Nick Clegg which way will he go?

[Was not Was]

On the main question - I'm sure I've read that, in the event of no overall majority, the Queen would invite Broon (or GoBro, as he was called in the Guardian yesterday) to try to form a govt, even if Tories have more seats than Labour.

I stand to be corrected on this, but if true, it changes the dynamic a bit, doesn't it? GB would get first dibs at persuading Compo (sorry, Clegg) to join hands ...

 

[Harty]

I stand to be corrected on this, but if true, it changes the dynamic a bit, doesn't it? GB would get first dibs at persuading Compo (sorry, Clegg) to join hands ...

...and contact the living.

Sorry wrong thread

 

[8ace]

Bang on strings, he is the most credible would be chancellor in parliament.

And I wonder what odds you would get on Vince Cable being the next c of e?

16s

 

[Pavilionaire]

All things being equal the Lib Dems natural partner would be Labour. However, Clegg's priority will be to go with whichever party will agree to the advancement of Liberal policies and the appointment of Liberal MPs to the cabinet.

Hypothetically, Cameron stands to gain long-term from making the Libs stronger if it means they then eat into the Labour vote. Clegg would want Vince Cable to be Chancellor which would be an interesting choice for Cameron given he's close to Osbourne (who I don't rate).

Then there's Clegg himself - he'd get a big job in the cabinet.

It would be good to see how effective these Lib Dem guys would be in government. If they delivered then those that claim the Lib Dems are a "joke party" would be silenced and, perhaps, for the first time since the Alliance in the early '80s we can have a grown-up debate about 3 party politics.

What's key is how Clegg performs in the televised Leadership debates.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

All things being equal the Lib Dems natural partner would be Labour. However, Clegg's priority will be to go with whichever party will agree to the advancement of Liberal policies and the appointment of Liberal MPs to the cabinet.

Hypothetically, Cameron stands to gain long-term from making the Libs stronger if it means they then eat into the Labour vote. Clegg would want Vince Cable to be Chancellor which would be an interesting choice for Cameron given he's close to Osbourne (who I don't rate).

Then there's Clegg himself - he'd get a big job in the cabinet.

It would be good to see how effective these Lib Dem guys would be in government. If they delivered then those that claim the Lib Dems are a "joke party" would be silenced and, perhaps, for the first time since the Alliance in the early '80s we can have a grown-up debate about 3 party politics.

What's key is how Clegg performs in the televised Leadership debates.

Unless Lib Dem's do really very well I don't think there is a chance of them getting the Chancellors position in either a parnership with Labour or Tories. As Brown showed the Chancellor has huge powers to direct policy by influencing Departments allocation.

I'd say a likely deal would be their pick of a cabinet position outside of the top 3 (PM,Chancellor,Foreign Sec) and then a couple more lowly ranked cabinbet members and a good number of junior ministers.

Only way that might change is if they pick up a lot of seats and get close to25% of the national vote.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Darling is NOT well-respected and it was widely touted this would be his last Budget regardless of whether Labour are re-elected or not. George Osborne is also similarly unimpressive, and Cable is clearly the most well-respected option.

The Lib Dems have regularly polled around the 20% mark in General Elections, and they've got 63 seats now. That's a lot of influence to bring to the table. Part of any deal might be Cabinet posts for 3-4 Lib Dems OR Chancellor for Cable plus a post for Clegg.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Discussing whether Cable and Clegg might get particular cabinet posts presupposes that there would be a formal alliance between the LibDems and a larger party. It's more likely that a simple pact would be formed, whereby Clegg would offer the support of his MPs for legislation the party in government might bring to the House of Commons, providing of course that he agreed with it. This would stop the larger party attempting to introduce bills they knew the LibDems wouldn't approve of. Theoretically neat but it wouldn't last very long - for example, right wing Tories like Hague would get so peed off with having their excessive Europhobia reined in that they might persuade Cameron to call another election on a Who Rules Britain ticket.

