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

[stockhausen]

Because he said he wasnt doing that ...

How do you know this stuff?

Are you (with your remarkable insight) able to update us on the detail of Nick Clegg's discussions with Cameron?

... The last thing labour and the lib dems need is the population actually taking an interest in politics, even with PR.

Is that right I guess that you got this from one of your many sources at the heart of New Labour & the Liberal Democrats as well; what exactly was the reasoning underlying their enthusiasm for this voter apathy?

What is Cameron's stance on this?

... When you have labour MP's, former labour MP's, and every political commentator calling it tawdry, wrong, morally bankrupt and self serving, then people are going to take notice of what is going on....

Now that bit IS demonstrably true, some New Labour MPs, a number of significant ex-New Labour MPs and a furiously disappointed right-wing press are incandescent with rage. Strangely enough, I don't think that any Liberal Democrats have expressed any disappointment at the possibility of Nick Clegg not climbing into bed with the Tories.

If we don't get a fairer system for electing MPs, I suspect that any agreement between New Labour and the Liberal Democrats will be a God-send for the Tories . . . not for Cameron of course, he is toasted crumpet whatever happens

 

[Sankari]

Because he said he wasnt doing that, what he said he was doing was just keeping labour up do date on how things were going, IE, not the press flim flam, what he has actually been doing is relaying details of the whole talks, without opening formal negotiations and telling labour what they need to do to make a deal.

When did he say he wasn't doing that? And where's your evidence that he's relaying details of the whole talks without opening formal negotiations and telling labour what they need to do to make a deal?

What you have missed is the fact for a huge amount of voters this situation has either not happened in their lifetime or they didnt fully understand what happened in these circumstances.

I haven't missed it, and my response is "so what?"

When you have labour MP's, former labour MP's, and every political commentator calling it tawdry, wrong, morally bankrupt and self serving, then people are going to take notice of what is going on.

Removed, it's still swearing.. That's a gross overstatement. Every political commentator is not "calling it tawdry, wrong, morally bankrupt and self serving."

The last thing labour and the lib dems need is the population actually taking an interest in politics, even with PR.

It doesn't matter if they take an interest or not. If they can't understand it, they're no threat to the process. In any case, it's out of their hands, so the point is moot.

 

[Dolph]

Labour/Lib Dem coaltion; the progressive alliance.

Their manifestos are idealogically aligned and they share over 15 million votes between them over the tories 10.

Their manifestos aren't aligned at all (especially on civil liberties) and a Lib/Con coalition commands more votes overall.

I said on Friday that there was no way the tories and lib dems could form a coaltion; they are idealogically at oppoisite ends of the spectrum on too many issues.

Only if the liberals are prepared to drop the term 'liberal' from their name could they possibly consider joining Labour. The Libs are a closer to the conservatives on the position of the state and on civil liberties than they are to labour...

If one looks at anything other than the right wing 'sponsored' press who think they can predict and influence the election it shows clear democracy at work. In a hung parliament the parties need to look for commonality and shold form a government based on shared policies. The lib dems would be betraying their founding beliefs if they propped up the tories and would be going against the wishes of the 5 million people who voted for them.

The lib dems don't share more policies with the Labour party than they do with the Tories. If the liberals hate the rest of country enough to form a highly unstable coalition of losers then they are finished as a political force...

 

[Greebo]

You must be joking, if there was a Lib/Lab government no one would vote for either ever again. They would be destroyed in the next election.

Unless they brought in PR which would probably still mean that they would get enough seats between them to outnumber the Tories.

That's the only problem I see with PR/AV etc. Once a Lab/Lib coalition works, I can never see the Conservatives getting into power ever again.

 

[JohnnyG]

I know that picture is slightly misleading in respect to the colour spread but there's something inherently wrong when 3,000,000 more people choose one party over it's nearest rival to govern their own country and may end up being completely ignored.

 

[Greebo]

The lib dems don't share more policies with the Labour party than they do with the Tories. If the liberals hate the rest of country enough to form a highly unstable coalition of losers then they are finished as a political force...

I don;t think they really want to hence them talking to the Tories first. However this might be their only chance to force PR through so they will go with whoever offers them this.

