Which is the best way forward? GOVERNMENT

[woody]

Which is your personal preference in the forming of a New Government?

Will us VOTERS ever forgive the party that puts its own reasons to rule first, rather than trying to get this Country of ours of of this mad financial crap we are in?

[ID]

Like the pre-election poll it seems pretty pro-Lib Dems and pro-Labour at the moment on here.

I don't really know enough to confidently state my preference, but from what I've read and heard I want a Lib-Lab coalition (perhaps with Sinn Fein thrown in there too, for a bit of drama ;) ).

I did like Gordon - as a person he seemed quite nice and genuinely wanted the best for his country, just a pity it's turned out the way it has. I felt sorry for him, I suppose, which admitedly isn't what you want from a leader.

[woody]

Option 1 Gives us the Electorate the opportunity to have an Elected PM and his choice of partner

Option 2 Gives us nothing, As GB will resign, so whomsoever gets the job as Labour Leader WILL BE UNELECTED like Gordon Brown - Unthinkable

Option 3 Gives DC the courage to form a minority Government and HOPE in the National Interest, the other parties support him trying to SAVE the country. Will the Electorate ever trust Labour or Lib Dems et al, if the country went down the pan just to score political points?

[coltrane]

A Labour Liberal pact still wouldn't have the required number of seats for a majority in the house of commons and so a complete lash up of various Nationalists and independents would be required for any coalition other than a Tory Liberal pact to succeed. If Labour and the Liberals think that including Salmond's Scottish Nationalists who ultimately want the abolition of the Union is a price worth paying to hold on to power then I think that the majority of the population will disagree. :lol:

[Mad Dog]

A Labour Liberal pact still wouldn't have the required number of seats for a majority in the house of commons and so a complete lash up of various Nationalists and independents would be required for any coalition other than a Tory Liberal pact to succeed. If Labour and the Liberals think that including Salmond's Scottish Nationalists who ultimately want the abolition of the Union is a price worth paying to hold on to power then I think that the majority of the population will disagree. :lol:

I don't think they will. Thanks to Sinn Fein not taking up their seats in Parliament and the Speaker being unable to vote, (Tory) the majority needed is technically 323. Lib Dems + Lab + DUP would do it.

FAO Woody: David Cameron does not have a mandate to be Prime Minister if he cannot command a majority of MPs in the House of Commons. Because of the rules in our unwritten constitution, he cannot become Prime Minister unless Gordon Brown resigns because he cannot command a majority in the House of Commons. If that happens, then per the rules, the Queen would invite him as the leader of the largest party to form a government.

We do not elect our Prime Minister, we elect the party, period. It is only an issue because the Murdoch and Tory press have made it one. They forget Sir Alec Douglas-Home and John Major (pre 1992).

If the Tories want to stop a Lib -Lab coalition, they need to get serious with the Lib Dems and offer real concessions, not token stuff they've got in their own manifesto anyway.

[woody]

A Labour Liberal pact still wouldn't have the required number of seats for a majority in the house of commons and so a complete lash up of various Nationalists and independents would be required for any coalition other than a Tory Liberal pact to succeed. If Labour and the Liberals think that including Salmond's Scottish Nationalists who ultimately want the abolition of the Union is a price worth paying to hold on to power then I think that the majority of the population will disagree. :lol:

I don't think they will. Thanks to Sinn Fein not taking up their seats in Parliament and the Speaker being unable to vote, (Tory) the majority needed is technically 323. Lib Dems + Lab + DUP would do it.

FAO Woody: David Cameron does not have a mandate to be Prime Minister if he cannot command a majority of MPs in the House of Commons. Because of the rules in our unwritten constitution, he cannot become Prime Minister unless Gordon Brown resigns because he cannot command a majority in the House of Commons. If that happens, then per the rules, the Queen would invite him as the leader of the largest party to form a government.

We do not elect our Prime Minister, we elect the party, period. It is only an issue because the Murdoch and Tory press have made it one. They forget Sir Alec Douglas-Home and John Major (pre 1992).