 

[The Large One]

Not sure you're right. The march of history is moving towards the Tories at the moment and the LibDems would be damaged by a perception that they were trying to stop it.

Genuinely not convinced by that.

If the march really was with them, and this government really is that bad, the Tories should be way out of sight in the opinion polls. As it is, we're discussing a hung parliament as a real possibility.

 

[Simster]

Unless Lib Dem's do really very well I don't think there is a chance of them getting the Chancellors position in either a parnership with Labour or Tories. As Brown showed the Chancellor has huge powers to direct policy by influencing Departments allocation.

I'd say a likely deal would be their pick of a cabinet position outside of the top 3 (PM,Chancellor,Foreign Sec) and then a couple more lowly ranked cabinbet members and a good number of junior ministers.

Only way that might change is if they pick up a lot of seats and get close to25% of the national vote.

I disagree with this. If Cameron got in and gave Cable the Chancellor's job, I think it would be a masterstroke. Firsty, Osborn inspires no confidence, secondly Cable most certainly does. It would be dressed up as forgoing the Tory man for the good of the nation and for the good of forming a government. I also think it might help the Tories stave off the inevitable demand from the LibDems of elecoral reform, and prove to be a very useful bargaining chip.

From a personal point of view, I'd feel more comfortable with Cable as chancellor under a Tory/Lib Dem government.

 

[Simster]

Genuinely not convinced by that.

If the march really was with them, and this government really is that bad, the Tories should be way out of sight in the opinion polls. As it is, we're discussing a hung parliament as a real possibility.

I think you ought to be - do you really believe Labour will have as many seats as they do now?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I'd be disappointed if, in the event of a hung parliament, the Lib Dems didn't get some Cabinet posts out of it because only then would the 2 Party System be broken.

In terms of policies, there's not the gaping chasm between the parties of 30 years ago and both main parties should be able to work with the Lib Dems for a Parliament. However, I suspect that there won't be the inclination from Labour or Tory - they will feel they shouldn't have to work with another party and their pride will be hurt.

Again, though, once in the Lib Dems could exploit and expose any in-fighting and non-cooperation.

 

[The Large One]

I think you ought to be - do you really believe Labour will have as many seats as they do now?

No, I don't. And I don't think anyone is predicting that they will get them. I'm surprised that when the polls say the Tories have 2% / 3% / 5% lead, that Labour will still get back in. That doesn't make sense to me.

But anyway that wasn't the point I was making.

 

[Huple]

who is nick clegg

 

[The Large One]

I disagree with this. If Cameron got in and gave Cable the Chancellor's job, I think it would be a masterstroke. Firsty, Osborn inspires no confidence, secondly Cable most certainly does. It would be dressed up as forgoing the Tory man for the good of the nation and for the good of forming a government. I also think it might help the Tories stave off the inevitable demand from the LibDems of elecoral reform, and prove to be a very useful bargaining chip.

From a personal point of view, I'd feel more comfortable with Cable as chancellor under a Tory/Lib Dem government.

While you can debate the merits of whether Vince Cable or George Osborne would make the better Chancellor, there is absolutely no chance that David Cameron would (a) give this top government post to someone from a different party whose (b) economic politics are sharply at odds with his own when (c) George Osborne is just about Cameron's closest ally.

 

[Chicken Run]

Genuinely not convinced by that.

If the march really was with them, and this government really is that bad, the Tories should be way out of sight in the opinion polls. As it is, we're discussing a hung parliament as a real possibility.

