No they shouldn't. They should stick to their commitments and if they had issue with the things they're committed to then they shouldn't have committed to them in the first place.
They are going to have to extract themselves from the coalition at some point. I was expecting it at the last reshuffle. Remove the libdems and have a defacto conservative minority government with the libdems inconfidence and supply role. I doubt we're going to have another reshuffle before the election so I can't see how we're going to have a clean seperation.
Obviously they can rejoin after the election as part of a revolutionary Con/UKIP/Lib Dem alliance
It would not be wise for them to leave the coalition before the election. The reason for this is research has been done on continental parties that left coalitions early, they all suffered for it in the subsequent election. I would be surprised if the LDs don't know of this research
I fear the summer will see Clegg and Co trying to convince everyone they didn't really support all the things that happened as the months to the next General Election come down. Polling sub 10% at this stage and no doubt some lovely private polls on Seats they are going to lose.
A bad policy is just that but what did Clegg say today? not working but lets keep it for new claimants but twice he said it was a bad policy not working.
No they shouldn't. They should stick to their commitments and if they had issue with the things they're committed to then they shouldn't have committed to them in the first place.
I agree
They will do badly next year but if they wish to look to the future they must retain their reputation as a party that can be trusted.
There is no likelihood of a new Con/Lib coalition in anyones lifetime.
Says who?
I wouldn't be in the least bit surprized to see the same result as last time around or the parties using the exact same logical arguments they used last time out to explain their coming together in coalition.
I wouldn't be in the least bit upset if that were the case either. I'd rather the Tories won an outright majority but I wouldn't lose any sleep fretting over another coalition.
Of course they shouldn't break up the Coalition and nor will they - there's still a sizeable list of things they'd both like to see completed.
Coalition Government is about compromise and, fundamentally, the Lib-Dems and Tories have co-ordinated well and done well to drag us out of the hole that we were in when they took over. The Lib-Dems have achieved more in these past four years than they have for almost a century. They've tempered the Tories worst excesses and insisted that tax cuts etc. focus primarily on dragging people out of poverty. This oddly romantic notion that they could and should have maintained their integrity by being on the sidelines continuing to do sweet Fanny Adams is completely ridiculous.
Of course, the war of words between the two parties will be ramped up as the election appears but kudos to both of them for not just putting the country back on track, but putting it back close to the top again. It hasn't all been good, there have some howlers in there too, but that's the case with all governments. I've said it several times before - history will look back kindly on this administration.
Obviously they can rejoin after the election as part of a revolutionary Con/UKIP/Lib Dem alliance
Not if they have any sense. At the moment they are at least a party in government. Break up the coalition now and you would force a vote of no confidence and if that works an election when they will just end up being massacred.
Wait until the election and they have the chance to at least claim some responsibility for the improving economy, lower unemployment. Force it early and they then risk being tarnished as the party which broke up the government that delivered that.
Put even simpler - they have everything to gain by waiting and everything to lose by jumping now.
(Even more so the Conservatives are actively looking at the possibility of governing as a minority government and can you see Milliband sharing power?)
I would have thought that part of the agreement was that they couldn't break up the coalition before the next parliament, part of the reason for fixing the date of the next election.
In other words, if they break it up now, Labour will walk back into Number 10 with nothing to stop them.
Of course if Scotland was to vote for independence (which they won't) then Labour would need a majority of at least 50 in order to be still in power after Independence Day. With a smaller majority, the loss of Labour MPs from Scotland would lead to an immediate election in the rest of the UK - which the Conservatives should win comfortably.
I wouldn't be in the least bit surprized to see the same result as last time around or the parties using the exact same logical arguments they used last time out to explain their coming together in coalition.
I wouldn't be in the least bit upset if that were the case either. I'd rather the Tories won an outright majority but I wouldn't lose any sleep fretting over another coalition.
Those who might vote LibDem says so.
Don't forget that Clegg convinced people that under no circumstances would they be in coalition with the Conservatives. Then did it anyway.
If there is an inkling of a LibDem/Con coalition again then they will get almost no one voting for them. If they did promise "never again" and broke that promise... that would be the end of the LibDems as a political party.
Of course if Scotland was to vote for independence (which they won't) then Labour would need a majority of at least 50 in order to be still in power after Independence Day. With a smaller majority, the loss of Labour MPs from Scotland would lead to an immediate election in the rest of the UK - which the Conservatives should win comfortably.
