Hung parliament: what next?

[Dorian]

It seems William Hagues ambitions have been shared by other failed party leaders ?

Gordon Brown had wanted to be prime minister for years. His ambition had burned so brightly that it tarnished his relationship with his rival Tony Blair.

He and his team had manoeuvred and plotted and planned for a decade to secure the premiership, seeing off all rivals within Labour so that he was appointed without election.

"I will do my utmost," he told us as he walked through the door of No 10 as prime minister for the first time in June 2007.

But in the end, his utmost was not enough. Mr Brown announced he was to leave office less than three years into the job, and will serve barely more time than James Callaghan, the last Labour prime minister to be appointed without winning a general election.

Few know when Mr Brown first set his heart on the job.

But from the moment he was elected to parliament in 1983, few can have been ignorant that No 10 was his aim. He rose swiftly through the ranks - promoted to the shadow cabinet by Neil Kinnock, along with his friend Tony Blair.

[Chazza]

Well well well, things are getting very interesting aren't they. I suspect that, in talking to Labour, the LibDems are just shopping the deal. Mandleson has used this as an opportunity to get rid of Brown with zero fuss, pending Milliband winning a leadership election.

My goat is being well and truly got by the current Labour spin that "nobody won the election". This is political hair-splitting at its best. OK, nobody got a majority, but who came first?

On Zac Goldsmith, he got half the votes on a turnout of over three-quarters of the electorate. Richmond is an affluent area and chose him as their representative. He can't help being born into money any more than your average STFer can help not being born into it.

Unfortunately, we've ended up with Jim Dowd as our MP. You've only got to read about his altercation with Bob Marshall-Andrews (a Labour MP for whom I have a lot of respect) to realise that Dowd is complete dross.

[michael]

I suspect that, in talking to Labour, the LibDems are just shopping the deal.

It was noticable that within a couple of hours of Brown announcing formal talks between Labour and the Lib Dems, that Hague suddenly announced that AV was on the table, presumably it wasn't until Lib Dems showed that the Conservatives were not the only show in town.

A minority Lab/Lib government would have the same number of MPs as Con/Unionist minority government (315) the difference is that the Lib/Lab minority would be able to count on support from Greens, SNP, PC, Alliance, and SDLP on most votes - the Con/Unionist minority would not naturally get the support of these smaller parties.

Personally I think Lib Dems should accept AV for the Commons as long as there is National List system for the fully/partially elected House of Lords. This would give us the most representative parliament (a partially elected House of Lords is in the Conservative manifesto). This is the obvious compromise that will lead to the Con/Lib government.

[Weeble]

I think as Digime said, the most likely outcome is for a minority Conservative government with some kind of formal time-limited arrangement with the Libdems on a confidence-and-supply type basis, with some kind of agreement to a referendum on electoral reform (although probably AV only, they'll be very lucky to get one on full PR).

I think Libdems will want to offer as the minimum possible in terms of formal arrangement in exchange for the referendum, certainly stopping short of a formal coalition. I think by going to Labour now they're strengthening their negotiating position with the Tories so they can achieve this kind of outcome.

I don't think a Lib-lab arrangement is workable. If both parties had retained/gained a few more seats in an election, such that between them they had a workable majority, I think there'd be a decent chance of this being the outcome. But the proposed 'rainbow' alliance is potentially too unstable for them to take a risk on this.

I think it would be better for Labour to have the time in opposition to regroup and rally around a new leader. As Mervyn King pointed out, the 'prize' of taking government this time round is potentially a poisoned chalice. Where I disagree with Digime's analysis is that the Conservatives will hold back on cuts. They've made their position on cutting the deficit this year central to their argument. Plus it's been widely pointed out that no party was being open about the level of cuts that would be needed to achieve deficit reduction - even if they held back, they're still going to need to cut.

Best case scenario for the left looks like time in opposition for Labour to renew, and stand back while a tory government does the unpopular business of dealing with deficit. Libdems get to hold Conservatives to a referendum on electoral reform, opening the way to a more stable 'progressive alliance' in the future.

[digime2007]

Weeble, if the Tories cut hard surely they'll blow their (limited) popularity? Along with the Libdems if they support them.

If they had four or five years to see them through and wait for a possible upturn then I can see them doing it but in the short term it could be very dangerous.

I agree that this would seem like a good opportunity for Labour to slip away into opposition, sort out a new leader, and come back fighting ready for an election which won't be too far away. Plus they'll be plenty of opportunity to snipe away at the Tories in opposition.

[Chazza]

Weeble, if the Tories cut hard surely they'll blow their (limited) popularity? Along with the Libdems if they support them.

It depends on how the cuts are implemented. There is public concensus that we've been living beyond our means. If the next administration is clever about cutting and manages to deliver savings without impacting services too much, they'll do well at the next election. This will be difficult, but it's not impossible; look at Canada, Sweden or New Zealand. All have extricated themselves from large public sector defecits and gone on to grow more quickly as a result.

