Election? What election?

[Neil Foxlee]

"Legislating for a referendum on electoral reform, staging it and implementing the necessary boundary changes could take over two years."

Hmm.... The problem is that if Cameron became PM, he'd want to call an election before that to try and get a (more) decisive mandate. Which would mean in turn that he'd want to put off some of the more unpopular measures - from this viewpoint, it would actually be in the Tories' interests if the markets reacted badly in the meantime, because they could claim this showed the need for a decisive result and thus another election.

Clegg is in a cleft stick: he has to take his party with him, but for different reasons, different LibDems would have very strong feelings against a deal with either the Tories or Labour (especially under Brown), while insisting on a referendum on electoral reform. Given the crisis, however, such an insistence would be seen by many outside the party as self-serving rather than in the national interest - and not a priority, however desirable, if it would take so long to implement.

Mandelson and Labour must be considering ditching Brown, but they have to wait to see the outcome of the Tory-LibDem talks. Meanwhile Brown sits tight.

Is there any remote chance of a provisional government of national unity, I wonder? At least that way, the main parties would be sharing the poisoned chalice and consequent unpopularity.

I note that, to assist a Cameron/Clegg agreement, the egregious Michael Gove has actually offered to stand down from his prospective post as Education Secretary in favour of his LibDem equivalent. Incredible.

Monday will certainly be *very* interesting (again in the Chinese sense). Stand by for a bumpy ride. (Btw, the markets will be dropping anyway because of external factors - the Greek/Euro crisis and Chinese financial measures - so it would be misleading to link a fall just to the domestic crisis, though no doubt some will try to do so.)

[NormanD]

Is there any remote chance of a provisional government of national unity, I wonder? At least that way, the main parties would be sharing the poisoned chalice and consequent unpopularity.

Interesting that most of the chat has focused on 1974. A more apt comparison might be 1931, and the first National Government led by Ramsay MacDonald. This was not formed immediately after an election but after the collapse of the minority ruling party (Labour). In few words, we got hammered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Nationa ... _1931-1935

[David Flower]

scanning the results the highest turn out by miles seems to be Warwick at a massive 85% where Con gained the seat from Labour. Which suggests the Torys did a good local campaign and shows what can happen if you mobilise everyone. Most turnouts between 58-72% which still seems quite high compared to recent decades as far as I remember. If another election happened in the next year would it go up or down?

[Des]

Spare a thought for us Civil Servants - who the fuck am I working for? Brown, Clegg or Cameron?

[Neil Foxlee]

Aren't you supposed to be working for Her Majesty's Government, which for the time being remains Labour? The Civil Service has been preparing for a hung parliament, and of course they provide continuity through changes in administrations - if Yes Minister is to be believed, it's top civil servants who run the country anyway (though I rather doubt you fit into that category).

[Des]

Aren't you supposed to be working for Her Majesty's Government,

'Supposed' being the operative word....

[Neil Foxlee]

Cameron himself faces divisions within his party in trying to come to a deal with the LibDems: some no doubt will be dead opposed to a referendum on PR, and others to the LibDems on Europe and Trident. Ironically, it's Labour who are the most united of the big parties at the moment.

[john poole]

scanning the results the highest turn out by miles seems to be Warwick at a massive 85% where Con gained the seat from Labour. Which suggests the Torys did a good local campaign and shows what can happen if you mobilise everyone. Most turnouts between 58-72% which still seems quite high compared to recent decades as far as I remember.

Warwick and Leamington previously had a Labour majority of around 250, and would have doubtless qualified for a share of Lord Ashcroft £ms, but I'm suspicious about the turnout figure which may not have taken account of the new boundary changes. Warwick District Council's website has the turnout at 72% which is probably more accurate. Likewise, my own constituency where, on the outskirts, I would have been unaware an election was taking place had it not been for the media (quoted as 81% in the Guardian; 75% on WDC's site).

[Neil Foxlee]

Nick Robinson's latest comment:

" Deal or no deal - what next for Labour?
Nick Robinson | 17:32 UK time, Sunday, 9 May 2010

Three of the architects of New Labour - Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell - were locked in Downing Street this afternoon discussing what the Prime Minister should do next and how to respond to the pressures on him.

One group in the Cabinet is arguing that the Tories won the election, that they could govern as a minority as Harold Wilson did and that Labour should relish going into opposition in such a strong position.

