Elections in the UK

[Shaun]

OK as it stands, with 648 out of 649 constituencies declared, it is like this:

Conservative: 305
Labour: 258
Liberal Democrat: 57

That means that a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would have 315 seats; not an overall majority, but still larger than the amount of seats the Tories have. The Tories might enter a coalition with the DUP of Northern Ireland, who have 8 seats, which would put their coalition at two seats less than a Lab-Lib one.

Whilst it is true that more people voted for the Conservatives than any other party, I think it would be utter bollocks for Cameron to then use this to try and form a government. Clearly, over three fifths of the country voted against him and the Tories, and with most parties being centre-left it is pretty clear that Britain as a whole does not want a centre-right government. As such, a Tory government would probably be very unpopular and not last very long. Unless, of course, they manage to totally change things around... but I highly doubt this because Cameron's cuts are going to meant that people will have to wait even longer for doctors and operations and their schools will be even worse.

Overall I'm hoping that this is the last FPTP election we have. It has clearly failed us time and time again. I mean, this election more than ever should have been a bit more radical than merely one of the large parties falling a few seats short of an overall majority! The expenses scandals that rocked the parliament was meant to turn more and more voters away from the big three and onto the smaller ones. Instead, all we get was was Jacqui Smith losing her seat and the Greens gaining their first seat. And the Clegg-mania failed utterly as well, with them actually losing 5 seats! Clearly, far too many people tactically vote because their highest priority is not allowing either Labour or Tories to win. If your vote isn't for the winning candidate in your constituency then your vote doesn't mean shit either, another thing which majorly fucks over the Lib Dems because their support is widely spread over the whole country as opposed to urban and rural area dominance that the other two have.

Unfortunately, Cameron isn't in favour of electoral reform; probably because his party have the most to lose from it because a PR system would mean that only people who actually want a Tory government would vote Tory, rather than everyone who just wants Labour out. A Lab-Lib coalition would overall have much more seats in parliament than them - a majority I'm sure - effectively costing them a lot of power.

[Starglider]

I highly doubt this because Cameron's cuts are going to meant that people will have to wait even longer for doctors and operations and their schools will be even worse.

Proof?

Of course you don't have any. Labour has dumped money into the public sector to the point that 48% of the economy consists of government spending (tax-borrow-and-spend). Most of it has gone on worthless civil service bloat and unjustified wage increases. Public services in the UK are of competitive quality, and the major issues are systemic and cannot be fixed by Labour or any other party incapable of conceiving of the notion that some public sector workers deserve to be fired.

I mean, this election more than ever should have been a bit more radical

Why? You may want that, but why should reality conform to your juvenile whims?

The expenses scandals that rocked the parliament was meant to turn more and more voters away from the big three and onto the smaller ones.

What makes you think their politicians are any better? I can't see why they would be. The minor parties did increase their share of the vote somewhat.

And the Clegg-mania failed utterly as well, with them actually losing 5 seats!

It didn't 'fail', rather it turned out to be a media fiction.

A Lab-Lib coalition would overall have much more seats in parliament than them - a majority I'm sure - effectively costing them a lot of power.

So you believe Clegg was lying through his teeth when he said he'd try to work with the largest party? And you're ok with that?

[Admiral Valdemar]

The Clegg surge didn't fail. It worked, but the system didn't let it win anything with respect to seats. That is the crux of the problem here: our electoral system is bullshit.

As for a coalition, it'll be the Libs with Tories first go, if that fails, then we'll see what Labour offers. This election was fairly radical as it was, and were our FPTP way of doing things changed before this election, we may have seen a rather more dramatic swing.

[Crazedwraith]

As far as I can see, the only positive side of a Tory/Lib Dem coalition is that it would have an outright majority but since their policies on just about any issue you can mention are rather different. It's not going to last long.

