The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

CR

Blair introduced regional parliaments/assmblies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but not England. In Westminster Labout has used Scottish MP's to pass laws that only affect England. This has now reached crisis point, because in England the Tories are well ahead with both votes and seats. If we had an English Parliament Labour would be mostly locked out of the demographic and economic core of the country.

That's why we don't have an English Parliament, it isn't in the interests in Labour.

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.

I didn't go to bed until I knew I was going to wake up to a hanging.

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...

Clegg is definatley manauvering, but I hope he doesn't get PR, STV I wouldn't mind, but PR gives too much power to parties.

[tibilicus]

Pretty extraordinary result. Labour have already put numerous proposals on the table for Clegg so in his announcement at about 2:30 Cameron is going to have to respond. In all honest I don't think this result is good for the country, not one bit. If the Tories form a government the Scots will argue that a party with only one seat in Scotland can't possibly represent the interests of the Scottish people and we will probably see a referendum on Independence rushed through Holyrood.

On the other hand, if Labour seeks to form a government they will need to get not just the Lib Dems but other minor parties onside. Expect demands in the way of money from the Scots and the Northern Irish if this is the case, despite the fact with our current economic mess we can't afford to maintain the current grants Stormont and Holyrood currently get. Even if a coalition is formed, I don't see it lasting. Expect another election in the not to distant future.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Weeeeee!. Win some and lose some, JAG.

Also, the electoral college is NOT broken. The system was never intended to bring the popular vote winner to the presidency, in fact I find it odd that people are bombarded with the message that every vote equals 1 national vote in that election because it doesn't. the EC ensures that we share one government, instead of having cities determine every single election to the chagrin of 90% of the rest of the country. In a 2 party system this isn't a bad thing, local and congressional representation is a different story.

It would be interesting to see a devolution of power to an English parliament if that is what is desired. The unfairness becomes more glaring day by day. Due to the fact that you live in a modern democracy, you shouldn't have to pay for the destructive power grabs of your ancestors - at least not indefinitely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty extraordinary result. Labour have already put numerous proposals on the table for Clegg so in his announcement at about 2:30 Cameron is going to have to respond. In all honest I don't think this result is good for the country, not one bit. If the Tories form a government the Scots will argue that a party with only one seat in Scotland can't possibly represent the interests of the Scottish people and we will probably see a referendum on Independence rushed through Holyrood.

On the other hand, if Labour seeks to form a government they will need to get not just the Lib Dems but other minor parties onside. Expect demands in the way of money from the Scots and the Northern Irish if this is the case, despite the fact with our current economic mess we can't afford to maintain the current grants Stormont and Holyrood currently get. Even if a coalition is formed, I don't see it lasting. Expect another election in the not to distant future.

I agree, but you missed one thing.

If Scotland became independant Labour would be wiped out in Westminster, down below 160 seats, if they're lucky.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would be interesting to see a devolution of power to an English parliament if that is what is desired. The unfairness becomes more glaring day by day. Due to the fact that you live in a modern democracy, you shouldn't have to pay for the destructive power grabs of your ancestors - at least not indefinitely.

Hah! Scotland and England are united because a Scottish King inherrited the English thrown.

Scotland, in particular, needs to grow up.

[Furunculus]

Hah! Scotland and England are united because a Scottish King inherrited the English thrown.

Scotland, in particular, needs to grow up.

lol couldn't agree more.

21 seats left to announce, will the Cons get another thirteen to hit 310 and probably equal the lib/lab total?

[tibilicus]

Any thoughts on whether the Liberals will actually take the Conservative whip? This is really hard to guess, Labour need the Liberals, SNP and possibly Welsh support to form a government. Both the Scots and the Welsh demands for money is ridiculous, particularity the Welsh who already have money thrown at them.

I really can't call which way this is going to go, in the mean time I expect minor panic from the markets, a very worrying situation.

[Furunculus]

i think its unlikely there would be a coalition, there might be some form of cooperative agreement however.

the closer the tory's get to a parity with lib/lab combined votes the less they need a formal coalition, they may try to wing it on a minority government.

[tibilicus]

i think its unlikely there would be a coalition, there might be some form of cooperative agreement however.

the closer the tory's get to a parity with lib/lab combined votes the less they need a formal coalition, they may try to wing it on a minority government.

Doesn't that require around 310 seats plus a helping hand from the DUP? Providing Sinn fein decide not to turn up.

[Furunculus]

yup, 17 left to declare and the Cons really need eleven of them to match the likely lib-lab total of 310, with the 8 DPU seats as a backup against the other minor parties.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1. Regarding a "hung" Parliament (as an American of Irish descent, it's hard for me to think of Englishmen using that adjective, but whatever....):

Setting aside tradition, is there any possibility that Brown could now lead a coalition government comprised of pretty much everybody except the Tories in order to keep the Tories out of power? Clegg's statement certainly doesn't seem to make that likely, but machinations can happen when power is at stake (see U.S. healthcare bill voting shenanigans).


