'Leg -over Clegg' is now in bed with Labour party.

[complimentary]

Clegg is now in bed with with the Labour party, having previously had a leg-over with Cameron. What do others think about this? Is the country being held to ransom? what is the prospect of having another unelected Priminster? Who do you want running the country? Is PR a good idea?

What is the alternative to Clegg trying to form the best government under the circumstances? Everyone seems to be villifying him for trying to broker the best deal for the country but I don't understand what else he could do? Refuse to form a coalition with either party? What would happen then?

Can someone explain?

Not sure that Cleggy should be calling the shots. Current system is unfair but not sure if PR would be an improvement.

Thank god for that, Cleggs previous amorous adventures were obviously better than the second. No need for this thread.

All prime ministers are un elected FFS!!!!!

No they are not, when the country goes to the polls normally the Priminster is in office he is not placed their by mates such as Tony Blair. Brown was unelected, good riddance to him.

Agreed ABatInBunkFive! None of us voted for Cameron to head the Conservatives, and the country didn't vote for him to be PM even in the sense that we usually mean in Britain, because the public didn't give his party a majority. So whatever hapens we will have an 'unelected' PM.

And Nick Clegg would be a fool not to talk to both other parties before leading his own into a coalition government. In his position would you really side with one party over another before talking seriously to both?

The Labour and Conservative parties are being held to ransom and they know it. Labour knew they'd lost but are clutching at straws. Tories knew they hadn't won and were prepared to compromise. This is what a 'balanced parliament' means in practice but Clegg has to be very careful that he doesn't hack everyone off in the process of trying to please his party. As one of his MPs said recently "There's probably about a third of the party that opposes working with the Conservatives, about a third of the party that opposes working with Labour and the final third doesn't want to work with either of them."

The 'unelected PM' thing is a red herring. But it does make those leader's debates seem rather redundant if the eventual PM is someone we've not had a good look at.

Complimentary, I think you'll find Tony Blair was placed as the leader by his mates. It was his 'mates' that voted him into the position of leader, not the public. We vote for a party, not a PM.

SO why the secrecy then? WHy wait until everyone's expecting an imminent announcement of a coalition with the Tories?

That's not open and honest. Is this what it's going to be like for the next few years?

What secrecy?

If you read the papers there were phone conversations between Clegg and Brown described as amicable and talk of their parties meeting unofficially. It was informal but not secret.

It's not open and honest, no, because if you're ebrokering a deal with someone, you don't go showing your hand to everyone. If Labour knew exactly what the Lib Dems and Conservatives were offering each other, they would be able to try and 'undercut' the deal, and vice versa. Once a coalition has been agreed upon (assuming hte conservatives don't try and run as a minority) then things will have to open up more to gain public support.

Coalition governments are so rare in Britain that no one was prepared for it. And of course, the media are simply highlighting the secrecy because they need their headlines and their viewing figures. Where there are established systems which provide coalition govenrments you don't get this hype and fuss.

MrsWobble,

I'm not so certain that NC isn't trying to secure the best deal for the Liberal Democrats, rather than the best deal for the country.

He had my respect early on but now it is evaporating.

I hope DC doesn't resign as leader of the Tories if a Rainbow Coalition is the end result although I feel he should research the possibility of replacing George Osbourne as shadow chancellor and put experience before old school tie friendships. Hopefully there'll be another election within the next 18 months (if we end up with a loser's coalition to keep the party with the most seats and votes out of office) then the public can vote again, informed by the possibility of what may happen if there is no clear winner and without the GB factor turning some natural labour voters away from voting labour.

complimentary - You do know that you vote for a party not the leader right?

The leaders debates were an attempt to make the elections more interesting, for the x-factor loving public.

I'm not surprised that mass confusion has now arisen tbh.

crass tabloid post header.

We've had unelected PMs before - John Major?

The only way to get an elected PM is another general election.

'I'm not so certain that NC isn't trying to secure the best deal for the Liberal Democrats, rather than the best deal for the country.'
well he can't exactly sell out all his voters can he-what would happen next time around?

NC is walking a very tricky line here. He has to talk to everyone, he has to balance the needs and wishes of his party against the demands of the tories to form a government together which could mean sacrificing principles LDs hold dear. What he does now (and he's doing it because he holds the balance of power) is going to have a big impact on the future of his party as well as on the country right now. You can hardly blame him for taking his time!

actually it is party members that vote for the party leader. And anyone can join a political party.

Also while you don't specifically vote for the prime minister, when a general election is held you vote knowing who the leader of the party is and knowing who will be prime minister should that party win. Much different to the current prime minister stepping down after he's lost and the party appointing someone to serve in his place..

Nick cleg has lost any respect he ever had from me. it's one thing to speak to both parties, but you don't do so at the same time - you negotiate with one party and if negotiations don't work then you distance from them and go to the other party. You don't send in one team in one direction and one in the other until someone makes you the best offer. He is looking more and more power-crazed by the minute.

'you vote knowing who the leader of the party is and knowing who will be prime minister should that party win.'

No you vote pressuming to know who the PM will be, anyone who is voting Con just for DC or Lab just for GB isn't doing themselves any favours.

Just one of the reasons that the leaders debates were handled badly imo.

but people do vote for parties based on who the leader is. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.

Yes WannaBe they do, that still doesn't mean that we elect a PM.

I can';t see anything wrong with what Nick is doing. If he tried to do a deal with DC but it was impossible he has no choice but to try elsewhere. He can't just get into bed with anyone can he?

I think he has a moral duty to his party and the electorate to find the best deal which includes electoral reform.

Posie
I didn't know that a deal with DC was impossible - I thought the talks were continuing?
Bit of a Dutch auction going on imho.

I think NC has to cover his back.

As people on MN are constantly reminding us, he loses some support whichever party he might align with.

If he doesn't get the best deal for the party that will allow for a stable alignment, then support from his own MPs would drop.

To be sure to get the best deal, he needs to know what the other parties are willing to do or want in terms of compromise.

If he only checks with one, a second party can later claim they would have offered more.

It makes plenty of sense to negotiate, and check, with both.

There's surely no rush except for the media, trying to frighten people that the money markets will worry, and wanting themselves to speak to as many MPs and ex-MPs to simply speculate too much.

"Nick cleg has lost any respect he ever had from me. it's one thing to speak to both parties, but you don't do so at the same time - you negotiate with one party and if negotiations don't work then you distance from them and go to the other party. You don't send in one team in one direction and one in the other until someone makes you the best offer. He is looking more and more power-crazed by the minute."

I think he's actually trying to find the happy medium between taking time to consider both potential coalitions and spending so much time on the discussions that the country falls apart. He can't drag it out too long, but he also can't rush things. By gathering as much information as possible and then discussing it with his party, he's just doing good time management IMO.

He's going to lose left-leaning libdem supporters if he makes a deal with the tories and vice versa. He's actually in a pretty shit situation IMO.

And I don't think he's trying to make the best deal for the libdems. He wont' be PM, so he's not going to get that much power. But of course he thinks his party's policies are best for the country, otherwise he wouldn't be their leader...and of course he will want to make a deal that means they have the most influence and the most opportunity of actioning those policies because he believes they're the best thing for the country.