General Election 2010: who did you vote for?

[jim]

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.

I think this could work very well, if it happens.

Would be interesting to see how the government works when it's less of "We have the majority, we can do whatever we like" and more of "Right, what can we propose that will actually get majority support".

Time will tell. That system may fall down when it comes to economic measures though, that's my main concern - since there's so much disagreement around Westminster about how to deal with it.

[scaryjim]

No, what I expect is that we, the voters, get to pick the government ...

We do. We get to pick Members of Parliament for each constituency, and give those people a mandate to act as they see fit. Whatever government is formed, it's the one the people voted for - whether they realised it or not.

It may not be democracy, but it's what we're stuck with...

[oolon]

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.

Actually Labour + Liberal + SNP + PC would be just enough, then we would be utterly screwed as thats exactly what the SNP wanted. Personally I would really like to see a Liberal/Conservative government.

[j1979]

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.

true.. and i think the reason he really dislikes Brown is because, he has been fiddling the books until after this very election. Brown "has tried his utmost" to make himself look good before this election. and Clegg seems to be a man of integrity.

I would be happy with the Cons to form a gov. with the liberals there to stop any tax breaks for the rich. But i really want a new polictical system!

do you think this will happen?

[jim]

Actually Labour + Liberal + SNP + PC would be just enough, then we would be utterly screwed as thats exactly what the SNP wanted. Personally I would really like to see a Liberal/Conservative government.

That's effectively what I was saying?

I don't think that would work, because it's such a pathetically small lead. Even with SDLP support it's still miniscule, so SNP/PC would be ruling the government.

[oolon]

Cameron: PM, Vince Cable: Chancellor.

So what they don't agree on europe much, we have a mess to sort out here, in a year or we can vote again. Cameron can pass boundary reform and single transferable vote, to make the Liberals more happy. Plus if vince messes it up conservates have someone to blame. The markets however hate Vince Cable so that would be fun.

[kalniel]

Cameron: PM, Vince Cable: Chancellor.

So what they don't agree on europe much, we have a mess to sort out here, in a year or we can vote again. Cameron can pass boundary reform and single transferable vote, to make the Liberals more happy. Plus if vince messes it up conservates have someone to blame. The markets however hate Vince Cable so that would be fun.

Not going to happen - liberal ideas on budget are pretty much the opposite of the Torys' ethos. Lib Dems have such a small number of seats they'll only be able to get very minor concessions where Torys will let them.

[Saracen]

true.. and i think the reason he really dislikes Brown is because, he has been fiddling the books until after this very election. Brown "has tried his utmost" to make himself look good before this election. and Clegg seems to be a man of integrity.

I would be happy with the Cons to form a gov. with the liberals there to stop any tax breaks for the rich. But i really want a new polictical system!

do you think this will happen?

I think it depends on whether the Tories will make any concessions on electoral reform, and how much or little the LibDems want. I don't see the Tories agreeing to PR, and it depends if there's a middle ground. But if Clegg does make PR an absolute pre-condition, then it gives the lie to his earlier statement.

I certainly see the Tories ditching inheritance tax proposals. They said months ago they they were not priority.

From here, everything depends on how the "national interest" is interpreted.

[Saracen]

I don't see Cable as Chancellor. Some LDs in the cabinet, yes perhaps, and maybe including Vince, if there were a formal arrangement, but I doubt that will happen. But not Chancellor. It's far too important.

Besides I'd more expect to see negotiations on commonality on policy, and compromise on policy, rather than any formal coalition. Could be wrong, though.

[oolon]

The problem with PR from the Labour or Conservative point of view is this would almost 100 more seats to the liberals. So I cannot see the Conservatives allowing it. Labour however I think don;t care about anything other than being in power even if this is the last time they have complete control, or it trashes the country.

[TooNice]

Well done Hexus, you white, educated, middle-class male demographic, you!

I guess much of London isn't the above then? I find it interesting that while most of England is Conservative, the capital is still Labour leaning (even after losing a chunk of seats).

The problem with PR from the Labour or Conservative point of view is this would almost 100 more seats to the liberals. So I cannot see the Conservatives allowing it. Labour however I think don;t care about anything other than being in power even if this is the last time they have complete control, or it trashes the country.

I guess the moral argument is that it more accurately represent the will of the people (well popular votes anyway)?

But if I understand correctly, PR would result in not being able to vote for one's own MPs? Since the boundaries will be broken down. Am I understanding that correctly?

[Barrichello]

I guess much of London isn't the above then? I find it interesting that while most of England is Conservative, the capital is still Labour leaning (even after losing a chunk of seats).

But then like in other places there is a very large amount of "career unemployed" in many inner city boroughs who do not want to lose their "Free Lunch" and assume nulabour can just keep the printing press going to keep them in their lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

Despite nulabour bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy some people still think we can carry on with our bloated welfare/public state intact. Real head in the sand stuff.

[scaryjim]

Besides I'd more expect to see negotiations on commonality on policy, and compromise on policy, rather than any formal coalition. Could be wrong, though.

This is certainly my reading of Clegg's comments: he will work with a minority government - whether Tory or Labour - where he thinks they are "doing the right thing" for the country. Presumably that also means he'll oppose them if he thinks they're doing the wrong thing - something it's much harder to do from a formal coalition.

... if I understand correctly, PR would result in not being able to vote for one's own MPs? Since the boundaries will be broken down. Am I understanding that correctly?

That's pretty much how I understand it. I've just had a conversation with a friend who suggested using the Lithuanian system - apparently half their parliament is made up of constituency MPs (I assume elected on FPTP) and the other half is PR from party lists...

... I find it interesting that while most of England is Conservative, the capital is still Labour leaning (even after losing a chunk of seats). ...

If you look at the spread properly you'll see that the rural constituencies tend towards Conservatism and the Urban constituencies tend towards Labour. it's particularly noticable in North and East Yorkshire, where the large rural constituencies are all con, and the urban ones - three in Hull and York Central - are Labour.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Come on Lib. you can do it!!!

[Champman99]

As far as I understand, most people in favour of electoral reform, dont favour pure PR, but STV as I linked earlier. This is the method the Electoral Reform Society favour, and is used in European elections, Northern Ireland assembly elections, as well as national elections in Ireland, Australia and Malta among others.

Its fairly complex, but is also I think the best way I've seen of adding up preferences (something which is technically impossible in most cases). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%2...bility_theorem

Under STV you DO still vote for local representatives. Constiuencies would be increased in size and have multiple MPs per larger constiuency. It is a fairly complex system, but if you actually read about it, and work up some potential situations I think its quite workable.

See wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote

I personally really like the look of Single Transferable Vote, I think its a good solution for still having local representatives, but getting a much more accurate picture of the vote share into parliament, rather than favouring consolidated support.

[petercook7]

Lib Dems 1% up in the share of vote, but down 6 seats. Definitely time for electoral reform! So few seats with 23% share of the vote?!

agree, number of mps should be based on number of votes.