2. Regarding the Electoral College in USA elections. The founders designed it expressly to prevent the popular election of the President. Each state -- and remember that the Federal government was originally conceived as the shared umbrella for the several states and NOT as the focus of all governance -- would select their electors in whatever fashion they deemed fit and those electors would vote for the President. Currently, all but two use a winner-take-all first past the post approach while two select electors by first past the post within a congressional district with the two "senatorial" electors from those states going to the first past the post state-wide.

Right now, that means we have candidate concentrating on "battleground" states to the exclusion of areas where the vote is pretty well set. The battlegrounds shift a bit as voting in particular states edges one way or the other.

Were all states to adopt the model in use in Maine and Nebraska, there would be a lot of smaller "battlegrounds" and campaigns would become much MORE time intensive and expensive, though there would be a lot more Candidate interaction and 3rd parties would have more electoral college "traction." With this approach, you could very likely see an election settled in the HoR or settled in the Electoral College only after a 3rd party whose votes weren't mandated by their state's laws were "bought off" by one of the big two.

Were all states dropped from the equation and a national popular vote instituted, the time involvement required for campaigning would drop, though costs would probably stay about the same. Sadly, I think CR is correct in that campaigning would be restricted to major areas with highly concentrated populations and the campaign would be a mediated process even more so then at present. In addition, for the next 30-40 years or so, the GOP would be screened out of the Presidency entirely. Turning out the vote in the 30 biggest urban areas and their close-in suburbs would be everything and "country mouse" voters (who vote heavily for GOP) would be almost irrelevant.

As usual, I am on the wrong side of this. I want us to be, as much as possible, the several states. Mostly, the vote is for us to scrap states in favor of one government running everything. The popular election of Presidents will occur in my lifetime (well, I hope to hit 80 something, so.....)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Any thoughts on whether the Liberals will actually take the Conservative whip? This is really hard to guess, Labour need the Liberals, SNP and possibly Welsh support to form a government. Both the Scots and the Welsh demands for money is ridiculous, particularity the Welsh who already have money thrown at them.

I really can't call which way this is going to go, in the mean time I expect minor panic from the markets, a very worrying situation.

One possibility is defection, something that has not yet come up. Given that Clegg has not done as well as expected he might be able to hoover up a few Right-wing Lib-Dems.

[Furunculus]

One possibility is defection, something that has not yet come up. Given that Clegg has not done as well as expected he might be able to hoover up a few Right-wing Lib-Dems.

good point.

13 seats to declare with Cons on 301, can get 9 of the 13 undeclared?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

good point.

13 seats to declare with Cons on 301, can get 9 of the 13 undeclared?

So only 25 short, and less in practice, because Sin Fein don't sit. So only 23 short. Labour can barely form a government if everyone goes to them.

[Furunculus]

lib dems got cheltenham, a big tory target, so lib-lab are on 310 and the Cons on 301, with twelve still to declare...........

[Furunculus]

tory's can't get more than 308 now according to the beeb.

[Vladimir]

This is almost as exciting as the French election. The French are much more, colourful.

No offense intended guys but I'm glad the Lib Dems lost seats. They're a bigger threat to Britain than the BNP. Most people seem to know the BNP while the Lib Dems would drag you to hell in a golden carriage. A more conservative policy (more conservative than recent policy) seems like the best course for Britain in the short term.

[al Roumi]

This is almost as exciting as the French election. The French are much more, colourful.

No offense intended guys but I'm glad the Lib Dems lost seats. They're a bigger threat to Britain than the BNP. Most people seem to know the BNP while the Lib Dems would drag you to hell in a golden carriage. A more conservative policy (more conservative than recent policy) seems like the best course for Britain in the short term.

Right. Thanks. bye!

Edit: Sorry, I'm getting a little raw and don't quite know how to respond to the "libs worse than BNP", perhaps you would ellucidate your reasoning... And quite which of the Lib policies you think would lead to doom? Especially more so than Lab or Con, nevermind the BNP!

[Furunculus]

well, the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is utterly retarded, and thus could be considered an existential threat in advance of that posed by the BNP.

[naut]

Cameron is open to agreement with LD, egg on JAG's face if it happens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cameron is now offering the Lib-Dems a Coalition, or another arrangement.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cameron is open to agreement with LD, egg on JAG's face if it happens.

Damn you!

[InsaneApache]

True. However they want to legalise the drugs they're smoking, so summat to look forwards to.

[Vladimir]

Right. Thanks. bye!

Edit: Sorry, I'm getting a little raw and don't quite know how to respond to the "libs worse than BNP", perhaps you would ellucidate your reasoning... And quite which of the Lib policies you think would lead to doom? Especially more so than Lab or Con, nevermind the BNP!

I know this is an emotionally charged time but this is what I'm talking about. The BNP are already labeled "baddies" by almost everyone. You need to hoist a couple of them on a pedestal, like a living museum, and make sure they never leave the spotlight. People are much more likely to forget than accept.

The Libs policies will hurt Britain in the long run. The most insidious thing about it is that they'll make you feel good as they're doing it. Think of fireside chats during the Great Depression. Did they help anything? No. They made people feel good about their situation while we sold steel and oil to the Japanese war machine.

