Will Ming lean towards Brown or Cameron?

There is a serious likelihood that there will be a hung parliament after the next General Election given that the LibDems currently hold 10% of the seats in the Commons.

Over the next few years both Gordon Brown and David Cameron will both have to judiciously balance the need to reduce the LibDem tally of seats without creating an enemy of the new LibDem leader in the process.

David Cameron has already made his pitch to the LibDem mindset when he stressed the following areas of Tory-LibDem overlap...

• Opposition to Punch & Judy politics;
• Commitment to Kyoto - there is already a LibCon pact on global warming;
• Shared belief in decentralisation;
• Opposition to Tony Blair on ID cards and extension of detention without trial.

Will this be enough to overturn the long-held LibDem bias to the left?  Gordon Brown certainly hopes not.  He's promising constitutional changes likely to appeal to the LibDems.  He may also be closer to the LibDems on Iraq and tax policy.

If Gordon Brown were to lose Labour's majority - and David Cameron was to make big gains - it would be difficult for the LibDems to prop up a rejected Labour administration.

Whatever he chooses Sir Ming might face internal opposition.  The likes of Simon Hughes and Phil Willis will resist any deal with the Tories.  David Laws and Nick Clegg would probably find co-operation with Gordon Brown difficult to swallow.  There might be swirl of backroom deals and defections in the aftermath of a hung parliament.

Perhaps I'm being too high-minded?  It may all come down to who offers Ming's team the biggest jobs...

Comments

[Rebel]

We should *NEVER* govern with the LibDems. Never. Ever.

Suggesting it shows you're not a Conservative.

[Jon White]

Rebel, you are completely correct. It is non -negotiable. Better honourable opposition than a pact with the devil.

My council went into control by a Tory/LD alliance. I told my councilor that such disgusting treason had cost them my vote.

[MTK]

Rebel and Jon are right. Sooner a nine-month grand coalition - or even continued opposition - than Con/LD pact.

Better to convince the public that the party already represents a broad, pragmatic coalition, and seek defections.

[Matthew Oxley]

I think the libs will go whoever gets the most seats in such a situation.

If we had 20-30 seats more than Labour I find it difficult to imagine the libs would wan't to co-operate with such an unpopular Labour government that even under coilition would have a tiny majority.

[Jon White]

Matthew you miss the point. I don't care if the LD's would want to govern with us. Any true Conservative should not want to govern with them.

[Matthew Oxley]

I didn't miss the point, I just didn't feel the need to respond to it.

I don't have a big problem with the Libs and never have done, but if you can explain, briefly why we should be so opposed to them (considering we have many common stances) then I'll happily listen.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Grassroots LDs hate the Conservatives. Seeking a coalition with them would probably be counterproductive as the prospect would probably lead to LDs voting for Labour/Plaid/SNP/Green in order to prevent it. Remember - the LDs are second to nobody in the cutting off noses to spite faces stakes.

[Jon White]

Matthew, I'll happily listen to what our common stances are! I wasn't aware that our core policies were to increase the tax burden and hand all power to Brussells.

[Matthew Oxley]

Hi Jon,
Checkout http://www.libdems4cameron.com/

;)

[malcolm]

I seriously doubt if the Lib Dems would ever think about going into a coalition with us,remember that party doesn't tend to attract the careerists that we and the Labour party do.Most Lib Dems I come into contact with are economically to the left of Labour and would be most uncomfortable in a Tory administration.

[Jon White]

Malcolm, any TRUE conservative would be totally uncomfortable in an administration that included the LDs.

[Jaz]

I think coalition with the Libdems may well have to happen, I find it unlikely that labour would collapse to such an extent where the Tories can take the majority.

Many liberaldemos are either
a) More leftist than labour
b) Truely Liberal and Conservative.

It seems to me that the leftist agenda is larger than the liberal side by far.

We must assess the situation.

If there is ahung parliament, SOMEONE has to budge, Cameron has already said he's a liberal conservative. We should NEVER go into coalition with labour, but rather the liberals.

[Jon White]

Jaz, why the distinction? The LD agenda so far has been more left-wing than NuLab's.

[William Norton]

Will Ming lean towards Brown or Cameron?

I suppose it rather depends which knee is playing him up at the time.

