Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

[Sankari]

Corrected.

What do you expect them to do? Sit back and block supply until the next election? That would merely infuriate the voters and alienate any potential allies in Westminster.

It makes far more sense for them to make a deal with the Tories, which they can use as a base to increase their political leverage and prove themselves to the public.

In other, less positive news:

The Lib Dems have denied suggestions from a senior Lib Dem source of an angry phone conversation between Mr Brown and Mr Clegg. A Lib Dem spokeswoman said it was "perfectly amicable".

Downing Street said it lasted 40 minutes and concentrated on "process".

I thought it was too good to be true.

 

[bigredshark]

If the Libs go against the will of the people to keep a government more unpopular than Major's in 1997 in power, they are definitely finished...

Only because people are stupid. Between them they got better than 50% on the popular vote, that's its illegitimate for a combination of parties that more than half the country voted for to govern but it's OK for a party who one in three people voted for to do so on their own is a bizarre notion everywhere else in the world.

That 35% of the vote can trump 50% of the vote is based on nothing at all presently. Even if you think that it should you surely have to concede that perhaps reform to the electoral system to write that down somewhere might be a good idea.

Most countries who have regular non majority government have rules which explicitly state there is no obligation for the largest single party to govern and it's absolutely fine for the second and third place parties to form a coalition.

 

[Naffa]

What do you expect them to do? Sit back and block supply until the next election?

Totally irrelevant to your post, which I originally posted.

 

[meghatronic]

That 35% of the vote can trump 50% of the vote is based on nothing at all presently. Even if you think that it should you surely have to concede that perhaps reform to the electoral system to write that down somewhere might be a good idea.

ALL of that 50% voted for BOTH Lib/Lab then? No. They didn't. So they remain separate.

 

[stockhausen]

Well said. If the Lib Dems form a coalition, their credibility will be destroyed overnight and their claim to offer a new direction will be exposed as a lie.

Corrected.

The Liberal Democrat's credibility may be destroyed with a few people like you if they form a coalition. However, to be honest I don't think think that anyone other then the Monster Raving Loony Party is going to be overly concerned to maintain their credibility with voters like you

 

[Sankari]

Totally irrelevant to your post, which I originally posted.

It's not irrelevant. I'm asking you a question. What do you think the Lib Dems should do?

 

[Naffa]

It's not irrelevant. I'm asking you a question. What do you think the Lib Dems should do?

It is irrelevant, because what I think they should do has nothing to do with your first post. You can't say that the Liberal Democrats' claim to offer real change would be proved false if they formed a coalition with the Labour party, and try to tell me that a coalition with the Tories would not have a similar effect.

Your first post said nothing of what the smartest action for the Liberal Democrats to take would be, merely what a potential outcome of one of those potential actions could be.

 

[bigredshark]

It's simples. The Conservatives have 36.1% (bigger than winning Labour in 2005) and Labour have 29.0% (lower than the losing Conservatives in 2005). If the Labour/Conservative vote share was swapped, then Labour would have a clear majority, because of the unfair constituency boundaries. 'Democracy' rocks.

I thoroughly support David Cameron, and the Conservatives, and hope he rushes through constituency size standardisation.

It's particularly simple if you pick figures which support your argument

The number of votes each party won for each seat they have (so the 'cost' of a seat in votes) is:

Labour 33350
Conservative 34875
Lib Dem 119789

There might be more pressing problems than constituency sizes favouring labour by a percent or so??

 

[bigredshark]

ALL of that 50% voted for BOTH Lib/Lab then? No. They didn't. So they remain separate.

Way to miss the point.

 

[Slam62]

The Liberal Democrat's credibility may be destroyed with a few people like you if they form a coalition. However, to be honest I don't think think that anyone other then the Monster Raving Loony Party is going to be overly concerned to maintain their credibility with voters like you

well yes, at the end of the day Clegg has to do what his party tells him, if he doesn't get a definite PR he's bonkers in my opinion.

It's got to be obvious to even the most biased on here that the libs will go nowhere without it.

With regard to representing people, 23% voted for lib and PR and europe etc

The libs have to represent the people who voted for them.

 

[Neil79]

I thought it was too good to be true.

You honestly believe that? , so suddenly someone coming out from a party saying it's not true is 100% honest

 

[Sankari]

It is irrelevant, because what I think they should do has nothing to do with your first post. You can't say that the Liberal Democrats' claim to offer real change would be proved false if they formed a coalition with the Labour party, and try to tell me that a coalition with the Tories would not have a similar effect.

Of course it would be proved false. If they endorse Labour with a Lib Dem/Lab coalition they've sold us up the river and rejected the public vote, which indicated a clear preference for the Tories. By contrast, if they achieve a successful coalition with the Tories they will have demonstrated that they're genuinely offering a new direction instead of the same old obstructionist politics that we usually see from the two biggest parties.

Your first post said nothing of what the smartest action for the Liberal Democrats to take would be, merely what a potential outcome of one of those potential actions could be.

