UK: Brown resigns

Your response was sort of what I was getting at.  The election is what it is an a Rainbow Coalition wouldn't work.  And Labour winning more seats didn't happen, etc.  Given the outcome of the election, I think the Con-Lib coalition is obvious.

Completely appreciate the no coalition at all route.  I honestly don't know how that would work in practice though, as far as calling a new election.  I get that the conservatives would have the "minority" ruling government but if Brown would have then stayed as PM, and the PM calls the election -- it seems too difficult to stake the "no coalition" route on Brown calling another election soon.  And whose to say it wouldn't be another hung parliment. 

To me that just means that no coalition also isn't really an option for lib dems because they might end up even more worse off.  Because let's face it, if people hate the hung parliment, then the Lib Dems lose because people will move to the major parties to try to get a majority.

Anyway, all that to say, how did the Lib Dems really have a choice?  And how is this contrary to anything they said they would do?

I am worried that they are going to try to shove this through as soon as possible, so as to get their (rather tenuous) seats guaranteed for 5 years & not have to sweat through another election this year as is expected.  

I still don't see though how a minority government could survive, if LibDems withdraw support at some point over a major issue and start having free votes then the country could be in limbo for years with no party able to get legislation through. I agree with fixed terms to prevent parties "cutting and running" for an early re-election when conditions are favourable but if the house votes a govenment down then I don't see an option.

I think it's hypocritical and stupid for people to be so upset about this, especially those who have been calling for PR. Under a proportional system, coalitions would become the norm, and that would probably mean Con-Lib coalitions in the future. You (the general you, not directed at anyone in particular) can't say you want PR but aren't willing to live with its consequences. Frankly, a Con-Lib coalition is a hell of a lot better than a plain Tory government, and for people to just turn around and spit on the Lib Dems before anything has even actually happened is small-minded in the extreme. Here's a crazy idea, how about giving it a chance and seeing how it will work out before deciding that it's Thatcher all over again and the Lib Dems should be strung up on the nearest lamppost?

Oh, and there are a few reasons why a Lib-Lab coalition wouldn't have worked: 1) they would still have been a minority unless the nationalist parties joined as well, which wouldn't have happened because 2) Labour loathes the SNP and point blank refused to work with them and 3) Labour politicians going around calling the Lib Dems opportunistic toerags can't have helped!

Completely appreciate the no coalition at all route.  I honestly don't know how that would work in practice though, as far as calling a new election.  I get that the conservatives would have the "minority" ruling government but if Brown would have then stayed as PM, and the PM calls the election -- it seems too difficult to stake the "no coalition" route on Brown calling another election soon.  And whose to say it wouldn't be another hung parliment. 

A minority Conservative government would have seen Cameron as PM. Brown would have had to resign if he was unable to form a government and Cameron would have taken over.
If we had parties trying to work in the "national interest" then just perhaps it could have worked for a while with debate on issues and parties voting on the merits of legislation - but it would only have lasted about 6 months.

As you say though, the coalition is probably the best option given what was available. I would have prefered a LibLab coalition but they didn't have enough seats to carry it and it wouldn't have worked trying to incorporate all the smaller parties just to get enough votes.

So, as a traditional Labour supporter who voted LibDem, I see this as a way to rein in the excesses of the Tories, perhaps getting some LibDem policies implemented whilst giving Labour the chance to regroup and elect a new leader. I think we are a long way from the situation in 1979 and 1997 when the 2nd party was "in the wilderness".

As for Lib Dem supporters, they fight both Labour and Tories.  For instance, where I live, it's Labour vs. Lib Dems.  I bet a lot of the Lib Dem supporters here would be bitter if we had joined up with Labour, although personally, I would have preferred it if the coalition was strong enough.  I learned a lot the few weeks out doing stuff for the local party.

Initially, I felt horrible and betrayed, but right now I am just going to try to see how things work out and hope for the best.  Just think, this is the best of outcomes for Labour supporters.  Lib Dems and Tories have to drink from the poisoned chalice and you don't have to contend with a majority Tory government.

I think it's hypocritical and stupid for people to be so upset about this

Thanks for that.

For this election, I was on the fence between Labour & Lib Dem - watching & listening.  I voted Labour in the end, and I am glad that I did - not that it made a difference either way where I live because the Tory won.  On this election, if the Lib Dems wanted to have my trust - well so far I am wholly unimpressed, just by the ease with which Clegg sold out.  On the other hand, I thought that Brown handled himself, and what was obviously very hard (though inevitable) for him, with the utmost dignity.

