That's about where I worked it out in my head off those figures, which is why I was saying "could go either way". Of course, if the LibDems have topped the number of votes - then Clegg is free of the "talk to the party with the biggest number of votes" pledge.
For Want of A Debate...
- Thread starter stodge
- Start date
That's about where I worked it out in my head off those figures, which is why I was saying "could go either way". Of course, if the LibDems have topped the number of votes - then Clegg is free of the "talk to the party with the biggest number of votes" pledge.
ASB, because you can't run a government that way. At the end of the day, the party with the most seats wins, because its leader can command the largest section of parliament. Ramsay Mac's national government is a rare exception, but that only came about because he was already PM of an existing Labour government and stayed on to provide continuity. To set up a new Coalition with a party that has about half the seats the other two have in the driving seat would be, regardless of what the PR-loons shout, dangerously undemocratic, unworkable and, potentially, not constitutionally legal.
However, they can certainly demand it!
I still see Clegg going into Coalition with Labour here. The literature from the 2010s talks about the Tory party disintegrating here so I don't see them being the ones who form a government...
Unless...
...oh God.
Stodge, you're not going to have the Tory Party collapse and form a rump majority with the Lib Dems, with Clegg leading a new, 'Progressive Conservative' coalition of Orange Bookers and moderate Tories, are you? Dystopia ahoy!
But no - the ASB-ish nature of the Lib Dems topping the national poll (in any circumstances, their party machine isn't strong enough locally, and this isn't America) aside, this has remained plausible and I assume the Coalition arrangements will remain so. Labour will get first dibs but I can see the above Tory proposal coming true - particularly as Stodge suggested that a Mili-D led Lab-Lib government isn't on the cards.
Can't wait for more!
Not sure you could call it undemocratic, but it would certainly be unworkable. To be honest I think the only thing to do would be reform the electoral system and call another election. Nobody can feasably expect to govern like this.
Well, if you think that the party with the most votes leading the government is undemocratic, then, err, perhaps we are using different definitions of the word democratic?
I also disagree on the constitutional point: The constitution is blind to party (except perhaps in the existence of the Whips office...) The PM can be any MP (or anybody else, I suppose) who has the confidence of the Commons and can hence deliver Supply. So if Caroline Lucas was called to the palace, but had the support of a Labour and Conservatives on a Supply-and-Confidence basis, she could accept the position of PM entirely constitutionally. I wouldnt claim this is a likely scenario, nor one which is likely to survive except with the support those Environmentalist!Space Bats and their mind control rays, but it would at least be constitutional!
I agree with your point about it being entirely and utterly unworkable in any practical sense, though!
I agree: I know that a couple of opinion polls were showing these sorts of numbers in that week after the first debate, but translating outlier opinion polls in to GE results seems to require, if not ASBs, at least a certain number of high-atmosphere chiroptera of indeterminate origin. Of course, this is really the POD of the timeline, so I think we can let it go!
Clegg really would be in a bind here. Sure, he has choices, and could support either party in coalition, or even just supply-and-confidence, but unlike OTL he wont have the excuse of "the only way to secure stable government", and which ever way he chooses he will piss off a portion of the party and his voters. Or be seen as week and indecisive if the negotiations last too long.
I cant see any way for Gordon to hang on for long, even if, as leader of the largest party and incumbent PM, he has every right to do so. Surely Clegg would demand he goes as perquisite to any serious negotiation (as per OTL)? I think that Milliband (D) would be the most likely candidate for coronation, but also agree that there is very little chance of one happening, as why would anyone give the Tories a "Two unelected PMs (or party leaders)" stick for free?
Im not sure what Camerons actions would be at this point: In OTL he held a strong negotiating position as the leader of the largest party and only practical leader of government (either in coalition or as part of a s-and-c deal), and was able to come out and give his speech and offer to the Lib Dems with the knowledge that he could bring his party with him. In TTL, he hasnt really won many (any?) more seats, he will have major figures in the Party (Ashcroft!) furious about how the debate went and its consequences, and would have to start a bidding war with labour even to get the Lib Dems to start talking...
If GBs resignation is the minimum offer from Labour, what would the Tories have to give? Referendum on AV, as an opening gambit, but STV or even things like renewal of Trident might be on the table. With hindsight, a guarantee on Tuition Fees would seem automatic, but it might not have been so obvious at the time...
Of course, The situation in Greece is likely to flare up over the weekend, so there will be significant and increasing pressure to form a Government quickly.
Hear, hear. Super stuff!
Last edited:
This bit has me confused. A paper candidate is one who doesn't do any campaigning, so why is Regional HQ spending money printing Focus leaflets for her? And if they've decided that it's worth running a minimal campaign in that constituency, why is she depending on volunteers to deliver the leaflets? If you're standing for Parliament, the Post Office will deliver one lot of leaflets (the "Election Adress") to every household in the constituency free of charge. The Election Agent and the Candidate don't have to do anything after they've arranged that with the Post Office, and I'd expect any volunteers they get to be pointed in the direction of the nearest constituency that's thought to be winnable.
