Not exact matches
A
deal with Labour would require a grand
coalition with other parties and could be
electoral suicide for the Lib Dems in southern England.
I believed at the time it was signed that the
coalition deal wiped out support for
electoral reform because it meant its core left wing rump, which felt it would ensure more left wing government in future, suddenly felt that wasn't true any more.
The
coalition deal utterly destroyed support for
electoral reform.
He knew full well that entering the
coalition deal would destroy
electoral reform for a generation.
With
electoral reform at the heart of any
coalition deal, today's noisy protest will go some way towards strengthening Mr Clegg's hand in his talks with Tory leader David Cameron.
I would campaign for a red - yellow
deal including
electoral reform and an agreed manifesto, were it possible, both now and (perhaps more realistically) in the event of a hung parliament, and for Labour to have a manifesto which did not contain
coalition red lines for the LibDems, as that would.
It's time to stop the puffing of
electoral pacts and hints of eventual mergers, and accept that the
Coalition is a short - term and not a long - term arrangement: a specific
deal meeting specific needs, that's delivering a great
deal of good and which should last the full course of this Parliament.
As for voters, they should reflect that such shady, unsavoury
deals constructed on half - truths and exaggerations, struck far away from the public gaze, are part and parcel of
coalition politics - and would be entrenched for ever in Westminster if we adopt an
electoral system such as the alternative vote.
His comments come after a senior party official has said
electoral reform was «not a
deal maker and not a
deal breaker» for a possible
coalition deal.
And, amazingly, a survey of activists found that 30 % of them thought that
electoral reform should not be a «
deal - breaker» in post-election negotiations on forming a
coalition government.