Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666128.stm
[i]With most results in, [b]the Lib Dem vote is up 0.9% on 2005[/b], Labour down 6.5% and the Conservatives up 4%. [/i]
So up less than one percent then ?
The LibDems should have been [i]raking in the votes[/i] from disillusioned voters.
Maybe the British electorate is more interested in "policies" rather than "personalities" after all ?
Overall swing disappointing for them, in very safe Conservative seats, gains have been better. Weird night though
Good point about the policies over personalities. However, this is probably the first time that Nick Clegg has had a decent platform and exposure to the general public. I'd say that he needs to stay on and build for the future.
He hasnt even raised enough seats to make a Lib-Lab coalition a viable alternative to a Conservative minority government.
Conservative government, for, oh, about 9 months I reckon and then we do it all again.
And Scotland should be given independence?
Just goes to show how we desperately need electoral reform - 23% or so of votes but what percentage of seats? Blatantly loads of people bottled out at the last minute of voting Lib Dem as they felt their vote would be wasted.
I think it's good, libs cudnt ever do it this time, they weren't prepared if they did get it but now they now they have a raised profile they can continue to build themselves up and in four/five years time people will truely have a third choice.
ernie, cruel but true.
It would be rude to allow the Lib-dems to form any government considering the amount of votes that they actually mustered.
Yep,
Tories form minority Govt.
Everyone sees that Cameron is worse than Brown.
Another election next year with a different Labour leader.
Electoral reform is on the agenda with a Labour win or another hung Parliament.
Another hung Parliament with Labour back in the driving seat.
Electoral reform.
We all live happily ever after.*
*Assuming nothing important happens in the rest of the world to change things here.
Another election next year with a different Labour leader.
With Labour saying the Tories are preceding over unprecedented cuts etc to our great nation..
It would be rude to allow the Lib-dems to form any government considering the amount of votes that they actually mustered.
Come on! Just under 23% - between 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 of the people don't count?
If there is one single conclusion from this election it is that there is no place for adversarial politics in this country today.
What's so bad about people negotiating big decisions anyway?
Hang on a minute, look at the number of votes. LibDem has done extremely well and number of seats is not representative of the number of votes.
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4021/4586213176_2522086dc3_o.jp g" target="_blank">
They're not a credible party of government at the moment, and given the colossal disappointment of their performance today, it's hard to see them ever getting things together. Full credit to Clegg for grasping his opportunity in the debates and mixing it up, but too many of their policies didn't stand up to scrutiny.
Was sure they would take my constituency (Edinburgh Sth) which was ultra marginal, but they couldn't even manage that. The labour guy hung on by an arse hair.
It really is a fairly pathetic showing by the Tories - the fact that they couldn't beat a fairly unpopular leader after 13 years of Labour, one who happens to have been in charge during a world financial crisis, and with the ridiculous level of support Cameron received in the media. Virtually all the papers yesterday were loudly cheerleading for Cameron, with the Mail claiming not voting for him would bring about armageddon. They really can't claim to have any kind of mandate.
Oh yeah, and looking at the maps - can the north of England, Scotland and Wales please form a separate country
Conservative government, for, oh, about 9 months I reckon and then we do it all again.
Why? Does parliamentary voting for non-government held seats tend to automatically oppose the government?
Why? Does parliamentary voting for non-government held seats tend to automatically oppose the government?
No, but sooner or later with a minority gov they'll face a vote of no confidence over some issue or other - & I think there's going to be lots of potential issues to cause this in the near future
looking at the numbers, I'm not sure that we can come out of this with any long term workable solution, whoever gets to form a government is going to struggle.
+1 grum
Conservative government, for, oh, about 9 months I reckon and then we do it all again.
Not bad, my guess is that they'll get 11 months - who's going to risk depending on their core support in a low winter turnout at the moment? The vote of no confidence will come but Labour will have to go through a leadership contest, s/he will have to establish themselves in the media so maybe even 14 months?
Votes per seat
Conservative - 34,756
Labour - 33,301
LibDem - 124,182
Democracy in action....
In my own constituency Labour got 51.6% of the vote so my vote was utterly worthless.
Aye, if Labour can manage to get Gordon to f_ck off they will swan any quick election that gets called. 9 months of Dave making a show of himself, Darling or Milliband find their testes and tell Gordon to get on his bike, and the natural party of government returns to lead us all to prosperity and the broad sunlit uplands 🙂
I seriously doubt any of the parties will really work together and actually work for the good of the people, i can see it just decending into a mire and the everyone suffering even more.
