the beggining of the end for the coalition?

[lharris92]

ok so recently there has been the campaign for the Alternative Vote to be brought in which ended with the referendum yesterday, but in the build up both the Conservatives & the Lib Dems have been attacking each other severely in this campaign. Blood has been drawn by both parties - yet they both insist that the coalition can still work after.

However, at the same time the Lib Dems are set for damaging losses in local council elections throughout the UK, and the anger will be directed towards the party in westminster as they have made decisions which have made people to stop voting for them which will probably continue until the next general election - whenever that may be.

With all this going on, they will most likely be looking towards leadership for why these decisions took place, and with the broken promises from the last general election, the person to take the fall from grace will be Nick Clegg, selling out his party's ideology to gain some power. From this the Lib Dems will be in disarray, and withdraw from the coalition to try and salvage some of their followers back in an exercise of damage limitation.

Thoughts on whether this is possible (or likely), and what consequences it will have for the country?

By the way there are reports that in the north of England that the Lib Dems are losing almost all of their representation due to what has happened in local councils.

All is looking up for the Fib Dems

[eFestivals]

The beginning of the end? Nope.

To end the coalition they need a better place to go afterwards. There is nowhere better for them in their own eyes than clinging to power for as long as possible: the alternative for them at this time would be unemployment after an election. It doesn't take a genius to realise that at this time they'll be the fall-guys at any election.

Their only hope of keeping their jobs as MPs and their integrity as a party is to stick with it, and hope that things have come good enough by the end of this parliament in 4 years. But even if nothing comes good, 4 more years as an MP is better than unemployment now.

Nothing's happening.

[pink_triangle]

Agree with Neil, for the lib dems to bring down the coallition they would have to accept at best losing ministerial jobs and at worst losing their seats. If there was a general election today conservatives and labour would both take seats from lib dems and labour would take a few back from conservatives but we would still be in hung parliment teritory. A few lib dems in safe seats may be comfortable enough with that scenario and the hope it could produce a labour/lib coalition but for the majoirty it would be like turkeys voting for christmas.

[Kyelo]

The next government will be completely Conservative.

[pink_triangle]

The next government will be completely Conservative.

[Kowalski]

All is looking up for the Fib Dems

[eFestivals]

Do you mean a majority or minority government, I personally dont see any scope for a majority tory governement with the current boundaries however think there is a chance of a slim majority if the election is under the new boundaries. I would however say that a hyng parliament is the most likely result of the next election whenever it takes place.

I'd say that's an opinion based within the idea of the UK electorate being smart. I reckon that yesterday's local elections showed (not for the first time) they're not.

While the DimLibs have certainly alienated many of the people who voted for them last year, for many of those people their alternative choice to vote for instead of the LibDems is, very strangely, the tories.

From polls at the time, it's certainly the case that if another election had been called soon after last year's election because the LibDems wouldn't enter a coalition with either party, then it would have been the tories who benefited by that.

Yesterday's election seems to suggest that much the same would still happen.

[eFestivals]

it's going to be a very bumpy ride for them staying in the coalition and I can't see how Clegg will survive with so many Lib Dems worried about their seats.

If they removed Clegg now, they'd have immediate worries about their seats. By sticking with him, they're guaranteed to keep their seats for another 4 years.

So while I think it's quite possible that they might dump Clegg shortly before that 2015 election, I really can't see it happening before then - there's only negative outcomes for them personally if they do.

[llcoolphil]

Granted they should have stuck to their guns more but as the smaller partner in a coalition, how many of their policies were you expecting to see get through? Did you expect the Tories to suddenly do everything in the Lib Dem manifesto?

I'd like to see them ditch the coalition and get Charles Kennedy back, revitalise their grass roots support and come back stronger. The way things are going, it's going to be a very bumpy ride for them staying in the coalition and I can't see how Clegg will survive with so many Lib Dems worried about their seats.

[llcoolphil]

I'd say that's an opinion based within the idea of the UK electorate being smart. I reckon that yesterday's local elections showed (not for the first time) they're not.

While the DimLibs have certainly alienated many of the people who voted for them last year, for many of those people their alternative choice to vote for instead of the LibDems is, very strangely, the tories.

