why on earth should the two less popular parties rule (without a majority)?

well they DO have the majority of votes if not seats

Does he know that "combined", con/lib got 9million

I guess he does, that's why they got first shout at coming to an agreement

what do you want to do, force them together?

But I'm not sure that Boulton is advocating a Con-Lib Govt is he?

He clearly wants is a different result to the one we got and is apoplectic that the Tories haven't got in with a majority.

well they DO have the majority of votes if not seats

No mate, the tory/lib only have a majority.
I know that the outcome of this election isn't popular at STW, mainly because the demographic on here is not representative of the UK but there is not an arguement that could say that the fairest outcome would be the least popular parties rule. A vote for lab is not a vote for libdem. If this happens, then the largest single group of voters would not be represented at all. Fair?

I know that the outcome of this election isn't popular at STW, mainly because the demographic on here is not representative of the UK

Ding! According to Mintel, we're mainly ABC1s who read the Guardian, educated to degree level.

I can believe the bit about the Guardian, not so sure about the degrees 😀

"what do you want to do, force them together?"

Well yes actually. Based on the distributions of our votes and the seats it's the responsible thing to do IMO. They quickly need to bargain for the terms based on their manifestos, and then stick to those terms for a full term. But the mindset switch from pre-election competitive to post-election co-operative is proving hard.

Lets be frank – Labour have had 13 years to give us PR, so they can't say Lib + Lab is 5 million votes more than Cons. Votes are (in the current system) irrelevant, it's the number of seats. And Lab plus Lib seats still don't equal the Cons total.

If all parties stopped spinning stuff so much then maybe the populous might engage with politics some more.

Well yes actually. Based on the distributions of our votes and the seats it's the responsible thing to do IMO

so force the Tories & Labour together then? 😆

And Lab plus Lib seats still don't equal the Cons total.

yes they do

"so force the Tories & Labour together then?"

Oh my word that would be a nuclear option! But governments of national unity only really happen during wars.

I can believe the bit about the Guardian, not so sure about the degrees

But some people here have more than one, which will lift the average 😀

there is not an arguement that could say that the fairest outcome would be the least popular parties rule.

Can't believe I am typing this again but yes there is. See, you have to take into account the relative political positions of the parties involved. Otherwise, the most sensible option would be to have lab/con for the biggest majority, given they were the first two parties. Except that everyone knows that wouldn't work on ideological grounds.

So then the largest group of parties with the closest ideals is more appropriate. If my views are best represented by lib dem say, then the next closest party is probably labour, not tories. If I'd voted labour then I'd want lib dems and nats on my side since they are somewhat left, rather than tories or UKIP.

It all hinges on whether or not you are concerned purely about the largest vote share as being representative of views, or about vote share with relative political position included.

That's the principle.. of course there are other factors in practice such as personalities etc.. but do you see what I am getting at?

And Lab plus Lib seats still don't equal the Cons total.

yes they do

I stand corrected. I'm sure I saw somewhere they didn't. Sigh, just goes to show having that degree doesn't make me any brighter than a slug.

total bollocks. It's nothing to do with ideals and everything to do with policy. Lib/lab have VERY different policies and are as far apart as lib/con.

And Lab plus Lib seats still don't equal the Cons total.

Don't they? I like the way you dismiss numbers of votes as irrelevant too. Given that there was no clear winner under the present system I'd say the number of votes is very relevant.

The vast majority of people who voted Labour or Lib Dem would have put the Tories at the bottom of their list if they were allowed to rank them in order of preference. Far more people voted against the Tories than voted for them – where's the mandate?

but the two least popular parties account for 52% of the voters in the UK (as opposed to 1st past the post) – whilst the (allegedly) most popular party only accounts for 36% of the vote.

So now what's fair again?

To think that people once laid their lives on the line for democracy.

Is this a democracy?

Not really!

