The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope you are wrong. On the BBC projected figures - C 306, L 262, LD 55 - that gives L + LD 317 + 3 NI seats which sit with Labour and +1 which is the same in respect for the LD's and you have 321. 4 Sinn Fein DO NOT SIT in the Parliament and therefore realistically you need a majority of 323/4 NOT 326. So with 321 in the bag you really don't think Labour will twist the arm of the newly elected Green party MP, which are to the left of both LD and Labour and to not get things passed by abstations - I don't think so. Coalition here we come, providing Clegg wakes up and realises he needs PR which Lab will give him.

woot!

Except you have 306+8= 316 for the Cons and DUP. To this you must add the largest party and largest vote status.

So, unless you want your Labour government along with a revolt, you won't get it. Cameron only has to defeat Brown once, and they can't do a Referendum on PR in less than two weeks.

More elections.

Anyway, why do you want the Laqbour party in power? The country in damn near bankrupt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's another issue, anyway, the English have resoundingly voted down Labour. Whatever happens, Labour's corrupt and irregular Constitutional arrangement is what needs to be changed.

[naut]

I remember being laughed out of the room when I mentioned the likelihood that Labour and LD shared core constituencies. Everybody said that LD would take away Tory votes due to the southern play that they shared, but that seems not to have happened for some reason.

[JAG]

Why do I want Labour? errrrrrr, maybe because I am a Labour member and have been campaigning for them in this election? Plus they are morally and politically right?

Anyway, why you think the DUP automatically support the Tories I have no idea, the DUP contest the seats they win AGAINST the Tory party in NI... The DUP will vote on a issue by issue basis, however the Lab's and LD's can form a coalition and their NI parties DO accept the whip and thus should be counted as members of Lab and LD's, completely different to the DUP.

[Beskar]

When it came down to it people cared more about local candidates and policies than parties and "presidential" personalities.

How did the conservatives actually get votes then?


Nice to see Green's get an MP, and possibly even get a 2nd one soon as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why do I want Labour? errrrrrr, maybe because I am a Labour member and have been campaigning for them in this election? Plus they are morally and politically right?

Anyway, why you think the DUP automatically support the Tories I have no idea, the DUP contest the seats they win AGAINST the Tory party in NI... The DUP will vote on a issue by issue basis, however the Lab's and LD's can form a coalition and their NI parties DO accept the whip and thus should be counted as members of Lab and LD's, completely different to the DUP.

Well, I hope you're wrong, because otherwise it's another four years of misery for the urban poor and government dependancy.

Morally right my foot. No use if they're a practical failure.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't know who you are JAG, but I really hope your analysis is right. I may be an American, but the UK election is critical not just toward future policy of my countries biggest ally but also a judgment on the future of PR in England. One more country that switches away from first past the post (which the US uses as well) to PR or a single transferable vote is more ammo for Americans here to make the push against the traditionalists in favor of the Electoral College.

You are aware that the Electoral College is only used for Presidential elections? And you can't proportionally represent a president.

Whatever happens, Labour's corrupt and irregular Constitutional arrangement is what needs to be changed.

For a non-UK resident, what does this mean?

CR

[Beskar]

For a non-UK resident, what does this mean?

CR

He is effectively saying that Labour have a corrupt arrangment, because where they do the best (The North), they all vote Labour/Libdem/etc and not Conservative. Is it equal to complaining that the Bible Belt always vote Republican.

[CountArach]

The Greens gaining an MP is astounding, truly astounding.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are aware that the Electoral College is only used for Presidential elections? And you can't proportionally represent a president.

Sigh. Yes, I'm not an idiot. The Electoral College still uses the First Past the Post system, in that who ever gets the most votes in the state, whether it be 45, 40 or even 30 percent gets the entire state. It's a broken system that has allowed people who have not won the popular vote to win the presidency, most recently in 2000. My point is that if Britain gets rid of the First Past the Post it will be easier to push for removing the Electoral College since it implements the same thing on the state level (with the exception of...Nebraska and Maine I think). It doesn't even matter if it is replaced with PR or anything else, I just want to see that system gone. PR is just my favorite voting setup so I always prefer to talk about that, although yes I guess it would be not applicable for the presidency, a simple majority vote with maybe a single transferable vote would do for that.

Do you really think im that dumb CR? Or do you just get a kick out of asking people a question as if they have no clue about what they are talking about?

[Beskar]

The Greens gaining an MP is astounding, truly astounding.

They are most likely going to get another, Gina Dowding, Fleetwood & Lancaster constituency. Posters by them everywhere.

[CountArach]

They are most likely going to get another, Gina Dowding, Fleetwood & Lancaster constituency. Posters by them everywhere.

