Post by lastgoodbye on May 10, 2010 17:22:27 GMT
"Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg had requested formal negotiations with Labour and it was "sensible and in the national interest" to respond positively to the request, Mr Brown said. He said the Cabinet would meet soon and a "formal policy negotiation process" would be established.
It emerged earlier that the Lib Dem negotiating team, who have held days of talks with the Conservatives, had also met senior Labour figures in private. The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said one of the stumbling blocks to any Lib Dem-Labour deal had been Mr Brown himself."
This is what I immediately thought when I heard the news. I hope this makes for a stronger likelihood of the Lib Dem's forming a coalition with Labour.
Just to quickly explain, for people who might not understand the whole negotiations lark:
A party needs 326 seats to command an overall majority. No party has this. The Tories only have 306 seats, and therefore they couldn't plausably govern on their own, as their economic policies especially would keep getting voted down by the other parties as they passed through parliament. If they teamed up with the Lib Dems, they'd have a majority on 363 seats - however, ideologically the Tories and the Lib Dems really don't match at all. Most of their policies are polar opposites and their party members and voters essentially appose each other... basically, they wouldn't make the most productive match for a government – but it could work.
Labour and the Lib Dems are both left wing parties so it makes much more sense for them to govern together, in terms of politics, policies, ideology, support. Combined, they only have 315 seats, which isn't a ruling majority (unlike a ConDem coilition would be). They could either run a minority government together, as they'd have more seats than the opposition, at least, so they could vote stuff through, or more likely, team up with some others like the SNP until they're a lot closer to a majority.
Buuuut.... you get a lot of right wing Tory press saying that Labour and the Lib Dems have 'no right' to govern together, that it would be a 'coilition of the losers' and that, if no deal can be produced, it should go to a Tory minority government, as that's 'what the public chose'.
Firstly, everyone lost this election. And secondly, the Conservatives got 10million votes, and combined, the Lib Dems and Labour got 14 million votes - which means together, they have more right to govern. I think so, anyway. Essentially, there is no wrong and right answer here, but don't believe what you read about "desperate" parties and Labour "clinging on to the doorframes at Number 10" or whatever. Constitutionally, Labour and Gordon have the duty to stay on in Number 10 until another government can be formed. They have to do that.
Also, constitutionally the incumbent government has the right to try and form a new government FIRST in the case of a hung parliament. Nick Clegg was actually very wrong to begin talks with the Tories first, even if he did it because it seemed like the fairer option. He broke the rules. Overall though, I think all parties and politicians and coping with this dilemma in a very dignified and fair way, it's just the press trying to make it out like these negotiations are something to be scared of.
It emerged earlier that the Lib Dem negotiating team, who have held days of talks with the Conservatives, had also met senior Labour figures in private. The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said one of the stumbling blocks to any Lib Dem-Labour deal had been Mr Brown himself."
This is what I immediately thought when I heard the news. I hope this makes for a stronger likelihood of the Lib Dem's forming a coalition with Labour.
Just to quickly explain, for people who might not understand the whole negotiations lark:
A party needs 326 seats to command an overall majority. No party has this. The Tories only have 306 seats, and therefore they couldn't plausably govern on their own, as their economic policies especially would keep getting voted down by the other parties as they passed through parliament. If they teamed up with the Lib Dems, they'd have a majority on 363 seats - however, ideologically the Tories and the Lib Dems really don't match at all. Most of their policies are polar opposites and their party members and voters essentially appose each other... basically, they wouldn't make the most productive match for a government – but it could work.
Labour and the Lib Dems are both left wing parties so it makes much more sense for them to govern together, in terms of politics, policies, ideology, support. Combined, they only have 315 seats, which isn't a ruling majority (unlike a ConDem coilition would be). They could either run a minority government together, as they'd have more seats than the opposition, at least, so they could vote stuff through, or more likely, team up with some others like the SNP until they're a lot closer to a majority.
Buuuut.... you get a lot of right wing Tory press saying that Labour and the Lib Dems have 'no right' to govern together, that it would be a 'coilition of the losers' and that, if no deal can be produced, it should go to a Tory minority government, as that's 'what the public chose'.
Firstly, everyone lost this election. And secondly, the Conservatives got 10million votes, and combined, the Lib Dems and Labour got 14 million votes - which means together, they have more right to govern. I think so, anyway. Essentially, there is no wrong and right answer here, but don't believe what you read about "desperate" parties and Labour "clinging on to the doorframes at Number 10" or whatever. Constitutionally, Labour and Gordon have the duty to stay on in Number 10 until another government can be formed. They have to do that.
Also, constitutionally the incumbent government has the right to try and form a new government FIRST in the case of a hung parliament. Nick Clegg was actually very wrong to begin talks with the Tories first, even if he did it because it seemed like the fairer option. He broke the rules. Overall though, I think all parties and politicians and coping with this dilemma in a very dignified and fair way, it's just the press trying to make it out like these negotiations are something to be scared of.