One gets the chance to tick a box every few years, but then whoever gets voted in often doesn't do what they said they would do. Or does the opposite/something different, whilst falsely and brazenly proclaiming they fulfulled their promises. Or they sneak in significant changes in the hope that nobody notices (often successfully). If these changes are noticed, a lot of voters don't understand the effects of these changes anyway. I often ask people what they think about these significant political moves, only to be met with blank stares, or no opinion.

As a voter it's difficult to know the truth: Journalists and politicians twist things to sound the way they want them to, statistics are open to manipulation and frankly, we are subject to a lot of lies from politicians. They assume we have no memory too. Or perhaps it is they who suffer from amnesia!

People's political allegiences are primarily motivated by their own personal interests, so if one political party gerry-manders to their benefit, these supporters have little choice going forward. We should all care about the future prosperity of the country, but short term personal needs get in the way of making the right choices for everyone's longterm benefit.

Are we competent enough to vote? For example: What percentage of the voters keep up to date with what is going on and can remember what has been promised?

How many seek a balanced spread of quality news sources?

How many people have their head in the sand and will vote the same way as they have always voted? Even if their party has changed beyond recognition and are no longer serving their personal short term interests?

We have all agreed to disagree this election, so under a democratic system which respects the wishes of the electorate, there cannot be any decisive leadership.

A stupid broken system!

Bring on complete electoral reform. One that is easy to understand and that is fair. How about an English assembly? All the other parts of the UK have their interests represented.

Don't suppose anthing will significanly change and that is why something like 35% of the voting population didn't feel the need to cast their vote.

Sorry to those who turned up and weren't able to. The person responsible is blaming everyone else but herself.

Far more people voted against the Tories than voted for them

71% against labour. There you go, there's your argument.

Buzzlightyear – Member

"what do you want to do, force them together?"

Well yes actually. Based on the distributions of our votes and the seats it's the responsible thing to do IMO. They quickly need to bargain for the terms based on their manifestos, and then stick to those terms for a full term. But the mindset switch from pre-election competitive to post-election co-operative is proving hard.

What rubbish. If they cannot get agreement on major points of conflict then they cannot form a coalition – neither party / MPs would vote for it.

backhander – Member

………… Lib/lab have VERY different policies and are as far apart as lib/con.

again clear and utter tripe – while there are differences they are much less than between lib dems and tories.

This is the conundrum – a tory liberal coalition looks to be the best bet in one way as they would have a working majority however they are such a distance apart politically that creating a joint platform for government is almost impossible.

<tongueincheek>

Hold on, nobody has mentioned the 33% of people who didn't vote at all. Do they get included in the Labour total of people that 'clearly' didn't vote for the Cons?

Or do they form a coalition with Cameron so there is now a popular mandate of 66% of people who didn't vote for the LibLab pact?

</tongueincheek>

Damm, too slow, someone got there before I could post it!

again clear and utter tripe

**** off. Libs want Pr, labour aren't bothered. Libs want amnesty for illegals, labour want a points system to allow entry. War, anti-terror?
tripe.

Add to that list Trident and ID cards.

Quote on the bbc from an unnamed labour minister.
'I havnt spent my whole life hating the tories to miss a chance to stuff them'
good to see someone is thinking of the best interests of the nation. 😯

*Gulp* politics – i've been told not to bring up the subject at parties 😀

If I was a LibDem MP I'd want to go into government with the Conservatives. Not because I'd agree with them more, but because there would be an opportunity to form a new government, rather than propping up an old, tired one.
If I was a Labour MP, I would opt for honour and a spell on the opposition benches.
If I was a Conservative, I'd sell my Mother to get into power. 😈

My money's still on a Con-Lib deal.

breathesay – nothing compared to Europe / defense / education / NHS. The differences you describe are not deal breakers unlike teh differences witht eh tories

Most of the labour party would be happy to drop much of what you say as labour policy anyway – its only the policies of the right wing cabal that have taken over the party.

Sorry – you are showing your ignorance of the issues and the policies. The vast majority of the Lib dems would find it very hard to work with a right wing government – especially one that looks as far right as Cameron ( despite the window dressing) Working with Labour would be much easier.

