Why is Clegg cosying up to Cameron?

[AmberTheHappyLuddite]

I know that it would be numerically easier to form a majority government, but don't the Tories represent everything the Lib Dems supposedly campaigned on? Surely a cheap shot at power is not worth alienating everybody who voted Lib Dem?

Genuinely confused here!

I think there are several issues that they can work together on and I think (waiting to be shot down here !) that Nick Clegg knows 1) there has to be a majority government for things to happen 2) the country (excluding Scotland) have unanimously stated they don't want GB in charge so he'll need to be careful if he joins with anyone.

Er, I voted Lib Dem and would much prefer a deal with Conservatives than with Labour thanks. A deal with Labour would be far worse for the country and the economy.

I didn't vote LibDem because I thought this might happen.

I knew our local LibDem would not get in, but could not face the idea of having voted for a Tory coalition.

I think he maybe has to go through the motion, seeing as he said the party with the highest votes should get first crack at the whip.

I seriously hope he doesn't though. It would be unworkable long term too imo, plus he will allianate a lot of libdem voters who could have voted Tory but chose not too. There was a reason for that...

Early in the morning for thinking but...

seeing as how Clegg bangs on about electoral reform and majorities being in government, being fair blah blah, he is considering "sharing" the power with the toies when he got so few votes from the population. I know it's legal etc and what they have to do, but I do not trust him and he seems to loosing popularity even more.

The tories have been dead against proportional representation all along, and said categorically they wouldn't work with Clegg if it was hung!!

Can Clegg/Cameron really change their minds and the minds of thier own parties?

I think that labour are being very dignified letting those two loozers have their little backroom chats. They couldn't wait to get all bum chummy on Friday morning

'bum chummy'?... is casual homophobia the thing on MN these days?

Reasons for:

Cons have the highest votes
It would be a more stable coalition. He doesn't need to make it formal - he could operate on confidence and supply
He has a chance to influence policy where he and the Cons agree.

Reasons against:

You could spin it that the country have said they don't want a Cons govt so Lib/Lab would be an anti-conservative alliance (dodgy IMO0
The rest of the party may not be happy and it could lead to infighting. The only way IMO he can now go to Labour is if they offer concrete electoral reform, make it clear that that's the only reason their joining forces and abandon them afterwards.

The country haven't stated they don't want Labour. More than a third in terms of seats said they did want Labour, slightly less in terms of votes, just more people want the conservatives...

It will never succeed long term but they could get a fair bit done, just nothing really major. For than you need a strong majority Govt or a very strong coalition on key issues.

I am fed up with hearing from pompous tories on the radio / television that they got more seats so most of their agenda should be pushed through.

There are loads of us who don't want their agenda pushed through which is why they didn't get an overall majority.

no chill, I didn't mean it like that and didnt know that it meant that actually.

Really sorry if you took offence...maybe a better term could have been smarming up to eachother or feathering their own beds together or selling their so called strong beliefs down the river to get a bit of 'power'? Guess, we will see.

Because he's a power hungry sell out.

I don't think we should conclude that a con-lib alliance will follow just because Clegg and Cameron are talking. They are all trying to appear measured and reasonable and in tune with how the electorate has spoken. This is, or should be, a front for desperate, cunning political thinking, however. And all the superficial "we're morally thinking of the good of the country stuff" from all parties aside, the lib dems are extremely politically stupid if they don't try for a coalition with labour, I reckon. If Clegg is a power hungry sell-out (aka a proper political animal) he should sell out to Labour for all the reasons frakkin has highlighted, imo. An attempt at a coalition with Labour is the only realistic chance the lib dems will get for many, many years to reform the voting system to their benefit and this has been their stated goal for generations. Because Labour are in a weaker position, Clegg could also push for other concessions more easily- he could essentially decide whether G Brown stays or goes, for example. In choosing the Tories they would scupper any chance of PR for eons and probably alienate a greater proportion of their core support. If they just rule themselves out of the equation and refuse a coalition with either party, effectively ushering in a minority conservative government, they would be ensuring that their status as a powerless also ran party was cemented in the popular imagination for a long while. I think it's possible that they are not clever enough, united enough or red in tooth and claw enough to realise this and tenatiously pursue a lib-lab outcome though.

Does anyone know what would happen if Clegg refused to support either the Tories or Labour?

Cons form a minority Govt, everyone votes on each issue as they please, no strong/tough decision get made but the Cons could probably make a lot of headway where they and the LDs agree.

OTOH:
Wouldn't sort the economy
Electoral reform might come through as an opposition motion and might possibly pass
Everything would take forever....

because a fundemental point of the Libdems is a fair voting system and real democracy and going by their principals joining with the Tories (who have more votes and seats so are the peoples choice) is the RIGHT thing to do for the country and the eceonomy.

Luddite. Because he has no choice, he lost seats, not gained them.

Lib Dem MPs are often fairly right wing. So are their voters.

It's only really the activists that are more left-wing.

Yay for expat! He is getting his moment in the spotlight and is on the any attention better than none bandwagon.A bit blair like

I suspect Clegg may not want to come to a deal with Cameron. But he wants to be seen to be making an effort as the Tories won the most seats and he knows he will be slated for going against the electorate if he went to Brown first.

However he may well turn round and say they couldn't come to an agreement/coalation so he will have to go to Brown. Then he can at least say he tried but still get what he wants from Labour (more likely to get a referendum on electoral reform). But maybe a Labour coalition without Brown.

Rebbecredheart. Yes. Into the wilderness as usual. Not elected for over 100 years...so what's new?

"There are loads of us who don't want their agenda pushed through which is why they didn't get an overall majority."

And there are loads of us who didn't want to suffer under Labour for the last 13 years but we had too.

They didn't get the overall majority because labour has spent it's time fixing the electorial system, if this were 1997 we would have had a landslide.

The conservatives need to take itself into power even if only under the minority, boot out Brown the squatter and change the elctorial system (not to PR) so that when the party with the most votes and seats gets elected they can walk straight into NO:10 not have to wait for the losser party to vacate.

Once thats done we can call another election.

A Labour coalition without Brown - i.e. where Brown pushing off is a condition - is NOT Brown being able to form a Govt, which is the only way Labour can stay in power.

Plus a Lib/Lab/Nats coalition is barely enough seats to hold the house and Nationalists will extract some pretty strong concessions...