[Weeble]

Weeble, if the Tories cut hard surely they'll blow their (limited) popularity? Along with the Libdems if they support them.

I think you're right, but I don't think they've got much choice - the cuts are going to have to bite. Even if they hold back in the interests of maintaining popularity, it's still going to have to be pretty savage in my opinion. They're just not going to be able to deliver a deficit reduction based on 'efficiency savings' and the like. And if they hold back on cuts in the short term, then they're going back on what they argued during the election campaign (that spending needed to be reduced now, vs. Labour's argument that they should continue to invest this year or else risk the recovery). Damned either way.

They might be able to get through it if they are seen as being even-handed and protecting front-line services, but it plays into the hands of people who want to tar them with the brush of being the 'nasty party'.

This is a very interesting situation because I don't think any party is in a position where they can secure a wholly positive outcome from this - whichever way they turn they face a different set of problems. Despite the fact the Libdems are now in a position of power like they've never had before, I think they have the most to lose which ever direction they choose to go. A case of 'be careful what you wish for'!

[digime2007]

I agree and I am quite enjoying seeing Clegg sweat. He's playing with the big boys now and it's starting to take its toll.

[Juwlz]

I think that Labour have decided they don't want it.

Instead now they can put their feet up and watch the Tory-Libdem comedy show!

No worries – they'll come back stronger than ever in the end

[davieboy66]

I think this next term is going to be a poison chalice with all the cuts and tax rised that need to happen.

The chances of getting re-elected after some tough measures could play into Labours hands next time round.

[Weeble]

Well word on the street is now for a full-scale coallition between the libdems and the conservatives. Even rumours of clegg for deputy PM!

Very surprising stuff if true, I was expecting a much more arms length relationship. Whereas it looks like not just getting into bed but all tucked in and snuggled up!

[digime2007]

There will be more than snuggling going on under the covers if the Tories track record is anything to go by!

[Juwlz]

Well word on the street is now for a full-scale coallition between the libdems and the conservatives. Even rumours of clegg for deputy PM!

Very surprising stuff if true, I was expecting a much more arms length relationship. Whereas it looks like not just getting into bed but all tucked in and snuggled up!

Haha! It's the end for both of them! I always thought Clegg seemed more like a Tory.

[Weeble]

Clegg doesn't surprise me so much. But imagine Cable must be more conflicted.

Still they have to get the party behind it - the whole 'triple lock' thing could scupper the deal. But I suppose they wouldn't be going for it unless they had a good sense it would be accepted.

[digime2007]

Nothing quite as persuasive as the smell of power.

[Chazza]

I think that Labour have decided they don't want it.

I suspect so. What I don't understand is why you, as a Labour supporter, find that acceptable? Are you happy that the party you voted for and in which you obviously place a lot of faith have decided to allow those nasty Tories to govern?

[Juwlz]

I think that Labour have decided they don't want it.

I suspect so. What I don't understand is why you, as a Labour supporter, find that acceptable? Are you happy that the party you voted for and in which you obviously place a lot of faith have decided to allow those nasty Tories to govern?

It's not like I have a choice, so I'm just trying to look on the positive side, and I do believe there is one.

I think Labour genuinely tried to make a good offer to the Lib Dems but didn't expect the Tories to so blatantly throw all their so-called 'values' to the wind and offer a referendum on the Alternative Vote.

After that where could Labour go without turning the whole thing into a farce especially since a lot of big Labourites came out against a deal after that. Brown had the dignity to do the 'right' thing anyway.

To me the idea of the Tories with the Libdems is not half as bad as the Tories on their own - because their policies are so opposed and because of the massive concessions the tories have had to make to get a deal (if it happens). At least the libdems will have got a referendum out of it which is a good thing.

So it might be okay in the end and Labour get to have a little rest.

[Raven Drone]

I very much agree with digime 2007 " the tories are desperate for power"

But, unfortunately they seem to have done extremely well- no concessions on the economy, europe, immigration, trident and it seems little on electoral reform (a referendum - perhaps - on the smallest possible change) -and, am I right that, they propose to be there without the elected majority for 5 years?

Nice to see "new, clean and fairer politics" in action.

Seems to me like the LIB DEMS (and more importantly everyone that voted for them) got CONned good and proper by them.

[Dorian]

Labours sad attempt of Brown stepping down as leader was the only " desperate for power move " I could see, as they realised that was the only way the Lib Dems would have any meaningful talks with them .

5 years fixed term Givernment was a Lib Dem demand , so any critiscm should be aimed at the Party Labour courted in a desperate attempt to reamin in power . Facts not , new Labour , spin , we've all had enough of Labour twist.

[digime2007]

The Libdems only talked to Labour to get more out of the Tories.

You got played!