Even if a Lab/Lib coalition means that in the next election their vote drops from 23% to say 15% which is a massive drop, they would at least end up with 100 MP's which is double what they get under the current voting system.

 

[Metalface Mark]

I know that picture is slightly misleading in respect to the colour spread but there's something inherently wrong when 3,000,000 more people choose one party over it's nearest rival to govern their own country and may end up being completely ignored.

But is it any more wrong than a million people less voting for lib dems and getting 1/5 of the seats?

The system is wrong, but the real losers are the lib dems, not the tories or labour.

 

[Dolph]

I don;t think they really want to hence them talking to the Tories first. However this might be their only chance to force PR through so they will go with whoever offers them this.

Even if a Lab/Lib coalition means that in the next election their vote drops from 23% to say 15% which is a massive drop, they would at least end up with 100 MP's which is double what they get under the current voting system.

But a lib/lab coalition doesn't have the voting power to force through PR, they have a majority of 1, and several labour MPs have already come out saying they would vote against PR...

 

[[TW]Fox]

The system is wrong, but the real losers are the lib dems

You must be joking? The Lib Dems are not losers at all, they have more power now than in a generation and arguably far more than they should given they LOST an election.

 

[Metalface Mark]

Interesting to see the coalition that they are talking about in todays papers should labour and the lib dems have an agreement, with the SNP and the welsh party joining forces, it would obviously mean the SNP turning their stance on voting on english matters, as they votes would be required.

While it would be the best thing for Scotland and Wales, if i was English id be up in arms about this particular coalition!

 

[Metalface Mark]

You must be joking? The Lib Dems are not losers at all, they have more power now than in a generation and arguably far more than they should given they LOST an election.

They have power only by circumstance, but they should have a lot more seats given the amount of votes they recieved.

 

[drunkenmaster]

You must be joking, if there was a Lib/Lab government no one would vote for either ever again. They would be destroyed in the next election.

Yup, the country(people who actually think about their vote, which is far too small a percentage) clear as day want Brown out. I don't know what Clegg is thinking, ANY time with Lib Dem sucking up to Labour, with Labour leading policies and continuing to utterly screw everything up, Lib Dem will be seen as conspirators and the next election should see, heck, maybe as large a swing again and very little will go in Lib Dem's favour.

The problem is proportional representation, if they manage to jam that through, its the single least fair to work the election system and might leave us stuck with coalition governments from here on in.

I'm not sure how people don't realise this, a PR system would have left Conservatives, Labour with significantly less seats and Lib Dem with signifcantly more, despite no extra area's actually voting Lib Dem in. IF PR comes in by next election it will just almost guarentee a hung parliament, and for every election after.

Under PR the only way to get a majority in the house, is to get 51% of the Vote like in America, however, we aren't a two party country, it would entirely ruin the country for ever.

PR isn't fair, in any way, and it will utterly ruin our country till its changed again.

Its also a joke that Labour seem willing to completely change its manifesto to suit Lib Dem to get them to join together, no one voted for a half arsed Labour, or a half arsed Lib Dem. THe 28% who voted Lib Dem didn't votefor a 66% Labour/33% Lib Dem policy plan. Frankly if any coalition gets in, no one in the country would have voted for it, or the policy plan they'll persue.

Utter joke, I actually do hope it happens, and hope they are forced into a re-election asap and are massively voted out.

We need a majority in the house, a proper majority and a change from Labour, I don't mind waiting a few more months for it.

 

[Dolph]

They have power only by circumstance, but they should have a lot more seats given the amount of votes they recieved.

And labour should not have had a majority of seats in the commons at any point during the last 13 years...

What's your point?

 

[atpbx]

When did he say he wasn't doing that? And where's your evidence that he's relaying details of the whole talks without opening formal negotiations and telling labour what they need to do to make a deal?



I haven't missed it, and my response is "so what?"



Removed, it's still swearing.. That's a gross overstatement. Every political commentator is not "calling it tawdry, wrong, morally bankrupt and self serving."



It doesn't matter if they take an interest or not. If they can't understand it, they're no threat to the process. In any case, it's out of their hands, so the point is moot.

