{"id":484,"date":"2010-05-07T16:11:58","date_gmt":"2010-05-07T15:11:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mattwpbs.com\/?p=484"},"modified":"2010-05-07T16:11:58","modified_gmt":"2010-05-07T15:11:58","slug":"coalitions-and-the-mandate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mattwpbs.com\/?p=484","title":{"rendered":"Coalitions, and the mandate."},"content":{"rendered":"

There’s talk in the opinion pages about the possibilities of coalitions between parties in Parliament, some of which are quite disturbing. A key example is Benedict Brogan’s in the Telegraph here<\/a>. The quote I’d really like to draw your attention to, and which I think does not work in the context of a coalitions is this:<\/p>\n

What we should all focus on is the message emerging from Brown Central, that a deal between the two big losers \u2013 Labour and Lib Dems \u2013 is possible, and could even include a new Labour leader to make it \u2018acceptable\u2019. The idea that we would be governed by a coalition of losers led by someone who was not among the three leaders who paraded themselves on telly should have us reaching for our pitchforks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here’s the point –\u00a0 a coalition government is where parties who are broadly aligned work together. A coalition of two smaller parties working together has an absolutely legitimate mandate when the coalition is larger than a largest single party.<\/p>\n

In this case, if the Liberal Democrats are the party who can bridge the gap to a majority, then the seat count becomes less important when it comes to determining weight within a coalition. Look at the shares of the popular vote which each party received (from the BBC here<\/a>):<\/p>\n