of British.

Out of interest how do people think Labour MPs as a whole will respond. Lets say we get this coalition and there is legislation that puts a much heavier financial burden on England than it does to either Wales or Scotland due to the pressures of keeping the coalition in place. Do you think any of the Labour MP's will refuse to back it ?

 

[magneze]

To right.

Fuck the Lib Dems. Cameron has really gone down in my estimation now. He should have the balls to tell them to go and fuck themselves.

And Lab-Lib-Celt Chip on their shoulders Government will have zero mandate to impose legislation on England and it will only be a matter of months before another election is called which the Tories will walk, based purely on the seats they get in England.

The UK can go and fuck itself forever.

60% of England actively voted against the Tories. Yeah, they have a real big mandate in England.

 

[elbows]

Out of interest how do people think Labour MPs as a whole will respond. Lets say we get this coalition and there is legislation that puts a much heavier financial burden on England than it does to either Wales or Scotland due to the pressures of keeping the coalition in place. Do you think any of the Labour MP's will refuse to back it ?

Dunno but its certainly a really bad time for trying to get away with buying regional support through financial measures, given the hideous cuts that are going to happen under any permutation of government.

 

[butchersapron]

In negotiation you start off with your template and then go for your targets.

Start with AV, on the understanding that it's a prerequisite and then screw it higher into what you really want.

If they don't budge, you consult and come again.

Otherwise if you don't even have AV as your prerequisite when negotiating with the Tories, you certainly are not going to get anything more.

It's generally the other way round as it goes - make your maximal demand and work from there.

 

[Diamond]

Bugger - phone is fucked. in short, I disagree.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Dunno but its certainly a really bad time for trying to get away with buying regional support through financial measures, given the hideous cuts that are going to happen under any permutation of government.

Which is the part that makes no sense to me. Are the Lib Dems really so obsessed with an issue such as PR which nobody else really gives a fuck about ?

And from a strategic POV why the hell would Labour want to cling on to power ? They know cuts have to be made and who ever makes them will be unpopular. But imposing cuts on England whilst allowing Scotland and Wales to get off with nothing is going to magnify that.

All I can think, and its me clutching at some desperate straws I concede, that the people at the top of Labour have some stuff they desperately want to keep out of the Tories hands.

 

[butchersapron]

urbUltimately it depends on your strategy aggressive v cooperative

Well starting off saying AV then going oh yeah, we really meant PR will not work - not in terms of getting PR. That's an utterly absurd way to approach things. It's a great way to get AV though.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Which is the part that makes no sense to me. Are the Lib Dems really so obsessed with an issue such as PR which nobody else really gives a fuck about ?

because they're a pointless party without it! This election more than any has got to have shown them at least that - no matter what popularity they can generate through personalities or policies or simply through not being the other 2 will evaporate on polling day under FPTP (just like the Clegg effect did).

So, they can continue plugging away as a glorified pressure group with 50 seats or so. Or they can look at those juicy polling figures telling them that half the population would consider voting for them if they had a chance of winning, and say, with PR we'd be contenders.

It makes perfect sense for them to take a temporary hit among their right-leaning voters to get PR. The Maths is well on their side.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Which is the part that makes no sense to me. Are the Lib Dems really so obsessed with an issue such as PR which nobody else really gives a fuck about ?

Of course they are. They look at their share of vote and their share of seats, and then they look at the attention they get at the moment, and they imagine a perfect world where they always, always have the balance of power.

And from a strategic POV why the hell would Labour want to cling on to power ? They know cuts have to be made and who ever makes them will be unpopular. But imposing cuts on England whilst allowing Scotland and Wales to get off with nothing is going to magnify that.

It's an opportunity to fuck off the left of the party, with a reasonable hope that the Tories will imlode with anger and bring in an unelectable rightist again. What's not to like? It's better than opposition.

All I can think, and its me clutching at some desperate straws I concede, that the people at the top of Labour have some stuff they desperately want to keep out of the Tories hands.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[magneze]

Taking the manifestos as read, over 50% of the population voted for vote reform. Both Labour and Lib Dems had it in there. The Conservatives did not.

