SamuelRSmith said:
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. |
Samuel, that would still be minority government, in 2005 Labour successfully achieved their majority with a 32 seats surplus. The Tories have not done this, they are don't want electoral reform, therefore cannot expect a minority government to be met with open arms.