[Minischoles]

There is no chance a Tory-Lib Dem coalition would work, these 2 major points (Political Reform and Spending cuts) are completely at disagreement between the 2 parties, and there is no chance the Tory party will ever agree to some of the pro-EU parts of the Lib Dem agenda. They are simply too incompatible, even Cameron himself has admitted the 2 parties are in disagreement over Europe and over Defence (two pretty large areas).

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's the first they'll try. Didn't say it'd be the final verdict. Although, I doubt Clegg will be amenable to Brown staying in. One of the caveats I can see is the formation of a coalition, but with Brown firmly out of the picture.

[Teebs]

Well what a fucking miserable night.

My predictions were appallingly off, except for the Conservative total. My only consolation there is that pretty much the entire political commentariat was way off too.

Basically this seems to have been an ok night for the Conservatives (they did about as well as they expected) and Labour (they lost but did better than they expected) and a pretty shit one for the Lib Dems.

One shining bright spot in the whole thing was the Alliance gain in Northern Ireland from the DUP. I realise it was almost certainly due to Peter Robinson's corruption scandals, but as far as I'm concerned, Ireland's non-sectarian party gaining a parliamentary seat at the expense of the DUP is absolutely fantastic.

Edit: Another good point has to have been the BNP actually losing ground in their number 1 target and I just read that their leader in London who is a member of the GLA has actually lost his local council seat in these elections.

[Lord Pounder]

One shining bright spot in the whole thing was the Alliance gain in Northern Ireland from the DUP. I realise it was almost certainly due to Peter Robinson's corruption scandals, but as far as I'm concerned, Ireland's non-sectarian party gaining a parliamentary seat at the expense of the DUP is absolutely fantastic.

I disagree that Robinson losing his seat was down to the scandal. I worked in the early days of Naomi's campaign and I know her well from when I was vice chair of her constituency association. Her work on the ground has been tremendous and she won a lot of support simply helping those who came to her asking for help, Robinson has a terrible record of helping constituents.

Also factor in that in the last year Naomi has been Lord Mayor of Belfast which has increased her profile greatly. It also helped that the leader of the UUP Reg Empey decided not to stand in East Belfast as he normally does and instead Trevor Ringland, who is new to politics, stood for them instead.

[Darth Tanner]

The Clegg surge didn't fail

They gained 1% on their previous vote and lost a key member! (Kennedy) I'd hardly call that success. The Clegg surge was handicapped from the first past the post system but it also suffers from the fact it only really existed in the minds of the journalists desperate for a story.

these 2 major points (Political Reform and Spending cuts) are completely at disagreement between the 2 parties

The Libs have admitted previously that spending cuts are going to have to occur though, they might think they can limit the Torys, especially if they get themselves some key cabinet positions out of the deal.

even Cameron himself has admitted the 2 parties are in disagreement over Europe and over Defence (two pretty large areas).

It said on the radio on my way home that one way around this is that the Torys offer a referendum and allow the libs to fight the yes campaign while they maintain a no campaign. They could probably rely on most MPs not wanting to lose their seats to an incoming hoarde of lib dems. As for Europe not even the Libs would be stupid enough to talk about entering the euro for at least 5-10 years so Europe could be safely kicked into the long grass until after the next election.

No matter what happens though Brown is finished! He can't hold on with his party at current strength and the libs won't form a coalition with him there.

[Admiral Valdemar]

They gained 1% on their previous vote and lost a key member! (Kennedy) I'd hardly call that success. The Clegg surge was handicapped from the first past the post system but it also suffers from the fact it only really existed in the minds of the journalists desperate for a story.

From another angle, it succeeded in bringing about a hung Parliament that Nick can now work to his advantage. Let's face it, they were never going to form a minority government, let alone a majority one, even if the PR system was in place and the media hype was fully realised.

The country has clearly taken it onboard to chastise all the major parties, but the big two have been hit so hard that now they have to listen to the Lib Dems, or risk getting nothing done. The clock is ticking, and if this isn't resolved by Monday, look out below for the FTSE.