The only reason we are all discussing a hung parliament TLO is down to the opinion polls, which I have on good authority is the only missile left in the Government Cilo, those that think a hung parliament is odds on including bondage boy shouldn't underestimate the "Shy Tory Factor" ala 1992

quote wiki

Shy Tory Factor is a name given by British opinion polling companies to a phenomenon observed in the 1990s, where the share of the vote won by the Conservative Party (known as the 'Tories') in elections was substantially higher than the proportion of people in opinion polls who said they would vote for the party.
In the 1992 general election, the final opinion polls gave the Conservatives between 38% and 39% of the vote, about 1% behind the Labour Party. In the final results, the Conservatives had a lead of 7.6% over Labour. As a result of this failure to 'predict' the result, the Market Research Society held an inquiry into the reasons why the polls had been so much at variance with actual public opinion. The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error could be explained by Conservative supporters refusing to disclose their voting intentions; it cited as evidence the fact that exit polls on election day also underestimated the Conservative lead.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

I disagree with this. If Cameron got in and gave Cable the Chancellor's job, I think it would be a masterstroke. Firsty, Osborn inspires no confidence, secondly Cable most certainly does. It would be dressed up as forgoing the Tory man for the good of the nation and for the good of forming a government. I also think it might help the Tories stave off the inevitable demand from the LibDems of elecoral reform, and prove to be a very useful bargaining chip.

From a personal point of view, I'd feel more comfortable with Cable as chancellor under a Tory/Lib Dem government.

Maybe, but come the next election (its likely that it wouldn't be that far off) would you more likely to vote tory or liberal democrat, if Cable had done a good job?

Good chancellors are revered, probably more so than good PMs. Why would the Conservatives or Labour want to give Cable the chance to become popular?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

What of course will seal it for Labour is if they offer the Lib Dems PR, which seems to be their only real policy. They have always seemed to me like the kid who had to have the penalty spot moved closer to the goal in the school football game so he had a chance to score. To me, if they can't win under the current rules, that's tough. The other two parties manage. Under the current system, you can throw a government out. With PR, you get a government no-one voted for.

I cant see either the Tories or Labour offering PR as a sweetener if it leads to a Nick Griffin , MP for Barking scenario.

 

[KneeOn]

On the main question - I'm sure I've read that, in the event of no overall majority, the Queen would invite Broon (or GoBro, as he was called in the Guardian yesterday) to try to form a govt, even if Tories have more seats than Labour.

I stand to be corrected on this, but if true, it changes the dynamic a bit, doesn't it? GB would get first dibs at persuading Compo (sorry, Clegg) to join hands ...

Correct. There is a precident for it in that 72 election of Jan/Feb?

They then held a second election because they were divided on the EU i think.

 

[Don Quixote]

It's very hard to see how the LIBERAL party could be in coalition with perhaps the most authoritarian government this country has ever seen. Despite being left wing, I think they may be considerably more suited to an alliance with the tories.

The most authoritarian government this country has ever seen? What do you mean? I am pretty sure other government have been "more authoritarian".

 

[The Large One]

The only reason we are all discussing a hung parliament TLO is down to the opinion polls, which I have on good authority is the only missile left in the Government Cilo, those that think a hung parliament is odds on including bondage boy shouldn't underestimate the "Shy Tory Factor" ala 1992

quote wiki

Shy Tory Factor is a name given by British opinion polling companies to a phenomenon observed in the 1990s, where the share of the vote won by the Conservative Party (known as the 'Tories') in elections was substantially higher than the proportion of people in opinion polls who said they would vote for the party.
In the 1992 general election, the final opinion polls gave the Conservatives between 38% and 39% of the vote, about 1% behind the Labour Party. In the final results, the Conservatives had a lead of 7.6% over Labour. As a result of this failure to 'predict' the result, the Market Research Society held an inquiry into the reasons why the polls had been so much at variance with actual public opinion. The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error could be explained by Conservative supporters refusing to disclose their voting intentions; it cited as evidence the fact that exit polls on election day also underestimated the Conservative lead.

Understood.

But what evidence is there to suppose that we have the same scenario here? Why are people reluctant to admit in an anonymous poll that they intend to vote Conservative - or more pertinently, vote for the presiding government of the day?