Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Who'd be in Nick Clegg's shoes...


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#121 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,407 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 08:49 PM

Ideally I reckon if they're going to salvage anything, they have to dump Clegg and withdraw from the coalition now.  But say they do, what's to stop Cameron calling an election immediately on some trumped up reason "needs a new mandate in light of new circumstances" something along those lines.  At 4 years plus in I can't see how the Queen could refuse.  They'd get annihilated, so it seems to me they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Going into coalition with the Tories could turn out to be the worst mistake the LIb/Dems have ever made.  They claimed they saved us from a full=blooded Tory government, but isn't that what we've had anyway?  They claim had they not gone into the coalition Cameron would have formed a minority government and won in an election in the autumn.  What they're leaving out of that argument is that at the time Cameron wasn't PM, Gordon Brown was.  Who knows what the outcome would have been had Clegg not been so keen to cuddle up to Dave. As I've said before Andrew Adonis's book on the subject is very enlightening in many ways.


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#122 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 537 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 08:51 PM

A Guardian article from this evening makes that a far more interesting point.  I think there are very few Lib Dem MPs who will be looking forward to next year's elections.  It's probably only the big names such as Charlie Kennedy and Vince Cable who'll be relatively confident of retaining their seats; even the likes of Danny Alexander will be looking at their constituency make-up of anti-Tory northern Scotland and wondering how much his yellow rosette looks blue to the local electorate.

Very interesting. Polling has gone very weird in the last couple of months, but before that the general consensus seemed to be that Lib Dem vote would collapse in 2015 in seats where Labour would profit. But, as the Eastleigh by-election proved, it would be sustained in areas where they were fighting for the seat with the Tories. It'll be interesting to see if that remains the case or not in the general election.

 

The Lib Dems simply aren't going to recover from their current malaise in the next 11 months, and the big winner from that is Labour who will hoover up their defectors.



#123 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 537 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 08:52 PM

Ideally I reckon if they're going to salvage anything, they have to dump Clegg and withdraw from the coalition now.  But say they do, what's to stop Cameron calling an election immediately on some trumped up reason "needs a new mandate in light of new circumstances" something along those lines.  At 4 years plus in I can't see how the Queen could refuse.  

Parliaments are now fixed at five years, so early elections can no longer be called.



#124 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,407 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 08:58 PM

Parliaments are now fixed at five years, so early elections can no longer be called.

I won't argue with you.  But is that the law, or just the coalition agreement?  If it's law, then what's to stop  Cameron trying to put some outrageous policy through, calling it a confidence issue and daring the rest to vote it down?  Surely lost confidence vote in the Commons would trigger an election.


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#125 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 5,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 09:03 PM

Parliaments are now fixed at five years, so early elections can no longer be called.


Richard, are you sure about that? I don't remember reading that anywhere. Could you confirm it? Not that I doubt you, I just wonder how I missed such a big change.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#126 Stevo

Stevo
  • Coach
  • 1,631 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 09:04 PM

Parliaments are now fixed at five years, so early elections can no longer be called.

 

Incorrect - with a 2/3 commons majority in favour of an early election, the PM can request the Queen can announce the date of an election. Similarly if there's a vote of no confidence in the government the Queen can announce an election date.

 

It's rumoured that the act about fixed-terms will be amended after the next election to allow the PM to call an election as she/ he sees fit (with the fixed term being a nice convinience for the coalition).


It's not a question of coming down to earth, Mr Duxbury. Some of us, Mr Duxbury, belong in the stars.

#127 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,714 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 09:49 PM

The irony is that had the Lib Dems stayed out of the coalition then there's a very good chance that they'd be the biggest party according to the polls right now. Despite Cleggmania most still ended up voting for the two biggest parties but now we're in a situation where people are totally disillusioned with the traditional two. Had the Lib Dems not sold out then I'd think they'd be the ones benefitting with many thinking it's time for them to be given a chance especially after Cleggmania.

 

Let's face it for all UKIP have done, aside from immigration and the EU their policies aren't going to appeal to a large section of the population whereas I think the Lib Dems policies do in theory appeal to the traditional Labour voter and potentially the floating voters. The reality is that they blew it in going into coalition. Nobody voting Lib Dem voted for a Tory dominated parliament and this is in effect that they helped to bring about.



#128 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 537 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 10:04 PM

Incorrect - with a 2/3 commons majority in favour of an early election, the PM can request the Queen can announce the date of an election. Similarly if there's a vote of no confidence in the government the Queen can announce an election date.

 

It's rumoured that the act about fixed-terms will be amended after the next election to allow the PM to call an election as she/ he sees fit (with the fixed term being a nice convinience for the coalition).

Apologies if I've got this wrong, but I was responding to the suggestion that Cameron could call a snap election now, which I don't think he could.



