Dick Dasterdly

Quite possibly,though the present system isn't ideal.
When a party has a clear majority of votes over its nearest rival as is the case this time, it should at least be given enough power to run the country.

On a lighter note I like the Sun headlines,..Squatter Holed up in No.10.....
though no one would have noticed it yesterday, if he hadn't come out of the door begging for a few scraps from the Libs.

bil

I don't live in the past, but I look to the past to see what people have done and thus guage what they might do in the future.

I seem to remember that the tories fought long and hard against the minimum wage, and anything like that which might improve the lot of the basic worker. Labour got us that, and it just implies to me that no matter how bad Labour might be, the tories would be worse.

It's all very well for those among us who earn well above the minimum wage to shout 'I'm all right Jack, pull up the ladder'.

That was ever the instinctive shriek of those who had no desire to ever think of those worse off than themselves.

bil

True, but then I would say that the result reflects the electoral mood. There just isn't anyone who stands out as being truly worth voting far.

bil

Well, First past the post produces a result that doesn't reflect the way people have voted.

PR produces some godawful coalitions that leave countries in the thrall of minority groups exerting influence far beyond their share of the vote.

To me, the simplest by far is to have first past the post with a transferrable vote.

That avoids the looney coalitions but still gives a good element of PR.

agoreira

And what about the LD's that voted to keep Brown and his chums out, would they be happy if Clegg got into bed with Brown! Whichever way he goes, he's bound to upset quite a few.

agoreira

Yes, I'd favour that system. I think someone said that there are only three countries in the EU that have an absolute majority (no idea who they are), the rest are some sort of coalition, so it seems quite common elsewhere.

missile

You have a point but I prefer to have an MP who lives in and is accountable to my constituency, rather than a proportion of some party in the collection of faceless beaurocrats in Whitehall.

JnK

I suppose no system is perfect but the Kiwis changed in the 90s and seemed to have it working okay. Although I guess with PR there's less chance of corruption.

missile

I have no knowledge of politics in NZ. I do know that coalition governments are the norm in many EU countries. I don't understand why it is seems to be a problem for UK politicians. Pehaps it is time they started to work together?

I don't agree that PR would improve the corruption. If anything it might make the situation worse by removing the electorates right to remove a corrupt MP. What might make a difference is where evidence of fraud and corruption is found then those MPs should be prosecuted - No one should be above the law.

rugbymatt

I agree, but over 2 million more voted in favour of the Tories, I guess someone somewhere thought they might be better for the country.

Madridboy

Very well put!

Dick Dasterdly

Seems Gordon was more than a little upset at yesterdays turn of events and last night had a very angry rant at Clegg down the telephone line according to the BBC.

Somehow I don't see this working out so well.
The mottley crew of Libs don't even seem able to agree amongst themselves, let alone work in harmony with another party.
At this moment they have a disorganised rabble of their own supporters howling for blood outside their own HQ.
It definitely doesn't look good at all.

Whoever the Libs get together with,if they ever get together with anybody at all,...I reckon it will be a marriage made in hell, and I would be forecasting a very quick divorce.

rugbymatt

Its unreal, the SNP got only 400,000 odd votes and they are calling on the Lib Dems to create an alliance with them, Plaid Cymru and Labour... Salmond is a pillock, the Scottish people deserve better than that twat for sure, for a leader of a party with only 1.7% of the vote to try and stop the democratic decision of over 10 million people makes my blood boil!

mikelincs

So the Scottish Nationalist party got only 1.7% of the vote, but then again, they didn't have a candidate in the vast majority of the seats, what is more important to them is the % of vote they got in SCOTLAND, the only place where they had candidates, and I bet it's a hell of a lot higher. Look at the Conservatives in Scotland, only one MP and a very low % of the votes. Best thing would be for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to have totally separate governments, then we could have an English Parliament, and each country could do there own thing. The problem that the British Politicians have is that, since the second world war, they haven't had to get on with each other, the different parties have just done their own thing, scrapping the laws etc that the previous party put in place, changing things really for changes sake. A hung Parliament could be a good thing, because it will stop any of the extreme measures happening.

missile

Sounds like a "real change" not the half warmed over Thatcherite doctrine as spouted by snitcher Cameron.

What about devolved government for those english who live north of Watford? They have been ignored by Westminster for far too long.

It may seem a little radical, but when most of the important decisions are dictated from Brussels, do we even need a Westminster parliament, all they seem to do is squabble and as for the house of lords - what a waste of space they are.