Could it be that the electoral systems of Germany and the Netherlands influence why electorates in those countries are more inclined to expect and tolerate coalition governments?

Coalition politics is well developed in Germany. People know there are two sides, and they vote for one or other side to form a Government. Within those sides there are a couple of different parties to choose from, but you know what’s on offer.

So they vote Liberal knowing this will help the Christian Democrats into power, or the Greens knowing it will help the SDP into power.

In the UK the likelyhood is that the Lib Dems will hold the power, and they are not being up front about their terms for coalition government.

And that is why we don’t like coalition government. We don’t actually get a government of our choosing. We get a government according to the whim of a small number of MPs.

I have voted conservative all my adult life but will have to think hard before supporting you in the next general election.I think that David Camerons renage on his promise of a referendum for the British people on the Lisbon Treaty will cost him a lot of votes. I am considering voting for UKIP at the general election and many of my friends who are also Tory supporters are considering voting UKIP. I think that you are going the same route as this present discracefull shower now in power.
Your supporters want to see you putting forth plans that will put blue water between you and the present shower.If you do not,it is possible that you will be facing a hung parliament next year.

“Hung parliaments are only good for whips and scribblers”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/26/hung-parliaments-good-whips-scribblers

Coalition governments have worked well in West Germany and now in Germany after unification.

Coalition governments are the rule in the Netherlands too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Netherlands

Why is Britain so peculiar?

“61 per cent of marginal voters say the Tory plan to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1million shows they “mainly want to help the rich, not ordinary people”"

So it’s 58% non-Tory voters and 61% agree with the statement. Sounds about right to me.

Of course the real story is that even though the majority of voters don’t think services will improve under the Tories, they still want rid of Labour. The NHS will stay the same or get worse, same for education and crime won’t be cut – and yet people are going to vote Tory. There’s no way Labour can win those voters over.

The YouGov survey of voters in 32 northern marginal seats currently held by Labour shows the Conservatives lead Labour by 42 per cent to 36 per cent, enough for all to fall into Tory hands. In the same seats at the 2005 election, the Tories polled 34 per cent with Labour on 44 per cent.

Only 21 per cent of marginal voters say another Labour government would be the best outcome for Britain. Two thirds disapprove of the Government’s record to date.

BTW, it occurs to me that if people are as anti-Labour as all that, there will be a lot of anti-Labour tactical voting.

Exactly.

Gee, not a leading question, then…

“President Bush told Blair four times in the build up to Iraq that he didn’t need British troops, and yet Blair was insistent on ‘paying the blood price’.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/james-macintyres-blog/2009/06/iraq-manning-blair-inquiry

Without British engagement in the Iraq war, Britain’s public finances would be in a better state of repair and British troops in Afghanistan better resourced.

Get in!!

However, the Tories won’t necessarily get in because of policy. The largest factor for their likely election will probably the complete dissatisfaction with Labour. It’ll almost be victory by default.

If the Tories are polling this bad with YouGov, yet they still have a 10% lead, it doesn’t really say a lot for Labour.