A Break...
I've had a busy few days and there will be an update tomorrow. I'll pick up on some of the comments and thanks very much to everyone who has contributed:
Seat Totals: I did some calculations based on the 34/31/27 numbers but not applying them as Uniform National Swing (UNS). The Conservatives did well in OTL not only by picking up Labour marginals where they were second-placed but also by winning some seats from third (Watford) AND preventing the LDs from taking Labour seats by polling strongly.
In the ATL the Conservative vote is back to near 1997 numbers and concentrated in their heartlands. This has not only allowed Labour ro hold some of their seats but allowed the Lib Dems to take a number of seats from second and even third place.
The debate is the POD - in the ATL Clegg was not only good, Cameron was poor and the sudden boost the LDs got in the polls precipitated an internal crisis in the Tory campaign over the last weekend which fed into the media coverage negatively further undermining the Conservative vote.
Paper Candidate In my experience, there will be a very large print run for a regional newspaper which will be fairly generic in content apart from two pages which will be constituency-specific and wouldn't take long to do.
IF a constituency needs a 70,000 run to cover it, the region might get 100,000 done (the cost isn't much greater for bulk printing) and farm off the 30,000 to other non-target constituencies to deliver in their strongest areas perhaps.
Post-Election The point I will make is that finishing top of the poll in terms of votes is going to give Clegg (at least in his own mind) a degree of legitimacy on electoral reform. I don't think a referendum alone on AV will cut it on these numbers - with a stronger hand, negotiations will be tougher but how, with whom, and when ? I haven't forgotten events in Europe either....
I've had a busy few days and there will be an update tomorrow. I'll pick up on some of the comments and thanks very much to everyone who has contributed:
Seat Totals: I did some calculations based on the 34/31/27 numbers but not applying them as Uniform National Swing (UNS). The Conservatives did well in OTL not only by picking up Labour marginals where they were second-placed but also by winning some seats from third (Watford) AND preventing the LDs from taking Labour seats by polling strongly.
In the ATL the Conservative vote is back to near 1997 numbers and concentrated in their heartlands. This has not only allowed Labour ro hold some of their seats but allowed the Lib Dems to take a number of seats from second and even third place.
The debate is the POD - in the ATL Clegg was not only good, Cameron was poor and the sudden boost the LDs got in the polls precipitated an internal crisis in the Tory campaign over the last weekend which fed into the media coverage negatively further undermining the Conservative vote.
Paper Candidate In my experience, there will be a very large print run for a regional newspaper which will be fairly generic in content apart from two pages which will be constituency-specific and wouldn't take long to do.
IF a constituency needs a 70,000 run to cover it, the region might get 100,000 done (the cost isn't much greater for bulk printing) and farm off the 30,000 to other non-target constituencies to deliver in their strongest areas perhaps.
Post-Election The point I will make is that finishing top of the poll in terms of votes is going to give Clegg (at least in his own mind) a degree of legitimacy on electoral reform. I don't think a referendum alone on AV will cut it on these numbers - with a stronger hand, negotiations will be tougher but how, with whom, and when ? I haven't forgotten events in Europe either....
Too be honest, Stodge, 125 seats would mainly mean that the yellows went deep into the "Moving Forward" seats, most of which had candidates who were prepared to win but weren't expected to win this time (or in good Liberal tradition for another 2-3 elections). Most of those would have been expected to get out a newspaper, a split freepost and a leaflet.
Much further than that, however and we are into the world of the paper candidate - but many of those might have been up for election in the simultaneous council elections and therefore may well be working wards or target wards. For instance, we never thought we would take Birmingham Hodge Hill (candidate too lazy), but there were strong campaigns in three of the four wards which featured him.
However, it should also be noted that most of the printers were pretty well booked up for things like newspapers already by the date of the single debate and that a lot of postal voting papers would have gone out as well. Any extra literature would have probably had to be locally done. Mind you, I'd have killed for extra delivery capacity that weekend, which would have meant experienced activists could have been spared for further canvassing.
Much further than that, however and we are into the world of the paper candidate - but many of those might have been up for election in the simultaneous council elections and therefore may well be working wards or target wards. For instance, we never thought we would take Birmingham Hodge Hill (candidate too lazy), but there were strong campaigns in three of the four wards which featured him.
However, it should also be noted that most of the printers were pretty well booked up for things like newspapers already by the date of the single debate and that a lot of postal voting papers would have gone out as well. Any extra literature would have probably had to be locally done. Mind you, I'd have killed for extra delivery capacity that weekend, which would have meant experienced activists could have been spared for further canvassing.
