UK Coalition Gov? your thoughts

OK, so we are looking at a coalition Gov... Gordo has anounced this process has already started as he has appointed the civil service to organise the cross party meetings.

I really feel that which ever party or leader that takes the helm to deal with the bailouts and money printing will be as the Gov of the Bank of England said, so unpopular that they will not get back into power for at least a generation..

I've felt that is why this has been a very wet election campaign with zero passion from any quarter as none of the leaders really want to win outright.

So who would take up that challenge? would either Gordo or Cameron be so passionate about saving Britian that they are willing to go into the political wilderness for a generation??

I really don't think either of them would take that risk, nor do I think Nick Clegg will taint the liberals with the fallout that will come from sorting out the mess we are in.

My honest opinion is that we will see a cross party (Lib-Lab-Con) Cabinate..

Be nice to know what your thoughts are? and how insane my feeling is that we will end up with a cross party cabinate.

reply to post by thoughtsfull

I've just been arguing the precedents on another thread.

In 1926, the figures were;
Labour 288
Conservatives 260
Liberals 59
Labour came to power as the largest party, and the Liberals gave tacit support.

1974 was similar. Ted Heath lost his majority and resigned after an embarassing attempt to cling to power.
Labour came to power as the largest party, and the Liberals gave tacit support.

So the logical approach seems to be;

Either something similar (Cameron comes to power with tacit LibDem support, perhaps calling a second election later as Wilson did in 1974)

Or Cameron brings in Clegg etc., just as Salisbury brought in people like Joseph Chamberlain.

Either way, the government really ought to be centred on the largest party.




[edit on 7-5-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by DISRAELI


As much as I really do agree on your position, I am not sure any of those really faced the prospect of being out in the cold for a generation as punishment for the degree of austerity meassures the UK will need to enforce to weather this economic storm.

The problem I see for Cameron is that if he takes the lead after 3 labour terms he is risking putting his party in to the wilderness again for another 3 terms.. that is an awful prospect for any party..

The Liberals also face the issue of being tainted by supporting which ever gov is formed, since they will be complicit in whatever austerity measures shape the UK.

I almost cosider this similar to a war setting, needing all the parties to work together to sort the mess out.. with all to blame/none to blame.. which is why I feel we might end up seeing a cross party cabinate.

reply to post by thoughtsfull

OK, but if they go for the "national government" line, it would still logically be centred on the largest party. Which is what happened when both wartime coalitions were set up (Asquith and Chamberlain). Although, come to think of it, Ramsay MacDonald's party were probably a minority in his National Government. That's only just occurred to me, so I'm not sure where that argument leads.

I think that Nick Clegg's statement concerning 'national interests' was genuine and of primary importance to the UK in terms of our current malaise. Every aspect of British society and administration needs reform, let alone the voting system which became rather an embarrassing spectacle last night. Regardless of the fact that nay-sayers will indicate that people had 'plenty of time to vote' and shouldn't have left it to the last minute, the fact is we were presented with scenes that are redolent of third world politics.

I think that a Conservative government effectively moderated on key decisions would actually be a good thing, providing that Cameron and Clegg maintain decorum and a business-like approach without resorting to petty party politics.

This has been mooted for many years; complaints about the 2-party system abound and yet here we may have the circumstances that produce an effective way forward. Key to all of this is a demonstrably clear and strong leadership.

Just because decisions must be clear and strong in their delivery, does not mean they should not be debated and moderated in the interests of the UK rather than just in the context of any political bias.

I think that a Conservative/LibDem working alliance on crucial matters will be good for the country, producing an inclusive government and some moderation of fundamental issues that should not necessarily be make or break (i.e. electoral reform).

I cannot help but feel uplifted by Nick Clegg's statement this morning and I really believe that this could pave the way for a bright new future. I just hope that people can get behind it and believe that something can be achieved for the benefit of the nation rather than partisan politics.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by SugarCube] - Up all night watching the election so I'm a bit shaky with the typing :-)

[edit on 7-5-2010 by SugarCube]

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by thoughtsfull

 

OK, but if they go for the "national government" line, it would still logically be centred on the largest party. Which is what happened when both wartime coalitions were set up (Asquith and Chamberlain). Although, come to think of it, Ramsay MacDonald's party were probably a minority in his National Government. That's only just occurred to me, so I'm not sure where that argument leads.

