What if the Lib-Con coalition ends up working really well?

[trousers]

What if the Lib-Con coalition ends up working a lot better than most people give it credit for, including the parties themselves?

 

Won't that leave the Tories and Lib Dems in a bit of a quandary in the lead up to the next election?

 

In other words, if it goes really well won't there be a case for the Tories and Lib Dems to campaign at the next election as a coalition rather than as separate parties?

 

If not, then there will be the strange situation whereby they go back into being 'enemies' at the very same time that they are still working together in charge of the country.

 

Surely if it works really well then they would logically want it to continue working really for another 5 year term?

 

And, also.....how's it going to work in by-elections between now and 2015? In particular when there is a constuency where Labour could get another seat in Parliament and whittle away at the Lib-Con majority if the Lib-Con vote was spilt in Labour marginals?

 

All very interesting (in a Steve Davis kinda way)

[Baj]

There's one seat still up for grabs (the more informed here will be able to tell you which one). Basically one of the people running for the office of it died during the campaign, so its been put back until (i think) end of this month, and torys/libdems have said they will both run a candidate for it.

[Wes Tender]

There's one seat still up for grabs (the more informed here will be able to tell you which one). Basically one of the people running for the office of it died during the campaign, so its been put back until (i think) end of this month, and torys/libdems have said they will both run a candidate for it.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/5065382.MP_died_from_natural_causes__report_reveals/

[Wes Tender]

Nope, sorry, it can't have been that seat, as they returned a Labour MP, so they must have chosen a candidate pretty quickly...

[Wes Tender]

Heres the fella...

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8115354.Election_postponed_as_candidate_dies/

[Johnny Bognor]

They were talking about this on the news last night.

 

Under the war coalition between Churchill and Atlee, Atlee 'disengaged' 1 month before the election in order to run his campaign.

 

I guess the Lib Dems will disengage 1-2 months before the next election, thus leaving a minority Tory government to keep things running. This will enable them to fight a better campaign and put some daylight between the parties. Not that I know, but it seemed to be the concensus from various experts.

 

This does have an impact on future TV debates as the opposition leaders attack the PM of the day. It will be difficult for Dave to attack Nick or Nick to attack Dave, which means that Milliband will be on the offensive while the other two cover each others backsides.

Edited 13 May, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[John B]

There's one seat still up for grabs (the more informed here will be able to tell you which one). Basically one of the people running for the office of it died during the campaign, so its been put back until (i think) end of this month, and torys/libdems have said they will both run a candidate for it.

 

Thirsk

[trousers]

They were talking about this on the news last night.

 

Under the war coalition between Churchill and Atlee, Atlee 'disengaged' 1 month before the election in order to run his campaign.

 

I guess the Lib Dems will disengage 1-2 months before the next election, thus leaving a minority Tory government to keep things running. This will enable them to fight a better campaign and put some daylight between the parties. Not that I know, but it seemed to be the concensus from various experts.

 

This does have an impact on future TV debates as the opposition leaders attack the PM of the day. It will be difficult for Dave to attack Nick or Nick to attack Dave, which means that Milliband will be on the offensive while the other two cover each others backsides.

 

Cheers. But what if the lib dems and Tories both think it's been such a successful 5 years that to break up the coalition 'early' would be a step backwards. Could they conceivably fight a general election as an alliance for shared power again whilst maintaining their separate party identities?

 

This coalition is either going to work or it isn't so why break it up if the former rather than the latter.

 

I guess the autumn party conferences should be quite entertaining too...

[Thedelldays]

they will part when the election is announced as they are two seperate parties...they will part and campaign for their own views..probably the ones that have been shelved..

 

what will be more entertaining is question time...getting liberals talking for tory policies and vica versa.....still, there will be those wanting this to fail..you only have to look at the ignorant on this board

[View From The Top]

If it works then British politics changes for good and centralist politics are here for good.

 

If it doesn't then Labour will be back in power for a decade and civil war breaks out in both the tory and Liberal parties.

 

All, of course, IMHO.

[Joesaint]

I hope it works out, couldnt stand Labour running the country again!!!

[View From The Top]

I hope it works out, couldnt stand Labour running the country again!!!

 

Hate to break it to you but it's going to happen sometime.

[John B]

If it works then British politics changes for good and centralist politics are here for good.

 

If it doesn't then Labour will be back in power for a decade and civil war breaks out in both the tory and Liberal parties.

 

All, of course, IMHO.

 

The funny thing is but I thought New labour was to the Left of the Tories but to the right of the Liberals

[Sheaf Saint]

Cheers. But what if the lib dems and Tories both think it's been such a successful 5 years that to break up the coalition 'early' would be a step backwards. Could they conceivably fight a general election as an alliance for shared power again whilst maintaining their separate party identities?

 

I don't see why not. During the 80s and early nineties, the Liberal Party teamed up with the SDP and campaigned as the Liberal/SDP alliance. Granted the two parties had a very similar ethos and ended up merging anyway, creating the Lib-Dem party as it is today, but it is conceivable that two parties could campaign together on the basis of their alliance in this way. Just have to wait until the next GE and find out I guess.

 

We live in interesting times.

[sadoldgit]

What if the Lib-Con coalition ends up working a lot better than most people give it credit for, including the parties themselves?

 

Won't that leave the Tories and Lib Dems in a bit of a quandary in the lead up to the next election?