Labour have only failed to win a majority in England once while in power since 1945, the Conservatives have also failed to win a majority once in England, 1951. Not sure why you assume Labour would be forced into an election in that scenario or why they would lose?
How? He said he would be in a coalition with whichever party got the most votes - which he did.
Actually he said he'd give them first refusal, he never promised to be in a coalition with the party with the most votes.
In case you've forgotten his main reason for talking about this was to highlight his case for electoral reform, which the Tories promptly pissed all over while at the same time whinging the electoral boundaries treat them unfairly. ;-)
Comments
UKIP/Con is almost as unlikely, it would be a similar betrayal as what LibDem voters felt if such a thing were to happen.
There is no way that the combined Con and Lab seats would be less than 326
Lib Dems would probably whip to abstain. They don't really have anything to gain by causing the government to collapse now.
It would not be wise for them to leave the coalition before the election. The reason for this is research has been done on continental parties that left coalitions early, they all suffered for it in the subsequent election. I would be surprised if the LDs don't know of this research
Exactly right. Most of them would be voting for their own P45 if they were to bring down the government.
Far too late now.
A bad policy is just that but what did Clegg say today? not working but lets keep it for new claimants but twice he said it was a bad policy not working.
They will do badly next year but if they wish to look to the future they must retain their reputation as a party that can be trusted.
Says who?
I wouldn't be in the least bit surprized to see the same result as last time around or the parties using the exact same logical arguments they used last time out to explain their coming together in coalition.
I wouldn't be in the least bit upset if that were the case either. I'd rather the Tories won an outright majority but I wouldn't lose any sleep fretting over another coalition.
Coalition Government is about compromise and, fundamentally, the Lib-Dems and Tories have co-ordinated well and done well to drag us out of the hole that we were in when they took over. The Lib-Dems have achieved more in these past four years than they have for almost a century. They've tempered the Tories worst excesses and insisted that tax cuts etc. focus primarily on dragging people out of poverty. This oddly romantic notion that they could and should have maintained their integrity by being on the sidelines continuing to do sweet Fanny Adams is completely ridiculous.
Of course, the war of words between the two parties will be ramped up as the election appears but kudos to both of them for not just putting the country back on track, but putting it back close to the top again. It hasn't all been good, there have some howlers in there too, but that's the case with all governments. I've said it several times before - history will look back kindly on this administration.
Dunno, it seems a bit late for that.
I would have thought that ardent liberals are, maybe ironically, less likely to flit around than many regular Labour/Tory voters.
The liberal electorate will remember everything Clegg and the Liberal party have done in this parliament for a long time to come.
Not if they have any sense. At the moment they are at least a party in government. Break up the coalition now and you would force a vote of no confidence and if that works an election when they will just end up being massacred.
Wait until the election and they have the chance to at least claim some responsibility for the improving economy, lower unemployment. Force it early and they then risk being tarnished as the party which broke up the government that delivered that.
Put even simpler - they have everything to gain by waiting and everything to lose by jumping now.
(Even more so the Conservatives are actively looking at the possibility of governing as a minority government and can you see Milliband sharing power?)
Of course if Scotland was to vote for independence (which they won't) then Labour would need a majority of at least 50 in order to be still in power after Independence Day. With a smaller majority, the loss of Labour MPs from Scotland would lead to an immediate election in the rest of the UK - which the Conservatives should win comfortably.
Those who might vote LibDem says so.
Don't forget that Clegg convinced people that under no circumstances would they be in coalition with the Conservatives. Then did it anyway.
If there is an inkling of a LibDem/Con coalition again then they will get almost no one voting for them. If they did promise "never again" and broke that promise... that would be the end of the LibDems as a political party.
So it just isn't going to happen.
How? He said he would be in a coalition with whichever party got the most votes - which he did.
Labour have only failed to win a majority in England once while in power since 1945, the Conservatives have also failed to win a majority once in England, 1951. Not sure why you assume Labour would be forced into an election in that scenario or why they would lose?
Actually he said he'd give them first refusal, he never promised to be in a coalition with the party with the most votes.
In case you've forgotten his main reason for talking about this was to highlight his case for electoral reform, which the Tories promptly pissed all over while at the same time whinging the electoral boundaries treat them unfairly. ;-)
The only time they have been in government in living memory is bound to be memorable.