I think our politicians are showing their true colours

After all saying that they will act in the national interest, it seems that the Lib Dems are now holding out for the best deal in their own interest.

Surely the only logical option is a Tory/Lib Deb coalition which would produce an overall majority and ongoing stability, anything else would lead to uncertainty and ultimately another election within the next year. Clegg has shown his true colours, bugger the country we're going to screw the most out of this we can get.

Not a good start in trying to convince the country of the benefits of PR.

Flame Suit On

Miopyk

Quite agree with you. There again, what's logic got to do with politics ? It beggars belief that the Labour party could retain any sort of power or influence after such shambles, but it now appears that this is not beyond the realms of possibility. Marvelous. Not.

The Day Democracy Died. Labour loses 91 seats; the Lib-Dems lose 5, so guess who gets to form a Government (with yet another unelected Prime Minister)? Nonsense!

(NB. I give it three more posts before The Mods lock this thread...)

Sorry can we please stop this nonsense about 'unelected prime minsters'

We do not elect PMs in this country - despite what the papers say. We never have done and probbaly never will. I think Israel tried it a couple of times - seperate national ballot at the general election and soon stopped.

We have had several PM successions in the country when the person didn't have an immediate mandate. The world didn't fall in.

BTW wasn't one of the 2005 Tory election slogans 'Vote Blair - Get Brown'?

Whats with all this unelected PM crud the news reporters are creaming themselves repeating every 30 seconds, the fact is whoever takes charge will NOT have been elected because no one won the election according to our electoral system, and furthermore WE do not elect prime ministers we elect a political party, the party's elect their own leaders ( or stab the in the back aka Mrs T ) as they see fit, not us.

Sorry to say it but Mr Cameron who has stood by and vowed never to change the first past the post system LOST by the very system he loves, tuff tits to him. Out of the three main parties only two have actually voted for an electoral review and it wasn't Mr Cameron's. You make your bed you lie in it and he was just as much the loser as Labour or Libdems, no one cut it in this election apart from the media who got a free circus in the form of leaders debates ( which is partly why we are in this stupid situation ).

Okay, how does 'yet another Prime Minister who didn't have to face the electorate as leader of his/her own party' sound then? It rather makes 4 and a half hours of pointless TV debates appear to be all the more pointless, doesn't it?

More importantly, Labour came (a poor) second, and the Lib-Dems a dismal third, for pity's sake. It makes a mockery of democracy.

(I still say this thread is going to be locked soon...).

The Day Democracy Died. Labour loses 91 seats; the Lib-Dems lose 5, so guess who gets to form a Government (with yet another unelected Prime Minister)? Nonsense!

(NB. I give it three more posts before The Mods lock this thread...)

Ridiculous situation to be in. 2 million more votes than the losers but no cigar.
Ah well not been locked yet....won't be long.....a bit like the next election ...

Well the Tories hardly got a ringing victory either.

Lets just say that there are a LOT of Tory MPs unhappy with their leader (and his clique) and will be having connuptions over his offer of a referendum on PR let alone the prospect of it passing.

I saw some figures today that said if 16,000 voters in a another dozen or so constituencies had voted Tory then Mr Cameron would me PM now with a majority of one.

But we live in a parliamentary democracy. It's the party (or parties) that can command a majority in the house of commons that will form the government.

[Pete]

The bottom line is that whoever forms the government will need enough seats to command a majority (albeit possibly fragile). That means there are more voters who put those politicians in power on one side of the house than the other. That may be a Tory/Liberal coalition, or a Labour/Liberal/Rainbow coalition - it doesn't matter; if they can find agreement then the parties will decide who wields the power. And, if it is a Labour/Liberal pact, we should remember that the number of actual voters for those two parties together represent the majority of the poll - it's just the current system that gives bias to the Tories.

I'd be happy with either coalition, just as long as they can make their minds up and announce what they're going to do so we can plan for it ;-)

I suppose the other way to look at it is that 10,706,647 voted for Conservatives. 8,604,358 voted for Labour and 6,827,938 voted for LibDems. Thats a lot of non Conservative votes. So with the smaller parties added, say 16 million people voted for NOT Conservatives. Hardly unfair if Labour talk to the LibDems.

With a PM in Gordon Brown, who I am convinced has had the most negative and biting media coverage than any PM before, and apparently hated by the nation, the Conservatives still can't get enough votes to get a majority in the Commons.

So it seems that the Conservatives are quite well served by the current voting system and aren't going to give it up easily. This is the same system that applied in the last election, but I don't recall it causing too much fuss back then.

