WWYD if you were Nick Clegg?

[FrakkinTheReturningOfficer]

Seeing as Cleggy is likely to be the chap practically deciding the outcome of this, WWYD in his position?

I would probably align with Labour on the condition we had a referendum on election reform and push to dissolve Parliament for a new election as soon as that passed....

God! a lib/lab coalition reminds me of the 70s with never-ending strikes, power cuts and no heating in schools. I think they'll fall out quite soon then they'll try to replace GB with another unelected leader whereby the public will kick the lot of them out of parliament

You don't care whether they are aristos and the party of privilege? Fair enough. You should care however that they are committed to slashing public services on a scale that will make even the 80s pale into insignificance.

Some of us are old enough to remember the 80s and the SDP and Liberal Party then. Nothing has changed. They are a broad church and used to trying to be all things to all people. It is the advantage of never having usually got a whiff of power.

Our local LibDem candidate, for example, thought that the NHS should 'not necessarily' be free at the point of delivery and that the most pressing issue of our time was a 'culture of dependency'.

But then, here, a right wing Tory took the seat, so it was a case of playing to the audience.

The LibDems I know who genuinely want reform and a change have no time for Tories and their economic policies or their 'Big Society' which means dumping problems on the voluntary sector and withdrawing public funding.

So good luck with the Tories - with or without your referendum!

You don't care whether they are aristos and the party of privilege? Fair enough. You should care however that they are committed to slashing public services on a scale that will make even the 80s pale into insignificance.

Some of us are old enough to remember the 80s and the SDP and Liberal Party then. Nothing has changed. They are a broad church and used to trying to be all things to all people. It is the advantage of never having usually got a whiff of power.

Our local LibDem candidate, for example, thought that the NHS should 'not necessarily' be free at the point of delivery and that the most pressing issue of our time was a 'culture of dependency'.

But then, here, a right wing Tory took the seat, so it was a case of playing to the audience.

The LibDems I know who genuinely want reform and a change have no time for Tories and their economic policies or their 'Big Society' which means dumping problems on the voluntary sector and withdrawing public funding.

So good luck with the Tories - with or without your referendum!

Tis always better said twice

Actually mumzy - though the cold winter of 78-79 was billed as the 'winter of discontent', the worst time for power cuts, no school 'dinners', afternoons off (as a 9 year old I rather liked that!) and candles in the dark was 1973 - under Ted Heath (Con), and not a Lib-Lab pact.

If I was Nick Clegg, what I'd do is switch off my phone, open a nice bottle of red, refuse to answer the door and enjoy making Gordon & Dave and all the journalists sweat for a bit and enjoy being the most important person in the country for a bit longer!

Exactly! He must have been feeling a bit 'crushed' in the wee small hours. Now everybody loves him!

Vince for Chancellor!

The only honorable thing to do is to enter into a pact with the Tories (however much it pains me to see them in power). The Tories have more votes, I disaggree with the majority, but this is DEMOCRACY. Hopefully, the cuts they impose will be so painfull they'll be pushed out by the next election anyway.

I do feel sorry for Clegg, tho. Whatever he does he will upset someone!

I wouldn't enter into a 'pact' with either.

I would let the party with most votes and seats form a government, abstain from Queen's speech vote and pass a budget IF it was reasonable.

I would take each let Lib Dem MPs have free votes on any non-essential legislation, but support well written important legislation, after proper debate and amendments - especially that was aimed at getting the economy sorted. If it took a bit longer than it has been then GOOD - I watched the CSF Bill on parliamentary TV and they didn't leave enough to discuss it before having to vote because it was time to go home. That isn't debate and scrunity.

I would aim to show voters that a lib dem vote was a lib dem vote, and that they are now a party with a say who are voting on principles and not 'taking sides'.

I would not prop up Labour, because voters would never ever see the party as anything but a supporting party for a government that was voted out, ever again.

Plus, the things the Lib Dems and Labour disagree on are pretty big - civil liberties especially. Many people didn't vote Lib Dem as a next best thing to labour. Many people voted Lib Dem because they want Lib Dem.

I agree with anastasia.

The Tories may have more votes and seats than any other individual party but they do not have more votes than a combination of Labour and Lib Dem. Would be perfectly fine in democratic terms to have either a Tory minority govt. supported by the Lib Dems promising not to go against them in a vote of confidence, or a Lab/Lib Dem coalition (or minority Lab govt).

(Minority Lab govt. supported by Lib Dems in similar arrangement to the one I mentioned before - obv. minority Lab. govt. would not represent the will of the people.)

