How the Lib Dems might view hung parliament negotiations

I am indebted to Mark pack at Lib Dem Voice for this very interesting article based on a dicussion on the Liberal Democrat History Group meeting at their Party Annual Conference in 2009.

Thus far I have been trying to put a personal view, as an elector, on the current negotiations for forming a Government. This article describes the process from within a political party. Reading this article there are two clear points that are relevant to the current machinations. First, the political parties will have short and long-term political objectives. They will not just be looking at the policy details, but what the electoral impact might be in the future. Second, the Liberal Democrats are very likely to be well-prepared, probably much better than the other two parties. And it is very interesting that David Laws who is central to this article, is one of the Lib Dems negotiators.

The interesting question for me are:
1) Is opening disucssion with Labour a negotiating ploy to get more consessions from Cameron? Or do they really wnat to work with Labour?
2) At what point do the Lib Dems walk away? And what would be the consequences of such an action?

Will the Government have credibility?

As the three main parties maneouvre for position and leverage in any deals, basic persuasion theory, using Aristotle's three components of rhetroic may help assess what might be the best way forward.

Ethos is the speaker. In esssence are they credible? Aristotle argues that this is the first and most important component. I am simply not convinced that a Lab-Lib coalition/agreement would be perceived as credible. First, it would appear to have a lame-duck PM who is widely seen to have lost the eelction, and has stated he will be going in September. Then the new PM will not be selected by the electorate, so you have to wonder what was the purpose of the leaders debates are.

Logos is the message. And here I struggle, because I suspect the subliminal mesages will speak louder than the actual ones. What has happened to new politics?

Pathos is the audience. And here I can't help feeling that they are fed up.

Whatever is the permutation of Government, no one will have an easy ride, but I can't help feelign that a Lab-Lib pact has more political persuasion issues to overcome.

Is a Con-Lib deal really that bad

There's a lot of discussion today about whether logically there should be a Lib-Lab pact, and what the possible political consequences for the Lib Dems might be of a deal with the Conservatives.

I can't help feeling that this is 'old' politics thinking. During the election campaign, especially the leaders debates, Clegg made much of his point that we need a new sort of politics. Uncomfortable as it may be, he is being presented with the opportunity for such a new direction. If the Liberal Democrats do not do a deal with the Conservatives, many ordinary undecided voters might reasonably ask "So was all that change stuff hogwash then?"

I fully understand why some MPs and activitists on both sides will be making political calculations, but Clegg tried to reach out to voters with a mesage. Now it is time to try and deliver.

Turning to a Lib-Lab pact, there is a sense that Labour lost and it is time for Brown to go gracefully, not with his fingernails stuff to the door of Number 10.

What do the lib Dems do now?

Are three leaders gave prepared statements today, and the ball appears to be fully in the Lib Dems court.

Nick Clegg made clear his view that the Conservatives, as the party polling the greatest number of seats and receiving more seats than their opponents should have first bite of the cherry in forming a Government.

Gordon Brown stated that he was willing to do a deal with the Lib Dems around the two principle areas of the economy and proportional representation.

Cameron made an offer of a formal deal with the Lib Dems and he outlined some policy common ground, and some areas the Conservatives would not move on. This line was much stronger than suggesting a loose arrangement.

A deal has been publicly made to the Lib Dems by both Labour and the Conservative. Despite the idealogical closeness some Lib Dems might feel with some in Labour, I would strongly suggest that two parties who lost seats should not form the Government. This would send out the wrong message.

At the same time I feel the Lib Dems should reject Cameron's formal offer. It may well be a poisoned chalice. It might well be better to go for an informal arrangement and hope that the Conservative Government has to make some unpopular policies, force a no confidence and hope that round 2 creates the momentum for PR in a year or so.

A risky bird in the future as opposed to bird in the hand strategy, that could backfire. But I feel this might well be the smart move. Often it is worth working out what would your opponent least want you to do? And this might be the Conservatives least prefered option, especially as they might then have to rely on cutting deals with the SNP, PC and DUP whose price might limit their ability to cut public spending.

No one has got all the aces, but this is clearly a game of poker. Who is the best player?

The wheels are falling off the Labour campaign bus

There gets to be a time in every Government when it appears to those on the outside (though rarely those on the inside) that it is time to go. I suspect that this was the case with the Conservatives in 1992 (even thoguh they hung on for five more years) and is the case with Labour now. I say this not as a partisan political point, or even one based on policy or personalities. Rather, the nature of the campaign is conspiring against Labour, they keep making one step forward and then suffering two-back. It feels like an election campaign damned by the gods. The latest of these is that yesterday Brown got a rousing standing ovation at a debate hosting by Citizen's UK, and then today Labour candidate Manish Sood claims that Brown is the worst PM ever. Whilst this statement is made by a candidate in a no-hope seat, it and its timing is extraordinary. Brown and his close advisors really must wonder what can go wrong next?

Too much of Brown's campaign looks like it was written by the scriptwriters of accident-prone Frank Spencer.