Nick Clegg goes public on coalition – and looks to the Conservatives

[brooklynite]

Source: The Guardian

Nick Clegg today signalled that he would speak to the Conservatives first about the formation of a minority government if Labour came third by share of the vote on 6 May, rejecting the constitutional convention that the prime minister should be allowed to try to form a government first.

The Liberal Democrat leader also made it explicit for the first time that electoral reform would be an unavoidable precondition of any coalition government as he insisted that Labour will have forfeited the right to govern if it comes third.

...snip...

The latest tracking poll from YouGov in the Sun suggests that Labour remains in third place, but the Conservatives are not drawing away from Liberal Democrats. The poll shows the Conservatives on 34 points (no change), the Liberal Democrats on 30 (up 1) and Labour on 28 (down 1).
...snip...

Clegg said he would not prop up Labour if it came third in the vote yet secured the most seats. He said: "It seems to me that it's just preposterous, the idea that if a party comes third in terms of the number of votes, it still has somehow the right to carry on squatting in No 10 and continue to lay claim to having the prime minister of the country.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/25/nick-clegg-coalition-conservatives

---

This is not necessarily a scary prospect. Party labels in the UK seem to have strayed a long way from their traditional meaning. The saying at the time of the last election was: If you want Liberal policies, vote Conservative; if you want Conservative policies, vote Labour; if you want Labour policies, vote Liberal.

[hulka38]

1. I like this guy.

Stick it to the British DLC.

[Turborama]

2. The Conservatives in Britain are anything but Liberal

I don't know where that saying comes from but that part is false. The vote Labour get Conservative policies is fairly true, but the last election was when NeoCon Blair was PM - to give an idea of the Conservative party's relationship with US politics: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1576478/David-Cameron-backs-John-McCain-in-US-race.html">David Cameron backs John McCain in US race.

And the OP's headline shows The Guardian's bias towards Labour. Where does it say he "looks to the Conservatives" in the article? In fact, it states that "Clegg said Cameron and Brown would be vulnerable within their parties if they failed to secure an overall majority." That doesn't sound like he's "looking to the Conservatives".

Here's what he said in context...

The Lib Dems insisted that Clegg's remarks were being over-interpreted, and he was merely rejecting the constitutional assumption that the prime minister in the event of a hung parliament would always have the first opportunity to try to form a minority government.

Clegg said he would not prop up Labour if it came third in the vote yet secured the most seats. He said: "It seems to me that it's just preposterous, the idea that if a party comes third in terms of the number of votes, it still has somehow the right to carry on squatting in No 10 and continue to lay claim to having the prime minister of the country.

"What I'm saying here is pointing at a very, very irrational possible outcome of our potty electoral system, which is that a party that has spectacularly lost the election because fewer people are voting for it than any other party, could nonetheless according to constitutional tradition and convention still lay claim to providing the prime minister of the country."

With the campaign entering its final full week, Clegg may feel he needed to send out an anti-Brown message as polling suggested the Tory leader, David Cameron, was gaining traction with his warning that if voters back Clegg, they will end up with Brown in No 10.

BTW The Guardian supported the illegal invasion of Iraq, The Independent and The Mirror were the only newspapers that didn't and the Liberal Democrats were the only party that voted against it.

Here's a more insightful article from The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/with-11-days-to-go-and-polls-suggesting-a-hung-parliament-what-secret-deals-are-going-on-1953739.html">With 11 days to go and polls suggesting a hung parliament, what secret deals are going on?

-

[JDPriestly]

3. Howard Dean is backing Clegg. See the interview in the video group on DU.

[Turborama]

4. Thanks for the heads up. That was a fantastic endorsement! n/t

[Odin2005]

5. I think the OP was meaning "Classical" Liberal, what we cal Libertarians here.

[BolivarianHero]

6. It's more complicated than that...

One Nation Tories (not to be confused with a far-right Australian populist party of the same name) are, if anything, less reactionary than Blair's people.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. No, the Guardian did not support the Iraq war

Here, for instance, is their leader on the day after the Commons voted to go to war:

It gave parliament the power to stop the war before it begins. Parliament did not take its chance, alas. But it is clear that, had the vote gone against war, British soldiers would not have gone into battle and Mr Blair would have resigned. He said as much at the end of his speech. In its way, this is as significant a shift in constitutional power as anything since the Glorious Revolution. Having made it, there can hardly be any going back. When and if Britain again stands on the brink of war, it will be parliament that decides. It is hard, even on a day such as this, not to regard that as a kind of consolation prize.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/19/iraq.houseofcommons

Clearly, their editorial line was that the invasion should not have gone ahead (hence the 'alas', and the precedent of the Commons voting on the invasion as a 'consolation prize', because their main hope, to stop the war, had been defeated).