I take it, that you have not watched ANY news, what so ever since 5pm yesterday afternoon?
Because thats what they have been talking about now, for what, the last 15 hours straight.
It came out about 6pm that he had been negotiating formally with labour before actually telling anyone else.

As for people not being impressed:
John Reid:

Telegraph (or ho ho the torygraph, how we laugh) http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/a...e-tories-should-pray-for-a-lib-lab-coalition/
Labour blogger http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2010/05/11/a-lib-lab-pact-would-be-a-disaster-for-labour/

There are more, look for them yourself.

 

[bam0]

People should remember that the party leaders don't have carte blanche to do whatever they want, Nick Clegg has to persuade enough of his party to come along, he could already have decided he wants to go with the Conservatives but other LibDem MPs stop him. Tbh looking at the way he came out of the meeting last night that looks like what is happening.

 

[Metalface Mark]

Yup, the country(people who actually think about their vote, which is far too small a percentage) clear as day want Brown out. I don't know what Clegg is thinking, ANY time with Lib Dem sucking up to Labour, with Labour leading policies and continuing to utterly screw everything up, Lib Dem will be seen as conspirators and the next election should see, heck, maybe as large a swing again and very little will go in Lib Dem's favour.

The problem is proportional representation, if they manage to jam that through, its the single least fair to work the election system and might leave us stuck with coalition governments from here on in.

I'm not sure how people don't realise this, a PR system would have left Conservatives, Labour with significantly less seats and Lib Dem with signifcantly more, despite no extra area's actually voting Lib Dem in. IF PR comes in by next election it will just almost guarentee a hung parliament, and for every election after.

Under PR the only way to get a majority in the house, is to get 51% of the Vote like in America, however, we aren't a two party country, it would entirely ruin the country for ever.

PR isn't fair, in any way, and it will utterly ruin our country till its changed again.

Its also a joke that Labour seem willing to completely change its manifesto to suit Lib Dem to get them to join together, no one voted for a half arsed Labour, or a half arsed Lib Dem. THe 28% who voted Lib Dem didn't votefor a 66% Labour/33% Lib Dem policy plan. Frankly if any coalition gets in, no one in the country would have voted for it, or the policy plan they'll persue.

Utter joke, I actually do hope it happens, and hope they are forced into a re-election asap and are massively voted out.

We need a majority in the house, a proper majority and a change from Labour, I don't mind waiting a few more months for it.

Why isnt it fair? Its the only fair way to make sure peoples vote count.

There are many countries with coalition governments and they are all running very successfully, its a myth that a hung parliament dosent allow for a stable government.

 

[JohnnyG]

But is it any more wrong than a million people less voting for lib dems and getting 1/5 of the seats?

The system is wrong, but the real losers are the lib dems, not the tories or labour.

I'm not talking about seats hence why I said it was inherently wrong and quoting the sheer amount of people who do not want to be governed by Labour.

While it would be the best thing for Scotland and Wales, if i was English id be up in arms about this particular coalition!

Now that is a good idea, Pinkie Cleugh is far too distant a memory now.

 

[Greebo]

But a lib/lab coalition doesn't have the voting power to force through PR, they have a majority of 1, and several labour MPs have already come out saying they would vote against PR...

True and Conservatives have now finally offered a referendum on PR to the Lib Dems but have said they will advise people to vote no and stand against it so not much hope there for the Lib Dems either.

It will all come down to who the Lib Dems think they have the better chance of getting PR voted in. Simples.

Whether they pick the right side...................

 

[Metalface Mark]

And labour should not have had a majority of seats in the commons at any point during the last 13 years...

What's your point?

No, they shouldnt, which is exactly the reason why the system is flawed, whoever gets the most votes should be the dominant party in the commons.

 

[Dolph]

True and Conservatives have now finally offered a referendum on PR to the Lib Dems but have said they will advise people to vote no and stand against it so not much hope there for the Lib Dems either.

It will all come down to who the Lib Dems think they have the better chance of getting PR voted in. Simples.

Whether they pick the right side...................

Neither party has offered a referendum on PR. They have offered AV, which is not a proportional system at all.

This is exactly what worries me about referenda...