Last word (for now)

[caddyman]

I absolutely fail to see why so many peaople are afraid of the idea of coalition government. Many of the same people are those who would favour electoral reform, something that could quite conceivably increase the chances of future coalitions.

I can absolutely understand why politicians don't like coalitions - it means that there is someone much closer to them than the public, someone locked into the same isolated little world, who will be acting as a check and balance on their worst excesses, it means that they have to compromise and therefore be far more restrained than otherwise they might.

As to the junior Lib Dem partner in the coalition? Well, it's all worked so well for them in getting their policies over in the last 80 years, hasn't it? Now we can see some of their more moderate policies actually happen and their reputation will be enhanced or otherwise on how those policies play out. As to the minor party taking the fall for the larger if it all goes wrong?

Well, if it is policy failure, with the Tory party outnumbering the other by a factor of five and that being reflected in the balance of Cabinet responsibility, I doubt that the public will be overly gulled by any attempt to load the blame unreasonably. Of course, if the minor party holds the major party to ransom over pointless precedural details, the public will spot that, too.

I for one am on board for a coalition. I should have preferred a few more Lib Dem seats in Parliament, which would have justified a wider representation in Government, but the electorate didn't vote for that and there's no pretending they did. The Lib Dem surge was not refglected in the percentage vote, much less the distribution of seats. Conclusion: there was no Lib Dem surge.

Comments

[pauln.livejournal.com]

Pretty much sums up my view as well. I'm fed up with the Murdoch Media's yapping over the past few days. Strikes me that all three parties have behaved with diginity, responsibility and respect in the negotiation process and that it's largely worked.

I particularly disliked the comments from a couple of Tory Grandees (Heseltine last night was one), who were calling the LibDems duplicitous for talking to both them and Labour. LibDems in my view had a right, if not a duty, to ensure that they found the deal that got the most of their policies enacted and was at the same time the most stable in the interests of the country.

I'd take slight issue with your conclusion on LibDem surge - I think there was one after the first debate, but it had passed by the time of the last one.

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

There was a Tory surge! I hope they will be able to use this opportunity in government once and for all to dispel the terrible myth that Tories stand for money grabbing, un-caring, self-centred "Thatcherites".

In terms of the coalition itself, the balance of seats and Cabinet posts seems "fair", but is it really so, when you consider that some 60 seats got them 5-6 Cabinet posts (10:1) whilst 306 Tory seats gets them barely 20 cabinet posts (c. 15:1)(and they have to make way for many Lib Dem junior ministerial posts.) The Lib Dems have certainly extracted a very "fair" ratio of seats per Cabinet post, and an even fairer ratio of seats per junior ministerial post - i.e. most "fair" - for themselves!

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Not really a Tory surge; they ended up pretty much where everyone expected them to: largest party in a hung Parliament.

THere are around 110-120 Government jobsat various levels. I don't think that the Lib Dems getting 25 including the cabinet posts is an outrageously unfair split, particularly as all the "High Offices of State" are staying with the Tories.

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

Not everyone. Quite a few people thought they would get a small majority (say 2 to 4 seats). I'd call 2 million more votes compared to Labour and 100 more seats quite a surge, considering the vastness of the so-called "progressive majority" who always demonised the Tories.

Re numbers - it is not strictly "fair" though is it in terms of seats per cabinet post. Not the PR type of fairness anyway. It's only "fair" when one pads on the various layers of justification.

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

Well said I think fear is a natural gut response to change and this is real change, if people give themselves the time to think about it, I'm sure they will see the benefit outweighs the detriment.

[fractalgeek.livejournal.com]

If we do have electoral reform, coalition is the future. Get used to it.

Incidently, one of the rating agencies stated just before the election, that a majority of the strong economies were coalitions.

[ladkyis.livejournal.com]

I am still wondering where is says that it has to be fair... or, for that matter democratic. We do, after all live in a constitutional Monarchy and there is nothing on the label that says it will be fair or democratic.

That is something our American cousins forget too they don't live in a democracy they live in a republic.

~sits back and ponders~