| kowenicki said: I think this sums it up quite well... But he (CLEGG) said that his party would be pursuing the four priorities identified in their manifesto: fairer taxes, help for disadvantaged schoolchildren, a green economy and "fundamental political reform". Mr Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the Lib Dems' long-time demand for the replacement of the first-past-the-post voting system in Westminster elections should not form a stumbling block to the creation of a stable government. Tories had won the right to see "the larger part of our manifesto" implemented after winning more seats and votes than any other party, in a campaign in which they opposed proportional representation, said Dr Fox. "It would seem to me very strange in an election that was dominated by the economy...if the government of the UK was held to ransom over an issue that the voters did not see as their priority," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "I don't think that it's reasonable, given the result of the election, where we did come clearly ahead of any other party, that an agenda would be applied that was very much against what a very large proportion voted for." |
Perhaps they could come up with some middle-ground electoral system. From the wordings of that statement, it appears that the Conservatives only opposed proportional representation. A system like AMS is a good in-between which is both more proportional and keeps constituency links, and the Lib Dems would be happier with that than nothing. What's more, Labour already passed a bill on holding a referendum for AMS - Conservatives don't have to follow this bill, but it is already in the pipeline.
On another side that may keep the Tories and the Lib Dems more co-operative is devolution. Conservatives typically oppose devolution bills, but I think they now realise that further devolved powers, particularly in England, will actually increase their power within the UK as a whole. These kinds of concessions on devolution bills may see Lib-Dems less willing to push electoral or other forms of Westminster (elected upper-chamber, royal prerogative, that kind of thing) reform.
---
What's with all this uproar from the LibLab-pact crowd about the Conservatives not having the mandate to form a Government? Conservatives achieved 36.1% of the popular vote, last election Labour achieved 35.6%, and the turnout was roughly 4% greater this time. In short, more people voted for Conservatives in 2010 than did Labour in 2005. The fact that the Conservatives achieved fewer relative seats would mean that their support was more evenly spread througout the country than Labour's - perhaps supporting their case for mandate of the UK.
Just some food for thought.