Reflections
Extract from Symposium at the London School of Economics on Saturday November 6th 2010
Afternoon Workshop - "May 7th - Setting the Scene" chaired by John Rentoul
Good Afternoon. I hope everyone enjoyed their lunch. Welcome to this afternoon's first workshop where we will be looking specifically at the events of Friday May 7th and the impact these had on the formation of the Government and on the events that followed.
My three guests on the panel were all, in one form or another, close to the events of that day. First, we have Lee Pritchard, author of the best selling "Fall of the Blue House". Lee worked in CCHQ and was close to the Conservative campaign in those incredible days after the election.
Mike Smithson is host of the Politichat website and a former Liberal Democrat activist. His site saw its greatest number of hits ever on May 7th.
Richard Crandall was an adviser to David Milliband and close to the inner sanctum of the Labour Government in the days after the election when he was a frequent visitor to 10 Downing Street. He is also in the process of writing a book based on his experiences Welcome gentlemen.
If I can ask you all the same question - what were your experiences of Friday May 7th and how do you think the three party leaders that day confronted the remarkable election result and understood what it meant ? Richard, I think you drew the short straw....
RC: I was in the FCO on the morning after the election along with David's other advisers. David had got back from the north-east around 8am and looked visibly tired as we all did. I assumed his anxiety was down to the election but it tutned out he had been briefed on the turmoil in Greece and the very real possibility (as it seemed) of that country collapsing into anarchy.
We advisers talked exclusively about the election. Some thought that the Liberals would back an ongoing Labour Government albeit without Gordon and thought David would be the next Prime Minister. Others said a loss of more than a hundred seats and 27% of the vote couldn't be spun as anything other than a disastrous defeat and it was all over.
We heard Nick Clegg's comments with interest - some thought the door was clearly open to a deal as it seemed Labour would move more on electoral reform than the Conservatives could but it was a nervy, uncertain morning and got more so as the day went on and the news from Greece and the markets got worse.
MS: I'd been up all night monitoring the website and playing the spread betting markets which had been in a frenzy since the early evening as leaks of the exit poll began appearing on Twitter. We knew it was busy but I'd never seen such traffic.
By about 9am, things had quietened slightly though there were a number of recounts ongoing and others getting underway after a few hours break. The mood on the site was still frenetic with most of the Liberal Democrat supporting posters still jubilant but others were more sanguine and anticipated the difficulties that would occur.
I listened to Nick Clegg's speech outside Party HQ and I wasn't that surprised or impressed. We all knew the electoral system as it stood was finished after the election and I also knew Clegg would push for STV as the only viable option and I supported that. I was more concerned he didn't seem to have a strategy for negotiating with either the Labour or Conservative parties. Taking the line that there was some form of legitimacy about topping the poll was foolish - it's seats that count in the Westminster system and indeed most other systems, not votes.
That said, he had put down a key marker and put the ball in the other parties' court. My instinct was that Brown couldn't or wouldn't accept what had happened though others in Labour such as David Milliband were much more open. I thought the advantage lay with the Tories.
I've looked back - of 750 posts between 8.30 and 11am, only three mentioned Greece in any way.
LP: We were exhausted, still juggling with a number of recounts and generally in a state of shock. David Cameron had returned to CCHQ at about 9.30am and was soon closeted with Steve Hilton and other advisers including George Osborne who had made it down from Cheshire in the early hours.
It had been a tough night though we kept reminding ourselves that Labour had lost more than a hundred seats while we had gained forty. I think everyone knew electoral reform was a given after the result. The party was still strongly in favour of FPTP but that was now untenable. When we heard Nick Clegg demanding STV we knew there was going to be a huge problem within the Party. We could probably have sold a referendum on AV but STV had always been ruled out.
Nonetheless, we didn't have the seats to form a minority even with the support of the DUP and we knew the Nationalists would probably back Labour so we needed the Lib Dems one way or another. The party had prepared before the election for the eventuality of a Hung Parliament but not on this kind of scale. Clearly, we couldn't just offer trifles to the Liberals - it would have to be substantial and serious.
David Cameron announced himself ready to talk to Nick Clegg and to be fair Clegg had held to his pre-election line of talking first to the party with the larger share of the vote. I think it's fair to say many in the party viewed the prospect with horror. Indeed, there was a substantial view that the Party should allow Labour to form a minority Government and let it collapse but others argued that if the Liberals propped up Labour, we would face another five years in Opposition and no chance of a majority under STV.
All in all, the mood in CCHQ on Friday lunchtime was pretty grim. As Hirohito said in 1945 the Conservatives were preparing to endure the unendurable.
Extract from Symposium at the London School of Economics on Saturday November 6th 2010
Afternoon Workshop - "May 7th - Setting the Scene" chaired by John Rentoul
Good Afternoon. I hope everyone enjoyed their lunch. Welcome to this afternoon's first workshop where we will be looking specifically at the events of Friday May 7th and the impact these had on the formation of the Government and on the events that followed.