Don't confuse The Guardian's editorial line with that of its sister paper, The Observer, which is published on Sundays. The Guardian's owning trust bought The Observer in 1993. They appear on the same website, but have different editorial staff and journalists, and took a different position on Iraq.

[Turborama]

42. You're right, The Observer explicitly supported the invasion

I clearly remember reading it in either The Guardian or The Observer at the time and being stunned. It was 7 years ago so my memory of which of the two it was was a bit fuzzy. So I had a look and found The Observer's leader which explicitly supported the invasion of Iraq: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/jan/19/leaders.politics

The Guardian did kind of implicitly support the invasion, though. They ran articles at the time which were supportive of Blair, for example.

They published Bill Clinton's letter asking the British people to "Trust Tony's Judgement": http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy.iraq3

Simon Hoggart gave Blair's speech to Parliament a resounding thumbs up: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/19/iraq.houseofcommons1

Hugo Young (13 April 2003) congratulated Blair on his 'victory': "For a leader who went to war in the absence of a single political ally who believed in the war as unreservedly as he did, Iraq now looks like a vindication on an astounding scale." (I can't seem to find this actual article but it is cited on http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=Hugo+Young,+13+April+2003++'For+a+leader+who+went+to+war+in+the+absence+of+a+single+political+ally+who+believed+in+the+war+as+unreservedly+as+he+did,+Iraq+now+looks+like+a+vindication+on+an+astounding+scale.'+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=">several websites)

And they published articles that were hawkish, as well. Like this one by David David Aaronovitch: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/iraq.comment

Their take on Powell's speech to the UN contained a fair amount of scaremongering about WMD, too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/06/foreignpolicy.usa

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. That Independent article is over a day old, though

It was published on Saturday night, for the Sunday newspaper (Google News dates it as "April 24": http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22Even+on+the+streets+of+Afghanistan+Nick+Clegg+is+a+hero%22 )

The point is that what Clegg said (a) in his interview for the Sunday Times, which the Independent article doesn't refer to, and (b) what he said on the BBC on Sunday have moved things on a bit - he's saying that he won't go into a coalition led by Labour, if Labour comes 3rd in the nationwide share of vote, but 1st in the number of seats:

Today's interview with Andrew Marr marked the first shift from that. Clegg said that if Labour had the most seats in the Commons but the least votes (a possibility, according to recent polls) they could not govern:
"I think a party which has come third and so millions of people have decided to abandon them, has lost the election spectacularly, cannot then lay claim to providing the Prime Minister of this country".

In that case, unless there is a spectacular Lib Dem breakthrough, the assumption must be that Clegg would support - if not necessarily join - the Tories in forming a govenment. Nick Clegg's predecessor and adviser, Lord Ashdown told The People today: "A coalition (with the Tories) is not an option for us. The parties are too far apart."

Coalition with one or other big party is clearly on the Lib Dem leader's mind, though, as this exchange shows:
ANDREW MARR: Could you sit round a cabinet table with David Cameron?

NICK CLEGG: I could sit around a cabinet table with anyone who agrees with me that what we need to do is hard wire fairness into the British... into the tax system.

ANDREW MARR: Including Gordon Brown?

NICK CLEGG: Anyone...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/04/what_clegg_is_t.html

At the moment, it does look most likely that Labour will come 3rd in the vote share.

[daleo]

31. I wonder what the Queen thinks

I believe her constitutional power may come into play, if it comes down to deciding who gets first crack at forming a government.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. The civil servants have been trying to set out what should happen so that she doesn't have to decide

For the first time since 1923, a British monarch may have to resolve a stalemate over who will become the next prime minister. The queen’s aides are working to make sure that never happens.
...
Polls suggest neither Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown nor Conservative David Cameron will win the necessary votes for a majority in the May 6 election, resulting in a so-called hung parliament. Civil servants have drafted rules they hope will cover every eventuality to protect Queen Elizabeth II’s neutrality.