I doubt it - the Tories have far too high a vote share there to overcome. The Greens need a 25/25/25/25 situation in order to stand a chance, such as happened in the seat they won. They don't have enough voters to be able to win anything beyond that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sigh. Yes, I'm not an idiot. The Electoral College still uses the First Past the Post system, in that who ever gets the most votes in the state, whether it be 45, 40 or even 30 percent gets the entire state. It's a broken system that has allowed people who have not won the popular vote to win the presidency, most recently in 2000. My point is that if Britain gets rid of the First Past the Post it will be easier to push for removing the Electoral College since it implements the same thing on the state level (with the exception of...Nebraska and Maine I think). It doesn't even matter if it is replaced with PR or anything else, I just want to see that system gone. PR is just my favorite voting setup so I always prefer to talk about that, although yes I guess it would be not applicable for the presidency, a simple majority vote with maybe a single transferable vote would do for that.

Do you really think im that dumb CR? Or do you just get a kick out of asking people a question as if they have no clue about what they are talking about?

Calm down. I figured you knew about it, I was wondering why you thought that way, and trying to explain the situation to all the British reading this thread.

And the electoral college system is working as designed; so that candidates have to pay attention to all the states and can't just pander to large groupings of people.


Anyway, it seems that the Tories won't get a majority, but from the numbers on the BBC, it'll be very hard for Labor and the Lib-Dems to get a majority together.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Calm down. I figured you knew about it, I was wondering why you thought that way, and trying to explain the situation to all the British reading this thread.

And the electoral college system is working as designed; so that candidates have to pay attention to all the states and can't just pander to large groupings of people.


Anyway, it seems that the Tories won't get a majority, but from the numbers on the BBC, it'll be very hard for Labor and the Lib-Dems to get a majority together.

CR

Yeah, that last post seemed a bit harsh. Sorry, CR. Hmmm, I would have to disagree with you about the electoral college working as designed. I was planning on making a thread about the electoral college, I'll do that tomorrow.

I'll check the final results tomorrow. It's obvious I need to relax and get some sleep. Sorry again CR.

[drone]

And the electoral college system is working as designed; so that candidates have to pay attention to all the states and can't just pander to large groupings of people.

Actually, the "winner take all" method most states use means presidential candidates focus on battleground states, and ignore the obvious red/blue states for the most part. There are districts in Texas that Dems could win, and districts in Cali and New York that the GOP could win, but what's the point with the current system? If states moved to the Maine/Neb system, presidential candidates would be more active throughout the country during the campaign, and it would even out the rural/urban divide.

Anyhoo, back to the UK...

[Furunculus]

Nope you are wrong. On the BBC projected figures - C 306, L 262, LD 55 - that gives L + LD 317 + 3 NI seats which sit with Labour and +1 which is the same in respect for the LD's and you have 321. 4 Sinn Fein DO NOT SIT in the Parliament and therefore realistically you need a majority of 323/4 NOT 326. So with 321 in the bag you really don't think Labour will twist the arm of the newly elected Green party MP, which are to the left of both LD and Labour and to not get things passed by abstations - I don't think so. Coalition here we come, providing Clegg wakes up and realises he needs PR which Lab will give him.

woot!

the lib-dems lack the party discipline to make that an easy occurance.

[JAG]

Says a very nervous Tory.

[Furunculus]

true.

i was certainly wrong about the collapse of the labour vote, i thought the lib-dems would be hoovering up labour votes left right and centre.

[JAG]

I think the campaign showed that the Labour core vote is, at it's very bottom 28%. Hell it was stress tested enough by Foot in '83! Labour's core vote will not go below 28% and I hoped come the last final push we would get a few more % than that, it turns out that we will probably get just 1% more and thus lose nearly 100 seats. Still worse things could have happened - a Tory majority for instance. Still a coalition must happen between the Libs and Lab, I don't think the Lib Dem party would forgive Clegg if he tried to stop that happening.

[Furunculus]

i don't think the country will ever forgive the liberals if they:
1. prop up labour in power
2. go back on their promise to support the mandate of the country, which the tory's convincingly won in votes and seats

it would be exactly the kind of opportunism that Clagg has tried to persuade the electorate that the Lib-Dems are free of.

[JAG]

i don't think the country will ever forgive the liberals if they:
1. prop up labour in power
2. go back on their promise to support the mandate of the country, which the tory's convincingly won in votes and seats

it would be exactly the kind of opportunism that Clagg has tried to persuade the electorate that the Lib-Dems are free of.

But the problem is his party will never forgive him if offered PR he turns it down for those reasons. Indeed I think if he was offered PR and turned it down, he would not be Lib Dem leader for long.

Plus your point #2 is flatly wrong, he said whoever got most votes / seats had the first OPPORTUNITY, not that they had the promise of the Lib Dems support, nothing like that at all. He merely pointed out his opinion which isn't even what is constitutional anyway, so its a mute point. But as I said, Lib dems will never support the Tories and if offered PR they will have to accept it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, I wake up to discover Gordon Brown is still in Downing Street.

It is confirmed that it is formally a hung parliament. Her Majesty has said that she won't see anyone until after lunch, but the civil service mandarins are now able to be released with their contingency plans. I see no prospect of Brown resigning yet.

