Well he's smart. He knows if he went with Labour, they'd both run the very real risk of be obliterated, 1997 style, in the next general election.

Not if he got a PR system in place.

It'd only pass with a referendum. Would be very messy.

Doesn't look like it. With Clegg's announcement Tories will work with LibDem and it looks that Dave Cam will be seeing Ma'am soon.

Maybe Clegg is playing the long game. He's doing the "honourable" thing by reaching out to the winning party first, but knows they won't give him enough in terms of concessions, so then he is free to go with Gordon...

..that's more likely, especially seeing that Brown will support PR.

But Nick's already said the arrogant thing during the campaign - no coalition with Gordon. (Smartly enough though, he said ' with Gordon Brown', not ' with Labour')

Well exactly. I can't see Brown lasting as Labour leader, whether they are part of the new government or not.

but even if he teams up with the one eyed scottish idiot they cannot create a majority coalition government. still short of a majority even if the PC and the SNP also join

You're right. The longer this goes on, the more I think Clegg is going to join the Tories in a ConDem coalition. The best we can hope for is a slightly less nasty Tory administration.

I hope the LibDems hold out for PR--32% of the vote and 9% of the seats isn't democracy. My knowledge of political history is nil (as is my knowledge of so many things, alas): given that most political parties seem to renege on their pre-election promises to us, would a Con / LibDem pact be legally binding and enforceable between them?

Cameron shouldn't talk to the Dim Libs - he should talk to UKIP.

He agrees to call a second election on the understanding that UKIP do not field candidates. The price of this is that he must hold a full and open referendum on Britain's EU membership (which the Tories support, but UKIP opposes) at the earliest chance. Most UKIP voters (nearly a million last Thursday) switch to the Tories, who walk in with a comfortable majority.

The Sunday Times article explains how this would work:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7120711.ece

Votes cast for UKIP candidates may have cost the Tories seats in places such as Bolton West and Solihull. If just half those who voted UKIP in the 19 seats that the Tories most narrowly missed had voted for Cameron instead, he would have had a majority of two.

But that doesn't take account of the losses the Tory/UKIP alliance would suffer because of its anti-EU stance. Not all Tories are rabidly anti-EU. If they were, there would be no such party as UKIP!

Here';s an interesting article on "The English Question". The election has brought the regional voting variations and the effects of devolution into focus.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...d-1969247.html

The whole thing is such a **** up I could cry.

-