“The queen must remain absolutely above politics,” said Robert Hazell, director of University College London’s Constitution Unit, who was involved in drawing up the new standards. “The palace is keen to distance the queen as much as possible in order to protect her.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-08/queen-ensures-she-won-t-decide-who-governs-in-hung-parliament.html

[daleo]

49. I am not sure that having civil servants decide the matter is appropriate

After all, people don't swear an oath to the civil service.

Canada's Governor General recently had to render a judgment on proroguing Parliament (twice actually). So these matters sometimes come up, and ultimately it comes down to what the monarch says in a constitutional monarchy, no matter how it gets sugar coated. It's a rarely used power (rightly so), but someone has to break a tie. The alternative is the Supreme Court, as we saw in 2000 in the U.S., and that has its problems too.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. I think it's the best plan there is

The civil servants concerned, and the academics they have brought in to advise them, are experts. The idea is that you can't have the queen make a personal decision about people who she knows fairly well and may have personal preferences for (as opposed to political ones). The idea is that if the possibilities have been thought through beforehand, then you don't have to rush things at the time, which might indeed end up with some sort of legal challenge.

Here's a good blog posting laying out what the process should be - it doesn't disagree with anything I've seen elsewhere, and seem to cover all the points: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2645

[harmonicon]

7. this could potentially fuck shit up...

I think a lot - the vast majority - of lib dem voters would otherwise vote Labour - never Conservative. I know for instance that my girlfriend wanted to vote for the Lib Dems, but if it means they'll form a coalition with Conservatives (with Cameron as PM, no less!), she'd vote Labour. I personally think all three are a joke, but I'd do anything to keep the Conservatives out of power, and would like to think that Clegg would as well... I guess not.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

9. I have been agonising over my decision here

I am going to vote Conservative even though they haven't really convinced me. I do not like how the Labour has handled the economy and the war and the LibDems are seen as the weaker party (the opposition to Trident also sort of killed my interest to them).

I'm a long time Democratic Party voter here (I can vote in two countries since I'm a citizen of both) and tried to see which party matched my American views but that was very difficult as most of my big issues (health care, death penalty, etc) are generally agreed on by both parties.

Not only that, I'd rather vote for one of the three to try to keep the BNP out of power.

[harmonicon]

12. can I ask you to reconsider?

I agree that on the issues that you raise as being important to you, all three parties are likely just as good as one another for the big stuff. I'm an immigrant to the UK, and I'd like to stay. I'm afraid that the Conservatives will make immigration much more difficult. Sure, I'm highly educated, and I'm a native English speaker, but that doesn't mean things won't be more difficult. My girlfriend is also an immigrant (as a child, from Canada), as was here mother as a child (from Ireland). I have friends who live here form many other places. Some, like my girlfriend and here family are citizens and can vote, but others like myself can't. I don't like what a Conservative government could mean for my future.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

17. The thing is

I am really undecided on this. In the past, I would have supported Labour because of their success in promoting the Irish peace process in the Good Friday Agreements, however, the Blairite government made the disastrous decision to side with Bush in the Iraq war. Brown, a Blairite, made decisions on the budgets which is why the UK is where it is (the subprime, etc, was based on decisions Brown had made as Chancellor). Which is why I'm definitely not supporting Labour this time.

As for LibDems, if it wasn't for Trident, I'd back them. However, my husband has an interest in nuclear power (his company helps refurbish the generators for the UK and other countries) and if the Lib Dems were successful in abolishing Trident, it would be a disaster for the country, job-wise. That's why Labour and Conservative disagree with the LibDems so much on this issue. Which is why I am unfortunately not supporting LibDem because my husband's job would be affected by their policies.

As for Conservative, they really haven't convinced me to back them. However, I highly doubt David Cameron has the same ideologies as Margaret Thatcher and John Major as times and positions have changed. It annoys me to no end when they back Republicans in the US when I know that their positions here do not match the Republicans' positions. Also, I'm leery of the Ulster Unionist Party supporting the Conservatives as I would support SDLP if I lived in Northern Ireland.

