General Election 2010: who did you vote for?

[Saracen]

What will be interesting is to see the Tories argue for First Past the Post now. It's only saving grace is that it supposedly delivers strong governments. It hasn't done this so what has it got going for it? If the tories resist reform, then it will be clear self-interest only is their motivation....

No, there's an easy answer to that.

The reason FPTP has led to this is because of manipulation of constituency boundaries and vastly unequal constituency sizes has led to this, not FPTP. As I said earlier, it's daft that if part A gets 35% if the vote, they get a whopping majority, and if party B gets 35% of the vote, they get nowhere near a majority. And that is the situation with the current boundaries. The Tories have to do about 6% better then Labour just to draw level.

However, if you reorganise constituency boundaries so that they are equal sized, you eliminate that problem, and you do it with FPTP. And, that way, you preserve the constituency relationship between voters and their representatives.

And that is what is in the Tory manifesto, along with Lords reform (elected Lords, etc).

[Saracen]

Politicians sticking to their word....I never thought I'd see the day

Good point. Labour didn't even stick to major manifesto promises, so what's an election promise or two?

[Grey M@a]

Oh, and my guess is that the more over 300 the Tories get, the more likely we end up with a minority Tory government, with at least some LibDem support. After all, it's what Clegg said he said he would do if this happened.

And, I'd guess another election in the 6-18 months is a strong bet too.

I don't think Clegg will go with a coalition with the Conservatives unless the Cons wildly change some of their policies to fall in line with the LibDem's

I do get a feeling though that Labour will be like a dog on heat to keep power and will bend over backwards to get the Lib Dem's on side.

I guess we will see on Monday what happens and let the parties fight over it over the weekend.

I will say though that I would of expected the LibDems to come out a little better than what they have done. Although, they are still in a good position for themselves, bad result or not as now they are a major player in the formation of Government.

[jim]

Right... well, as things stand, there are 35 seats left to play for.

Assuming it ended right now, there are only two viable coalitions.

Conservatives plus Lib Dems gives them 56% of the seats, with 35 over the boundary.

Labour plus everybody except the Conservatives gives them 53% of the seats, with 17 over the bondary.

So basically, Labour plus Lib Dems is insufficient (they're 9 seats down), and they'd need additional support from other parties to actually make it work.

[Grey M@a]

I take it back, Clegg live on BBC News just said he would stick with his claim and states the Conservatives should have the right to try and form a Government first due to them having the most votes even though it's not a majority.

[Saracen]

Well, Clegg has made it very clear that the Tories get the first chance to seek to form a government, either on it's own or with other parties. In other words, Brown won't get first shot at it with his support.

He also said that he will work in the national interest rather than narrow party interest. Good on you, Nick.

However .... he is still pushing his party agenda, and we couldn't expect anything else.

My translation of that .... "Hey, Davey-boy, give me a call and we'll talk terms. Gordon .... up yours!"

[Grey M@a]

Well, Clegg has made it very clear that the Tories get the first chance to seek to form a government, either on it's own or with other parties. In other words, Brown won't get first shot at it with his support.

He also said that he will work in the national interest rather than narrow party interest. Good on you, Nick.

However .... he is still pushing his party agenda, and we couldn't expect anything else.

My translation of that .... "Hey, Davey-boy, give me a call and we'll talk terms. Gordon .... up yours!"

The LibDem's are in a perfect position and they could put their cards on the table and make the other parties tweak their own policies to fit in. Fingers crossed the LibDem's stick to their guns.

[Saracen]

I take it back, ....

A bit of a shock .... a politician that meant what he said.

Are we all too cynical? .....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Nah.

[j1979]

Well, Clegg has made it very clear that the Tories get the first chance to seek to form a government, either on it's own or with other parties. In other words, Brown won't get first shot at it with his support.

He also said that he will work in the national interest rather than narrow party interest. Good on you, Nick.

However .... he is still pushing his party agenda, and we couldn't expect anything else.

My translation of that .... "Hey, Davey-boy, give me a call and we'll talk terms. Gordon .... up yours!"

agreed... but it's conditional on reform of the political system

[kalniel]

agreed... but it's conditional on reform of the political system

What's to stop the Tories agreeing to this, then just not getting around to implement it?

[Grey M@a]

A bit of a shock .... a politician that meant what he said.

Are we all too cynical? .....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Nah.

Indeed, although nice to see a man of his word, unless it is purely for show to keep people on side.

Ummm far to cynical there, I think it's just bread in all of us from a young age

[Grey M@a]

What's to stop the Tories agreeing to this, then just not getting around to implement it?

As with a minority I am sure if that is stuck to then a move for lack of confidence in the Government will be called if that is at all possible.

[Saracen]

agreed... but it's conditional on reform of the political system

Not quite what Clegg said. And Paddy Ashdown just emphatically denied that.

What Clegg has said is that Cameron has a mandate to govern in the national interest.i.e. not to ram their agenda through, but to govern in the national interest .... and that will require doing things that the LibDems can at least stomach even if it isn't what they'd do. i.e. govern with some cooperation and not in an autocratic way ... like Brown and Blair did.

I'm sure Clegg would like reform, and I'd bet it'll be discussed, but it wasn't a pre-condition. Not as I heard it, anyway.

[finlay666]

why cant we have a voting system similar to the USA, proportional representation and voting on certain laws is for the public to decide (on propositions)

[j1979]

you think we need one of these on Number 10?

[Saracen]

you think we need one of these on Number 10?

That was how I read what Clegg said, yes.

What I heard him say, though not in these words, was "David, you're the new PM. DOn't let the power go to your head. We won't sink you if you govern 'in the national interest' but you don't have a blank cheque".

In other words, they won't block critical measures, like the budget or Queens speech, where doing so would bring the government down, but Cameron has a "chance to prove" he can govern in the national interest, not an unconditional writ.Oh, and Clegg will "continue to argue for" electoral reform, and I wouldn't mind betting that was at least part of what he meant by "not in narrow party interests".

It was, I have to admit, a masterful play from Clegg. It was brilliant.

First, he scuppered Brown's chances of continuing, and he doesn't (IMHO) like Brown one bit.

Second, he was on the horns of a dilemma. The common result of a hung Parliament is another election, and if he'd propped up Brown despite the kicking Labour got from the electorate the odds are the electorate would punish him for it in that election.

Third, his own party wouldn't be happy about a Tory coalition.

As it is, this gives him a way to appear to be the statesman taking the high moral ground. Very nice move.