[Jon White]

Matthew - checked the web-link. Come off it! It's just an appeal (well made and worthwhile I admit) by DC to try and win LD votes.
Nothing wrong with that.
But it doesn't tell me that the LD's have any true common stance with us. They are an anti-tory party first, foremost, and solely.

[Chris Palmer]

Creating a coalition with the Lib Dems gives them an air of credibility - something which the Conservatives have always campaigned against saying "the Lib Dems will never be in power and wouldn't be any good because they had no experience of Government."

[Jon White]

and let us pray that they NEVER gain ANY experience of government!

[Ted]

It depends on how the election turned out - if Labour are 300 plus it might be OK for LDs to form coalition (though it would be with a party rejected by the country) but if its close between Labour & Tory I think it would be suicide for the LDs to prop up a failed Labour government if Gordon won a small number of seats more than us but with DC having led Tories to a 2-4% lead.
The arguments over Scots votes, the orange bookers, fear of southern Lib MPs of electoral punishment would tear the LDs apart.

[Rob Largan]

For the Lib Dems, it will always be about who will give them PR. The question is, will a desperate Gordon Brown in an attempt to cling onto power offer the Lib Dems a deal they couldnt refuse, and give them PR. We must be prepared to fight against PR all the way.

However I doubt there will be a hung parliament. It has been suggested many times before, and it rarely comes about.

I think either a much smaller Labour majoirty or if the economy goes completely down the river, Cameron's Conservatives could end up with a nice healthy working majority. I reckon the Lib Dems will do a lot worse at the next election.

[Martin Smith]

I used to hate the LibDems with a passion that far outweighed my dislike of the Labour Party, but over the past year they have found themselves on the right side of history. At the moment the biggest issue at stake in Britain is the very maintenance of the free and democratic society that we have taken for granted for so long, threatened by the government's surveillance cards, locking up of people without trial, abuse of anti-terror laws to silence legitimate protests, banning of demonstrations and its new abolition of parliament bill. The LibDems, like us, have opposed it all. For all our issues with the Lib Dems, and there are many, if it comes to it I would be prepared to support any means, even coalition with the sandal-wearers, of kicking this shower of sh*t out.

That said I would obviously prefer a CamCon majority!

[Andy Peterkin]

I disagree. We need to obliterate the Lib Dems and Labour, not merely win by 40 seats or so.

A coalition with Labour would lead to a mass exodus of Lib Dem voters in the South of England, and involve NuLab in messy deals and compromises that would look appalling for a party that works on presidentialism. It would drop to bits within two years, leaving us to cruise to a 100 seat majority at least.

Ideal situation after the next election, barring us winning by 60 plus seats is a Lab/Lib coalition with a 0-35 majority.

[Jaz]

Thinking along another road, if the libdems draw coalition with labour, both parties lose favour with the electorate and the Tories would win next time around.

[Martin Smith]

Obviously obliterating the opposition is a favourable outcome, I am just talking what happens if we don't manage that this time round...

[Rob Largan]

But the risks of a Lab/Lib coalition are massive, it would be a coalition largely based upon giving the Lib Dems PR. That would destroy democracy as we know it. It is hardly the best case scenario, I would rather a Labour government limped on with a majority of 1.

[Matthew Oxley]

Understand that Jaz, but surely we are all desperate as it is to get in on the next attempt? I was just a kid the last time we had a Conservative in power and thought of having to wait 4 years + another 5 is almost unbearable.

[Orange Booker]

Hello boys, satan here LOL

[spagbob]

"But the risks of a Lab/Lib coalition are massive, it would be a coalition largely based upon giving the Lib Dems PR. That would destroy democracy as we know it. It is hardly the best case scenario, I would rather a Labour government limped on with a majority of 1."

i agree rob. we cant risk PR being introduced. it would be the worst threat to britain since 1939. we would never have a strong party again, europe would easily take over and it would open the doors to extremism and extreme parties. PR could even be the end of our party as a major electoral force. it would be better for cameron to negotiate a coalition with labour even voting for things we disagree with, if it would stop the lib dems.

[Annabel Herriott]

Remember that we are now "resurgent" so if we stay together, and stop mucking about and being disloyal, we are highly likely to take back our seats the LDs have been keeping warm for us, so that once again, they will all fit into a taxi. But next time, it WILL be hung. There is nothing to choose between the 3, if you put them behind the likely 1st thursdays in may for likely years. And its not just me that has been playing about with this metaphysical concept.