I have had a long talk with my mother (Nigerian-born Northern Irish former Catholic woman) about it and she said that if she was still living in the UK, she'd vote Tory, even though UUP is supporting them. Otherwise, for Northern Ireland, she'd support SDLP. My Protestant Belfast-born father is the same way (Vote Tory, support SDLP in Northern Ireland).

My husband is a staunch Conservative but I'd say his views closely match mine in terms of the Democratic Party (pro-choice, pro-UHC, anti-death penalty, etc). His father ran for MP in Cardiff and his grandfather was the only MP for Cardiff North-West and served in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet and his great-uncle was an Ambassador to Syria. Believe me, we've had lengthy discussions about politics here (I have a much better idea of where I stand in American politics).

And I'm talking as a deaf person educated in a BA (history), working on a MA (museum studies), born in the US to British/Irish parents, did a lot of social work and a long time supporter of the Democratic Party. My parents are from Northern Ireland and survived the Troubles (my mother survived Bloody Friday) and protested against people like Ian Paisley. Bernadette Devlin was my mother's classmate at University, as well as Mary McAleese.

I was already a citizen of the UK (since 1994) before I moved here. The only party that I hear about making immigration difficult is the BNP and they are a disgusting, vile party which is why I have to support one of the big three and I feel that the Tories are the lesser of the three evils.

[harmonicon]

22. it sounds like you've made up your mind then

and far be it for me to tell someone they shouldn't vote for what they feel is best for themselves and their family.

I do doubt that Cameron is that far removed from Thatcher though. The guy is incredibly wealthy, has never really held down a job (apart from some telcom that he ran into the ground), and is only a few steps away from royalty. I just don't think people like that can understand what working class people go through.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

25. Well

I could say the same about Clegg and Brown (Clegg is the great-great-grandson of a nobleman and Brown, the son of a minister). I agree with you on the immigration issue, btw. I am somewhat an immigrant to the UK but already had the right to live here (citizen) and hope you have the same rights as I do.

You could say the same about every politician in the UK (Eton/Harrow/etc educated, Oxbridge, etc).

I remember when my parents had to take the US Citizenship test they had to do an English test even though they spoke it perfectly and had lived in the US for 23 years prior to the test (as resident aliens).

I've not really made up my mind, actually. The Tories haven't really convinced me, and I'm still discussing the issues with my card-carrying Tory husband.

Wish there was an Obama clone here so I could vote for him!!

[harmonicon]

27. yeah, I think they're all out of touch too

.... but so is Obama, for that matter. Unfortunately politics is only for the wealthy in most countries. The amount of bureaucracy in the UK regarding immigration is absurd (though I'm sure it's worse in many places). I had a meeting scheduled to get a national insurance number (which I didn't actually need, according to the guy I spoke with at the tax office, because I had a temporary number that could be used indefinitely), which was then cancelled and rescheduled, because - as the letter stated - I required a translator to be present. Who made that judgement is beyond me. I figure it was either some stupid clerical error or more ridiculously that someone in an office saw my very foreign sounding name and just figured I couldn't speak English (what language they figured is beyond me though). Since the rescheduled meeting was at I time I couldn't go, and because I obviously couldn't read the letter because I don't speak English, I just didn't go. Sure enough, my pay did go through with my temporary number and my taxes were sorted out.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

29. That's strange

I had to do an interview for a NI number, too, and didn't need a translator. And I do have a very Irish-sounding name as well.

It seemed to be pretty smooth going for me, I hope things work out for you!

[brooklynite]

19. In the last debate, all three parties sounded fairly restrictive on Immigration...

...far more so than most people here would be comfortable with.

[harmonicon]

21. yeah, I watched that and become very uncomfortable

However, I think it was Cameron who - even more so than Brown - is in favour of these identity cards for foreigners. It really creeps me out. I don't like the idea of living in a world where someone can say "show me your identity card, please". I'm here on a legal visa which is difficult and expensive to get. I don't want to be treated as some second class human on top of that.

[pampango]

30. The Liberal Democrats have a more open immigration policy IMO.

http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/liberal-democrat-party-manifesto-2010-general-election?cid=6840

"We will let law-abiding families earn citizenship. We will allow people who have been in Britain without the correct papers for ten years, but speak English, have a clean record and want to live here long-term to earn their citizenship. This route to citizenship will not apply to people arriving after 2010."