From polls at the time, it's certainly the case that if another election had been called soon after last year's election because the LibDems wouldn't enter a coalition with either party, then it would have been the tories who benefited by that.

Yesterday's election seems to suggest that much the same would still happen.

[eFestivals]

Except another election would only have happened if a minority tory government couldn't get a budget through. No way would cameron have gone back to the country without trying to run as a minority first

He might well have pretended to try and run things as a minority, but only to the point where enough of a conflict could be contrived so that he could call an election without getting the blame for doing so.

After all, why would he have bothered to try and struggle thru as a minority when every indicator showed he'd have got a certain majority by having another election?

edit: Also, it's UK parliamentary convention that budgets are the one thing that are not voted down, so the scenario you suggest might never have happened. While the tories themselves have in the past voted down the budget of other minority govts, the other parties have not and might not have done so this time around.

Edited May 6, 2011 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

He might well have pretended to try and run things as a minority, but only to the point where enough of a conflict could be contrived so that he could call an election without getting the blame for doing so.

After all, why would he have bothered to try and struggle thru as a minority when every indicator showed he'd have got a certain majority by having another election?

edit: Also, it's UK parliamentary convention that budgets are the one thing that are not voted down, so the scenario you suggest might never have happened. While the tories themselves have in the past voted down the budget of other minority govts, the other parties have not and might not have done so this time around.

[eFestivals]

He would definitely have got a budget through and wouldn't have gone back to the country because anything but a decisive victory and it would have been men in suits and curtains

as a decisive victory at that time was guaranteed, he had nothing at all to lose and everything to gain.

Even now, a year down the line, everything still points to a decisive victory for the tories if there was a general election tomorrow. The misplaced huge dissatisfaction with LibDems and just the LibDems would cause the tories to pick up seats from them to a far greater extent than Labour would, and give the tories a majority.

[pink_triangle]

I'd say that's an opinion based within the idea of the UK electorate being smart. I reckon that yesterday's local elections showed (not for the first time) they're not.

While the DimLibs have certainly alienated many of the people who voted for them last year, for many of those people their alternative choice to vote for instead of the LibDems is, very strangely, the tories.

From polls at the time, it's certainly the case that if another election had been called soon after last year's election because the LibDems wouldn't enter a coalition with either party, then it would have been the tories who benefited by that.

Yesterday's election seems to suggest that much the same would still happen.

[diddly-dee]

Even now, a year down the line, everything still points to a decisive victory for the tories if there was a general election tomorrow. The misplaced huge dissatisfaction with LibDems and just the LibDems would cause the tories to pick up seats from them to a far greater extent than Labour would, and give the tories a majority.

[diddly-dee]

I heard Andy Burnham saying something along the lines of the fact you had to admire the way conservative had been ruthless in the way they had engineered a situation where the lib dems took the complete hit.

[TalkShow Bob]

On election night they had the chairman of the lib dems saying that as a result of the tories actions in the referendum campaign they said they wouldnt be supporting any tory bills not in the coalition agreement. This would include the NHS reform bill...

[jimbob_no1]

After the next general election (especially after tory jerrymandering of the voting boundaries)

[diddly-dee]

I'm sorry?? I realise this board is generally left wing, but if you can't see that the reorganisation of constituencies to be round about the same size and profile is a very sensible thing to do then, to be honest, I'm all for IQ tests to qualify for voting. If anything, the constituency boundaries currently very unfairly favour Labour. You only need to look at the facts where similar number of votes = more seats for Labour, less for Conservative. What a ridiculous statement, and all too prevalent of the rabid left wing - polemic before facts, it's almost like a religious thing with you lot. Ignore the facts, Red is good, Blue is bad, Left is good, Right is bad.

I do class myself as pretty centred in politics but I'm happy to be right wing, if this is what goes for left wing opinion.

