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....

The problem is for the lib dems that if they align themselves with Labour, they still need others to get a majority. It would be ridiculous for them to try and have a minority coalition. It simply would not last.

Even with a majority coalition with Labour/lib dems & sundry, the minute cuts start, strikes start and the in fighting starts, the coalition is likely to fall apart. I dont think it would last a year.

So the problem/dilemma for Cleggy is that the only realistic proposition for a stable government is to form a coalition with the Tories but that would mean compromising severely on their demands for electoral reform.

Brown will have to go if LibDems do a deal with Labour but Brown's head is just a bargaining chip for labour. Brown knows that.

PR is the Holy Grail for LIbDems and they have to maximise the chances.

I think Labour is in the best medium term position: their only difficulty is that they have to find away of making their support for PR conditional on a LibLab coalition without looking inconsistent. Otherwise they can sit back and watch either:

i)LibDems get screwed by Tories

and/or

ii)Tories do the heavy lifting re:pushing through public sector cuts, strikes etc.

...they can wait in the wings and renew themsleves with a shiny new leader and wait for the next time.

MintHumbug- I said that I think "Labour is in the best medium-term position".

Cos they have less to lose from this "work-out" process.

I also think Clegg or DC will be blamed for PR or no PR at the end of any ConLibdem coalition. DC gets blame if we end up with PR, Clegg gets blame if he did a deal with Cons on PR and Cons don't campaign for PR....and Labour may not put their weight behind PR if LDs do deal with Cons. Either way NC will be blamed for not extracting the right conditions for his support if the Tories end up not supporting PR in ConLib coalition.

I cant see ConLib coalition happening..too risky for LDs and Clegg himself.

i don't see any public mandate for PR - its rather against core-conservatism (ie, leaving things as they are!) - it may have been a LD policy for some considerable time, but, well, they didn't get as any seats as the Conservatives..I think it would be rather odd to rate it as a hugely important issue in the eyes of the populus.

on the economy/ education./civil liberties there is more scope for agreement. tuition fees could be a sticking point too - i don't see where the money is (unless, they just admit that fewer people can go to university) on the one hand, whilst on the other hand, it would be nice...

but then this kind of brokering goes on all the time in other cuntries, and they still manage to govern - i think it would very unwise for Clegg to throw away the opportunity to get the LDS some kind of place in governent - as that means they get nothing!

Agree except that NC willprobably have to agree PR cooperation with Labour on condition that they get rid of GB and perhaps give LibDems Chancellor (Vince Cable) + Foreign Secretary (N Clegg). They would be in a very strong position with Labour. Is NC as PM in Lib-Lab coalition out of the question. Surely the LDs wouldn't be able to resist that one. In a funny way Labour are in the best position to play the clever game in this process.

In a funny way Labour are in the best position to play the clever game in this process

erm...not with fewer seats they aren't.
also, wouldn't they have to ditch ID cards, 42 days detention too?? These things run very strongly contrary to LD policy.

EdgarAllenPoll - ditching those things wouldn't cause any ripples at all in the Labour party surely. Most of their members aren't pro?

Labour are in a position to:

i)Tease the LD membership with all the concessions that they can offer eg REAL support for PR

ii)Can renew their leader

iii)Can sit back and let Tories and LibDems make unpopular cuts

iv)Tories and LibDem membership are much more likely to be divdided about ConLib deal

......

Good (to ditching ID and detention without charge). Horrifying that the Labour party brought those in in the first place. Would save us a few billions too.

Exactly- I cant think pf too many things that LDs would ask for that Labour couldn't offer. Even NC as PM is not completely out of the question!

The latter isnt so likely but mark my words about ConLib coalition not going ahead. I feel fairly sure about that.

Anyone who is insisting on a LibDem/Lab coalition has not awoken to the reality of the election results. While you couldn't say Conservatives won exactly, you can say that Labour lost.

A LibDem/Conservative coalition sounds like the perfect solution . . . the LibDems can tame any excesses of the Conservative party.

