Voting Reform No Longer Precondition for Lib Dem/Tory Pact?

[Sweeedes]

The Lib Dems are fickle.

If you want to keep Labour in power, for goodness sake vote Labour.

[vesela]

what's this story?

There is absolutely no way that any part of the Lib Dems would EVER agree to support the Conservatives if proper proportional representation wasn't agreed on. Such support would have to be agreed on by the party's MPs etc., and there is just No Way. Clegg is against, it, MPs are against it, the federal executive would be against it and so would members. No part of the party would agree to PR-less support. End of.

So it would be up to the Tories whether they'd agree to PR. And that's also pretty unlikely.

[Sweeedes]

Story here

Also widely reported elsewhere.

[Alibabaandthe40nappies]

I saw that too, looks as if Clegg will be in the scramble for power come Friday morning like everyone else and his principles left behind.

A different kind of politics?

[Sweeedes]

Alibaba - Yes, quite.

Voting for any of them is a leap of faith. But the Lib Dems promising "to do something different" and then doing it the same, at the first whiff of power, is a bit much.

[vesela]

if he says it's unavoidable, that's the same thing, isn't it?

I'm guessing what he means is that any agreement would have a deadline for the introduction of legislation for PR in it, and that if that wasn't fulfilled, down would come the government. That could be the difference between "precondition" and "unavoidable."

Maybe this is so that if a deal with Labour isn't possible, something can be worked out with the Tories that would prevent the markets from panicking that nothing could ever be worked out (this is maybe why the story first appeared in the FT). But the Tories would be held to that agreement (or else Clegg would remain Lib Dem leader for, ooh, half a day more maybe? If that!)

[vesela]

Alibaba, there is the market's immediate reaction to a hung parliament to take into account, though, too. If both Labour and the Tories stonewall on the idea of PR, then I'm guessing there would have to be a type of "we'll support you for now, but you better move to introduce PR by X date or we're out of here" move.

[Alibabaandthe40nappies]

vesela - I imagine that the markets are in more of a state of horror about the Lib Dem proposals for the banks, so it seems tenuous to think that Clegg would change his public stance on PR for that reason.

It is hypocritical of him, plain and simple. He has sold himself in this election as being different - all the connatations have been that he is somehow less corrupt, less interested in personal power and gain. And yet now we see, that when some power is within his grasp he is abandoning one of his central pledges to try and grab it with both hands.

[vesela]

Remember that the Lib Dems are a party of 80,000 members, practically all of whom have PR deep in their DNA. If there were any deal that didn't include a clear (and immediate) deadline for a PR agreement, Lib Dems would basically get the hell out and tell Labour and the Conservatives to work something out together!!

[vesela]

Alibaba - so, how would Clegg stay on as Lib Dem leader if he abandoned a commitment to PR? (Not that he intends to anyway).

[Alibabaandthe40nappies]

So why is Clegg saying something different? Are the Lib Dems going to try and form a coalition government while having another leadership election?

[Alibabaandthe40nappies]

Vesela I'd put that question to you - how could he stay on?

But it would be a difficult one for the Lib Dems, as even the most fervent would have to agree that they wouldn't be in this position if Huhne rather than Clegg were leader.

[vesela]

and it's not even Clegg who gets to decide - it's the party under the triple lock system. He's just a figurehead - an intelligent, persuasive and honest one - but he represents the party.

Text of the triple lock:

i) in the event of any substantial proposal which could affect the Party?s independence of political action, the consent will be required of a majority of members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons and the Federal Executive; and

ii) unless there is a three-quarters majority of each group in favour of the proposals, the consent of the majority of those present and voting at a Special Conference convened under clause 6.6 of the Constitution; and

iii) unless there is a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at that Conference in favour of the proposals, the consent of a majority of all members of the Party voting in he ballot called pursuant to clause 6.11 or 8.6 of the Constitution.

[vesela]

Alibaba - I'm very glad Huhne isn't leader - I voted for Clegg.

Clegg isn't saying something different here, though. As I understand it, he's talking about the timing of the commitment. But I'll have to read more to see if my understanding of that is right.

[vesela]

(Huhne is of course a nice guy, intelligent and v. good spokesman, but he wouldn't have been anything like as good a leader as Clegg).

[vesela]

MintHumbug, the Lib Dems are more than their backbenchers, though. The members have ultimate control. The party works differently from Labour and the Conservatives in this way.

[vesela]

I don't see the MPs agreeing to anything vague, though, either. They'd certainly not let Labour get away with the sort of fudging on PR that it did during the last parliament.

[vesela]

It's actually fairly possible that the Lib Dems will tell Labour and the Conservatives to make their own arrangements with each other if nothing better works out!

The LDs would then be the opposition and would hold on for another election in which they could expect to do even better. Not for nothing did the Lib Dems go into the election campaign with a campaign about the Labservatives... It's a popular position within the party.

[claig]

I never trusted Clegg. I don't think he will deliver on PR. I think he will sell his supporters down the river. I personally thought Huhne was much better. I think many Liberals will be disappointed, the Tories won't accept PR, and Clegg will make excuses to us and tell us that we have to wait. We'll have to wait for hell to freeze over before they give us PR.

[vesela]

FioFio, they wouldn't be supporting the Conservatives automatically. They'd be supporting whichever party had a mandate, and whichever party agreed to Lib Dem PR and other demands. Or - as I said above - it'll be "sort it out yourselves, Labour and the Tories."

[MrsCosmopolite]

What a load of rubbish. In context he was talking about electoral reform being a precondition for restoring public trust in the political system, not, as the idiot who wrote this article is trying to make out - as a precondition for forming a coalition with either Labour or Tory.

You can read the full quote in this article from the independent

[vesela]

Claig - he can't sell his supporters down the river, or they'd sell him down the river!

[Beachcomber]

This is from the above link,

"Meanwhile the Guardian reports senior Conservatives want to challenge the rules which could allow Mr Brown to remain prime minister for up to a week after a defeat on Thursday, to try and form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats."

That sounds like a bit of a dirty trick.

I wonder if the Guardian will continue their new and shiny support of Clegg which seemed based mostly on his unwavering commitment to PR.

[vesela]

Thanks, MrsCosmopolite! - you linked to Sky again, though...