Edited May 9, 2011 by diddly-dee

[eFestivals]

I'm sorry?? I realise this board is generally left wing, but if you can't see that the reorganisation of constituencies to be round about the same size and profile is a very sensible thing to do then, to be honest, I'm all for IQ tests to qualify for voting. If anything, the constituency boundaries currently very unfairly favour Labour. You only need to look at the facts where similar number of votes = more seats for Labour, less for Conservative. What a ridiculous statement, and all too prevalent of the rabid left wing - polemic before facts, it's almost like a religious thing with you lot. Ignore the facts, Red is good, Blue is bad, Left is good, Right is bad.

I do class myself as pretty centred in politics but I'm happy to be right wing, if this is what goes for left wing opinion.

While I'm not disagreeing with the main part of what you've said, the whole basis of the current re-organisation of boundaries is very squarely for the self-benefit of tories.

If proportionality was at the heart of it then there's a FAR better way of achieving it, and that's by using a proportional system (such as one variety of PR), and not a self-invented and self-benefiting system that the independent Electoral Commission hasn't recommended be done within the current FPTP system.

You only have to take a look at how the tories benefit HUGELY against all other parties via FPTP at local council to see that they wish to extend that systematic advantage they gain by it to the election of MPs as well.

All of that aside, currently the electoral boundaries exist as they do so that constituencies have a relationship with how the people in that constituency interact with their local geography. After the tories re-organisation they'll be many people in many constituencies who don't have a relationship with the constituency they reside within - and so which will weaken the reasons for sticking with the 'local representation' model of politics that we currently operate. With a bit of luck that fact will come back and bite the tories very hard in the future.

edit: in addition to what I've said above, it needs tyo be noted that the rationale the tories are giving for this re-organisation is that "there's too many MPs". And yet Dave Moron has appointed three times as many new unelected 'lords' to the House of Lords than the number of MPs that will be abolished, thus demonstrating further that it's about self-benefit and not better governance.

Edited May 9, 2011 by eFestivals

[Alcatraz]

Agree with Neil, for the lib dems to bring down the coallition they would have to accept at best losing ministerial jobs and at worst losing their seats. If there was a general election today conservatives and labour would both take seats from lib dems and labour would take a few back from conservatives but we would still be in hung parliment teritory. A few lib dems in safe seats may be comfortable enough with that scenario and the hope it could produce a labour/lib coalition but for the majoirty it would be like turkeys voting for christmas.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Alcatraz

[diddly-dee]

Hmmm, I really don't see this. Thursday was really quite a dissapointing day for Labour, not least because of Scotland, but because the Tories still gained seats.

If there was an election tomorrow, I'm pretty sure it would return a Conservative majority

[eFestivals]

....which means that "the crude figures flatter the Conservatives".

the whole of the local election process flatters the tories - they get to benefit massively via the FPTP system. They get massively more council control than their support deserves.

[pink_triangle]

Hmmm, I really don't see this. Thursday was really quite a dissapointing day for Labour, not least because of Scotland, but because the Tories still gained seats.

If there was an election tomorrow, I'm pretty sure it would return a Conservative majority

edit: Neil sums up why on the first page

[eFestivals]

I dont agree. Labour in my opinion would still be strong in the north. In the last election darlington went conservative with a small majority. Redcar went lib dem in a protest vote. Seats like this are guaranteed to go back red. Milliband doesnt inspire but he isnt despised like brown was. Wales, Scotland and Northen England still remember Thatcher and I cant see conservatives making enough in roads in these areas to win an overall majority.

Labour will get back voters who changed their vote lib dem to get rid of brown, they will get back some of the voters who stayed at home fearful of the tories, they will significantly increase their student vote and get a few lib dem voters who cant forgive the party for propping up the conservatove government. Im not really sure what group of voters they will lose. In fact I think cameron would rather not get a majority because if he does it will likely be small, meaning a great increase of power to the right wing rebels that cameron currently ignores.

what you need to bear in mind tho is that tactical voting in all directions is less likely at the next election. In the past people of both the left and right have been happy to vote LibDem to try and keep their most-disliked out of power, while far fewer from both sides will do that next time around. When the forthcoming constituency boundary changes are factored in too then there's as much to favour the tories as there is Labour in England, but with the collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland it's the tories who will have the most MPs - and probably more than enough for a majority.