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

[meghatronic]

No, it isn't. Because it isn't an argument that there should be a Lib/Lab pact, it's a counterargument to the nonsense position that the Conservatives having spectacularly failed to garner the support they needed in the face of a deeply unpopular Prime Minister leading a tarnished party in the teeth of a recession have the absolute right to rule. They don't. They didn't get the mandate they needed. The weight of voters who voted against a Tory party having sole rule shows that.

The weight who voted against the Labor party also shows voters don't like them. My my the electorate are fickle!

Anyone critical of the Tory lack of majority should take a quick look at the 2005/2010 votes....

 

[rypt]

Labour have Ruled out involving the SNP in the event of a Lab/Lib coalition, doesn't this effectively mean they would fail to reach a mahjority as they would need to rely on NI conservative allies?

They can still, just about, form a minority coalition, but that means they are only 1 vote ahead of Cons + DUP

 

[RDM]

No, it isn't. Because it isn't an argument that there should be a Lib/Lab pact, it's a counterargument to the nonsense position that the Conservatives having spectacularly failed to garner the support they needed in the face of a deeply unpopular Prime Minister leading a tarnished party in the teeth of a recession have the absolute right to rule. They don't. They didn't get the mandate they needed. The weight of voters who voted against a Tory party having sole rule shows that.

The argument for that is "The Coservatives didn't get enough seats to form a majority government" not "Lib Dem/Labour added together got more than the Conservatives". The Lib Dem/Lab vote number is only being used by people trying to justify a Lib Dem/Lab pact. Randomly adding party seat or votes together is frankly pointless as people vote for a single party.

 

[Glaucus]

People who voted Labour, apart from being idiots and/or Scottish, voted for a referendum on AV. Not on getting AV

Not at all. Just because they voted labopur doesn't mean they wanted that policy. All you can say x% voted labour as a whole. it might off been other policies they wanted not AV

This is one of the biggets problem with PR back room dealing on policies. That they have no idea what % of the public support it.

 

[robgmun]

Haha, this is the perfect oppotunaty for the Tories to punsh the LD badly over this. Labour MPs are coming out left right and centre saying they don't think this will work and are backpeddling. The Tories have the power back in there hands. They can say "you can't get together with Labour, so accept our terms or you'll be left out in the cold" I would water down the AV thing as well

 

[Sheff]

Not at all. Just because they voted labopur doesn't mean they wanted that policy. All you can say x% voted labour as a whole. it might off been other policies they wanted not AV

This is one of the biggets problem with PR back room dealing on policies. That they have no idea what % of the public support it.

Or it could mean more single policy parties. >_>

 

[[TW]Fox]

A weak pound is better for Britain right now and is helping the economy. It's no wonder people don't trust the Conservatives when they still don't seem to get this.

No, it absolutely is not. A weak pound is increasing the cost of living in this country for the average person by far more than the net benefit of marginal increase in exports.

 

[JohnnyG]

Our Gordon has just arrived at the Commons where the talks are being held, it's gonna get juicy.

 

[Glaucus]

A weak pound is better for Britain right now and is helping the economy. It's no wonder people don't trust the Conservatives when they still don't seem to get this.

Except we are a net importer, so it is not good at all.

 

[easyrider]

I think we will see a LIB-LAB coalition

 

[meghatronic]

A weak pound is better for Britain right now and is helping the economy. It's no wonder people don't trust the Conservatives when they still don't seem to get this.

I didn't think it was possible, but you just went down massively in my estimations.

Petrol, shares and imports (all in $, €) will affect people a LOT more than exports.

 

[Third Opinion]

The only certainty at the moment is that we will get something that we couldn't vote for; a Conservative minority government, a ConLib alliance, or a LabLib alliance



A weak pound is better for Britain right now and is helping the economy. It's no wonder people don't trust the Conservatives when they still don't seem to get this.

We import practically everything. Surely a weak pound will make this more expensive.

i.e A weak pound against the dollar could lead to £1.50 a litre at the petrol pumps.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Not at all. Just because they voted labopur doesn't mean they wanted that policy. All you can say x% voted labour as a whole. it might off been other policies they wanted not AV

If they didn't want AV, they wouldn't have voted for Labour. Why isn't that a fair assumption to make?