My three guests on the panel were all, in one form or another, close to the events of that day. First, we have Lee Pritchard, author of the best selling "Fall of the Blue House". Lee worked in CCHQ and was close to the Conservative campaign in those incredible days after the election.
Mike Smithson is host of the Politichat website and a former Liberal Democrat activist. His site saw its greatest number of hits ever on May 7th.
Richard Crandall was an adviser to David Milliband and close to the inner sanctum of the Labour Government in the days after the election when he was a frequent visitor to 10 Downing Street. He is also in the process of writing a book based on his experiences Welcome gentlemen.
If I can ask you all the same question - what were your experiences of Friday May 7th and how do you think the three party leaders that day confronted the remarkable election result and understood what it meant ? Richard, I think you drew the short straw....
RC: I was in the FCO on the morning after the election along with David's other advisers. David had got back from the north-east around 8am and looked visibly tired as we all did. I assumed his anxiety was down to the election but it tutned out he had been briefed on the turmoil in Greece and the very real possibility (as it seemed) of that country collapsing into anarchy.
We advisers talked exclusively about the election. Some thought that the Liberals would back an ongoing Labour Government albeit without Gordon and thought David would be the next Prime Minister. Others said a loss of more than a hundred seats and 27% of the vote couldn't be spun as anything other than a disastrous defeat and it was all over.
We heard Nick Clegg's comments with interest - some thought the door was clearly open to a deal as it seemed Labour would move more on electoral reform than the Conservatives could but it was a nervy, uncertain morning and got more so as the day went on and the news from Greece and the markets got worse.
MS: I'd been up all night monitoring the website and playing the spread betting markets which had been in a frenzy since the early evening as leaks of the exit poll began appearing on Twitter. We knew it was busy but I'd never seen such traffic.
By about 9am, things had quietened slightly though there were a number of recounts ongoing and others getting underway after a few hours break. The mood on the site was still frenetic with most of the Liberal Democrat supporting posters still jubilant but others were more sanguine and anticipated the difficulties that would occur.
I listened to Nick Clegg's speech outside Party HQ and I wasn't that surprised or impressed. We all knew the electoral system as it stood was finished after the election and I also knew Clegg would push for STV as the only viable option and I supported that. I was more concerned he didn't seem to have a strategy for negotiating with either the Labour or Conservative parties. Taking the line that there was some form of legitimacy about topping the poll was foolish - it's seats that count in the Westminster system and indeed most other systems, not votes.
That said, he had put down a key marker and put the ball in the other parties' court. My instinct was that Brown couldn't or wouldn't accept what had happened though others in Labour such as David Milliband were much more open. I thought the advantage lay with the Tories.
I've looked back - of 750 posts between 8.30 and 11am, only three mentioned Greece in any way.
LP: We were exhausted, still juggling with a number of recounts and generally in a state of shock. David Cameron had returned to CCHQ at about 9.30am and was soon closeted with Steve Hilton and other advisers including George Osborne who had made it down from Cheshire in the early hours.
It had been a tough night though we kept reminding ourselves that Labour had lost more than a hundred seats while we had gained forty. I think everyone knew electoral reform was a given after the result. The party was still strongly in favour of FPTP but that was now untenable. When we heard Nick Clegg demanding STV we knew there was going to be a huge problem within the Party. We could probably have sold a referendum on AV but STV had always been ruled out.
Nonetheless, we didn't have the seats to form a minority even with the support of the DUP and we knew the Nationalists would probably back Labour so we needed the Lib Dems one way or another. The party had prepared before the election for the eventuality of a Hung Parliament but not on this kind of scale. Clearly, we couldn't just offer trifles to the Liberals - it would have to be substantial and serious.
David Cameron announced himself ready to talk to Nick Clegg and to be fair Clegg had held to his pre-election line of talking first to the party with the larger share of the vote. I think it's fair to say many in the party viewed the prospect with horror. Indeed, there was a substantial view that the Party should allow Labour to form a minority Government and let it collapse but others argued that if the Liberals propped up Labour, we would face another five years in Opposition and no chance of a majority under STV.
All in all, the mood in CCHQ on Friday lunchtime was pretty grim. As Hirohito said in 1945 the Conservatives were preparing to endure the unendurable.
Very nice update, convincingly and originally styled. So it looks like Clegg is going to have to decide which takes priority when he said 'I'll talk to the party with the most votes and seats', because Mr Pritchard there implied that Labour, despite having the most seats (252?) did not get the most votes (Tories in second place behind LDs, presumably). I imagine he'll choose votes, as that ties in with his 'we must have STV so I can be (D)PM for life' rhetoric, and of course his closer ideological links to the Tories rather than Labour.