[Teebs]

I disagree that Robinson losing his seat was down to the scandal. I worked in the early days of Naomi's campaign and I know her well from when I was vice chair of her constituency association. Her work on the ground has been tremendous and she won a lot of support simply helping those who came to her asking for help, Robinson has a terrible record of helping constituents.

Also factor in that in the last year Naomi has been Lord Mayor of Belfast which has increased her profile greatly. It also helped that the leader of the UUP Reg Empey decided not to stand in East Belfast as he normally does and instead Trevor Ringland, who is new to politics, stood for them instead.

Ok, I was a bit crude in the way that I put that, I can't imagine that the corruption scandals were not a significant factor in the defeat, but I have only heard good things about Naomi Long and obviously there are all sorts of other factors affecting the seat. A perfect storm for the APNI perhaps.

[Shaun]

Proof?

Of course you don't have any. Labour has dumped money into the public sector to the point that 48% of the economy consists of government spending (tax-borrow-and-spend). Most of it has gone on worthless civil service bloat and unjustified wage increases. Public services in the UK are of competitive quality, and the major issues are systemic and cannot be fixed by Labour or any other party incapable of conceiving of the notion that some public sector workers deserve to be fired.

And a lot of it has translated into a better NHS and better state schools. I can only see the Conservatives negatively impacting the quality of our schools and hospitals.

Why? You may want that, but why should reality conform to your juvenile whims?

You'd have to be extremely naive to be suggesting that the public is as happy as ever with the FPTP system keeping it a two horse race between the main parties.

What makes you think their politicians are any better? I can't see why they would be. The minor parties did increase their share of the vote somewhat.

Whether they're 'better' or not is irrelevant. I would have been happy to see MP's properly punished for the expenses scandal, as a way of the British public telling them we will not tolerate it.

The increased vote share of the minor parties was extremely minimal. People were too concerned with tactical voting (which is why the Tories only have one seat here in Scotland) than to risk Lab/Cons from getting a majority by voting to show their disdain of the expenses scandal, or for their local smaller parties.

It didn't 'fail', rather it turned out to be a media fiction.

It was certainly real enough to prompt some serious concern from many of the right wing press.

So you believe Clegg was lying through his teeth when he said he'd try to work with the largest party? And you're ok with that?

I was referring to what would happen in a FPTP system.

[Stuart Mackey]

As far as I can see, the only positive side of a Tory/Lib Dem coalition is that it would have an outright majority but since their policies on just about any issue you can mention are rather different. It's not going to last long.

If New Zealand's experience going from FPTP to MMP is anything to go by, you might be surprised what the prospect of power, any power, will do for the amiability of your glorious leaders.
Fact is that you cannot do anything if you are out of government and that is the overwhelming fact of the situation, and Clegg, Cameron and Brown are all very well aware of this.

[Vendetta]

It said on the radio on my way home that one way around this is that the Torys offer a referendum and allow the libs to fight the yes campaign while they maintain a no campaign. They could probably rely on most MPs not wanting to lose their seats to an incoming hoarde of lib dems.

This would be an interesting position for them to be in. The Tories would need an effective coalition in order to get their policies enacted, so their strongest argument to the public against PR, that it produces no clear winner and no strong governance, would look completely hilariously wrong, because they're working in an effective coalition government already. And if they don't make the coalition work, they have no majority and can't get their policies going.

[Captain Seafort]

The solution, therefore, is simply to repeat the solution from last time we were in this mess - call another election.

[Stuart Mackey]

It said on the radio on my way home that one way around this is that the Torys offer a referendum and allow the libs to fight the yes campaign while they maintain a no campaign. They could probably rely on most MPs not wanting to lose their seats to an incoming hoarde of lib dems.

This would be an interesting position for them to be in. The Tories would need an effective coalition in order to get their policies enacted, so their strongest argument to the public against PR, that it produces no clear winner and no strong governance, would look completely hilariously wrong, because they're working in an effective coalition government already. And if they don't make the coalition work, they have no majority and can't get their policies going.

