In my view there should be an obligation for the biggest party to seek to build a coalition. However, the sea change needs to happen pre-election in my view. If, as we are told by AMs, we are seeking a more inclusive, less punch and judy politics in Wales, then they should be willing to talk pre-election in detail.

Of course these are preliminary talks, but they at least lessen the time needed to conduct them post-vote.

I also think the time has come for parties to be more willing to talk about their second vote being used tactically. It would be great if in time votes used their two votes to almost put forward their coalition option (given we accept they are always likely to happen).

For example, you would imagine had Labour voters voted Lib Dem on their second vote, then the Lib Dems might have got more seats, thus making the coalition more numerically sound.

Perhaps that is perhaps naive.

Senedd Labour is far more comfortable with the notion of increased devolution, and in all of the potential contenders to replace Rhodri Morgan this will be borne out. Generationally, you will see a passing of the ‘devo-dinosaurs’ in the Welsh Labour MPs, and they will be replaced by a set of MPs at least more comfortable of the notion of entrenched devolution.

Even the most positive Labour member will accept they face a potential decade out of power in Westminster. This will be the final passing of the centrifugal power force in Welsh Labour – from Welsh Labour MPs to Welsh Labour AMs. That certainly was the feeling i got when i attended the One Wales ratification conference when i was a member of Welsh Labour.

Now in time i would imagine that the federalising of Labour will happen in time – it has to because of the wider federalising of the UK as a body politic.

It seems very apparent that all the UK parties will have to respond to these changes more formally.

My belief is that the Welsh Conservatives are less rampantly right wing than UK, this is a product of the limited devolutionary settlement. Any talk of Wales truly forging its own distinctly ideological path is premature – the real proof is when the assembly has to raise revenue and spend it. Cut spending in a Welsh Assembly context seems rather superflous given the block grant doesnt it? The miss cog in that ideological wheel is lowering taxes – something the Welsh Conservatives cannot do.

We also must take account of the fact that a Cameron victory will deliver a devolution era precedent – a Westminster Government that is not in power in ANY of the devolved institutions. This represents a massive challenge for the Welsh Conservatives, particularly given they do seem to have a different policy agenda to the Westminster Conservatives.

We should also never forget that politicians have an in built self preservation mechanism! haha

James – maybe add that under Ideology to keep the mnemonic? You make a telling point about manifesto construction.

John – thanks for your comments here and over on Borthlas. Accept both the points that you make. Preparation is a critical factor, and the issue of whether red lines (or any other colour for that matter) was indeed a feature at the conference which inspired the article. With regard to the commitment of the “Wider Party” I’d be tempted to incorporate my W (Westminster) in with this new heading, and discuss both in that context. Still can’t see what to do with the additional P though, if I want to keep the mnemonic

I think though that are are two other factors which I’d add to your list, even if it spoils the nice mnemonic. A bit long for a comment, so I’ve posted some thoughts of may own here

can I time warp back to May 07 with it please?

Ali, if you ever get your hands on a time machine, you need to go back slightly further than that. The last Welsh autumn conference probably.

For me, what killed off the Lib Dem chances of entering a coalition in 2007 was the fact that everyone was so obsessed with the process of coalition, the party had forgotten to communicate what they actually wanted for Wales. The manifesto was insidery and wonky and, notwithstanding your point about keeping options open, at no point was there any debate internally or externally about what the party’s red lines should be.

The result was a process with lots of checks and balances to ensure that no-one got screwed over, but nothing to engender party unity. With people on the assembly with as differing views on coalition as Mike German and Peter Black that was always going to be fatal.

In short, if you don’t ask yourself what you want out of a coalition at the start of the process, you can’t be surprised if lots of people are going in different directions at the end of it.

The policy/trust point is about deliverability of policies too. If you have a good agreement to work from which is likely to come under strain. If the cost of a policy or policies is highly uncertain inevitably that will put a strain on elsewhere. Of course in government there will always be changes as an economic situation changes and there are unanticipated items of expenditure/saving but having a good trustworthy base to work from was to my mind essential.

The other point is around numbers/momentum. If you increase your numbers and get the big ‘mo’ then your leader can just ask your to trust their judgement. A judgement that will have been bourne out correctly by more wins. I don’t think I let this overly effect my decisions but there is no doubt it did some other Lib Dems. A leader has got to have the points in the bank to ask the party to take a leap of faith.

Good article.. can I time warp back to May 07 with it please?

(apols for taking so long to respond.. IE wouldn’t give me a submit button but Chrome does.. another reminder to avoid Microsoft)

There is of course no formal structure to help bring coalitions into being. Indeed, my recollection of May 2007 is of many people being completely unprepared for the urgency and practicality of negotiation.

Perhaps the Assembly way – and – I’ve only just thought of this – is to have non-coalitions immediately after elections while the dust settles. This happened after all 3 elections, with coalitions following afterward in 2 cases.

Just a random thought, but should the biggest party automatically take the lead after every election as a matter of course and form a minority government while also conducting open negotiation? This approach certainly brought stability and direction during June 2007.

What is interesting is that despite Wales’ short democratic history of coalition government, we are still constitutionally unprepared for what might happen. We have no rules or processes to govern the outcome and our politicians, especially after fighting negative campaigns for weeks, and are therefore are even less likely to provide the required direction and leadership needed to make a coalition work.