Perhaps we are going to see a more unworkable Coalition, with Clegg wielding a lot more power and the Tories consigning themselves to oblivion by being forced to implement STV? You hinted a while ago that this will in fact only create more problems for Clegg - perhaps his party will be less forgiving than OTL when they have 125 seats and, as perhaps may occur if this is what you have in mind, a Tory-led government starts churning out Tory-business-as-usual-policies. I wonder how Tuition Fees will be handled?
Perhaps we are going to see a more unworkable Coalition, with Clegg wielding a lot more power and the Tories consigning themselves to oblivion by being forced to implement STV? You hinted a while ago that this will in fact only create more problems for Clegg - perhaps his party will be less forgiving than OTL when they have 125 seats and, as perhaps may occur if this is what you have in mind, a Tory-led government starts churning out Tory-business-as-usual-policies. I wonder how Tuition Fees will be handled?
Thanks...
Thank you again, Meadow, for your kind words and comment. As I suggested earlier, this result isn't going to be easy for Nick Clegg or indeed for David Cameron and Gordon Brown either.
The pressure for change to the electoral system will be immense and I would suggest irresistible given the numbers which have given Labour 250+ seats on just 27% of the vote with the Lib Dems on 125 seats with 34% of the vote.
The inequity won't be obvious just to the LDs but to everyone and the clamour for change will be as strong but can Clegg ride this tiger and how will Cameron manage a party that knows that its choices are either to accept a system which will prevent it ever governing with a majority again or five more years in the political wilderness ?
Brown is also in a difficult position as Labour faces the dilemma of either trying to carry on as a minority or seeking an accommodation with others.
There'll be another update in a couple of days...
Thank you again, Meadow, for your kind words and comment. As I suggested earlier, this result isn't going to be easy for Nick Clegg or indeed for David Cameron and Gordon Brown either.
The pressure for change to the electoral system will be immense and I would suggest irresistible given the numbers which have given Labour 250+ seats on just 27% of the vote with the Lib Dems on 125 seats with 34% of the vote.
The inequity won't be obvious just to the LDs but to everyone and the clamour for change will be as strong but can Clegg ride this tiger and how will Cameron manage a party that knows that its choices are either to accept a system which will prevent it ever governing with a majority again or five more years in the political wilderness ?
Brown is also in a difficult position as Labour faces the dilemma of either trying to carry on as a minority or seeking an accommodation with others.
There'll be another update in a couple of days...
Update...
(OOC: Here is the next update - it's Saturday morning...)
The Times – Saturday May 8th 2010
Carpe Diem, Mr Cameron
It is hard for anyone to argue that the last two days have been anything but boring. Our website (and others of its ilk) have reported unprecedented levels of interest. The continuous news coverage has drawn high audience shares. It has been a tour de force, drama at its most magnificent, high theatre and if Westminster, rather than “all the world” is the stage, then the three leading players may already be wishing for the final curtain.
Mr Gordon Brown, still ensconced within 10 Downing Street, is looking increasingly like Macbeth, beleaguered within his fortress and aware that his enemies want his head rather than his lands. Mr Brown’s situation is no longer in his own control as those around him must be aware. His only hope must be that his opponents are so divided as to leave him standing alone on the battlefield but that seems improbable. Mr Nick Clegg has already made it clear that while it may be possible for his party to deal with Labour, it cannot deal with a Labour Party led by Gordon Brown. The question therefore is whether Mr Brown is now prepared to lay down his life for his Government or perhaps a continuation of it led by Mr David Milliband.
Mr Clegg, often portrayed as the fool or jester, finds himself centre stage and it is not a place with which he seems innately comfortable though the fortunes or misfortunes of war have decreed otherwise. It is hard to argue with his assertion that the current electoral system is bankrupt and while this paper and many others oppose the Single Transferable Vote, there is room for a radical overhaul of the current system involving a reduction in the number of MPs (a popular move with the electorate in the wake of the expenses revelations) with a commensurate move to introduce a degree of proportionality perhaps akin to the system used for Greater London Assembly elections.
However, the need is not for electoral systems but for stable and competent Government. The demonstrations in Greece and other tensions throughout the Eurozone do not allow Britain the luxury of prolonged introspection. The markets will not brook a long display. Indeed, the fall in shares and the value of sterling yesterday and dire warnings of further upheavals from market analysts suggest a Government in office by Monday morning is the most desired outcome.
Step forward, Mr David Cameron. Whether as Macduff or as the gallant hero, Mr Cameron still has a leading role to play. His overture to the Liberal Democrats yesterday afternoon was as much recognition of political reality as it was political audacity. The dramatic gesture, backed by a bravura press conference, regained the initiative for a man who had looked bruised and battered by the outcome on Thursday night. Reinvigorated or simply aware that abdicating the field to Mr Brown would guarantee his own exit, Mr Cameron went further than indeed many Conservatives would have preferred. There is already sniping from the Norman Tebbit tendency and coded accusations of betrayal and promises that the party at large would never support electoral reform.