 

[free spirit]

Why were the lib-dems negotiating on the basis of AV if they had been told at previous party meetings it was not acceptable? Or were they negotiating on that basis precisely because they'd been told at those meetings that it was acceptable? Either way, someones being massively devious or dishonest here.

the lib dem negotiators may have thought that they could persuade the MP's to take AV, but been told it was a no go when they went back to the MP's - or at least that they wanted to see what labour would offer because AV is only a very marginal improvement, and not worth selling out for.

either that, or quite likely that they basically were pushing the tories for AV so that they could then push labour for what they really wanted.

as I've been saying all along though, IMO they're playing the tories to try to get a better negotiating position with labour. It's a high stakes political game that's being played out, but it's one that the lib dems have been preparing for for months, so hopefully they'll end up getting some decent concessions from labour.

 

[1%er]

Why were the lib-dems negotiating on the basis of AV if they had been told at previous party meetings it was not acceptable? Or were they negotiating on that basis precisely because they'd been told at those meetings that it was acceptable? Either way, someones being massively devious or dishonest here.

I'm not sure they were, I watch Hauge's press conference and I thought he said at one point "we put voting reform on the table" and later talked about AV.

If the Tory's put it on the table that doesn't mean there was any meaning full negotiation about it.

I thought this quote was interesting, "It would be wrong to construct a government, which wouldn't be stable, which wouldn't have a prime minister elected by the people of this country and wouldn't be submitting a major constitutional change to a referendum of the country." William Hague

Is he hinting that the Libdems don't want a referendum, they want PR and a guarantee that it will get through the house

 

[free spirit]

Taking the manifestos as read, over 50% of the population voted for vote reform. Both Labour and Lib Dems had it in there. The Conservatives did not.

as did plaid, greens, snp, alliance, sdlp I think.

 

[weltweit]

As far as I can see Clegg wants PR but without a referendum.

The Conservatives have offerred a referendum on AV but Clegg does not want either of those.

Mandelson was apparently offering AV without a referendum. Which may be attractive to Clegg.

 

[ymu]

8.40pm: William Hague has just been briefing journalists at Westminster. He has given us some more details of what happened this afternoon.

• Until lunchtime today the Tories and the Lib Dems were negotiating on the basis that they would sign a "confidence and supply" agreement. Hague said the talks were very amicable. They were talking about a pact that would last for two parliamentary sessions, until autumn 2012.

• But this afternoon, after the meeting of Lib Dem MPs, Nick Clegg called David Cameron to say that he wanted to form a proper coalition with one side and that he would only do so with a partner offering AV.

• Cameron then decided he would be willing to "go the extra mile" and offer a referendum on AV. He called a second meeting of the shadow cabinet to ensure that his shadow ministers supported him. He then put it to the Conservative parliamentary party. Within the last hour, Cameron discussed his offer with Clegg in a phone call. Hague said that, on the issue of voting reform, the Tories had now reached their "bottom line".

• The Tories have not given the Lib Dems a deadline, but they think the Lib Dems need to make a choice urgently.

• The Tories would use the whip to get the legislation for a referendum through the Commons. But Tories would be free to campaign against AV in the referendum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/general-election-2010-live-blog

 

[Stoat Boy]

Mandelson was apparently offering AV without a referendum. Which may be attractive to Clegg.

How smashing. An unelected man like Mandleson offering to change the countrys voting system.

Says it all.

 

[free spirit]

Is he hinting that the Libdems don't want a referendum, they want PR and a guarantee that it will get through the house

no, he's referring to labours offer of AV without a referendum.

tbh, I don't really see the problem with changing to AV without a referendum, because it's basically just a bit of tinkering with the current system. The constituencies would remain the same, everyone would still have a constituency MP, it's still one MP per constituency, and effectively a majority of people have voted for parties advocating some form of electoral reform anyway.

labour are then offering a referendum on STV on top of a guaranteed change to AV as far as I understand it.

