Looks like I was right[1], when the Tories could immediately woo the Lib Dems, they would of course
keep their options open.
A good job for the Liibs that Gordon didn't immediately step down[2], as then the Tories could have decided just to go straight in as minority government without even considering a partnership. Whereas the LDs still maintain at least a finger or two on the power switch. However, I still see PR[3][4] as being a deal-breaker. Just less so under Labour.
I also feel that internal Labour calls for Gordon's stepping down is a misplaced tactic, for those involved, as it's not going to make a better Labour Party, would effectively signal the end for Labour having any continuity and thus retaining a tenable position in waiting for Clegg to come round to their way. (Ok, so it's possible that... ooooh, I don't know
Lord VoldemortLord Mandelson could step up to the plate and drag almost all non-Con parties into a coalition... Ah ha ha ha! I really crack me up sometimes!)
Of course, maybe the hope is that a highly unstable Lib-Con coalition (or highly debatable Con-minority government) will attain power, totally annoy everyone and get Labour back in on the Better The Devil You Already Knew line...
BTW: Just to colour me, so you can easily work out where any biases I may be working into the above, I was born in a Labour-born-and-bred constituency, I currently live in a Labour-born-and-bred constituency (this time round merged with another Lbab constituency, which to my mind makes me think that Labour lost one of their seats just by a constituency reshuffle), and am personally happy with my Labour MP on top of that (while I did think that one of the ones I used to have in my 'motherland' was a bit of a prat), so would fight to keep him if there was any danger (very little) that he'd be ousted. But I think that personally I have far more in common with the LDs than Labour (old
or New) at a national level, and have no particular love for Gordon. Though I do think that "Call Me Dave" is far too smarmy (Tony Blair v2.0, the Tory eventual answer to New Labour's popularity that out-survived NL's front-man himself) and have a feeling that Clegg is of the same mould, though I'm still not as fed up with him, and all power to his minority, although my intense dislike for Cameron (and not a little historical dislike of the Tories in general, though I'm trying to be rational about that) means that I pretty much have to default to wanting him to ally with Brown (or, of course, another Labour successor... I can't see Cameron standing down to make the
alternative alternative sit better within my current political and personal preferences.).
BTW, I also dislike people talking about voting (or not) for Gordon Brown/any of the other leaders, unless they have that person as a candidate. If they like/dislike their local Lab/Lib/Con/Green/BNP/whatever candidate they should vote accordingly for that. Damaging a party majority that (in other years) was still safe enough while getting rid of what might be a moderating voice from one's own constituency is one of the worst things you could do. Go for the guy who represents you the best. If he's in the ruling party then he can help steer, if he's in Opposition (or even just small-o opposition) then he's still better than another other choice (e.g. voting in the wrong party with the wrong guy, just to send a message). Of course the current FPTP system means that a significant number of voters in any given area will never get the guy they prefer, but that's not something anyone can help by pretending you're voting for an individual, like with Presidents.
Anyway, that's a summary (ha!) of what I think. I know that I'm not going to be agreed with on some (most?) points I make, but that's the nature of human individualism and a pesky side-effect of humans not possessing a Hive Mind.
[1] Well, obviously I didn't say anything about this to you lot before, so feel free to dismiss statement as mere hyperbole.
[2] Not that he could have done, without a credible new parliament. He is really behoven to stay until there's a definite alternative.
[3] My problem with PR is that one no longer gets an identifiable representative in parliament, by default. To accomplish this under full PR, the parties would have to assign each member that did get elected a region of appropriate size (with a single elected ultra-minority party member ultimately responsible for the whole country). Or parliament as a whole divvy the country up into areas... let's call the "constituencies" and, based upon the popular vote made in each "constituency", try to get an MP that has an interest in that area and roughly aligns with the majority decision of all the voters in that "constituency" to cover that area. Oh, hang on...
[4] Can't remember if this is represented by one of the known systems names, but I'd go for something like making double-size constituencies with an actual list, the so-called-FPTP winner getting in as normal as a geographically-tied person, and then all the non-winning votes going towards a national PR system where party lists are used as a 'top-up'. Important for all "generally popular but perpetually 2nd or 3rd place" parties, and obviously detrimental for "love'em'or'hate'em" parties, like the Big 2. Also, parties would have to be even more tactical about their members. Do you put the person you're grooming for future office into a geographic 'safe' seat, and assume he or she doesn't suffer a 'Portillo' moment, or send them to near the top of the national PR list and assuming that you will get a decent number of substantial but non-winning votes to play with, and not have a land-slide that ends up electing your Geographicals while leaving few votes for your Proportionals?
Author
Topic: 2010 General Elections. America has a black man. We have a gay couple. (Read 15241 times)