Yet the Conservative Party is nothing if not a pragmatic beast and it must realise that the reality of Thursday’s outcome means an agreement with the ascendant Liberal Democrats. There is much on which the two parties can readily find common ground such as the dismantling of Labour’s over weaning State and indeed it has been heartening to hear Mr David Laws speak approvingly of Mr George Osborne’s plan to restore the public finances. It is time for Mr Cameron to ignore the siren calls of the Right and move toward an agreement with Mr Clegg. It seems that the personal relationship between the two men is extremely good and while there are undoubtedly many senior Liberal Democrats, such as Mr Vince Cable and Mr Simon Hughes, who would attest that supping with the Tories requires a long spoon, the more pragmatic elements around Mr Clegg would surely understand the need for an agreement.
Mr Cameron faces some difficult days and some uncomfortable decisions. He may yet find himself as Prime Minister but with a Cabinet filled with fewer allies than he would wish. He should not be alarmed – such a fate confronted both Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. Their example should be his – it is time to seize the day.
(OOC: Here is the next update - it's Saturday morning...)
The Times – Saturday May 8th 2010
Carpe Diem, Mr Cameron
It is hard for anyone to argue that the last two days have been anything but boring. Our website (and others of its ilk) have reported unprecedented levels of interest. The continuous news coverage has drawn high audience shares. It has been a tour de force, drama at its most magnificent, high theatre and if Westminster, rather than “all the world” is the stage, then the three leading players may already be wishing for the final curtain.
Mr Gordon Brown, still ensconced within 10 Downing Street, is looking increasingly like Macbeth, beleaguered within his fortress and aware that his enemies want his head rather than his lands. Mr Brown’s situation is no longer in his own control as those around him must be aware. His only hope must be that his opponents are so divided as to leave him standing alone on the battlefield but that seems improbable. Mr Nick Clegg has already made it clear that while it may be possible for his party to deal with Labour, it cannot deal with a Labour Party led by Gordon Brown. The question therefore is whether Mr Brown is now prepared to lay down his life for his Government or perhaps a continuation of it led by Mr David Milliband.
Mr Clegg, often portrayed as the fool or jester, finds himself centre stage and it is not a place with which he seems innately comfortable though the fortunes or misfortunes of war have decreed otherwise. It is hard to argue with his assertion that the current electoral system is bankrupt and while this paper and many others oppose the Single Transferable Vote, there is room for a radical overhaul of the current system involving a reduction in the number of MPs (a popular move with the electorate in the wake of the expenses revelations) with a commensurate move to introduce a degree of proportionality perhaps akin to the system used for Greater London Assembly elections.
However, the need is not for electoral systems but for stable and competent Government. The demonstrations in Greece and other tensions throughout the Eurozone do not allow Britain the luxury of prolonged introspection. The markets will not brook a long display. Indeed, the fall in shares and the value of sterling yesterday and dire warnings of further upheavals from market analysts suggest a Government in office by Monday morning is the most desired outcome.
Step forward, Mr David Cameron. Whether as Macduff or as the gallant hero, Mr Cameron still has a leading role to play. His overture to the Liberal Democrats yesterday afternoon was as much recognition of political reality as it was political audacity. The dramatic gesture, backed by a bravura press conference, regained the initiative for a man who had looked bruised and battered by the outcome on Thursday night. Reinvigorated or simply aware that abdicating the field to Mr Brown would guarantee his own exit, Mr Cameron went further than indeed many Conservatives would have preferred. There is already sniping from the Norman Tebbit tendency and coded accusations of betrayal and promises that the party at large would never support electoral reform.
Yet the Conservative Party is nothing if not a pragmatic beast and it must realise that the reality of Thursday’s outcome means an agreement with the ascendant Liberal Democrats. There is much on which the two parties can readily find common ground such as the dismantling of Labour’s over weaning State and indeed it has been heartening to hear Mr David Laws speak approvingly of Mr George Osborne’s plan to restore the public finances. It is time for Mr Cameron to ignore the siren calls of the Right and move toward an agreement with Mr Clegg. It seems that the personal relationship between the two men is extremely good and while there are undoubtedly many senior Liberal Democrats, such as Mr Vince Cable and Mr Simon Hughes, who would attest that supping with the Tories requires a long spoon, the more pragmatic elements around Mr Clegg would surely understand the need for an agreement.
Mr Cameron faces some difficult days and some uncomfortable decisions. He may yet find himself as Prime Minister but with a Cabinet filled with fewer allies than he would wish. He should not be alarmed – such a fate confronted both Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. Their example should be his – it is time to seize the day.
Thanks...
Once again, thanks for the kind comments. I had a few ideas for the next update but I like the idea of something from the Labour perspective. I think our David Milliband adviser might be prevailed on to offer his perspective from inside Downing Street.