If the Tories want to stop a Lib -Lab coalition, they need to get serious with the Lib Dems and offer real concessions, not token stuff they've got in their own manifesto anyway.

MadDog - knew all that, but even GB aknowledged he was resigning because the electorate did not agree with him.

[Mad Dog]

Fair enough, I know what Gordon Brown has said, but nobody can say that the people are with them. A Lib-Lab coalition would still command more than 50% (52%) of the vote, like a Lib - Con coalition, although not seats unless you bring in independents(I think they'll try and avoid as many of the Nats as much as possibe).

Of course we could still get a Lib-Con coalition or a Tory minority government if whatever coalition comes about collapses due to constitutional convention asking the leader of the largest party to from a government at that point. All three options are legitimate.

If a Lib-Lab Coalition comes about, then the only the Tories can only blame themselves. They didn't offer the Lib Dems anything serious, until it became known that the Lib Dems were looking towards Labour as a result. They also didn't convince enough people in their target seats to vote for them, thus meaning they have no majority.

[woody]

Fair enough, I know what Gordon Brown has said, but nobody can say that the people are with them. A Lib-Lab coalition would still command more than 50% (52%) of the vote, like a Lib - Con coalition, although not seats unless you bring in independents(I think they'll try and avoid as many of the Nats as much as possibe).

Of course we could still get a Lib-Con coalition or a Tory minority government if whatever coalition comes about collapses due to constitutional convention asking the leader of the largest party to from a government at that point. All three options are legitimate.

If a Lib-Lab Coalition comes about, then the only the Tories can only blame themselves. They didn't offer the Lib Dems anything serious, until it became known that the Lib Dems were looking towards Labour as a result. They also didn't convince enough people in their target seats to vote for them, thus meaning they have no majority.

You are great to read - Great insight and common sense.

If we read NC's CV, he is a negotiator by trade and will be using the aspirations and fears of all sides to cut the best deal.

I get the feeling that today will be the day........................ "Please God"

[coltrane]

A Labour Liberal pact still wouldn't have the required number of seats for a majority in the house of commons and so a complete lash up of various Nationalists and independents would be required for any coalition other than a Tory Liberal pact to succeed. If Labour and the Liberals think that including Salmond's Scottish Nationalists who ultimately want the abolition of the Union is a price worth paying to hold on to power then I think that the majority of the population will disagree. :lol:

I don't think they will. Thanks to Sinn Fein not taking up their seats in Parliament and the Speaker being unable to vote, (Tory) the majority needed is technically 323. Lib Dems + Lab + DUP would do it.

FAO Woody: David Cameron does not have a mandate to be Prime Minister if he cannot command a majority of MPs in the House of Commons. Because of the rules in our unwritten constitution, he cannot become Prime Minister unless Gordon Brown resigns because he cannot command a majority in the House of Commons. If that happens, then per the rules, the Queen would invite him as the leader of the largest party to form a government.

We do not elect our Prime Minister, we elect the party, period. It is only an issue because the Murdoch and Tory press have made it one. They forget Sir Alec Douglas-Home and John Major (pre 1992).

If the Tories want to stop a Lib -Lab coalition, they need to get serious with the Lib Dems and offer real concessions, not token stuff they've got in their own manifesto anyway.

Mathematically you may be correct but politically you could be way off the mark, you see for a Labour Liberal DUP coalition to form a strong alliance it would require all of the MP's to follow the party whip for all of the crucial votes which the government will face having to make in the next parliament. Many of the cost cutting exercises and tax rises could be very hard for MP's of all party's to swallow, 10 or 15 Labour Liberal or DUP members not agreeing with the bill and abstaining or voting against would lead to a hasty collapse of the Government and lead to a dire financial crisis. Whereas a Conservative Liberal alliance although it may not always be amicable would not require 100% of the Liberal MP's to vote with the Government 100% of the time, which would obviously mean a more stable Government being better for the country in the long term. :lol:

[coltrane]

I believe that the fact of the matter is that this country needs a "Strong" Government, and the only alliance at this time that is in "the best interest of the country" is a Conservative one with Liberal support. Over to you "King Maker" Clegg do what's right for your country. :lol: