Another unelected labour PM

Elected by more people than TB was last time!

ah instead an unelected Tory PM whoopdefuckingdo!

Thats what I said. In normal circs, perhaps "the markets" wouldnt have any significance, but in this situation, they know hard times are ahead.

I would have thought it was a combination of the two.

Surely the markets are so jittery of the British situation because of Britains lousy debt problems, not just because they are unused to seeing British politicians in this situation?

an explanation on another thread

Ok. So who are the market then?

Who reacts to make the markets crash? The banks, the traders, the investors.

The actions of the banks brought the markets to the brink of crashing.

The government stepped in. Threw a few £billion at the banks to placate the markets, things quietened down.

The banks are now making profits. The bankers are receiving bonus payments.

But the government is not allowed to take a week to form because the "markets" won't like it.

If the "markets" are not the banks, traders and investors who are they?

The markets would have reacted. They may have crashed. They are not the same thing. Traders and investors can be independent, within banks, hedge funds, pension funds, companies (Ikea has one of the biggest treasuries in the world).

Alouiseg
If the banks had not been saved, were we not told that the markets would crash?

Coolfinz, John Major won his election, GB just lost his.

The way to look at it is, if they go with someone no-one voted for, like Ed Balls, it'll go horribly wrong and the Tories will get in next time (October?). If they go with a Tory Lib alliance, there will be a Liberal voice in the cabinet and maybe that would be better.

Either way, I think we'll be back at the polls within a year.

Bourbon
I don't agree. To the Lib Dems PR has been a corner stone of their party ideals for decades. It is like expecting the German Green party to form a coalition with the left and agreeing to build more nuclear power stations.

If the Lib Dems go for a coalition without electoral reform - or at least the promise of a referendum - then they will lose almost every supporter that they have. The party cannot afford to do that.

Actually i agree,I am in favour of electoral reform but i do think that it is a very complex subject,not one to be rushed at as a deal breaker in these circumstances.

If we are going to change our electoral system it will affect the fundamental constitutional rights of every voter,it should therefore go to a referendum.We should consider fully the impact of the necessary boundary changes and the potential impact of multi-member constituencies on our system.There will have to be an education process to educate people about the different methods of voting and how their vote will now operate etc etc etc .

I also think that at the moment we do have more pressing problems and that we shouldn't be using this one issue as the fulcrum on which we choose our Government for the next five years.It is an important issue but not the most important at the moment.

But bourbon it is completely unfair that 23% of people vote for a party and that party gets less than 10% of seats, just as it is unfair that those of us in safe seats may as well not bother voting as the other side always, always gets in. I'm not a LibDem but I think they are right that we can't fix anything if the system is broken.

Unfortunetely it may not be bickering and bartering in Germany or Holland but in this country it will be.The liberals have demonstratated that by efectively saying that no issue,thats including the deficit reduction,the war in Afghanistan,education etc,is as important as electoral reform.

Why have they said this ,is it because this issue is crucial to getting a stable national government...no...its because that is what gives the Liberals the best chance of having more power in the future .

British politics at its best

Mme - I agree, I think we'll either see a minority Conservative government or some supply understanding with the Libs, perhaps not a formal coalition though?

then labour will re-group quickly, provide a good opposition

then we'll all go to the polls again. . .

Mme Lindt It was not the markets that were saved by the public purse it was some banks!

It is not bickering and bartering though, Minty. It is careful and considered negotiations to find the party combination that will give the country the most stability for the foreseeable future.

As to the markets, they were quite happy to be saved by the public purse when things went awry (because of irresponsible behaviour by the banks) so should now hold their weesht (as my Granny used to say).

I am more and more convinced that we will be looking at a Tory government, with or without a coalition. Not what I wanted but seems to be the one solution that is most practical.

"As they have now done a deal with Tories, the prospect of unelected Priminster has now thankfully gone."

complimentary, do you know something we don't, yet?

I think Westminster is leaking a lib/lab alliance because Cable and ftse are dropping in front of my very eyes!

Wise words theyoungvisiter.

We are beholden to the markets but that doesn't mean we have to run like headless chickens every time there is a market blip.

Yes, it's one of the factors we need to take into consideration but it's not the ONLY factor, or the most important one.

Anyway I've seen no real evidence that the markets are so desperately nervous and intolerant of uncertainty. They seem to deal just fine with the protracted negotiations in other countries. They coped with the prolonged uncertainty before the election where we've had months not knowing who would be in power at the end of it. Why is it suddenly the end of the world to have a week more trying to get a deal that will actually work, as oppose to one that will fall at the first hurdle?

Setting up a straw coalition that falls apart at the first hint of controversy would be the real disaster.

I think Clegg is being responsible in trying to ensure that any deal is a lasting and solid one.

Totally ahundred! It manages to combine all the negative things about a second chamber, and none of the positive.

You're probably right about Mandy, I suspect that like the Hydra, if you cut his head off 100 Mandys would spring up in his place . I just hate him so much though.

Have to sign off now...

I think everybody wants to be led by people who have been elected, that goes without saying.

However we have a problem here;

Nobody has been elected, no one party won the election under the terms of our current constitution - there is no getting round that.

Whoever said that this is not about policy making but about negotiating,what is it that you think they will be negotiating.apparently the conservatives have already conceded on the no tax below £10,000,which will cost £17bn s what else is being changed to allow this.Coalition means that policy commitments made in manifestos go out the window and it will all be hammered out in metaphorically smoke filled rooms.

i think Nick Clegg is trying to do things the "european way" but unfortunetely like Blair thinking that we could morph into the cafe society by relaxing licensing laws this is just not our way of doing things