To bring everyone up-to-date, it's Saturday morning and the results are all in (bar the postponed Thirsk & Malton seat). The numbers are Labour 252, Conservative 239, Liberal Democrat 126 following the recounts and some desperately close finishes.
As in OTL, Clegg made the first overture to the Conservatives (who polled more votes than Labour but fewer than the Lib Dems) predicated on a fundamental change to the electoral system - the Single Transferrable Vote (STV).
Cameron has responded by an offer of talks but made a commitment only to look at the electoral system. He and Clegg have had their first face-to-face meeting. The negotiating teams are due to meet at 12 noon in a room off Admiralty Walk facilitated by the civil service (of whom more later).
Brown is in Downing Street considering his options but others in the Labour Party are more actively considering their options (of whom more sooner).
Once again, thanks for the kind comments. I had a few ideas for the next update but I like the idea of something from the Labour perspective. I think our David Milliband adviser might be prevailed on to offer his perspective from inside Downing Street.
To bring everyone up-to-date, it's Saturday morning and the results are all in (bar the postponed Thirsk & Malton seat). The numbers are Labour 252, Conservative 239, Liberal Democrat 126 following the recounts and some desperately close finishes.
As in OTL, Clegg made the first overture to the Conservatives (who polled more votes than Labour but fewer than the Lib Dems) predicated on a fundamental change to the electoral system - the Single Transferrable Vote (STV).
Cameron has responded by an offer of talks but made a commitment only to look at the electoral system. He and Clegg have had their first face-to-face meeting. The negotiating teams are due to meet at 12 noon in a room off Admiralty Walk facilitated by the civil service (of whom more later).
Brown is in Downing Street considering his options but others in the Labour Party are more actively considering their options (of whom more sooner).
I'm guessing it's still going to end up with a ConDem coalition, but with Clegg having a stronger hand, he might be able to get Cammo to agree to a referendum on STV. The problem with that is that it could cause a fatal split in the Conservative party, since some of those guys are very strongly opposed to STV - possibly to the point of splitting off and forming their own party? In which case having a working government is not guaranteed - maybe we'd be heading for another General Election this May. That'll be fun for all the party activists still recovering from last year, especially if there's an STV referendum at the same time (and bear in mind that there are also a lot of local elections going on). Start queueing early to cast your votes.
A LabDem coalition is possible of course, but difficult because of differences on human rights issues (the last Labour government didn't seem to believe in the concept). Both parties, especially Labour, have a stong "tax, borrow and spend" tendency, so it's unlikely we'd get even the very timid attempts to bring public spending under control that we've had in our timeline.
It's bad news either way, I reckon.
A LabDem coalition is possible of course, but difficult because of differences on human rights issues (the last Labour government didn't seem to believe in the concept). Both parties, especially Labour, have a stong "tax, borrow and spend" tendency, so it's unlikely we'd get even the very timid attempts to bring public spending under control that we've had in our timeline.
It's bad news either way, I reckon.
I think the Lib Dem limpwristedness over Control Orders IOTL shows that their commitment to civil liberties was more of their usual iconoclastic populism rather than any heartfelt belief in the concept. All three parties are bad on civil liberties at the moment.
If Labour/Liberal talks break down, it will likely be over the economy, as in OTL - the Lib Dems came into the Labour talks with the message 'we want to cut this year' (notably the opposite of what Clegg, Cable and the Party had said during the campaign) and Labour were not prepared to bring that about. On electoral reform the Lib Dems have slightly more in common with Labour than with the Tories, but only slightly. Labour has more than its fair share of FPTP dinosaurs, but not as many as the Tories (the obvious distinction here being Cameron's opposition to any change from FPTP compared to Brown's commitment to an AV+ referendum).
All in all, it's up in the air - some parts of the population will hate Clegg no matter what decision he makes here, and while his own gut political instinct may tell him to side with his Blue Brothers, the party as a whole (including Hughes, Kennedy and Cable) may be able to push more strongly for a LabDem coalition now that it wouldn't require a 'Rainbow Coalition'.
Whatever happens, it'll be sure to be very, very interesting.
If Labour/Liberal talks break down, it will likely be over the economy, as in OTL - the Lib Dems came into the Labour talks with the message 'we want to cut this year' (notably the opposite of what Clegg, Cable and the Party had said during the campaign) and Labour were not prepared to bring that about. On electoral reform the Lib Dems have slightly more in common with Labour than with the Tories, but only slightly. Labour has more than its fair share of FPTP dinosaurs, but not as many as the Tories (the obvious distinction here being Cameron's opposition to any change from FPTP compared to Brown's commitment to an AV+ referendum).
All in all, it's up in the air - some parts of the population will hate Clegg no matter what decision he makes here, and while his own gut political instinct may tell him to side with his Blue Brothers, the party as a whole (including Hughes, Kennedy and Cable) may be able to push more strongly for a LabDem coalition now that it wouldn't require a 'Rainbow Coalition'.
