Is the Labour party about to self destruct?

Will Clegg be ousted as leader if he backs up a defeated and demoralised Labour party?

Will Cameron wait quietly in the shadows, waiting for his moment?

All in all it's a bloody mess that needs sorting out sooner rather than later.

AV immediately sounds sensible. That is what the sensible majority of electorate voted for. A 'Referendum' seems pretty pointless, since we already know what the electorate want: electoral reform, and they want it now, not talks about talks about talks ... Lets get that Rainbow Coalition underway now and stop all this nonsense. Gordon is willing to step down after a fixed period say 10 months, once the economy is on the mend, and a new Labour Leader in place.

He isn't supporting Brown's premiership, he's supporting the continuity of the Labour party, fool.

My bet is that Clegg won't (or won't be allowed by his party) to enter into ANY arrangement with the Tories, mainly because they won't offer any real promise of PR and his party will make it clear he MUST vote against their '50 day' budget, if it goes beyond the bare minimum cuts that Cable would recommend.

So what then? It’s clear he's making at least a show of talking to Labour. (My bet is that Gordon Brown is also making it clear at such talks that he is willing to resign, now or before the autumn party conferences, if that will smooth the way to an agreement). However, I believe that Clegg will conclude (as other leading figures in Labour are also concluding, whatever Brown's view) that a coalition with the Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, SDLP (plus Green/Alliance/Indep MPs) will be too greedy in its demands and too vulnerable to last. In any case, there could be no ‘easy fix’ which could quickly align their two manifestos in a way which would be acceptable to EITHER set of party members, so that any patching together would anger key party members, including MPs. So that won't work either.

This means that David Cameron will have to run a minority government. However, his '50 day' budget (presumably in mid-July) won't get through Parliament – all the opposition parties will lose face if they do not vote it down. Consequence – another election, presumably early September. Same result! Utter mess.

So, is there any way to avoid this? There is one route which would appeal to me – and, I guess, to many who fear the damage which a long-running Tory government would wreak, if allowed by the LibDems.

If Brown and Clegg agree that the foregoing scenario would be disastrous, they might also steel themselves (whatever their tribalistic tendencies) to agree that it requires drastic measures. So, it would make sense for them to agree to discuss the basis for a joint manifesto, over a period of months. It would be presented to their respective party conferences in the autumn. (Under a different Labour leader, probably). Both parties would have to swallow and accept that only such a manifesto gives any real chance of power after the following general election. I think they would buy it (while finding it distasteful), Labour because it would preserve public services (in large measure) and the LibDems because they could insist on proper PR (not AV).

In the meantime, Brown and Clegg could give Cameron notice that they will not vote on ANY economic or financial legislation until the Budget in March 2011 - he will have carte blanche to put through whatever he wants. But they would simultaneously put him on notice that, if they cannot accept Budget 2011, or any subsequent economic or social legislation, they will force a vote of 'no confidence' and intend to fight the next election together, with a view to forming a coalition. Finally, they should agree the subsequent coalition will run for four years, but then be reconsidered by both parties, with a view to returning to independent running for the subsequent election.

This would be an election which they would almost certainly win (especially after the Tories have had a year to make a mess of the economy). And they would sacrifice relatively little of their core policies by working together for four years. And they would save the UK what might otherwise be some years of utter indecision - because just having another election in three or four months time would produce largely the same result. And what then?

As usual, James, wishful thinking from another planet. It's not in Brown's gift to simply deliver AV and, oh dear, didn't he say that there would be a referendum first? Lib Dems would be complete idiots to prop up a failed government with a deeply unpopular Prime Minister or yet another Labour PM that no one voted for. What a great start that would be for the Lib Dem's new politics and what a disaster for the economic future of the country.

The only progressive alliance is that between The Tories and Liberals. Everyone impartial is realising this.

The New Statesmans standards have fallen to a historical low this election. Now in the realms of fantasy.

AV would get hammered in a referendum under a brown labour lead govt.

Bring it on. I am hoping so much labour stays in office.

Just like 1992 was a good time for labour to stay out of power so would this be a good time.

You either keep Brown in power or another leader who didn't take part in the election.

Keep Brown with his 33/63 approval in office.

Do you really think labour in their fourth term when the public says they should now be out of office can pass a measure they would promote.

Labour MPs are not going to vote for PR, as 75 of them will become redundant. Moreover, many Labour voters will be free to vote Green, UKIP, BNP, or whoever, and create even more redundant Labour MPs

Go ahead let labour party stay in power and be wiped out next election.

You can't cling on to power forever.

Harriet Harman, Ed Balls, Miliband, Brown, Mandelson aren't going to be in power forever.

Let them stay in power and let it come crashing down the next election.

I guarantee you they won't be smiling after the next election.

@ Tony Bovaird

Interesting thoughts. However, there's a lot of ifs and buts there.

The more straightforward strategy for Labour is just to let the Lib Dem leadership become embroilded with the Tory Party. By the time Labour in opposition have sorted their leadership fight out the nation will be just about flat lining under the pressure of social and economic problems, and in a position to exploit at the ballot box the likely rupture in the LD-Con alliance.

Your arithmatic is suggesting all the lib dem seats would go to labour.

A lot of lib dem mp's were elected in tory/lib dem marginals.

I have been reading local papers online and they want cameron to be PM.

So this idea that all 57 lib dem mp's are alike and just put them in a progressive column isn't so.

Tony, couldn't agree more!, said something similar on another thread on one of these NS blogs. Lib and Con is just too incompatible for words, give our inexperienced Cameron a spell in minority power, he may as well have his hands tied behind his back (which is just as well because he waves them around too much anyway!), then let Lab firm it up with Libs, bring on Milliband and get a deal on PR (and the big blue patches on the electoral maps will shrink very rapidly) then go to the polls again in October, just make sure there's a few more ballot papers this time though! and bingo we may well have seen the back of the Tories and their ill thought plans on the economy for good. It's the changing face of politics, the Tories are becoming an extinct force, the polls were up with all those richer buggers who can't bear the prospect of sharing all they have with a nation in need. And those of you on here who think Cameron won, you need to learn to count, Cameron lost it when he should have won according to what you all say.....except the electorate just don't buy Cameron and Osborne on the economy, many of them quite sensibly as it's their own jobs at sake. You tories were never too good with the ol calculator were you!