Another larger group argues that if there is a chance of forming a "progressive alliance" then Labour should take it. It is clear, though, that the presence of Brown is a block to any such deal. Thus, what is being discussed is for the Prime Minister to announce his intention to resign after seeing through the transition to a new coalition government, managing the current economic crisis and passing the instant legislation he promised to change the voting system. Those proposing this solution argue that it allows Labour to say that the Lib Dems aren't choosing their leader whilst meeting their demands for a change.

All this, of course, will only matter if the Lib Dems don't do the deal with the Conservatives and there is a growing sense in Labour's high command that Clegg & Cameron will reach some sort of agreement. Therefore, Messrs Brown, Mandelson and Campbell will also have been talking about how and when Gordon Brown should resign as Prime Minister and how to manage the succession.

So, after 48 hours of private talks the next 48 hours could see the resignation of the Prime Minister, the arrival of a new one and the start of a Labour leadership contest. Er, or not?"

Note the reference to passing "instant legislation" on changing the voting system...

[NormanD]

Spot the difference


BBC political correspondent Nick Robinson



Staff Sgt Ernie Bilko (Phil Silvers)




Well, I'm sure Des will like it.

[AndyM]

Now you just have to find the rest of Bilko's platoon. John Sergeant as Doberman??

[Neil Foxlee]

Compare (i.e. contrast) the chins. (And the complexion. What is it about toffs that gives them baby-like skin? Inbreeding?)

[joel]

Clegg is in a cleft stick: he has to take his party with him, but for different reasons, different LibDems would have very strong feelings against a deal with either the Tories or Labour (especially under Brown), while insisting on a referendum on electoral reform.

No doubt true, but this is the LibDems' opportunity to demonstrate to the electorate they didn't convince this time that a PR style government can work in the UK, and that they are a party who can be trusted with (the balance of) power. Also, if they always automatically attached themselves to Labour (even with preconditions such as Brown's departure), they would be surely end up as little more than a Labour faction, or at least risk being seen as Labour's little lackey.
I wonder if the LibDems would be able to wield as much power as they seem to have right now under a PR system in which parties are (potentially) much more fragmented, ie, multiple parties occupying the political spectrum currently home to the Tories and Labour,which give the bigger fish more choices about who to play with. Thinking further ahead, an increasingly viable Green bloc in the Commons will in time surely split the Lib-Dems anyway. Interesting times ahead (and certainly far healthier than what currently passes for politics here in Japan).

[Neil Foxlee]

If the LibDems did end up cooperating with the Tories, on the other hand, they would certainly lose the anti-Tory tactical votes they got this time.

Latest from Nick Robinson:

"Labour still in play
Nick Robinson | 11:51 UK time, Monday, 10 May 2010

I can reveal that the Lib Dem negotiating team met over the weekend not just with the Tories but, in secret, with a team from Labour consisting of Peter Mandelson, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Andrew Adonis. So far, I can get no official comment from either party about what was discussed.

Labour have not given up on the Lib Dems returning to them for a deal. However, if electoral reform is the stumbling block to any deal with the Tories, Gordon Brown is the block to any Lib/Lab deal. The solution being pushed by senior cabinet figures is for the prime minister to oversee the transition to a new coalition whilst announcing his intention,as Tony Blair did, to stand down by a specified future date. I am told that Gordon Brown would not allow himself to be a block to a deal but does want to see through both the handling of the current economic crisis and the delivery of a new political system.

Thus, it's increasingly clear that the Lib Dems face this choice:

• An arrangement with the Tories which does not deliver electoral reform but does produce a stable government committed to introducing some Lib Dem priorities. The fear many Lib Dems have is that they would be tainted by association with the Tories who could call a snap election at a moment's notice.

• A coalition with Labour with seats in cabinet, a pledge to change the voting system and a promise that Gordon brown will not be around for ever. The fear here is that they will be harmed by the allegation that they have created a "coalition of the losers" in an unstable coalition which could collapse long before it could deliver electoral reform."

So-called "coalitions of losers" are common on the Continent, however.

[Neil Foxlee]

Latest from BBC blog:

"1237: If a deal is agreed between Messrs Cameron and Clegg, the Lib Dems' so-called "triple lock" procedure comes into play. Mr Clegg must get support from at least three-quarters of his MPs, and also three-quarters of the Federal Executive - made up of activists, regional representatives and a handful of MPs and peers. If he does, the deal goes ahead. If he can't, a special conference of party members is convened to vote on the deal. If that also fails to produce a two-thirds majority, Mr Clegg has to consult all members of his party and must get the consent of a majority to proceed."

Goodness, that's some procedure... It would be tough getting that through, even if a deal is struck on paper either way.