I think the national Gov will be the only real route that any of the leaders will follow, to much reform is needed... I think for the first time we might see a rotating leadership model.. (not sure if that has happened before in UK politics)

The whole situation is to much of a mess right now, and needs new methods to deal with the situation we face.

reply to post by SugarCube


I voted Lib-Dem, and tho not a real supporter of the Lib-Dems as a whole, the local Guy Norman Baker is a good guy, he cares about local interests and got my vote (again) out of the sheer respect I feel for his honesty and determination...

Nick Clegg seems really passionate about acheiving reform, and I really hope we will see some of the changes we need to all the systems that support of society without having to resort to protest votes or voting in extremes..

If this lot fail, then I fear the next stage will be that people start voting for the extremes.

I am not a paid-up supporter of any political party and have voted both Blue and Red in different elections, basing my decision on the context of each election.

Clearly, we do not have a landslide Blue victory but it is clear that the Reds have had their day. It seems appropriate that a Conservative/LibDem 'working pact' be implemented to reflect the clear Conservative voting turn-out.

The fact that many Conservatives are rejecting Clegg's statement (not the leadership but the grassroots) is no productive but to be expected.

Again, the key here is 'national interests'. We have had extreme partisan politics for the last 13 years and look what it has given us! The time to put the country first is way overdue!

It would seem that the Cons are most likely to form the next Government with support from the Lib Dems. Not a bad combo if they can get past some ideological difference. I am hoping for some Electoral/Constitutional reform on the back of this election and probably quite quickly as well.

As for turnout, I was impressed. 71% in my constituency (Wokingham) which is amazing really.

I voted Tory as there was no English Democrats candidate. Seems on the election map that the Tories are now an "English" party anyway so the SNP may well go for an Indepenance vote in the next 12 months.....

reply to post by SugarCube


I have to admit to having little interest in politics.. I grew up in Brighton after all so never really belonged to any party and subscribe to the view of voting for whoever is best for the area I live in..

But I am a little old and live outside Brighton new, and to be honest the people have not given a clear mandate to govern to any one party...

As that little bit older I'm interested more in the national interests than simply having a decent guy locally.. and I really do agree that it is time to put this country first.. we need a new system of governance and new foundations to our society before some voters start thinking that voting the extremes is the way to go..

I am pretty pleased the will of the people is not one at the moment where the extremes can prosper (Brighton being Green is about as far as it has gone really) the current lot have this chance to fix broken Britain, I for one hope they take the chance with both hands and don't let us down.

Having said that and taking into consideration the pain we will have to go through I really do feel a cross party national goverment is required to get this nation on it's feet again..

The tories will never agree to a coalition involving voting reform for the simple reason that they will never get absolute power ever again. Remember they only got 36% of the vote , 51% was centre left (labour + lib dem) so on pure voting ontentions in total the UK has rejected tory rule they want a mix of other parties. This has been the case for over 40 years and the losers ALWAYS harp on about that point !!!!! even the tories last time !!!!!!. Oh the hypocrisy!

So voting reform is on the cards with labour + lib dem + green + alliance+ etc etc

You know, the issue of 'absolute power' is at the root of this whole debate. Having some experience of living in Europe, I would state that 'true' coalition governments do not work - they tend to produce wishy washy committee rule that end up dealing with minor issues because they cannot agree on the major ones.

In our own circumstances, I believe that the leading party should always be tempered by a strong opposition otherwise we end up with a government that believes too much in their own ideology. In this respect, I believe that a Conservative government tempered by LibDem thought would be beneficial to the country.

The ideological tug-o-war has racked our country for decade upon decade and has been a constant source of contention, now we have an opportunity to try something different so it will be worth giving it a go - it cannot be worse than what we have experienced and the dark days ahead are going to occur whoever actually ends up in the hot seat.

A negation of ideological temperament within government by virtue of limited but distributed member votes (i.e. not ordained by party whips) could provide the impetus to reach consensus and provide policies that a wider range of representatives agree upon. I think that it would be a fairer government *IF* it is applied with sense and without too much horse-trading aimed at personal member benefit.

I'm not a fan of out and out ProRep but a we should be able to come up with a considered form of this, balancing individual voting trends with geographic equalisation (i.e. the cities not outweighing the rural communities).

*** Just caught David Cameron's speech involving an offer of compromise to achieve a strong viable government in liaison with the LibDems. To be frank, I was impressed - it was business-like and what you would expect in te opening to a equitable negotiation. Hopefully, the LibDems will see the benefits to be had from having a hand in government and move forward to give Britain the government it deserves but has been denied for so many years.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by SugarCube]