#129 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 537 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 10:06 PM

The irony is that had the Lib Dems stayed out of the coalition then there's a very good chance that they'd be the biggest party according to the polls right now. Despite Cleggmania most still ended up voting for the two biggest parties but now we're in a situation where people are totally disillusioned with the traditional two. Had the Lib Dems not sold out then I'd think they'd be the ones benefitting with many thinking it's time for them to be given a chance especially after Cleggmania.

 

Let's face it for all UKIP have done, aside from immigration and the EU their policies aren't going to appeal to a large section of the population whereas I think the Lib Dems policies do in theory appeal to the traditional Labour voter and potentially the floating voters. The reality is that they blew it in going into coalition. Nobody voting Lib Dem voted for a Tory dominated parliament and this is in effect that they helped to bring about.

The LDs did very well in 2010 in terms of votes, they just couldn't turn those into seats as prolifically as Labour can because of the election system we choose to have.

 

You're right about their vote being obliterated by going into government, but how would the electorate have reacted to them choosing to stay on the sidelines? I'm not asking rhetorically - I genuinely don't know! What's the point of being in politics if you pass up the chance to actually do something and I think the electorate would have been most unimpressed.



#130 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,714 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 10:24 PM

The LDs did very well in 2010 in terms of votes, they just couldn't turn those into seats as prolifically as Labour can because of the election system we choose to have.

 

You're right about their vote being obliterated by going into government, but how would the electorate have reacted to them choosing to stay on the sidelines? I'm not asking rhetorically - I genuinely don't know! What's the point of being in politics if you pass up the chance to actually do something and I think the electorate would have been most unimpressed.

 

They didn't do that well in terms of votes. The polls after the debates had it very close between the 3 parties, with 1 or 2 even having them in the lead. In the end they ended up with just 23% of the vote, representing only a 1% rise from 2005 and 13% lower than the Tories managed.

 

I think they could have certainly rejected the Tories based on ideological grounds. They are after all the opposite of the Tory party; it was and is a strange combination and I don't think people have ever fully accepted their explanation that the coalition is for the sake of Britain. As the polls have showed, most have viewed it as a desperate grasp for some power and most of the people that voted for them will not consider it at the next election.

 

However, if they'd rejected the Tories they'd probably have been expected to try and form a coalition with Labour, so you are right in pointing out that they may have been seen as bottling it. It could also have resulted in a minority government for the Tories and then an inevitable re-election within the year.



#131 Stevo

Stevo
  • Coach
  • 1,631 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 07:23 AM

Apologies if I've got this wrong, but I was responding to the suggestion that Cameron could call a snap election now, which I don't think he could.

 

I think that's about the size of it.

 

What I found most interesting about the change in the law about election dates wasn't so much the fixed term stuff, but that the Queen seemed to swap her prerogative to dissolve Parliament, for the power to be the one who called the date of an election (should Parliament not go to the full fixed term).


It's not a question of coming down to earth, Mr Duxbury. Some of us, Mr Duxbury, belong in the stars.

#132 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,407 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 07:25 AM

They didn't do that well in terms of votes. The polls after the debates had it very close between the 3 parties, with 1 or 2 even having them in the lead. In the end they ended up with just 23% of the vote, representing only a 1% rise from 2005 and 13% lower than the Tories managed.

 

I think they could have certainly rejected the Tories based on ideological grounds. They are after all the opposite of the Tory party; it was and is a strange combination and I don't think people have ever fully accepted their explanation that the coalition is for the sake of Britain. As the polls have showed, most have viewed it as a desperate grasp for some power and most of the people that voted for them will not consider it at the next election.

 

However, if they'd rejected the Tories they'd probably have been expected to try and form a coalition with Labour, so you are right in pointing out that they may have been seen as bottling it. It could also have resulted in a minority government for the Tories and then an inevitable re-election within the year.

But there could have been no minority government without Brown first resigning as PM. If the Lib/Dems had formed a coalition with Labour, Cameron would have had no say at all.  Adonis says that Brown had the Ulster Unionists' backing and the SDLP would, as always have backed Labour. That just leaves Plaid Cymru - and the Scots Nats, both centre left parties.  Clegg clearly didn't want a deal with Labour, even with Labour minus Gordon Brown.  The old "Liberal" wing of the Lib/Dems, the so called "Orange Book" Liberals, Alexander, Clegg, and David Laws are much closer to the Tory line than people realise. Laws has said that it was only the iniquitous "Clause 28" that kept him from joining the Tories initially. The Lib/Dems are IMO an uncomfortable coalition themselves of former Labour people like Kennedy and Cable and Liberals like those I've mentioned.  The main thing they had in common was a belief in PR & the EU. When they were a protest party with no real prospect of power this was ok. But once the excrement hit the air conditioning the cracks in their ranks started to show.  I predict a major split after the next election if they lose badly.


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users