The Lib Dems are a small party so its obvious they have to be a secondary partner in a coalition government and end up compromising on their principles.

However the Lib Dems want a PR system which generally produces coalitions and so their argument for that is that coalitions work.

So they cannot just take the principled stance and walk away else it destroys their own argument.

They won't walk away and I fully expect yet another u-turn from Camoron, especially when you take a look at the maths:

There are 23 LibDem ministers and if a minister votes against the government, he is expected to resign (before he gets sacked). Three of the ministers are peers, so there are 20 LibDems that either forego their ministerial privileges (and salaries), vote with the government (that wouldn't be popular with their constituency parties) or the simple solution is - they abstain.

So let's look at the maths now:

646 MPs (discounting the speaker & deputies)

305 Conservative
57 LibDems
254 Labour
30 Others

Of the 3 others, 8 are from the DUP, who usually side with the tories

So 305 (con) + 8 (dup) = 313

37 (libdem) + 254 (lab) + 22 (others) = 313

That's assuming that all Conservatives vote with the government, certainly not a cast-iron guarantee, given that some will be in danger of deselection due to merged constituencies. It also assumes that no LibDem minister has the balls to vote against and forego his ministerial bonus, in favour of keeping his constituents happy.

I have also not included the probable Labour gain in Corby, now Mensch has decided to sling her hook

It all becomes too close to call and rather than risk a defeat, I reckon Camoron will suddenly find that there won't be sufficient time in this parliament to debate the issue.

The problem is this is exactly what they didn't do. They were so determined to try and get their holy grails of PR and House of Lords reform they were prepared to wave through hugely unpopular Tory polices. As Cibaman mentioned earlier more concerned with constitutional changes than other policies that the people are bothered about.



If they wanted to convince the voters that coalitions work then they should have put their constitutional aspirations to one side as soon as they saw the proposed NHS changes. Putting a block on that would not only have been sensible in its own right but would also have made a far better case of for a coalition government.

Stopping that bill as soon as the details emerged could hardly be called reneging on the coalition agreement. It may have cost them any attempt at getting legislation through on constitutional reform but it would have been in both their political interests as well as the countries to block it.

It is also apparent that coalition government as the Tories and Lib Dems crafted it was simply to mean the Tories as senior partners got the majority of their flag ship legislation through and the Lib Dems would get much less of theirs through. A kind of 80/20 split if you like. I don't think that is what voters expected a coalition to work like. The fact most Tory policies got through and key Lib Deb ones didn't just makes it look like a coalition government means you get a government of the major partner in all but name.

The fact both parties in the coalition have clearly pursued their own agendas under the smoke screen of being all very principled about forming a government to sort out the economic crisis doesn't make much of a case for coalitions either.

In any case aren't we stuck with this lot until 2015 as they did pass the act whereby we have fixed term parliaments and a government can't be voted out in a no confidence vote unless 55% of MP's vote it out (and the figures do not allow for that)?

I despise Cameron and everything he stands for, but he's fairly transparent in what he values.

Clegg, on the other hand, is far more despicable!

I don't think most voters, and possibly more importantly the UK media, understood anything at all about how a proper coalition works. Otherwise they wouldn't have been howling about how long it took to establish the existing deal.

A 'coalition' agreement thrashed out in 2 weeks of feverish post-election activity, with no preparatory talks between parties prior to the election, was always going to be deeply flawed. It [imight[/i have been made to work if the Lib Dems had displayed sufficient testicular fortitude, but sadly they just capitulated.

What excesses? You need to specify.

In any case aren't the 'Tories' spearheading an austerity policy?

There are all kinds of excesses, in the Tories case its an excess of cruelty and indifference to those who HAVE to do the suffering to pay for the obscene other 'excesses' of the bankers (mostly Tories and mates of Dave and Gideon).

Have you been living in a cave since May 2010?

What about the sell-off of the NHS?

What about the reduction in Working Tax Credits?

What about the reductions and restrictions on Housing Benefits (most of which is paid to those in work)

The re-assessment of DLA?

All aimed squarely at the most vulnerable in society, as is typical of any tory, ideologically-driven agenda.

This bunch are spending and borrowing more than Labour ever did. June saw the largest trade deficit since records began.

It's all Labour's fault - keep repeating the mantra

Clegg screwed it all up in the deal-making between the election and forming a government.

He had the whip-hand and could have held-out for an agreement where the LibDems would abstain on some tory policies in return for for which the tories could have agreed to abstain on some LibDem policies.
Instead he agreed to a 180 degree turn on policies against which he had been campaigning (the economy, student loans etc) and ended-up being wheeled out in front of the cameras to defend policy he had vehemently fought against in the election run-up.

For a guy who supposedly wanted a more proportional government, he was totally out of his depth when it came down to the sort of negotiations that would occur much more often under PR ... and, in the process, has scuppered several of the main aims of his party and the electability of several of his MPs for years to come ... and there's nowt he can do about it except sit and watch his party sink.

The worst LibDem leader for many a decade ... and that is saying something.

I think he meant all of them.


Yes, and delaying any recovery by about a decade.

I completely agree and this is what was behind my comment about the Lib Dems halting the NHS legislation not breaking the agreement. I don't believe they would have ever agreed to it had they known the detail but they were never going to find out what Lansey was up to in a couple of weeks when there were all the other policies to be agreed on.

Once they did find out about it instead of wheeling out Shirley Williams to try and convince people it really was OK and the words in the amended legislation were good enough for them to accept they should have just stopped it dead. Alas they seemed more interested in working out a way to accept the NHS legislation so the coalition would hold so they could push their policies rather than doing the right thing and kicking it into touch.

Now they have lost another key bit of Lid Dem legislation it looks like they have finally spat the dummy out but it is too late.

In general I think this government has rushed through much ill thought out legislation (hence so many U turns) and the fact the original coalition agreement was cobbled together in a mere two weeks should have been a warning that thinking things through first wasn't going to be a strong point of this lot, Tory or Lib Dem.

I loved Simon Hughes's response when Eddie Mair accused the LimpDems of being childish: "well they started it"

I think the point is Tories have not made much headway on improving the public finances despite these cuts and reductions in services because they have sent us back into recession.

So because there isn't much movement on improving the public finances and reducing the budget deficit, their supporters say "well there hasn't even been any austerity yet".

Hahahaha

Are you for real? They would have to go a long long way to even get close to Labours record for wasting money.

Brown's selling of our Gold reserves anyone?

Or maybe creating 30k jobs for "Overseer of equal opportunities when looking at purchasing of pens".

The record of Labour is truly shocking.


Are you actually blaming the present government for the Trade Deficit? Can you elaborate please?

It's got nothing at all to do with the Eurozone self combusting I guess?

Nothing at all to do with consumers in the UK buying more foreign goods?

I criticise the Tories where they deserve it (and praise where they deserve it), but your constant blinkered left wing position is either amusing or very sad.

It's quite simple.

Labour overspent. They effectively ran up an unprecidented "credit card bill".

The only sensible thing to do is to pay off this credit card bill. That unfortunately means pain.

I find it very amusing to hear Labour giving economic advice on "how fast" to cut the bill, considering they were the ones who created it! It's a bit like a compulsive gambler giving advice on how to be prudent with money.