AFAIK, none of the other parties have any program allowing illegal immigrants to "earn their citizenship".

[Posteritatis]

33. Is the idea of the BNP getting anywhere near power even vaguely feasible right now? (nt)

[FunkyLeprechaun]

35. The BNP won two or three seats in the EU Parliament

Which scares the shit out of me!


(Ironic especially when they are so anti-immigrant)

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Power, no; it's possible they might get one MP elected

which is bad enough, symbolically. Their Leader (the capital letter is appropriate in their case - direct translation from the German or Italian) is standing in Barking. Its boundaries have changed since the 2005 election, so the notional share of the vote from then that the BBC gives below is open to argument, but that was:

Labour 49.6%
Conservative 16.6%
British National Party 16.3%
Others 17.5%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a11.stm

The BNP hold 11 out of 51 seats on the local council there. If Labour were to lose a third of its vote share (only a bit worse than what's happening nationally - 36% in 2005, dropping to about 28%), and the BNP to double (ie picking up about all of the net losses from the Labour vote) then they;'d be neck and neck.

Thankfully, they don't seem to stand a chance in any other constituency, as far as I'm aware.

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. The Tories are scum, ask anyone old enough to remember Thatcher.

They haven't changed as much as they like to pretend, either.

You're better off voting Lib Dem; the best outcome of the election is a hung parliament with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power and a Liberal/Labour coalition government.

And voting to keep the BNP out of power is rather a wasted vote; the BNP have as much chance of getting real political power as I have of being the next king (they may win a few local council seats, but the only scenario where I can see them having any MPs is if the Lib Dems push through proportional representation as part of a deal for a coalition).

[Turborama]

11. Clegg isn't talking about forming a coalition with the Tories, the Guardian's title is misleading

For a better insight, check out these articles: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x458289#458737

[harmonicon]

13. I recognize that, but if that's the perception, he'll drive votes to Labour

... and if the Guardian is carrying it that way, how will the more conservative media portray his comments?

[tomm2thumbs]

8. a video review on the recent debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROhHaC4ZUwA

I'm going to watch the last 2 debates together after the 3rd occurs, but it certainly does make a big difference to have a 3rd party with fresh ideas in the mix

[Turborama]

10. I've got a feeling you'll like this one...

Don't be put off by the title.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x458568

[tomm2thumbs]

28. some good edits in that - thanks

the title did fool me at first hahaha

[T_i_B]

16. .............

Vote Clegg get Cameron.
Vote Cameron get Brown.
Vote Brown get Clegg.
Vote Clegg get Brown.

Repeat ad nauseum until thoroughly fucked off.

Why can't people just forget about tactical considerations and vote honestly for the best candidate with the best policies? And why can't the parties forget about scaring people of voting for the other lot with dodgy bar charts and just spend their time promoting their own policies instead? Or don't they have any decent polcies to promote?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

18. I know that my decision isn't popular

(voting, not supporting, for Conservative)

I know that Brown is not the best candidate of the three. I like Clegg but I wish he wasn't anti-Trident. Cameron... *sigh*... I don't know.

So it's a hold-my-nose and vote Conservative for me.

[JackRiddler]

48. How can you be for another generation of nuclear weapons

or make this your litmus test?

[IndianaGreen]

20. Clegg, and the Liberal Democrats are the best alternative

The Tories only offer Thatcherism with a human face, the likable Cameron, while we all had our fill of New Labour!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

36. You do know what the scrapping of the Trident program

will do to our already fragile UK economy?

I am not sure what to think of the parties here but this position is the worst that the LibDems have taken up on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. It would improve it

Building submarines and warheads, and buying missiles from the US (we don't make those) that never get used is throwing money into an economic black hole. If you spend it instead on something productive (say, railways, or renewable energy) then you get something back from it, which helps the economy. Barrow-in-Furness's economy would suffer, and perhaps Faslane and Devonport or wherever the new submarines are stationed and serviced; but for the country as a whole, it would help the economy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. Not THAT much? The considerations are not economic.