[Tellos Athenaios]

2. go back on their promise to support the mandate of the country, which the tory's convincingly won in votes and seats

But that is precisely the point: the Tories don't have that. They have about a third of the electorate in terms of popular vote, never mind now that they have far more in terms of the seats even if it still isn't a majority in terms of seat count. Nobody in his or her right mind can possibly claim that amounts to a `clear majority' or `mandate of the country' or `popular support' or any other sort of moral high ground based on which such a party should be given preferential treatment in the race for government.

As far as the Lib Dems are concerned; Clegg must now make good on his promise to his party, that he can stand up for their ideas and put those into working government/law practice. If PR is worth so much to the Lib Dems and he is offered that, then he has little choice: he can hardly say at next election when Lib Dems loose out on yet another 5 to 10% of the seats based on what amounts to little more than institutionalised rounding errors: “But c'mon: was I to give up my dislike of X just 'cause it means our party would be twice as big as a result?”. And after such an election in which Labour, despite everything, still manages to be twice as big as the Lib Dems (basically); I really don't think his party is going to swallow that line. If they do, they deserve another 10000 years out of power.

[Banquo's Ghost]

One of the most extraordinary patterns of this oddest of elections has illustrated why the British have never had a revolution worth the name. After all the sleaze and corruption and disillusion, incumbency appears to have been an advantage for those in marginal seats.

Where the sitting MP stepped down in favour of new blood, the voters nonetheless punished the party. Where they clung on, they kept their seat!

Most odd.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Nick Clegg has just executed Gordon Brown. He has reiterated his earlier assertion that the party with the most votes and seats has the right to try and form a government and it is the national interest that should take precedence over party concerns. In other words, Cameron should be able to try first, which means Brown ought to resign.

That was a pretty statesmanlike statement. Stout fellow.

[al Roumi]

One of the most extraordinary patterns of this oddest of elections has illustrated why the British have never had a revolution worth the name. After all the sleaze and corruption and disillusion, incumbency appears to have been an advantage for those in marginal seats.

Where the sitting MP stepped down in favour of new blood, the voters nonetheless punished the party. Where they clung on, they kept their seat!

Most odd.

It is an interesting point, although I'm not so sure about the links to a lack of revolutionary zeal.

My take on it is that those MPs who chose to stay on were 1) confirmed of local support after (or unscathed by) the expenses, 2) people voted for their MP as an individual - not their party, 3) others (i.e the now imaginary Clegg swing) voted the most secure way to keep the Tories out.

Edit:
Where there was a new party candidate, voters must have considered it a more open competition than between a known quantity (incumbent & their party) and the opposition.

What amazes me is that any working class person can be fooled by the conservatives that a millionaire playboy like Zac Goldsmith is going to do anything to further their interestes. Amusingly, he found it neccessary to remind people (perhaps himself mostly) in his speech that he would work in the interests of the constituency, lol.

[naut]

Some of the LD's hate Brown, especially their leader Clegg, however they will bite the bullet and they hate the Tories more - much more. Plus with a chance to get PR under Labour and no PR under the Tories, you know which was they will go.

Hmm, or not:

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg says he sticks to his view that the party with most votes and seats - the Conservatives - should seek to form a government.

[Furunculus]

But the problem is his party will never forgive him if offered PR he turns it down for those reasons. Indeed I think if he was offered PR and turned it down, he would not be Lib Dem leader for long.

Plus your point #2 is flatly wrong, he said whoever got most votes / seats had the first OPPORTUNITY, not that they had the promise of the Lib Dems support, nothing like that at all. He merely pointed out his opinion which isn't even what is constitutional anyway, so its a mute point. But as I said, Lib dems will never support the Tories and if offered PR they will have to accept it.

i think not:

1056 Lord Ashdown says Clegg is a man of "honour and integrity". He says that Clegg has proven by keeping his word (that he would support the party that won the most votes) he is worthy of public trust even though it was not necessarily in the party interest to do so. He challenges Cameron to act in the interest of the country rather than his party.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of the 26 undecided's i have located on the telegraph election map have found 11 safe cons, 9 safe labs, and three safe labs, with two labs that will probably fall to the cons, which makes the remaining seats an even split between the cons and lib/lab at 13 a piece.

would put the cons on 304 using current numbers.

[al Roumi]

Yeah, they were talking about this on the BBC last night. Clegg's opinion is all very nice but the constitution (ha!) states that Brown gets the first move.

I hope it's not just my wishful thinking making me think Clegg is maneuvering to get the best bargain -he has for the last few hours been lined up by the media as a part of Labour's coalition, with no previous word from him...

Edit:

George Parker, political editor of the Financial Times, tells BBC World Service: "I think the Tories will talk to Nick Clegg. I don't think they'll be prepared to offer a deal on electoral reform because, for the Conservative Party, they see that as a way of excluding themselves from power for a generation."

Can Clegg yet achieve his party's goal of introducing proportional representation by playing patsy to either party? Are Labour looking more likely to offer that (they are in greater need!)?

It would be quite an achievement for the Libs to get that given the massive let down they've had in votes...

[al Roumi]

[Appologies for the double post]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-election-2010