And there lies the conundrum – sidle with a clapped out government who've lost their way because they're idealistically closer to your views or cosy up with the party who you instintively don't trust but do have a better mandate to govern as decided by a majority of the electorate…

Interesting.

If I was a Tory, I'd be hoping for a LibLab agreement and have the spin doctors ready to paint it as a betrayal of the people…

do you think the lib dems would try and get vince cable as chancellor? or would they as a minority partner have no say in cabinet roles?

backhander – Member
well they DO [lab/lib coallition] have the majority of votes if not seats

No mate, the tory/lib only have a majority.

Ok fine you cant oount or read which is it ?

but there is not an arguement that could say that the fairest outcome would be the least popular parties rule. A vote for lab is not a vote for libdem. If this happens, then the largest single group of voters would not be represented at all. Fair?

but the majority of voters would
A vote for the liberals is not a vote for the tories either. As i said no party has a clear mandate yes the tory claim is they have the most votes /seats. The lab /lib claim is they have the majority of votes and a consensus for a left of centre government. Neither is clear cut phenomenal mandate but no one can deny each side has some sort of claim to the throne.
perhpas we should all vote on who the libs side with?
I think most Lib dems are more comfortable with labour than Tory poliies. Apparently you can put up an argument for why the only right wing party does not get power. You dont like it but their is some merit/rationale to it

Since the Tories are talking about a couple of cabinet seats for the LDs in a coalition, you'd expect Labour to be offering at least that. Cable for chancellor seems quite likely plus NC for something fairly meaty too.

Junkyard – it's semantics. Technically, the Tories do have a majority (also called a simple majority), they just don't have an absolute majority (eg more than everyone else combined).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_majority

71% against labour. There you go, there's your argument.

Except that you've ignored the part where I said that almost all Lib Dem and Labour supporters would put the Tories last.

TJ – I do agree, say, dropping IDs cards or some other legislation might be a good facesaver for the Labs, save the money and just shrug their shoulders and say it was the 'price' of power.

Wonder if there'll be any new polls out seeing what party people would vote for if we did the election again this Thursday knowing this result. Would it swing more to Labs or Cons or just stay the same?

clubber – Member

And there lies the conundrum – sidle with a clapped out government who've lost their way because they're idealistically closer to your views or cosy up with the party who you instintively don't trust but do have a better mandate to govern as decided by a majority of the electorate…

Yup – a decent way to put it.

I am glad to see Clegg playing hardball tho – I think the tories rather underestimated him. He has to get major concessions or he will not be able to take his Mps with him.

I often ask people what they think about these significant political moves, only to be met with blank stares, or no opinion.

Bang on. The fact is that we are moving at such a pace, that it's difficult for the politicians to understand the legislation they're passing, let alone us.

And certainly it's difficult to comprehend how politicians and the media stuff us without a basic understanding of ideas like narrative, which are really only taught in some degree courses, and mentioned very sparsley in mainstream media (Newswipe is the only example I can think of), and are therefore out of reach for most of the population.

Got to agree TJ – I'm still hoping I'll get what I wanted – Tory government with LD coalition – Tories just to get a change of government (rather than for any idealistic reasons) but LDs in there to keep them in check and to stop the worst of their tendencies.

What I really don't want is for Labour to govern in a stable coalition as I think they (Labour Party) need some 'time off' to try and remember why they exist. Long term power is consistently a bad thing IMO.

I think they (Labour Party) need some 'time off' to try and remember why they exist.

+1

Could be a new dimension to the Lab leadership race. If they find grass-roots members oppose the coalition will they come out and say it as a way of securing the popular vote yet dooming the party to another election (assuming a LibLab pact)?

As mentioned above, the interesting thing about this, is that it seems that it could be the end of 'new' labour – as 'old socialist' labour will sit more comfortably with the lib dems as its further to the left.

not a bad thing really! The population is becoming more left leaning?