Meanwhile, on the same day, in the local government elections, the Conservatives lose control of 8 councils, the LibDems lose 3, and Labour gain fourteen.

I don't think the Tories have got the ringing endorsement they claim.

More importantly, Labour came (a poor) second, and the Lib-Dems a dismal third, for pity's sake. It makes a mockery of democracy.

Not sure it makes a mockery of democracy; it stresses the particular form we have, granted, but so does having a Republican President and a Democrat Congress (or vice versa).

Any coalition will lead to another election in short order as the dominant partner will seek to re-establish complete control as soon as possible. This is politics. If someone can give me a 1000 words on "In The National Interest" that is entirely convincing to the majority in the UK I will give them £1000. All parties have their constituencies, and play to them. There is no natural party of government.

That said, as a lifelong and continuing supporter of the Labour Party and movement I would vote, possibly cynically, for a (relatively) graceful exit and Dr Who-like regeneration at this point. We didn't win; we should accept it, and take the opportunity to regroup,

Paul

Just for information but there are all sorts of coalitions runing various local authorities up and down this land and the bins still get emptied, schools open and meals on wheels deliivered, books issied in the library etc etc

There are plenty of councils controlled by

Lab-Lib Dems
Con - Lib Dems
and at least one Lab-Con council

On the other end of the scale there are a small number where there are NO opposition councillors at all even though voters can vote for more than one councillor in the same election and can and do ('ve seen ballot papers) split their votes

I think in terms of the right coalition, taking the numbers into consideration and - most importantly - the state of the country's coffers at present, it would be irresponsible to form anything other than a Con-Lib government. Two parties, working together at getting the deficit down.

For Clegg/Brown et al to chirrup that they're acting 'in the national interest' and 'creating strong and stable government', then having to pitch in with Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalists in a desperate bid to cling to power and 'keep the Tories out' is a very sad day for the country.

Just for information but there are all sorts of coalitions runing various local authorities up and down this land and the bins still get emptied, schools open and meals on wheels deliivered, books issied in the library etc etc

And globally a good many countries that get by on the same basis, either through PR or the checks and balances of an executive/ legislative split.

Personally I survived the 1970's. though I have an aversion to the Austin Maxi, man made fibres and the colour brown. I had a few quid down at the bookies on tomorrow morning's headlines being focussed on "why middle england / Mondeo Man / Essex Man isn't interested in electoral reform / PR causes house price crash" but William Hague seems to b*ggered that up.

I suppose the other way to look at it is that 10,706,647 voted for Conservatives. 8,604,358 voted for Labour and 6,827,938 voted for LibDems. Thats a lot of non Conservative votes. So with the smaller parties added, say 16 million people voted for NOT Conservatives. Hardly unfair if Labour talk to the LibDems.

You could say that about any election really, in 2005 there was less than one million in the difference between Labour and the Conservatives and combined with Lib Dem there were more people in the country who voted for NOT Labour. It happens all the time and is hardly anything new.

With a PM in Gordon Brown, who I am convinced has had the most negative and biting media coverage than any PM before, and apparently hated by the nation, the Conservatives still can't get enough votes to get a majority in the Commons.

And that is because Labour actually hold the vast majority of Scottish seats however we are not getting into the Mid Lothian question today. I actually think one of the things that did not play well for Cameron was Clegg and the effect he had in the tv debates. A lot of people went to the polls and based on what the pollsters were saying and what they saw in the press/tv debates, voted Clegg believing that they would not be "wasting" their vote as in previous years. There is a quite strong school of thought that had Clegg not performed so well, less people would have voted for him and more votes would have gone to the Conservatives. Of course what happened was they voted for him which just diluted the vote and resulted in both the Conservatives not gaining as many seats and Labour holding onto more key marginals then they thought.

So it seems that the Conservatives are quite well served by the current voting system and aren't going to give it up easily. This is the same system that applied in the last election, but I don't recall it causing too much fuss back then.

And so are Labour. Lets not forget that this is another election manifesto pledge that Labour conveniently forgot about once they got into power (like the Euro). In 2001 they said they would hold a referendum on voting reform, it did not come because it did not suit their position in UK politics at the time.

I don't think the Tories have got the ringing endorsement they claim.

And by that school of thought nor do Labour or Lib Dem, IMHO Mark put it quite well earlier. Lets be honest, we will get some form of government followed by another election either in Oct or next May.

One thing is clear though, none of this is helping the markets.

