to resent being told that we, the public, voted for this hung parliament?

[clam]

No we didn't. We voted for the party we wanted, mainly. Is the fact that there was no outright winner our fault?
And what were we supposed to have done instead?

YANBU. Also, if it does go to a second election, I will be mightily pissed to be told it is so 'we' can do it again and get it right. I am amazed that a third running party- that lost votes AND seats can hold the country to ransom.

Its pissing me off also. Seriously. Like its our fault and we all deserve this shambolic tooing and frowing.

MPuppykin - agree entirely.

And introducing PR will just make this standard practice at every General Election from now on.

You people are getting really weird on this subject. There is nothing wrong with everyone voting for the party he wants. There is also nothing wrong with a result where no one party has outright majority. There is nothing wrong with a coalition government born out of compromise and negotiation. "Third party" is bargaining to see happen what its voters wanted, not "holding the country to ransom.

The winning party could form a government if they wanted to, but as the majority of mps wouldn't be from that party they would be at risk of having their policies voted down by everyone else.

That's the problem for the Conservatives. However much they want to talk about "winning" and the legitimacy of their right to govern based on that, winning an election means that you have a majority of seats so that you can push your policies through. They don't have that.

It's a simple numbers game.

I agree OP.

Most people in this country did NOT vote for electoral reform either, yet people are saying we did. People mostly voted for two parties that were not advocating reform.

you are holding the country to ransom when the speaker doesn't agree with the party idea being pushed

You are holding a country to ransom when you were voted in third, but you are prepared to hitch your wagon to whichever party gives you the most power, and you sit around and wait to see what deals they will make.

Actually many of us didn't get to vote for the party we wanted thanks to the lack of PR.

And many of you would not have voted for the party that you did vote for if you seriously thought they had a chance of winning

Eh

YANBU completely. I don't think anyone actually wanted a hung parliament.

I absolutely recoil at the thought of proportional representation with labour being the biggest party. I really wanted conservatives to win which is why I voted for them. I really hate the way they use the phrase "national interest" to try to serve their own purposes. They are not acting in the "national interest" - they are acting in their own. If they were really acting in "national interest" lib dems would form a coalition with the conservatives quickly instead of playing one party off against the other (which it is starting to seem like what they are doing to me).

I agree that arguing that "the British electorate voted for a hung parliament" is stupid.

It implies that a hung parliament was the objective, when in fact it was only the outcome.

Moreover, people who are saying "the electorate voted for PR" as an extension of this (i.e. this voting pattern proves people are ready for a coalition) are surely missing the point that if everyone was so keen on PR (and thought it was the number 1 priority) more people would have voted LD than did.

Personally I favour PR but I'm not sure a referendum would be successful.

aaaaargh what's PR?? Surely I should know - everyone else seems to

PR is one of many issues in the manifesto, very few people would vote for a party for PR alone which is why a referendum is needed.

I think many people are soooo sick and tired of power going back and forth between the 2 major parties that a referendum may well be successful.

A referendum would bring debate and maybe more people would see how unfair the current system is.

With the votes split in proportions of 6:5:4 for Con:Lab:LD it doesn't seem so clear cut that there's a winner, and the numbers of seats doesn't reflect those portions, else it would be even more clear that on getting policy approved by Parliament, neither Conservatives nor Labour would be able to guarantee theirs went through - indeed, "no overall control" readily springs to mind.

Is there really such a problem for parties to accept they must compromise rather than expect outright control ? Clearly there are portions of the MN "public" who aren't happy for compromise, but I suspect a few million other voters don't feel exactly the same.

It'd only be with P.R. that we'd know what numbers of those who (this time) voted for Lab or Con who could have voted LD and pushed them to be "winners".

ah
proportional representation

Screamineagle- I see your point, but my argument is that "the electorate" is not a conscious body and therefore cannot decide to vote for a particular outcome.

The only way you can tell if the electorate wants a hung parliament is to show them this outcome, and then re-run the election now and see what happens (i.e. does everyone vote differently to avoid a hung parliament or does everyone just vote the same way)

I think we're all arguing over semantics, but I think what is irritating is the illogical step from "this is how millions of people individually voted in a secret ballot" to "the outcome of a hung parliament was somehow predicted and approved by said masses"

One could argue that the fact the Lib dems didnt do as well as expected is evidence of efforts to avoid one.

But Lab-Lib doesnt have a majority either so it's minority vs minority.

The issue I envisage for NC in a Lib-Lab pact is that he'd have to have a very good whip because otherwise the LD's get seen as irresponsible when they bring down government motions- i.e. NC cant have any abstentions/rebels. If he does a deal with Cons, he's got more wriggle room as they dont need 100% lib dem support to hold their majority.

LD's have always had a slight credibility issue in that they're an unknown quantity in government. This is their chance so if I was Nick I'd be thinking that my main priority was to prove I can "act all grown up."

Anyway- off topic. sorry.

Well if you put it like that, I didn't vote for a Tory government - should I be outraged if I get one? There was no outright majority - so we did vote for a hung parliament.

Okay. Sorry I'm not explaining this very well.

I agree that the outcome of all the million votes was a hung parliament. No-one has right to be outraged that that is the case. Totally agree with you on that.

However, what I object to is the leap from this outcome (the result of millions of ballot papers, none of which had a tick box for "hung parliament") to the implication that this situation was the desired outcome consciously orchestrated by the electorate.

You voted for someone. I voted for someone. Our desired outcome was a majority for that party.

There was no vote on "do you want a hung parliament?"

That's true.