The BNP are known malefactors. I don't believe they have any real influence.

[rory_20_uk]

The problems when the USA stopped selling steel and oil to Japan - it was the embargo that was viewed as a hostile act.

[al Roumi]

I know this is an emotionally charged time but this is what I'm talking about. The BNP are already labeled "baddies" by almost everyone. You need to hoist a couple of them on a pedestal, like a living museum, and make sure they never leave the spotlight. People are much more likely to forget than accept.

Indeed, and thankfully the good people of Barking ignored them. That said, i'm worried enough by the half-a million people who did vote BNP (nationaly)...

The Libs policies will hurt Britain in the long run. The most insidious thing about it is that they'll make you feel good as they're doing it. Think of fireside chats during the Great Depression. Did they help anything? No. They made people feel good about their situation while we sold steel and oil to the Japanese war machine.

I still have no clue what you are talking about wrt the Libs. Unless you think Nick Clegg is a direct reincarnation of Lloyd George, which would be silly.

I think you might be getting confused with Labour or another party. The estimated (by analysts, not parties -as none have ventured to comment on actual policy here) ratio of tax/cuts accross the 3 major parties was such that Lib would sit between labour (highest spending to cuts) and conservative (highest cuts to spending).

I completely fail to see why the Libs are "insiduous". The reason they enjoyed a popularity bubble pre election was probably due to the media attention and the fact that they sounded as sensible as the other parties, if not "new" and at least less bruised from the limelight of politics in the last 20yrs.

Now, what on earth do fireside chats during the Great Depression have to do with this? If it's a historical chip on the shoulder, I believe the Tories might furnish a few more of those, having been around for the longest...

[Furunculus]

I still have no clue what you are talking about wrt the Libs. Unless you think Nick Clegg is a direct reincarnation of Lloyd George, which would be silly.

I think you might be getting confused with Labour or another party. The estimated (by analysts, not parties -as none have ventured to comment on actual policy here) ratio of tax/cuts accross the 3 major parties was such that Lib would sit between labour (highest spending to cuts) and conservative (highest cuts to spending).

I completely fail to see why the Libs are "insiduous". The reason they enjoyed a popularity bubble pre election was probably due to the media attention and the fact that they sounded as sensible as the other parties, if not "new" and at least less bruised from the limelight of politics in the last 20yrs.

Now, what on earth do fireside chats during the Great Depression have to do with this? If it's a historical chip on the shoulder, I believe the Tories might furnish a few more of those, having been around for the longest...

to repeat; "well, the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is utterly retarded, and thus could be considered an existential threat in advance of that posed by the BNP."

[Vladimir]

I still have no clue what you are talking about wrt the Libs. Unless you think Nick Clegg is a direct reincarnation of Lloyd George, which would be silly.

I think you might be getting confused with Labour or another party. The estimated (by analysts, not parties -as none have ventured to comment on actual policy here) ratio of tax/cuts accross the 3 major parties was such that Lib would sit between labour (highest spending to cuts) and conservative (highest cuts to spending).

I completely fail to see why the Libs are "insiduous". The reason they enjoyed a popularity bubble pre election was probably due to the media attention and the fact that they sounded as sensible as the other parties, if not "new" and at least less bruised from the limelight of politics in the last 20yrs.

Now, what on earth do fireside chats during the Great Depression have to do with this? If it's a historical chip on the shoulder, I believe the Tories might furnish a few more of those, having been around for the longest...

to repeat; "well, the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is utterly retarded, and thus could be considered an existential threat in advance of that posed by the BNP."

I'm viewing this election from the sidelines but have an opinion similar to Furunculus. I wouldn't say "retarded" or use too many specifics but what I've heard from them is that they're trying to push bad policy to an idealistic electorate.

[al Roumi]

to repeat; "well, the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is utterly retarded, and thus could be considered an existential threat in advance of that posed by the BNP."

Seeing as we are discussing politics here I should perhaps declare that I'm all for a discussion on scrapping Trident. From the little I know, there are no projected state led threats to the UK, and I don't see a nuclear deterrent being that usefull against small groups that hide among large civilian populations.

I'm viewing this election from the sidelines but have an opinion similar to Furunculus. I wouldn't say "retarded" or use too many specifics but what I've heard from them is that they're trying to push bad policy to an idealistic electorate.

God man, it's like getting blood from a stone, which are the bad policies -which you've also called insiduous, hurtful and a threat to the UK? How are they so? Would you care to demonstrate a non-idealistic electorate??? Also, perhaps you'd like to explain how the Libs appear any worse than the other 2 main parties?

[LittleGrizzly]

I really do not like the sound of a lib dem tory coalition, I could only be supportive of such a thing if the libs could push through a decent few policys of thier own, if they joined in coalition with the tory's without getting much out of it I would never vote lib dem again in my lifetime. I am probably an anti tory voter before anything else....

Edit: getting rid of trident would be prudent at this time, apart from fictional wars in the minds of armchair generals with China and Russia they are useless, what we nee is better equipment for the troops we send out rather than some useless weapon we would probably only consider using once the end is nigh anyway