[honey lamb]

I've only a short comment to make, folks! Welcome to my world where after each election the wheeling and dealing is the norm!

And do you now what? Sometimes we get governments that work and other times we don't - the classic being 1982 when we had three general elections. We were nearly as bad as the Italians who at that stage were having them every time the wind changed direction

There are many members of BOTH Conservative & Labour parties that are desperately hoping they don't do a deal with the Lib. Dems.

It's a poison chalice that will not last long, will have no happy ending, is likely to be a disaster for the country and will result in big losses for the "winners" in the next election.

Unfortunately, too many of those negotiating deals see only their own personal political future. This may be the only chance they have and failure will lead to personal obscurity.

The cynical view from the foothills.

In a topic that has people from different political opinions commenting, it seems to me that there is remarkable agreement. We're in a mess .

Labour lost, no doubt about that. The LDs are in a fix and if they swing to Labour or the Tories (which I remain extremely doubtful about, there are simply to many polar opposites in key policies) - any resultant government will be flakey, bad for the country and will not last. A Labour-LD government will be deeply unpopular.

David Cameron also lost, big time. Compared with the last Tory government, Labour was just about as unpopular but Cameron couldn't even win, let alone by a decent majority. He should do a Gordon frankly and let Hague back in.

I think HM the Queen should bash their heads together and tell them to do it again. We need a clear winner to bring the country around based on a clear mandate. And please, we elect parties not Prime Ministers!

I think a re-run is a capital idea, Slink. A sort of 'to all those who thought a hung parliament would be a jolly wheeze four weeks ago, look at the mess we're in now, so can we please try again and this time come up with a proper government' kind of approach.

No one on here will be surprised to hear that I'm a card carrying Conservative, but I'm experiencing strange feelings of respect for John Reid and David Blunkett this morning...

I'm experiencing strange feelings of respect for John Reid and David Blunkett this morning...

Ditto.

Amusing...

[Bazz]

Whilst it is true that we do not elect the Prime Minister, we elect MPs and most elected MPs are members of the three main parties. Party loyalty is important, many voters vote for the MP who stands for the party they support, even if the don't know the individual concerned. It is extremely naive to believe that the leader of the Party, no matter what flavour, has no bearing on the votes cast. (Or else why the Leaders Debates?) So who leads the party is an important factor in any British election.

If Clegg, whom I had thought to be a man of principle, now does a deal with Labour, after all his initial post election talk about the Tories having the right to seek to form a Government, he is doing much damage to himself and his party and will pay in the long term.

Haigh has confirmed that if the Tories can form a Government with the Lib Dems, they will hold a referendum on Electoral Reform, okay, cynically one could say this was only offered because Brown announced his intention to step down, nonetheless the Tories have made the offer and that was the main stumbling block to a Lib Dem / Tory alliance, if you believe all the pundits and many party spokesmen, on and off the record. So now we have Clegg and Co. putting themselves before the country and possibly committing the country to an unknown PM in a few months time. What a great outcome - not! If that happens I truly hope there will be another election in October. (BTW, my money is on David Miliband to be the next Labour leader.)

Bazz,

I think you could be right about D Miiliband, unfortunatley he is just as stupid as the rest of them. I was at a do last year when he was in Belgrade and his opening line was "I am glad to be in Kosovo". Needless to say it did not go down to well.

I am not normally into politics or elections but i have found this last shambles riveting. I did not vote as I am abroad and could not be bothered going through the postal rigmirole. But hey I just needed to be in Leeds or Sheffield to be able not to vote.

The BBC are even giving a live feed through the web on the news channel which is normally a strict no no.
Great stuff, let the shambles continue. Whoever keeps the mortgage rate down gets my backing.

Iain

The Lib Dems are on a hiding to nothing - and they know it. No matter what they do they will probably pay the price at the next election. Whichever party/alliance forms a government they will probably be very unpopular in a couple of years time and if they choose to not deal then they'll get it in the neck too. I think a deal with the Conservatives although unpalatable would probably be the best bet - both for them and the Country. It was probably the wavering Labour voters switching back from LibDem at the last moment because they did not see the LDs supporting Labour so lets not dissapoint them.

Just a question - Traditionally the government sit on the left and the opposition on the right - how does this work with a coalition - would it be just Conservatives / Labour on the right or would LibDems join them. If not it could get crowded on the right hand side?

FM

Get used to it guys. If we had the PR system which the libs want (%age of total votes determines number of seats in parliament) it is difficult to see how we could avoid this shambles at every election.