Looking at the results i did expect (hope) for a better showing for the Lib Dems.
Clegg lost his way on his immigration & European policies
He mis-judged the popular mood & failed to explain himself adequately
Clegg lost his way on his immigration & European policies
Depressingly I think you're right, at least in the reason why they didn't get more seats than they did. I really dispair that immigration is seen as such a big issue by people.
Well considering the turnover has been barely above 65% that looks like a fail to me...
Shirely the point is that the swings after the telly debates are in the end a bit meaningless, rather than blaming Clegg for a good show but voters then not reflecting polls at the time.
immigration: and yet BNP and UKIP tanked. Was it really an issue?
With Labour saying the Tories are [b]preceding[/b] over unprecedented cuts etc to our great nation..
You were at school when the Tories were in power weren't you Hora? 🙄
immigration: and yet BNP and UKIP tanked. Was it really an issue?
Did they really though - much the same as the Lib Dems, they got larger percentages which didn't translate into seats (thank god in the case of the BNP...) because of our first past the post system
Yep, according to the BBC scoreboard at the mo, the BNP made greater percentage vote gains than the Lib Dems! (1.2% versus 1%)
The Lib-Dems were victims of the ludicrous first-past-the-post system, [b]again[/b]. Principles are all very well, but it is a FACT that if you live in a constituency with an intransigent, herd mentality (ie. MOST constituencies), a vote for anyone other than the incumbent party is a wasted vote.
Our system appears to be rooted in the days when the (few, male, influential) voters in a village elected a local chap (Tory or Whig) to go and vote on their behalf down in 'that London' and news would occasionally filter back to the town.
In recent decades the traditional working class voted for Labour and 'posh' people for the Tories. New-Labour kept the old voters (because the word "Labour" was still on the ballot?) , but also sucked-in many of the Thatcher fans.
Nowadays we can email the Prime Minister, conduct an internet campaign, get onto TV news etc. I don't really value my local MP as the city council are responsible for much of the 'local' issues, not a bloke who sits in Westminster towing the party line.
It really is a fairly pathetic showing by the Tories
Well going by what I read here a lot of people are more interested in their hatred of what happened in the 80s than Labour's recent record so the Tories have got a lot to battle against.
If they had won outright there'd just be more hatred as they attempted to sort out the deficit - Labour were over-spending so we were living in an unsustainable society and no we have to pay.
Clegg lost his way on his immigration & European policies
Actually I think the Lib Dems are ahead of their time on immigration, but probably didn't explain themselves well enough.
I thought it was the low point of the debates for the Lib Dems when Cameron and Brown both agreed that the Lib Dem "amnesty" for immigrants was a bad idea. Clegg should have rebutted that much harder given that that isn't the Lib Dem policy.
In fact the Lib Dems are the only party to have grasped the nettle on immigration by accepting that there is no way that we are ever going to get rid of long term illegal immigrants, given that we just don't know who they are or where they live and work.
The vast majority of immigrants to the this country are from within Europe and are legal immigrants, not illegal ones.
The problem with proportional representation though is that it would probably lead to more hung parliaments.
There are arguements each way but I sometimes think that a two party system is better overall. 🙄
The lib dems suffered in the end because of the media scare mongering about a hung parliment.
If so much of the country is so stupid as to vote for who they are told to vote for rather than thinking for themselves, then the old saying is true, the country gets the government it deserves.
The problem with proportional representation though is that it would probably lead to more hung parliaments.
That's the whole point really. It means you don't get mad policies like the Poll Tax or the Invasion of Iraq brought in because of the ideology of the PM.
MSP, are you really a Member of the Scottish Parliament?
[url=
is 'Nick Clegg'?[/url]
ooooh I didn't see that, do I get to claim some expenses.
Indeed - my vote counted for 0.063 of a vote. Pretty pointless.
I did until recently think that PR was a bad thing but these days, I think our politicians are typically so bad (and this is made worse by the result which suggests that people don't blame labour for massively overspending during boom times and not putting anything aside, irrespective of how good/bad you think the rest of their time in power has been. As such, unlike the Tories, there's a realistic chance that they'll get back in when a coalition breaks down and be just as bad as they are now but with a nicer, smilier figure head) that anything that helps keep them in check is probably a good thing IMO.
