Another unelected labour PM

WetAugust - you're being outrageously rude. Policywonk and MmeLindt are both incredibly measured, genuine posters. Think you should apologise to both of them.

I've reported your posts to MN.

Don't come on here to flame me - I read your comments on the other thread. I don't need policywonk dictating to me - ooops sorry guys - I forgot - you lot are dictators aren't you as you totally fail to accept democratic views

lol WetAugust. The pant-wetting rudeness is a general thing then, I take it

Sky - Adam Boulton 3 mins ago

"imagine how totally ludicrous if we end up with a PM who didn't participate in the TV leadership debates " I totally agree.
And wetaugust - have just heard on bbc.
Can't believe it. I don't think the tory grassroots will like that AT ALL.

Not really, Carmelita. The leaders participated in the debates in order to put across the views of the parties, all they did was to spew the part line over and over.

Of course, they used personality to try and win the day, but are you saying we should let personality and media pretty win the day?

wetaugust where did you get that from?
AV???? really???

You elect a party, not a leader. The parties do not campaign on the basis of their leaders personal views, they campaign based on the policies of the parties. The leader is interchangeable, IMO.

What is more important is that the leader is a decent person, with the strength to rule the country.

All this unelected leader stuff is bollocks.

imagine how totally ludicrous if we end up with a PM who didn't participate in the TV leadership debates

"lots of people don't actually think about the parliament - they are voting for who they want to be PM"

Well sorry but more fool them because that's not how the system works."

I agree theyoung - it is more fool them. Unfortunately not everyone understand the system.
And if we have PR in any form it will be really complicated - I'm sure that will result in some people being put off voting altogether as they will be confused.
Obviously other people will be delighted so more likely to vote. Either way, if we do get PR (or AV, or AV+) I think they'll need more staff at polling stations to explain it all! - and therefore more time to vote judging by the queues this time

Apologies for the extended fisk but there is so much wrongness on this thread

1. 'ANOTHER unelected PM'. Every PM we've ever had has been both elected (by their constituents) and unelected (in that there is no Prime Ministerial election). This is just a nonsensical point. If you are silly enough to vote for parties purely because of their leader then frankly you deserve to get shafted.

2. 'So LD go for the power rather than what "the people" have asked for....' No. 'The people' did not ask for a Tory government. They did not ask for a Labour government. They did not ask for a LibDem government. They asked, pretty conclusively, for a hung parliament (check the pre-election polls - way more than 50% thought a hung parl would be the best outcome).

It doesn't matter how many times you try to say that the Tories won. They didn't. The clue is in the fact that that pinkish fellow isn't in Downing St.

3. 'the markets clearly want a conservative influence'. The markets can fuck off. They don't get to decide.

4. 'did you see the poll of LibDem members earlier where 97% supported NC in talking to the Tories first.' - that'll be because NC said, extremely clearly, before and after the election, that the party with the most seats and the most votes would have (in his opinion) the moral right to seek to form a government first. It's not a measure of LD supporters' pro-Tory views.

5. 'this talk of 'progressive majority' is bollocks'. No, it's not. Recent polls have shown pretty conclusively that far more LD voters are in broad sympathy with Labour than are in broad sympathy with the Tories. LD policies on the economy, Europe, electoral reform and income redistribution all have a great deal in common with Labour policies. I haven't seen a single journo, politician or commentator attempt to argue that there is more natural LibCon synergy than there is LibLab synergy, but I've seen most of them arguing the opposite (including every single senior LibDem who's been authorised to talk to the press).

6. 'On that basis we shoudl award Olympic gold to the 2nd and 3rd place high-jumpers as collectively they jumped higher than than the guy who actually did jump the highest.' Look, it's called democracy. A minority Tory government would have no true democratic legitimacy; 64% didn't want it. Either a LibCon or a LibLab administration would have a proper mandate.

7. 'They are hardly acting for the benefit of the country.' Just because it's not the outcome you want, it doesn't mean it's not in the national interest.

WetAugust, you've been pretty rude to MmeLindt without any justification, given that her posts have been very measured and calm. I think you owe her an apology.

Oh FFS! cameron has offered the Libs AV

"I am Labour and I don't want a lib/lab/nationalist pact."

Me neither actually.

"I think a lib/con coalition that will inevitably go tits up could be good for Labour"

And there was me thinking that a LibLab pact going belly up would be good for the Conservatives. No-one really wants the Libs, do they?

"lots of people don't actually think about the parliament - they are voting for who they want to be PM"

Well sorry but more fool them because that's not how the system works.

That's like voting green and then saying "but I thought we had proportional representation - what happened to my vote?"

You vote using the system you have, not the system you want.

apparently 1/3 of our PMs have been unelected and have come to power in this way

I am disappointed in NC.
Smacks of Libdems holding country to ransom for their own ends rather than offering a new way of doing things.
This is def not in the country's interests.
Am also at the unelected Campbell,Adonis etc pontificating on the news.

I am Labour and I don't want a lib/lab/nationalist pact. I did at first, due to a fear of the Tories but I think a lib/con coalition that will inevitably go tits up could be good for Labour.

Think we need time out of office to reflect and strategise.

I think the lib dems are in a no win, they need to look at all options to placate party but many many supporters will be unhappy regardless of who they align with. A Tory government which is reigned in by Lib Dems wouldn't be the worst thing to come out of this election.

But this election was far more about the leaders than ever before cos of the debates. And lots of people don't actually think about the parliament - they are voting for who they want to be PM (I know that others vote very much for their local MP). It justs seems to me that it would have been better for GB to have said before the election, so that people could have decided based on the new leader of labour. I don't know much about the millibands or balls, but who knows what their personal slant on things may be. They could take the labour party in a different direction (ie more left or more nu-labour), which may not be what the electorate wanted.

"Clegg's acting very duplicitous. Wasting 4 days of the conservatives (and nation's) time. This is not the way to negotiate. What a wolly!"

FGS - he's not a wally or duplicitous. He's trying to get an agreement that his party can live with.

It's not his fault that the Tories are baulking on the ONE thing that's most important to the Lib dems.

If he agrees to a coalition that doesn't work for his party, how long do you think it will stand for? THAT would be a waste of the nation's time.

Didn't realise we had a presidential system by stealth. In the USA they vote for an individual, here we vote for a party. It makes no difference who is leading that party imo.

Oh and re PM

I don't care. The fact is that you vote for a parliament - you don't vote for a PM.

That's not how it works. Otherwise - if we voted for a PM - then we'd tick the box that said Cameron.

We vote for a parliament. Not for a prime minister.

MILLIONS

I'd have paid MILLIONS