Most of the people I know are right downhearted about the whole thing - the memories up here of the Thatcher administration are enduring.  People are worried about things like the loss or reduction of their Working & Child Tax Credits, and their jobs, etc.  I have yet to speak to a single person, face to face, here who is happy about the outcome of this election.

...giving Labour the chance to regroup and elect a new leader.

Two sexy Millibands to choose from! 

Tremula, I am talking specifically about Lib Dems supporters being depressed about having a coalition government when that is what PR would almost guarantee.

People are worried about things like the loss or reduction of their Working & Child Tax Credits, and their jobs, etc.

The Lib Dems had in their manifesto that they would look to drop or reduce those tax credits in favour of other assistance like increasing the income tax threshold which is cheaper to run and in many if not most cases this will leave lower income families better off. As for jobs, well, Labour did a great job of preserving jobs, just ask the 2.51 million unemployed people.

As for jobs, well, Labour did a great job of preserving jobs, just ask the 2.51 million unemployed people.

Yes, I am sure they are to blame for everything - even the volcanic ash cloud floating over from Iceland, come to that.  Once the Tories start making their much-longed-for immediate cuts to public services, we will be able to add quite a few more lost jobs to those numbers.  You ain't seen nothing yet.

On this election, if the Lib Dems wanted to have my trust - well so far I am wholly unimpressed, just by the ease with which Clegg sold out. 

He was between a rock and a hard place.  The country was obviously tired of Labour and Brown, so if he went with Labour he'd be responsible for keeping an unpopular Prime Minister in power, and would also run the risk of being tarred with the same brush if Labour/Brown continued to flail about without really accomplishing anything of note.

Going with the Conservatives has the advantage of being seen as an agent of change in a time when the general population wants something different.  If I were in his shoes, having seen what the Labour Party's been capable of over the last few years, I'd probably roll the dice with the Conservatives, too.

Tremula, I am talking specifically about Lib Dems supporters being depressed about having a coalition government when that is what PR would almost guarantee.

Oh, well I am not included in that group; I just wish the coalition could have been with Labour.

As a new voter, and someone who ended up voting Lib Dem, based on their stance on quite a few points, I am very disappointed.  I understand that Clegg was in between a rock and a hard place, but I think he does look a bit like a sell out for a taste of power.  And frankly, as they were saying on the BBC, he's not going to get any real power.  When I looked earlier the well-known roles, like Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Chancellor are all taken by the Tories and deputy PM doesn't really have any official duties or power.  I think Clegg would have had a stronger position and less displeasure of those who voted for him (at least among those I know) if it had been a looser coalition.  I would have preferred Lib/Lab, but I understand that might have cost Clegg dearly and Brown was a huge liability.  He's betrayed the lefties who voted for the Lib Dems by the strength of the coalition and Clegg has lost trust with that group, I think.  I also think because Labour and the Lib Dems are closer in terms of the left/right scale, that some people switched from Labour to Lib Dem because they were unhappy with Labour, but possibly wanted to keep the momentum moving towards the left (again this is based on people I know who changed from Labour to Lib dems).  I really hope he hasn't killed the LD's chances of becoming a stronger and more tangible 3rd party.  I agree with Mrs. R. that this may loose Lib Dems more than they gain in the short-run but I hope I'm wrong. 

Oh and I'm really on the fence about proportional representation so I wasn't voting for them for the whole pr thing.  I'm looking into more about pr as I had just hoped that the Lib Dems could have just come into their own. 

I would have preferred Lib/Lab, but I understand that might have cost Clegg dearly and Brown was a huge liability. 

The Lib-Lab coalition wasn't just a problem because of Brown, etc.  They still would have been the minority!! The coalition wouldn't have worked and they wouldn't have any power other than being "not Tory."  That is the point.  Lib-Lab is a non-starter.  That is why I don't get people being mad at Clegg.  He wasn't between a rock and a hard place.  He was either be invisible and irrelevant or not.  Seems pretty clear to me.

If it were based solely on political similarities, it might have made more sense to have Labour and the Tories join up.

A lot of what the Conservatives talked about implementing (tighter immigration requirements, no dole for people who won't work, etc.) was implemented by Labour.  Of course, the Tory press won't give Labour credit for it and the leftist press will largely ignore it.

ETA:  I also don't think Clegg did this for power.  He's not stupid.  He knows what a Deputy PM does.

It's a shame that Labour's failures and election losses will be blamed on the Lib Dems.  Labour needs to regroup and I hope abandon their rightward/authoritarian swing:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010