Whatever happens, it'll be sure to be very, very interesting.
With you there. I'd describe the current government as being a bit less horrible than the last lot (at least so far) but that's like saying chlorine is a bit less bad for you than mustard gas.
Onwards...
(OOC: Thanks for the comments - most of them wide of the mark I'm afraid. As requested, here's a Labour viewpoint)
The Observer - Sunday May 9th 2010:
It’s no time to be a wallflower - Labour must join the Dance before it’s too late – by Michael Richardson
The tumultuous events of the past two days have unfolded at a breath-taking speed. Nick Clegg’s initial offer to David Cameron’s Conservatives and Cameron’s audacious acceptance of that offer has left Labour seemingly sidelined.
It’s a curious position for the party with the largest number of seats in the next House of Commons but the 27% of the vote polled by Labour last Thursday and the loss of over a hundred seats has seemingly left the party looking and feeling like yesterday’s news or rather yesterday’s dance partner.
What of its leader, the Prime Minister? One of Foreign Secretary David Milliband’s advisers told me yesterday he had overheard Gordon Brown saying, “It would have been so much easier with Ming”. Well, that much is true and it’s no secret there is no warmth between Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg but for Brown to brood in Downing Street and await events looks like indecision bordering on paralysis.
Brown must know in his heart there can be no deal with him as Prime Minister but Nick Clegg has said there is no exclusivity in the negotiation. A negotiation with the Liberal Democrats must start with the recognition that Gordon Brown is the problem, not the solution. Sources close to Downing Street suggest Brown is not ready to step down and he believes the Conservative – Liberal Democrat negotiations will fail and Labour can continue as a minority Government.
That is a dangerous position – passivity is no response to current events. Labour needs to work out where and how an accommodation can be reached with Nick Clegg, or more likely with pro-Labour elements such as Vince Cable and Simon Hughes for whom a deal with the Tories would be anathema and unacceptable without a cast-iron assurance on electoral reform.
Labour start from a more pragmatic position on electoral reform though many in the party still cling to the now-discredited First Past the Post. Offering a referendum on STV would trump anything Cameron is in a position to offer given the anti-reform mood of his backbenchers. Labour also need to accept and respect the Liberal Democrat performance and look at loosening policy in other areas.
This requires Blairite finesse rather than Brownian obduracy and in David Milliband the party has the one individual who could be acceptable to even the Liberal Orange Bookers while yet keeping the Labour Party together.
The alternative is irrelevance on the margins as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats transform the political world. For Labour, that might truly be the last waltz.
(OOC: Thanks for the comments - most of them wide of the mark I'm afraid. As requested, here's a Labour viewpoint)
The Observer - Sunday May 9th 2010:
It’s no time to be a wallflower - Labour must join the Dance before it’s too late – by Michael Richardson
The tumultuous events of the past two days have unfolded at a breath-taking speed. Nick Clegg’s initial offer to David Cameron’s Conservatives and Cameron’s audacious acceptance of that offer has left Labour seemingly sidelined.
It’s a curious position for the party with the largest number of seats in the next House of Commons but the 27% of the vote polled by Labour last Thursday and the loss of over a hundred seats has seemingly left the party looking and feeling like yesterday’s news or rather yesterday’s dance partner.
What of its leader, the Prime Minister? One of Foreign Secretary David Milliband’s advisers told me yesterday he had overheard Gordon Brown saying, “It would have been so much easier with Ming”. Well, that much is true and it’s no secret there is no warmth between Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg but for Brown to brood in Downing Street and await events looks like indecision bordering on paralysis.
Brown must know in his heart there can be no deal with him as Prime Minister but Nick Clegg has said there is no exclusivity in the negotiation. A negotiation with the Liberal Democrats must start with the recognition that Gordon Brown is the problem, not the solution. Sources close to Downing Street suggest Brown is not ready to step down and he believes the Conservative – Liberal Democrat negotiations will fail and Labour can continue as a minority Government.
That is a dangerous position – passivity is no response to current events. Labour needs to work out where and how an accommodation can be reached with Nick Clegg, or more likely with pro-Labour elements such as Vince Cable and Simon Hughes for whom a deal with the Tories would be anathema and unacceptable without a cast-iron assurance on electoral reform.
Labour start from a more pragmatic position on electoral reform though many in the party still cling to the now-discredited First Past the Post. Offering a referendum on STV would trump anything Cameron is in a position to offer given the anti-reform mood of his backbenchers. Labour also need to accept and respect the Liberal Democrat performance and look at loosening policy in other areas.
This requires Blairite finesse rather than Brownian obduracy and in David Milliband the party has the one individual who could be acceptable to even the Liberal Orange Bookers while yet keeping the Labour Party together.
The alternative is irrelevance on the margins as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats transform the political world. For Labour, that might truly be the last waltz.