And in my following post, I said what I think the Lib Dems should do, and asked you what you think they should do. And in the post which followed that one, I asked you again. And I'm asking you yet again in this post.

 

[Captain_Slick]

Now now, no need to start telling fairy tales because you are upset about the result of the election

lolwut? I'm not upset at all. The Tories didn't do as well as I expected, Labour did much better than I expected and the Lib Dems position has further highlighted the problem with our system. It's win all round.

I have pics to prove I met Cameron.

 

[bigredshark]

well yes, at the end of the day Clegg has to do what his party tells him, if he doesn't get a definite PR he's bonkers in my opinion.

It's got to be obvious to even the most biased on here that the libs will go nowhere without it.

With regard to representing people, 23% voted for lib and PR and europe etc

The libs have to represent the people who voted for them.

I disgree actually, still plenty of people didn't vote lib dem because they didn't think they could win or because they thought they couldn't be trusted with power.

Even without PR a coalition government would work well to dispel both notions, they'd have an opportunity to look statesman like by acting in the national interest, putting their pet projects aside to concentrate on more important things and generally being mature enough to work with others.

If a coalition lasted any length of time it would do them no harm at all as they'd be able to portray themselves as a party of government.

They run the risk that CAmeron would pull the rug out from under them when it suited him, call another election and blame them for everything and that's a big risk they need to address.

I'd like to see PR but right now I think acting responsibly and maturely to govern is more important for the country and does the lib dems no harm at all either...

 

[Captain_Slick]

By contrast, if they achieve a successful coalition with the Tories they will have demonstrated that they're genuinely offering a new direction instead of the same old obstructionist politics that we usually see from the two biggest parties.

A new direction that the vast majority of the electorate do not want, including his own party. A successful coalition with the Tories is not possible for the Lib Dems, the Tories (not Cameron) will not budge on their most toriest policies.

 

[bigredshark]

If they endorse Labour with a Lib Dem/Lab coalition they've sold us up the river and rejected the public vote, which indicated a clear preference for the Tories.

They really wouldn't have.

Let me be clear I don't want to see it but the idea it's a betrayal is a media construct, they didn't say who they'd work with and there is no official poll on that question, so there is no will of the people to contradict.

I'd also dispute that there's any clear preference for the tories in any statistically accurate sense, given then 2/3 of the people voted for someone else.

 

[firewallblocked]

Maybe Conservatives and Lib Dems could join up but not take power, allow Gordon Brown to continue as Prime Minister but vote against him on everything. How many days would Labour remain in power if this happened?

Or to quote Gordon Brown 'Get Real'

Here a few more of his quotes:

I will listen and I will learn. I will strive to meet people's aspirations. I want to lead a government humble enough to know its place - where I will always strive to be - and that is on people's side.


I did maths for a year at university. I don't think I was very good at it. And some people would say it shows.


My favourite sport at school was rugby. All sports are teamwork, but rugby particularly is about teamwork and I think teamwork is the essence of this.

The Labour Party will fight every inch of the way. We've known what it is to lose and we've known what it is to win and we are determined to fight our way to win. And not for our interests but for the interests of the country.

I’m fighting to the last second of this election. You’ve got to understand I’m a fighter. I have had to fight for everything I’ve got.

My duty to the country coming out of this election is to play my part in Britain having a strong, stable and principled government able to lead Britain into sustained economic recovery and able to implement our commitments to far-reaching reform upon which there is a growing consensus in our country.

 

[gambitt]

I'd also dispute that there's any clear preference for the tories in any statistically accurate sense, given then 2/3 of the people voted for someone else.

Word it how you like but the Conservatives were clearly the "most popular" party in this election. Twist those words as you see fit.

 

[Neodite]

Word it how you like but the Conservatives were clearly the "most popular" party in this election. Twist those words as you see fit.

The Conservatives were most popular in they got most seats yes, but Conservatives + Lib-Dems is not what people voted for.

Any changes that are needed/forces joined should mean a new election to see if thats what the PEOPLE want.

I for one dont want a Conservatives/Lib-Dem team.

 

[bigredshark]

Word it how you like but the Conservatives were clearly the "most popular" party in this election. Twist those words as you see fit.

The only accurate version is they won more votes than any other single party. To say they have a mandate, were most popular or that the country voted for a conservative government is in my view false.

They only received most votes because they're the only sane right of centre party in this country. The truth is the conservative party should split, it'd allow the various elements to actually pursue more intellectual policy development and not just look for a populist route to power (which is what this campaign amounted to). Even leading conservative commentators have argued that the party should split with the harder right elements becoming a credible version of UKIP and the more centrist elements becoming something like the orange book lib dems. That'd be a consequence of PR likely, two conservative parties who could actually say what they stand for because they wouldn't have a spectrum of members who stand for such different things.

But that's for another time. Yes they won the most votes of any party, but attaching the kind of labels like 'clear preference' is false in my view as, when it comes down to it, two thirds of people voted for someone else.