Both Clegg and Cameron understand that a formal coalition government, rather than a looser arrangement, would be perceived as more stable, thus is in the national interest.

I don't find it far fetched that Cameron would compromise with a guarantee of a referendum on election reform, including the question of PR. He's already laid the groundwork in suggesting that his party will need to compromise as they did not win a majority.

In the areas where they are farthest apart, I'd like to see:
+Commitment to referendum on PR & other options.
+Move decision on Trident into the context of the overall defense review.
+A move back to the sane EU party.

I think Cameron needs Clegg more than Clegg needs Cameron. But if Conservatives fail to meet the LibDems' fundamental critera for coalition then I'd rather see a minority Conservative government with variable and conditional Lib Dem support than the Lib Dems coalescing with Labour.

If I were NC I would say yes to DC and get on with fixing the economy. I would remember that even though I seem to be holding the ball I came third and most people don't want the same thing as the LibDems.

Or is that wishful thinking...

Agree with Marsha
to much shilly shallyng
we want to get on with saving our economy etc

I am not insistening on any coalition. I am just commenting on how I think it WILL playout. I don't think that LibLab coalition is necessarily best for Labour anyway!

Labour might be best sitting back and watching LDs get screwed and then sweeping up the antiTory vote next time with a new Leader..plus they would not have had to do the nasty public sector cuts. That is probably optimum for Labour.

Also, LDs need Labour's support to get PR referendum through to the public. So why would they do deal with Tories with Tories not syupporting PR and then alienating Labour support for PR? Doesn't seems to make any sense.

LDs are just going through the paces saying that they are looking at Tory offer as they will get punished by the lectorate if they dont do that.

Sorry but I really do think that Labour is sitting in the best position whatever happens

In a way I do hope there is a LibLab coalition. That way they can make some unpopular cuts and with luck it will all fall apart soon leaving the Tories to mop up and have a proper majority and make more cuts.

Its the only way I think this country will ever learn to live within its means. Too many people think the gravy train can keep going until we end up like Greece. The untold truth during the election is that we are a hair's breath away from being another Greece anyway.

Agree with you compo that they need to get on with it - but if the LibDems don't push DC on policies that are completely at odds with everything else they believe in they will lose credibility, and whatever happens any coalition or deal is likely to be fairly fragile and may not last a full term.

Where will those LibDem voters go at the next election (and remember it was getting on for a quarter of the electorate)? The risk for NC is that he pushes a large number of them towards a Lab party led by someone nice and shiny and a bit NC-like in an election in a year or so.

And even if DC agrees to drop things like inheritance breaks for the rich to placate NC, is that seriously going to play well with his own MPs / grass roots?

Agree. I think the party that sits it out could be in the best position as a coalition could be messy especially a ConLib coalition that doesn't deliver PR.

A LibLab coalition that delivers PR will limit the long term damage for the left.

So I think that the stakes for LDs and Toreis are very very high. less so for Labour.

Labour will either support PR or not and it is either a serious part of their manifesto or not. If Labour could be put off supporting PR in the future because they are mad at Clegg, then it would indeed seem to be simply a political ploy and not an offer with much value? So I don't agree that the need for future Labour support for PR is giving them any advantage in the current wrangling.

My PolSci analyst DH says Brown's head isn't a bargaining chip because if he, Brown, can't form a Govt where he is the PM (which is the only right Labour have to power) then a LibLab coalition can't go ahead. They'd need the Nationalists anyway and if I were the Nationalists I'd be asking a LOT for my support, like not having a referendum on PR because they stand to lose far too much. The voting % speak for themselves there....

It would have to be a Lib/Lab minority Govt, who have marginally more votes than a conservative minority

FrakkinTheReturningOffice...

Understood but I am expecting that there would be an agreement that Brown would step aside once it is all done but can't see Lib-Lab without Brown's head as part of the deal...detail on timing issue can be worked out.