 

[[TW]Fox]

I do love all these people saying the people are voting for Lib and Lab. Of course they are not, this would only be the case if every Lib Dem voter wouldnt mind Labour and vice versa. There will be numerous people voting for one of the party who would never in a million years vote for the other.

 

[drunkenmaster]

The thing that irks me is, not a SINGLE person in the UK voted for a manifesto thats half Labour and half Lib Dem, they are creating a single policy agenda that NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THE UK HAS VOTED FOR.

A Tory Lib Dem situation would be the same, though the Torys seem to be offering Lib Dem a little here and there but mostly keeping their policys, Labour are throwing their entire agenda out the window in an attempt to secure power.

Frankly, we need a vote for the PM with coalition options in ther if must be. Right now, parties SHOULD NOT be allowed to join up to screw the voting outcome. Torys should be in power, and Cameron should be PM, and not winning a full majority should cost them when it comes to getting things done(or might not with a little support on good plans from other parties, votes aren't always split down party lines).



PR is completely unfair and will only give us a hung parliament EVERY SINGLE ELECTION, its a joke and will ruin us.

Has anyone seen the horrific mess half the EU has become, and its largely due to coalition governments and governments completely unable to get anything done when no one has a real majority.

A Coalition government, with a majority(together) showing in the house only pushed the fighting from the house, to a backroom at 10 Downing street, it doesn't prevent the fighting, or the backstabbing or the complete inability to get anything done.

Voting along party lines with a real one party majority in the house is one thing, but voting when its two partys will obviously be more problematic. Officially Labour Lib dem, for example, might have the biggest share of the vote, maybe a majority with a few others joining in, but there WILL be Lib Dems who don't vote with stuff Labour trys to get passed.

PR will be a massive failure, a coalition is likely to be equally as awful, a Tory minority is likely to be pretty useless, but more useful than the other two options.

BUt a coalition government is the last thing I want to see, not a single person in the UK voted for any policy agenda they come up with behind closed doors AFTER the votes are in, its completely undemocratic.

 

[meghatronic]

I do love all these people saying the people are voting for Lib and Lab. Of course they are not, this would only be the case if every Lib Dem voter wouldnt mind Labour and vice versa. There will be numerous people voting for one of the party who would never in a million years vote for the other.

On BBC, they talked about a "5 point plan" or something, to sell liblab to the electorate. One of the points was "LilLab got >50% votes so have a mandate".
That's from Labour negotiators, so worrying as hell....

 

[Glaucus]

If they didn't want AV, they wouldn't have voted for Labour. Why isn't that a fair assumption to make?

Because you are not voting on one policy, you are voting for a party as a whole.
This means there will be many policies you do not agree with, but still vote for the party.
which means you can not make such rubbish and stupid assumptions.

 

[Third Opinion]

I think we will see a LIB-LAB coalition

I hate to have to agree with you but it seems most likely now. IMO the deals were done before the election I bet.

The only thing that makes me feel slightly better is however gets in will be a nightmare for and unlikely to see them elected again.

 

[aardvark]

A weak pound is better for Britain right now and is helping the economy. It's no wonder people don't trust the Conservatives when they still don't seem to get this.

lo, sure it is - enjoy being poorer.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Some of you really are stupid

The Conservatives won more seats and more votes. If you tally things up, they are the winners. They have the most of both, therefore they won.

They did not achieve enough of a win to get 'past the post' and govern alone with a majority, this doesn't mean they lost. Stop believing the Labour lies, it's simple numbers.

As for the constant stream of tripe where Lab/Lib votes are added together and used as justification for them to govern in the name of the majority of the people, why do you only do the maths with those two parties? If you do the same equation with Con/Lib, then the 'mandate to govern' is even greater based on their much higher percentage?

Why use selective maths? I can't believe how effective Labour's spin is.

You need to calm down before you get a holiday.

Don't have a go at us because we won't agree with you. We all understand the way you feel, but we disagree. With respect, I don't believe any of us have been taken in by Labour.