 

[butchersapron]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/general-election-2010-live-blog

Is there any lib-dem refutation of these shocking lies - it's impossible!

 

[weltweit]

How smashing. An unelected man like Mandleson offering to change the countrys voting system.

Says it all.

Mandelson is in the middle of the smoke filled [1] rooms as we speak..

And there was Adonis in the thick of it today, also unelected.






[1] though they are not smoke filled anymore!

 

[free spirit]

As far as I can see Clegg wants PR but without a referendum.

The Conservatives have offerred a referendum on AV but Clegg does not want either of those.

Mandelson was apparently offering AV without a referendum. Which may be attractive to Clegg.

av is not pr

av is basically first past the post with half a cherry on top.

the lib dems would be happy with a referendum on STV, obviously we'd prefer a referendum on stv in which the government was officially in favour of it, or at least in which our partner party didn't actively campaign against it, but give us a referendum and let's see what the country really thinks of the idea of something much closer to proper democracy.

 

[1%er]

no, he's referring to labours offer of AV without a referendum.

tbh, I don't really see the problem with changing to AV without a referendum, because it's basically just a bit of tinkering with the current system. The constituencies would remain the same, everyone would still have a constituency MP, it's still one MP per constituency, and effectively a majority of people have voted for parties advocating some form of electoral reform anyway.

labour are then offering a referendum on STV on top of a guaranteed change to AV as far as I understand it.

Ok, I hadn't heard about the Labour offer.

I can't really get the phrase "fiddling while Rome burns" out of my head

 

[butchersapron]

Where's this STV stuff come from? I can only see one unsupported claim in the spectator.

 

[free spirit]

Ok, I hadn't heard about the Labour offer.

I can't really get the phrase "fiddling while Rome burns" out of my head

the government took a month off to fight an election, I'm sure the country will cope for another few days.

 

[weltweit]

the government took a month off to fight an election, I'm sure the country will cope for another few days.

They wont be finished before the 21st, I have placed a bet!

 

[free spirit]

Where's this STV stuff come from? I can only see one unsupported claim in the spectator.

well, they've said legislation for AV straight away, plus a referendum on further electoral reform or words to that effect.

they aren't going to be holding an referendum on AV after they've already legislated for it, so the referendum would have to be on something better than AV - ok so it could be on AV+, or STV, or both, but it's not going to be on just AV is it.

 

[Diamond]

The point I was trying to make earlier is that the negotiations are not likely to be a simple polar set up.

It's not like they're haggling over a given price where one side goes high, the other goes low and then they negotiate to meet a mid-point based on the parties relative strengths.

It will be much more like a detailed contractual negotiation where, I would imagine though I can't be certain on this, the Mandarins will have spent months and months drawing up drafts based on all the possible coalition configurations they could imagine, in much the same way that they'll prepare ministers' briefs months before they know which minister they'll actually get.

In that kind of negotiating situation going in with an aggressive maximal demand strategy makes no sense at all and will be strongly militated against by the Mandarins who are structuring the negotiations - very "yes, minister" sort of stuff - in a highly cooperative way.

Certainly you go in with your bottom lines but even then they must be few and far between.

A Tory bottom line might have been no electoral reform, but then the Lib-Dems corresponding bottom line would have been progress beyond that, the next step being AV, and from that negotiating basis they try and push for more.

Anything less and they don't come to the table.

 

[1%er]

the government took a month off to fight an election, I'm sure the country will cope for another few days.

But it doesn't matter what they come up with, it's all going to shit anyway

 

[butchersapron]

well, they've said legislation for AV straight away, plus a referendum on further electoral reform or words to that effect.

they aren't going to be holding an referendum on AV after they've already legislated for it, so the referendum would have to be on something better than AV - ok so it could be on AV+, or STV, or both, but it's not going to be on just AV is it.

Where have they said this? I haven't seen anything like AV plus a referendum on further 'electoral reform' being offered anywhere.