No way is it time for Nick to go ... though I guess both Gordon and Dave would wish he would.
Party Gain Loss Net Votes % +/-%
Conservative 290 94 3 +91 10,135,228 36.1 +3.9
Labour 247 2 87 -85 8,194,900 29.2 -6.3
Liberal Democrat 51 7 13 -6 6,421,841 22.9 +1.0
Only in the current flawed system could a party get more votes and actually get less seats !
It is now time for REAL CHANGE, get rid of the first past the post conflict politics which hold the country back and instigate real Democratic 'work together for the best ' type politics.
And don't let Gordon and Dave fool you on immigration ... there is absolutely NOTHING which can be done about the vast majority of it as it is from within the EU, only Nick was brave enough to tell the truth on it and only Nick has the right plan to tackle any such issues in the future ......
Oh well I guess if history is anything to go by at least we won't have to wait another 5 years for it to all happen again 😉
BUT
Voter power in Harrogate & Knaresborough
0.161
Constituency marginality
Very safe .... OOOPS ! think they got that bit wrong ... though I just can;t see why Cons won it back after making such a mess at loal level 🙁
Ha ha ha - best response I've heard so far - just some punter on 5 LIve:
Strip out Scotland, Wales and about 8 million people on the public payroll and Cameron has a clear majority!
Strip out everyone outside my household and the Lib Dems won unanimously.
And Scotland should be given independence?
Only if they let me move there first.
chakaping, you can be first after me.
If anyone should go it's Cameron. The Tories should have won this with a landslide, economy up the spout, charmless oppostion leader, oppostion at the end of their fourth term, massive budget deficit. it was his to lose, and with that result he's effectively lost.
Feel sorry for the lib dems, combination of poor electoral system and spineless voters. My guess is a surprising number of the 40% of undecided voters only made up their minds when faced with the ballet paper and then went itno auto pilot.
best we can hope for is that there is some form of Lib/Lab coalition which actually ends up with reform. I don't given the likely timescales before it all collapses that's very likely though. Trouble is if we have another election less than 12 months (which I think is likely) it'll be similar result if Cameron and Brown are still around.
Think if Cons get a working coalition it'll last for a while. They'll have quite a while to blame the previous government for getting us into this mess. After all, Labour have been trotting that soundbite out for 13 years now.
My worry with PR is you'll end up with BNP getting seats unless there is a snazzy way of mucking the votes around to avoid that. But then is that fair? Not that I'm sticking up for those toerags but if people are complaining that Libs should have 24% of the seats can they then turn round and say its not right that BNP (or whoever) don't get their 'rigthful' percentage too?
Would you end up with the, say, Green party deciding things potentially with their small number of votes.
Maybe we should stop the Party Whip idea, so that MPs can vote for their constituencies (or their heart) rather than be bullied into the party line?
Still there so far, after some of the smartest negotiating you're likely to see.
Happy days.
after some of the smartest negotiating you're likely to see.
The 4 most important jobs in British politics :
1. Prime Minister = Tory
2. Chancellor of the Exchequer = Tory
3. Foreign Secretary = Tory
4. Home Secretary = Tory
Deputy Prime Minister, a job of so little importance that even John Prescott was trusted to do = Liberal Democrat
If you consider that be "the smartest negotiating you're likely to see", then I can fully understand why you might be impressed by the 0.9% increase in LibDem vote since 2005.
I however, am completely unimpressed by Clegg's negotiating skills.
I'm also particularly unimpressed by the fact that [i]despite[/i], New Labour being completely discredited, [i]despite[/i] the Tories failing to inspire the electorate with credible alternatives, [i]despite[/i] receiving unprecedented equal footing on TV debates, [i]despite[/i] a captive audience desperate to be offered an alternative, [i]despite[/i] all that, the LibDems under Clegg's leadership, only managed to increase their vote by 0.9% compared to the previous general election result.
The SDP-Liberal Alliance were getting more support 25 years ago than they are today under Nick Clegg.
As I've said previously, I consider Nick Clegg becoming leader of the LibDens to be the greatest disaster in British politics in recent years. And the sooner Clegg is replaced and the Libdems re-establish themselves as a social democratic party committed to a mixed economy and universal welfare state, then the quicker politics in Britain can move forward to the benefit of ordinary people. And I say that not only as someone who has previously voted LibDem, but also as someone who has put in the hard work of canvassing door to door for them.