You don't care whether they are aristos and the party of privilege?

???? frankly, if you look on all sides of the house, you don't see many that left school with a 'D' in woodwork, do you?

our local candidate was Emily Wedgewood-Benn (oh yes, grandaughter of the ci-devant Viscount Anthony Wedgewood-Benn...) real down-to earth types our labour candidates.

Plus, the things the Lib Dems and Labour disagree on are pretty big - civil liberties especially

indeed. why are people missing this fact?

Liberality is what being liberal s about - and much more central to their core-belief than PR IMO.

In answer to the OP, if I was Nick Clegg, I'd pour myself a large one, take the phone off the hook, and kick back and enjoy the evening - he's going to be wooed by the other two and will get more say in the governent of the country in the immediate term than any other liberal since 1974.

But people who voted Lib Dem didn't vote Labour. So it doesn't matter if Lib and Lab have more seats than the Tories if you put them together - and if the Lib Dems do that they may as well just merge with Labour and forget having their own party, because they'll never be taken seriously as a separate party again.

It's not where you come from - it's what you stand for. This current bunch of Etonian chums represent their own crowd and no one else and that is evident from their POLICIES.

No one could ever accuse Tony Benn of not dedicating his time and life's efforts to improving the position of the working classes. Whatever you think of his politics, II think that is generally accepted and explains why most people consider him to be a man of genuine principle. To suggest otherwise demonstrates a poor level of political knowledge.

Anastaisia - it's a tricky one, because the LDs will want to retain independence over legislation, but at the same time will probably want to agree on some sort of programme, if only for the sake of market stability. The programme would then also have to include PR. What I'm guessing they won't be bothered about is cabinet posts.

I wouldn't prop up Labour either. They didn't win most seats or votes, and they do the Lib Dems no favours while giving out the air of being entitled to their support. And it's unworkable in terms of seat totals.

Anastaisia I completely agree with you, it's the principled, moral, sensible, best-for-the-country-at-this-point way to go. Let's hope he's lurking eh?!

I'm also fed up (as a Lib Dem) with being lumped together with Labour. We're different parties with different philosophies and attitudes. We're not some sort of homogenous "progressive" blob.

God yes, Vesela.

I joined Lib Dems as well as voting for them - I'd have voted Conservative over Labour though if they'd been the two choices.

If the Lib Dems align with Labour they will lose all credibility for many many years to come. It will smack of desperation on the part of both parties. I hope the Lib Dems are mature enough as a party to see straight through the sudden Labour enthusiasm for electoral reform. If I were Nick Clegg I wouldn't trust the Labour party on this or any other promises they might make.

Like many others I refuse to be lumped in with Labour voters as a Centre Leftie. The choice for me was Tory or Lib Dem. I see very little similarity between Labour and Lib Dem policies, not to mention the entirely different culture of the two parties. Conversely there is quite a lot of similarity between some Lib Dem and Tory policies.

And all this nonsense about a Lib/Lab coalition having legitimacy as an anti-Tory majority, that is complete nonsense. Unless the Tories had won more than 50% of the vote - unheard of in our elections I think - you could make the same argument for almost any random combination of parties.

I don't see how the Lib Dems can justifiably prop up a labour government that has just suffered a catastrophic reversal in it's huge majority and keep it's dignity. GB has not been elected (Yes, I know all about party politics, but it's hard to sell that line to the public when they see Gordon Brown). They have to allow the majority party to govern. That's what Nick Clegg said he would do all along. The system may be rubbish, but 36% of the vote is more than 28% of the vote, whichever way you look at it. I voted Lib Dem despite them being the 3rd party in my constituency, in the vain hope that others would do the same. We got tory. If we have to have a tory government, I hope the Lib Dems will at least delay the Tories throwing off their sheeps clothing and temper some of their more odious policies. If any party sinks without a trace, we will have the same problems we have had under both the Tories and labour since the Thatcher yearsof huge majority government with virtually no checks and balances. That's not good for anyone.

At heart, Labour values are definitely pro-civil libertarian - the current administration has been decidedly weird in its authoritarian stance.

Labour wouldn't even exist as a party without the fight for civil liberties - political representation of ordinary working people, for starters. Freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, equality under the law - all core Labour values.

Blair and Brown have been very un-Labour on crime and terrorism but they done some good stuff wrt civil partnerships and repealing Section 28. (Before any Lib Dems get all misty-eyed about common ground with Tories on civil liberties... remember who gave us that one?)