Welcome to the wide world of Proportional Representation.

[Stuart Mackey]

The solution, therefore, is simply to repeat the solution from last time we were in this mess - call another election.

I suspect they wont, they will make what they have work.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The solution, therefore, is simply to repeat the solution from last time we were in this mess - call another election.

Not unless you want the markets and the people who did manage to vote to go apeshit. What happens if this same result materialises? Continue having elections until we get the result they want?

I, too, find it hilarious to think the Tories are now going to have to accept a coalition, y'know, because they totally don't work and are worse than Armageddon and all that.

[Shaun]

The solution, therefore, is simply to repeat the solution from last time we were in this mess - call another election.

Why? The people voted the way they voted. We clearly, as a whole, don't want any of the three main ass hats in power, and to keep calling general election after general election until one of the ass hats gets what he wants would be extremely anti-democratic.

They'll just have to make it work.

[Mr. Tickle]

I'm expecting the tories to reject any coalition since the lib dems cant really back down on the PR issue now and I can't see any chance of the tories accepting it, for reasons given above.

Most likely they'll force themselves into power with a minority government and force through some budget changes in the first 100 days but with some generous allowances for scotland/wales/Northern Ireland to get them past any lab/lib block.

It's still a win/win situation, they fail in any way they can point to the other parties for "not acting in the best interest of the country" or such like, even if they get the changes put through they wanted, no doubt they wanted to go further.

Although I'm a labour supporter etc and I didn't want to see the tories in I was looking forward to seeing how they were really planning to cut the budget deficient down (or labour/libs for that matter but they were never gonna win it). I always do enjoy seeing how a trick is really done....

[Admiral Valdemar]

Poisoned chalice. Whoever wins this election, they lose. No one is going to like them for doing what needs to be done, so if the Tories had won by a landslide, you can guarantee they'd be back out on their arses by next election.

[Stuart Mackey]

I'm expecting the tories to reject any coalition since the lib dems cant really back down on the PR issue now and I can't see any chance of the tories accepting it, for reasons given above.

They don't see it that way, they are already in negotiations.
Tories have a choice, power and the huge cost that goes with it for what must be done, thanks to Brit Labour's fiscal ineptitude, or the possibility of another five years in opposition. Its a catch 22 if ever there was one.

[Fire Fly]

The FPTP system aside, it seems to me that the Liberal Democrat's problems are a bit more anemic than simply an archaic voting system. The real problem, I think, is that the Conservatives have their power base and Labour has their power base which provides the respective parties with money (businesses and the well off/trade unions) and with regional support (rural vs. urban). What does that leave the Liberal Democrats with? Well, they get the left overs which dilutes their real political power. This is reflected in their funding problems and organizational/logistical problems. Whereas the Tories and Labour membership numbers in the hundreds of thousands, the Liberal Democrats range only in the tens of thousands (see PDF file). Fewer political foot soldiers and fewer funding results in poorer campaign performances. How do you plan to convince people to vote for your party when your opposition is flush with money and volunteers?

Is this an accurate assessment?

[Vendetta]

Is this an accurate assessment?

Not really. The problem isn't that people don't vote Liberal Democrat. They do, they had 23% of the vote this year (1% more than last year), the problem is that the system we have only rewards concentrations of votes, so the 23% of votes cast for the Liberal Democrats spread widely across the country won them only 57 seats, whereas the 28% of votes cast for Labour won them 258 seats. Only 5% extra share of the vote, but 200 extra seats in Parliament.

[Vendetta]

Poisoned chalice. Whoever wins this election, they lose. No one is going to like them for doing what needs to be done, so if the Tories had won by a landslide, you can guarantee they'd be back out on their arses by next election.

And many of their gains this year have been very marginal, on the order of 500 or less votes between first and second.

The fact that they can pretty much bend over and brace next election might actually soften their stance on PR a little, just as Labour's did when they saw what was going to happen this time.