UK 2010: Have The LibDems Already Broken A Promise?

This is great. An election that never really ends. And they are already breaking promises as the LibDems have been two-timing:

The Lib Dem team negotiating with the Tories over forming a new government also met Labour figures in secret at the weekend, the BBC has learned. As well as holding talks with senior Tories, they met Lord Mandelson, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Lord Adonis, BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said. Meanwhile the Tory and Lib Dem teams say they have made "progress" in a third day of negotiations.

Isn't this the guy whose honour would only allow him to speak to the party that won the most votes, the most seats? Now Labour is right in there, offering the best they can - ditching their own leader. What will the Scots LibDems say if their party goes for the blue?

Ben wants a coalition. That really is the only option as there is no social engineering "Party of One, Party of No" to tell the people what's good for them as in Canada. Anyway this plays out, there just isn't a hope it will make much sense let alone last.

Comments

Ben (The Tiger) - May 10, 2010 9:20 AM

http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com

The thing is, Labour _can't_ get Brown to step down.

He's their ace in the hole -- he has the right to meet parliament, as the sitting PM.

If he quits, it's all up in the air -- Cameron probably gets in ahead of the new Labour leader, and can start pulling Harper-esque "do you really want an election now?" stunts.

Alan - May 10, 2010 10:15 AM

Well, they can agree that he will step down after Parliament meets but point taken. If the deal is a coalition of Lib Lab in the next election, however, with a PR strategy as the prime plank and no running against each other (ie a real coalition) then the Tories are toast. Like that will happen.

Ben (The Tiger) - May 10, 2010 10:46 AM

I wouldn't say that, necessarily -- people find ways to vote for changes of government and changes of policy direction, and the current voting alignment is off from public opinion on the issues (which is much more like a 50/50 split, especially on European integration) -- but Cameron most certainly would be.

If they went to PR, the left wins the next two general elections at least.

Alan - May 10, 2010 11:09 AM

As with most anywhere, first past the post only protects the minority right.

Mark Greenan - May 10, 2010 11:20 AM

Alan, I think we could be more precise by saying, as with most anywhere, first-past-the-post allows a party that appeals to a minority of the population to hold all the power.

In my view, not a very democratic thing.

Alan - May 10, 2010 11:25 AM

We are saying the same thing as the right tends to be that minority. But you are right as there is really no majority other than "not right".

But it is democratic in the sense that it is known formula and also respects that the community is not a toggle switch. There are more than two views and parties in play so we never have a majority in anything really.

Mark Greenan - May 10, 2010 11:43 AM

Alan, what I was saying was that you could equally say that first-past-the-post could be advantageous to the minority left.

Indeed, the historical consensus on the adoption of PR in Western Europe is that it was brought in by the "bourgeois parties" to prevent the Communist left from achieving full parliamentary dominance with a small plurality of votes.