Are the LibDems acting in the country#'sinterest or their party's interest?

[WetAugust]

What's going on?

Is NC playing off both sides?

I thought he stood there in the Leaders Debates and spoke about all parties working together - and now he can't make up his mind who to work with or how - if GB is now saying NC has asked for formal talks.

Or is GB ust raising the stakes?

If this the the sort of mess that PR will give us with lots of small parties and no overall majority you can shove it.

its only been 4 days, NC has to consult with his party - he cant say 'oh ok then gordy i like your tie you'll do'

i would rather time be taken over forming an effective govt. ( well as effective as they usually are)

I would rather he negoiated with the Tories eclusively instead of diluting his efforts talking to Lab.

We've had 4 days of thsi so far - do we need another 4 days while he now talks to Labour?

i wouldnt mind ano0ther 4 days - im in no rush. as long as the lib dems do the right thing and negotiate in the intrests of their policies - policies they wrote wanting a better britain.

i'm so mad. what right have the lib dems got to decide who governs? the majority of the british people voted conservative, therefore that gov should be in power. it makes a mockery of democracy if someone else can then overide what the people say and decide who should govern.

Yes it does make a mockery of democracy, that's why we need electoral reform.
NC seems like a Tory in a yellow tie to me!

Remember he not only has to consult with his party, he has to get a vote of 3/4 of the MPs and 3/4 of the Federal Executive.

WetAugust - I think the Labour talks are just to see if they have a better offer on a PR referendum, or if it's still only the pathetic AV (rather than STV). And because they were going on on the side in any case, but that didn't look too good so had to formalise them when Brown stepped down.

And Labour talks maybe also partly for show, given that the Lib Dem MPs' statement talked about the need for a strong and stable government, which the rainbow coalition patently wouldn't be, given the numbers.

dreaming of sun - where would the Conservatives get the votes from to get legislation through?

dreamingofsun - I don't think you quite understand how the electoral system as it is at the present works. Back to school for you

... although it must be maddening for the tories, I agree. (And enjoy.)

vesela - who has to get a vote of 3/4 of the MPs and fed exec?

Under the Lib Dem rules, any deal etc. that affects the party's independence of action has to be approved by 3/4 of the party's MPs and 3/4 of the federal executive. (If there isn't a 3/4 vote, then it goes to a special conference of members, and if that doesn't have a 2/3 majority it goes to a ballot of all members. Obviously in the current financial situation the leadership wants it to get past MPs and the exec straight away, not to be doing postal ballots...)

It was introduced in 1998 when the party was afraid that Paddy Ashdown was getting too close to Tony Blair...

although is not entirely clear whether it only applies to a full-on coalition, or whether it also applies to the less strong agreement that would be likely to come out of these talks.

dreamingofsun - the point of "first past the post" is that someone actually gets past the post.

No post has been passed, and as such, no-one has won. The Tories cannot morally argue that they have the higher percentage of the votes, as they have previously argued that higher percentages were not really good enough for Labour to continue.

It's like three runners getting to the last hurdle, all giving up and then the one slighly in front saying "I won" when none of them are near the finish line.

The Conservatives DID win the most seats. This surely constitutes some sort of a mandate - but I guess it is still true that no-one has actually won. The electorate is also more or less asking for some electoral reform. Why can't the Conservative membership realise that there is no alternative to this now?

I heard some dyed in the wool old 'tories' on the radio who just don't seem to realise that the world has moved on. Their leadership realise this - or seem to. Can't the rest of the Conservative Party trust them? If they don't form a government then the initiative will be taken out of the hands of these almost victors and then it will only be their own fault.

The Liberals are making me quite sick. So much for all the fair shit they were coming out with.

Basically what do they want? Do they want X and Y? If so they should say so. If they cannot get X or Y then they should not form a coalition with anyone and a minority Tory administration should govern.

Otherwise it appears the Liberals are just scuttling about trying to fleece new concessions, like a kind of auction. So where are their principles? Oh look they are just the same as the rest of them, bewitched by the prospect of power. Really stomach churning.

The Tories got 22.75pc of the adult voting populace. 22.75pc is not a majority, unless you live in North Korea in which case it is an overwhelming landslide.

Coolfonz, the Liberals said clearly before the election and during it what the four things they would be negotiating were(education, political reform, fairer taxation, green economy). The negotiations have stuck to those areas. So what's your problem with that?

In answer to OP

"Their Own"

Vesela - it is fine to negotiate on these points. What is not fine is for them to expect to hold greater sway in a coalition than the larger party, which is what it is beginning to look like they are trying to hold out for.
For the Tories to offer a referendum on AV is a huge compromise from them, absolutely huge. What are the Lib Dems willing to ceed of equal value?

There was a Cornish Lib Dem ex-MP on R4 earlier who lost her seat last week. She wasn't bothered about 'the national interest', all she was worried about was differentiating herself from the Tory who had won her seat when it comes to another election.
There is a great deal of self interest going on here, and Clegg and co. are risking coming out of this very badly indeed.

in my opinion, very thankfully, at the moment libdem party intrests (wrt electoral reform) coincide with the country's interests.

don't agree at all coolfonz: yes they're scuttling, but if it is in order to try to crowbar decent chance of electoral reform that scuttle away!

fact is we just don't know what is being said do we?

Alibaba - from what has been said in the press it seems that the Cons and Lib dems have been able to come to an agreement for a Confidence and Supply arrangement (support for a minority Cons government).

They are now seeing if they can make an agreement to form a more stable coalition, for which they would (rightly IMO) want more of their policies implemented or at least put to referendum. If the tories are prepared to offer a referendum on AV, I don't see why they couldn't offer it on STV instead? Why not let the public decide if they want it or not?

Alibaba, I think what they're ceding is more of their support, since it's probably true that the very agreement in itself will result in more disgruntled LD voters than disgruntled Conservative voters (although I know many Tories aren't happy). That said, I think the most important thing to most LD MPs is to take the right decision for the national interest and worry about votes later. Still, they need to show they pushed for the Tories' best offer on PR.

(I agree with a referendum on PR, but would much rather fight it on STV.)