 

In other words, if it goes really well won't there be a case for the Tories and Lib Dems to campaign at the next election as a coalition rather than as separate parties?

 

If not, then there will be the strange situation whereby they go back into being 'enemies' at the very same time that they are still working together in charge of the country.

 

Surely if it works really well then they would logically want it to continue working really for another 5 year term?

 

And, also.....how's it going to work in by-elections between now and 2015? In particular when there is a constuency where Labour could get another seat in Parliament and whittle away at the Lib-Con majority if the Lib-Con vote was spilt in Labour marginals?

 

All very interesting (in a Steve Davis kinda way)

 

I think that the two parties are too far apart to form an electoral coalition, but stranger things have happened. I get the feeling that there are a lot ot Tory and Lib Dem voters who are not at all happy about this situation. I am one. I voted Lib Dem and would rather they had sised with Labour as much as I dislike Brown.

 

For the sake of the country I hope it works, but I hope more that the Lib Dems retain their identity and fight the next electiona as hard as this one for themselves.

[TopGun]

The interesting part is the proposal that it requires 55% of MPs to vote down this government in a vote of no confidence. This keeps the Tories safe if the LDs fall out of bed.

 

It's pretty unconstitutional as a proposal compared with the accepted 50% + 1 vote to bring about a vote of no confidence and protects the Executive (Tory led govt) against the Legislature (House of Commons with an LD fallout).

 

This is a proposal that will be passed by the Con-LD alliance in the House of Commons as it serves current purposes for them both to retain power at the moment but it is very unlikely to be sanctioned by the House of Lords.

 

If the Lords turn it down in time, as I expect, there will be huge pressure on the LD MPs to reject it when it returns to the House of Commons for the final vote.

Edited 14 May, 2010 by TopGun

[Barry the Badger]

I voted Lib Dem and would rather they had sised with Labour as much as I dislike Brown.

 

It simply wouldn't have worked, even with both parties they still wouldn't have had a majority. A minority coalition would have been a nightmare.

 

In my opinion it was either a case of a coalition with the tories, or leaving the tories to form a minority government.

[John B]

It simply wouldn't have worked, even with both parties they still wouldn't have had a majority. A minority coalition would have been a nightmare.

 

In my opinion it was either a case of a coalition with the tories, or leaving the tories to form a minority government.

 

Exactly no other choices really

[Patrick Bateman]

If it works then British politics changes for good and centralist politics are here for good.

 

If it doesn't then Labour will be back in power for a decade and civil war breaks out in both the tory and Liberal parties.

 

All, of course, IMHO.

 

I really do hope so. What pleases me the most is that we have 2 parties both with some good policies, both with a couple of dodgy ones (inheritence tax threshold and the euro for e.g.). What I wanted and what we have are 2 parties now working together on a good, considered list of policies, with the more dodgy ones on the back seat.

 

This is fantastic.

[moonraker]

I think that the two parties are too far apart to form an electoral coalition, but stranger things have happened. I get the feeling that there are a lot ot Tory and Lib Dem voters who are not at all happy about this situation. I am one. I voted Lib Dem and would rather they had sised with Labour as much as I dislike Brown.

 

For the sake of the country I hope it works, but I hope more that the Lib Dems retain their identity and fight the next electiona as hard as this one for themselves.

 

++1

[pedg]

The interesting part is the proposal that it requires 55% of MPs to vote down this government in a vote of no confidence. This keeps the Tories safe if the LDs fall out of bed.

 

Apparently the main reason for this is not to protect the tories but so that the tories, on their own, cannot decide to have a snap general election.

[pedg]

As a lib dem voter I, like many, have mixed feelings about it all. On one hand the sight of Osbourne makes me reach for the sick bucket but on the other I accept that of all the options available given the number of seats at the end of the election this is probably the least worst.

Tory Minority Government

Would get bogged down with deal with smaller parties, lots of horse trading, probably end up with another election before the end of the year. Likely to squeeze further the libdem vote.

 

Lib/Dem Pact with Labour

Would never have worked as would need ALL MP's on both sides to vote together and too many labour MP's saying they would rebel.

[Lord Duckhunter]

In coalitions abroad ,the parties campaign as seperate parties in a general election, I see no reason why they can't here.

 

The other issue is the 55% to bring down the Govt. You can not have a fixed term parliament without having some form of lock in. An Constitution expert was on Radio 4 the other day and he said that people are missing the point over this. A confidence vote brings down Parliament at present, and this results in a a general election. Even with the new 55% lock, the governing coalition can still lose a confidence vote (and it'll still be 50% + 1 as at present), but it will not mean the disloution of the present parliament, this is because it's a "fixed term". What it means is a realignment of the Govt needs to take place to then win a further confidence vote. So for example; if the Govt loses a confidence vote (by 50% +1,as at present) the Govt will have to go back to parliament with a new team, it maybe Cameron resigns, with Clegg becoming PM, it could be Cameron sacks Osbourne and Hague, it could be that more Lib/Dems come into the Govt, but the Govt must change in such a way to be acceptable to the House of Commons, and survive another confidence vote.Basically this expert was saying that a confidence vote and a vote for the dissoultion of parliament are now 2 seperate things because of the fixed term.Evidently this happens abroad in parliaments that have fixed terms and the Govt lose confidence votes.Someone forms another Govt within the same Parliamentry term, which then faces a confidence vote, rather than the dissoultion of parliament..