If they have to build four new submarines it'll be in Barrow-in-Furness, which would be good for the local economy there; it would be good for BAE and other defence contractors; at the same time it would mean less spent by the government on weapons systems if the Trident subs weren't replaced (and reallocation of those funds to other programmes, or savings and reduction in deficit). In terms of realpolitik not maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent isn't an option; not if the UK wants to keep its position as a permanent UN Security Council member, as one of the principal NATO allies, etc.

[harmonicon]

23. your last point was it: none have decent policies to promote

it seems to be much like the US. I don't pay close attention to British politics, because most of it has no effect on me as a foreigner living here. I do think that the Lib Dems interest in election reform is valid, and I hope it happens, because it would make it more likely that people would just vote for the parties they want - as I would do if I could vote here. Hell, I'd ignore them all and vote Green.

[T_i_B]

24. Hmph, I don't even have that option

as the Greens are not standing where I live. I've got the big 3 parties, UKIP and I think I might have an English Democrat candidate as well in my constituency. Both of the last 2 are loony right-wingnut parties so that's not much of a choice really.

As you vote for your local candidates rather then party leaders at the general election I intend to attend a local debate to make my mind up. Nick Clegg is MP for the neighbouring constituency to me but he's not going to be on my ballot paper so it's not as important for me to have a view on him as it is for me to have a view of my local Lib Dem candidate for instance.

[harmonicon]

26. that is the best way to look at it, and why I like the parliamentary system

We have an active Green party here (I only know because they send me leaflets and things). If it weren't for that, I don't know what I'd do (not that I can vote anyway, but eventually I'll be able to, so I should probably start paying attention).

[FunkyLeprechaun]

37. Darn!

I'm trying to collect pamphlets that come through our mail slot and so far we've got a couple of LibDem (newsletters), Labour, and Tory (both my husband's member letters and newsletters). We have gotten ONE BNP... I think they are very active in Staffordshire.

I'd rather have Green than BNP in my collection so far...

You should look at Staffordshire, the BNP is trying to target this area heavily. What could you suggest to me? Don't worry about trying to influence my vote, I am open to suggestions!

[harmonicon]

41. I'm afraid that I don't have any suggestions - I just don't know enough about it

I do know that in the Birmingham suburb where my girlfriend's mom lives they voted in the BNP, which is pretty awful. It's even making inroads here in the north (Yorkshire). So far though, I've only gotten leaflets through the door for Tory and Green, which is pretty strange in a huge Labour town.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

43. I am pretty close to Birmingham

Not in a suburb (more a suburb of Stafford than anything) and I remember the EU elections and I voted Tory then because it was a vote against BNP.

If you go towards Stafford, there's lots of Conservative posters and none for LibDem and Labour... I thought they'd want to target this area more.

[T_i_B]

45. I'm just outside Yorkshire

It's still safe a Labour seat though. I'm not seeing very many posters and signs where I live but in Sheffield Central where it's a bit marginal you do see posters for Lib Dems, Labour and even the Greens.

No BNP where I live. They were planning to target Sheffield Brightside but that's gone wrong for them after their original candidate got arrested for allegedly threatening to kill Nick Griffin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x29530

The Who's Your MP? thread in the UK forum should also be of some use

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x29700

[Posteritatis]

32. I tend to go mainly by tactical considerations when voting

In Canadian politics I mostly sit between the Liberals and the NDP federally, so I'm usually a fan of "strong enough Liberal party to form the government, weak enough to rely on NDP support and thus get some of their stuff passed." I might have to reevaluate that in the next election given the effort the NDP have gone through to support the Conservatives, but I'll burn that bridge when I get to it.

Either way, my point is that at least in my case the tactical voting actually is me voting my conscience in the hopes of hitting the mix of power in government that I hope to see. I can see that being the case among British voters, too.

[iris27]

34. The meat of that article is a lot more about

what Labour thinks Clegg is saying than it is about what he's actually said.

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. Liberal with a capital L doesn't mean 'liberal' in the American sense.

In a British (and more generally European context, and, indeed, everywhere OUTSIDE THE US), 'liberal' means 'strongly focused on individual rights and free-market economics'. The closest US equivalent would be libertarianism, probably. (If the meaning of liberal has strayed anywhere, it's in America).