Another unelected labour PM

You want a reform of the House of Lords, Jeff! Me too.

I'm not bothered by Mandelson though - it's not like he's just an advisor - because all parties have senior figures who either aren't MPs or else are in the Lords like Mandelson

Yes, MsDav, but I would prefer it if the people who are making critical decisions over the running of this country had actually been elected by at least some voters somewhere, even if I disagreed with their choice.

Does anyone really vote in a general election based on who they would prefer as PM? I vote based on who i would rather have as my MP. I don't believe we actually elect a PM, that just happens to be the leader of whichever party gets the majority (under normal circs natch)

I think there should be a goddamn riot. How is it these people are supposed to serve US yet they get to elect themselves Prime Minister and whatever else of this country WITHOUT our say so??
The fact is no one does anything anymore, we allowed this to happen.
Why do you think petrol prices have been able to rise so high? Why immigrants are treated far better than our troops?
Because we ALLOWED the government to get away with pocketing money for themselves and raising our taxes when they want a new house.
It's about time the British people stood up and did something about it.

Because he would at least have some sort of a mandate from the electorate of this country.

I'm not saying it would be better mind you.

He is the most powerful in this country, and has been for some time, and yet he has not been democratcally elected to that position. I find that very scary...

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

Why would it be different Jeff?

Democracy? The puppetmaster here is Mandelson. Brown had to parachute him in to fend off a coup (several in fact) and maintain his leadership of the party, and he has been the true power behind the throne ever since. He is now manoeuvering to stay in that position.

If he was a democratically elected MP it would be different, but he isn't.

Yes of course what is going on at the moment is democracy. What is going on is possibly an historic moment in the development of the democratic process of Britain.

It would be a shame to rush it just because of ridiculously demanding markets, a frankly shamefully biased right wing press and the fact that the public find all this a bit tricky to get their heads round.

To attempt reduce this to the level of bickering and bartering is just silly and very unfair to the people who are trying very hard to come to a good compromise.

There probably isn't any such thing as a happy Lib Con coalition though.

The only 'happy' thing would be a majority government, and we don't have one.

it is democratic though, as this is the result of a democratic vote

Yes agree with that Minty

but it is also a part of a right wing agenda to try and make the Conservatives taking power urgent and inevitable -

whereas arguably, it is in everyone's interests for the negotiations to take place as patiently and sensibly as possible.

If they rush it, it will only come unstuck more quickly

MmeLindt speaks sense.

The markets factor (aside from being intensely undemocratic) is being much exaggerated because the majority of those who gamble make money in them want a Tory government and they want it now.

Pesky thing democracy huh when it gets in the way of making a good old capitalist buck.

The markets fell everywhere yesterday, in all of Eurozone. I am sure that the resignation of GB had little to do with that, even the press report that the dip had to do with the Euro rescue package.

We are of course beholden to the markets, but we cannot allow our politicians to rush coalition talks because of that. It is simply too important for the long-term stability of the country.

Why do the all the other countries who have PR not crash every 4 or 5 years after an election if it were so vital?

That is certainly the worst case scenario Minty

and as with all worst case scenarios, quite possible

but as I'm sure you know, it's by no means a certainty at all

Had a look at the Markets. Seems that both BBC and Reuters reports that they have fallen slightly but that is to do with the Euro rescue plan. Nothing about the UK elections.

Oh the markets, again! Nobody seems to really know what they're going to do though.

Everyone has been saying they're going to collapse since last Friday, and the still haven't. Everyone kept saying 'the markets won't stand for it' but the markets didn't seem remotely interested in UK election, much more in the Euro.

There seems to be a false pressure for a decision - a kind of surly impatience on behalf of the right wing press in particular and a frothing-mouthed horror about 'delay' and 'indecision' whereas actually

they're all negotiating as they should with parliament having been returned as it has.

I agree though Minty, that I can't see a solution which is going to work for anyone at the minute.

The government is not formed for the "markets", it is formed for the country.

To say that we are not used to it taking weeks to form a coalition is just disingenuous.

Other countries manage to hold together for however long the parties take to form a government, why should UK be different? Just because we are not used to it? That is no argument.

This argument of "the markets" confuses me tbh. Why should a country be ruled by the markets?