There's no way

[Jeneral2885]

Cameron will let Clegg's team run posts like defence, foreign affairs/europe or even home affairs. At best he'll given them simple posts like international development.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

1. We will see

Michael Gove, the shadow Education Secretary, said he would be willing to give up some cabinet positions for the LibDems in order to get an agreement. Clegg would be best suited for Foreign Affairs due to his experience in the EU Parliament and I've heard whispers that Vince Cable would be better as Chancellor than George Osborne (I have seen George on telly and he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about).

So we shall see.

[tjwmason]

2. The rumour I heard on the B.B.C.

was Home Secretary, Chief Secretary, and Transport. This would make sense, the civil libertarian wing of the Tory Party is currently in the ascendent which would suggest a reasonable overlap at the Home Office.

There's no way that Nick Clegg will get the Foreign Office, the Tory Party is still ready to tear itself apart over the E.U. and that would be too much of a red-rag to a bull.

[Jeneral2885]

16. Nick Clegg as minister?!!

the Tory cabinet would stage a walk out.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Is Cameron going to back PR?

[LeftishBrit]

4. Shouldn't think so; his party would have him for breakfast if he did.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. yes he's just a cardboard cut out

[TheBigotBasher]

5. A free vote on a referendum is the deal.

Labour could smash any pact by solidly voting against it in Parliament and I bet that will happen.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. Cameron's empty words

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. The talk today has been about confidence and supply "plus"

i.e. Lib Dems having more of an input on government policy but without actually taking Cabinet posts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Tories have just offered a referendum on AV

Not AV+, of course; but they've been forced into this by Brown's intention to resign and the formal Lb Dem-Labour talks.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

8. and Labour are offering AV without a referendum

[TheBigotBasher]

11. AV would be even more disastrous

for the Conservatives than STV. Given that some of their campaign advisers did not even know how US caucus states were ruun I have no doubt that the advice is pretty poor.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Not necessarily

See the figures the Electoral Reform Society have produced from their model: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=191&topic_id=30247&mesg_id=30315

That would have the Tories losing considerably more seats under STV than under AV. The Lib Dems gain under both, but considerably more under STV. Labour gains a tiny bit under AV, and loses almost as many seats as the Conservatives do, under STV. The SNP also gains under STV, but the shares of the big 3 national parties would hardly ever be such that the SNP could make the difference in forming a majority government, so they may not be particularly concerned about which system is chosen.

While AV would make it more difficult for the Tories to form a government alone (with those ERS AV figures, Labour and the Lib Dems would be able to form a majority coalition without any other parties, thus making it more stable), STV would make it practically impossible.

Of course, people's voting patterns under AV or STV may not be what models predict.

[dipsydoodle]

13. Current feeling seems to be

that Lib dems are gonna punished at next elections for pissing everyone about. So - no voting patterns may not in fact be that predictable.

[TheBigotBasher]

15. If the Lib Dems get PR

even if they get 17% they still get more seats than now.

[TheBigotBasher]

14. Look at the 2001 and 2005 results

you will then see why Labour like it.