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?

"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."

Actually, most people did vote for electoral reform. The Labour manifesto promised a referendum on AV. The Lib Dems, of course, want full proportionality. Between them they won 51% of the vote. That's most people in this country voting for the two parties that were advocating reform.

Grow up and stop whingeing, you Great British Public, accept responsibility for your actions for once. If 'Joe the public' is not to blame for the hung (not very well hung but hung nevertheless) Parliament then who/what is?
Give them bread and circuses as the great man said.There's plenty of the latter on offer but the former is going to dry up soonish.
If large swaths of public insist on voting for lalaland politics then they deserve what they get. Pity for the rest of us though.

We have a hung parliament here in Scotland and it's working fine. Means no-one can get their wackier proposals through. We have pr for our elections and I think it's great.
I'm pleased neither Labour or the tories (especially the tories) got a majority and they're having to learn to compromise.

Actually, most people did vote for electoral reform. The Labour manifesto promised a referendum on AV. The Lib Dems, of course, want full proportionality.

you didn't feel that Labour snuck that one in at the last minute in a piece of electoral bet-hedging? They've had 13 years to do this after all.

other annoying fallacies -

1. the 'progressive majority' - people didn't vote 'progressie' - they voted liberal or labour. and there is a 59% anti-labour majority if you want to look at it that way. Does anyone think if GB had got an outrgight majority that he'd be talking about a 'progressive majority'? Tis a political fiction.

2. natural sympathy..there is no natural sympathy between labour and the liberals (or indeed between liberals and conservatives) - they are different parties for a reason.

3. caroline lucas is the next big thing...erm, she's just got a marginal seat in a highly demanding constituency. she's gonna have to graft for the next five years to get re-elected and have a positive impact in Brighton Pavilion.

Totally agree with OP. I did not vote for a hung parliament, I voted for the lib dems.

There was no box on my ballot saying 'can I have a hung parliament please'.

The outcome is yes, a hung parliament and that is the inescapable reality. But I refuse to be sneered at by the likes of Alastair Campbell et al saying 'well this is what the country wanted' as if the country is a spoiled child or something.

We're all individuals and we all voted for what we wanted. What, were we all supposed to phone each other the night before and make sure our votes made for a clear majority?

And this is after the politicians lectured us that we had to vote with our hearts and not tactically.

Which way do they actually want it?

Good post Morris.

Surely this sends a message that, so long as there are more than two parties to choose from, we need PR.

If this situation is to be avoided in future we can do one of three things:

1. Abolish all other parties except Con & Lab
2. Brainwash the public so they don't have so many opinions.

or

1. Introduce proportional representation where everyone's voice is heard, not just those who backed the winning team.

"you didn't feel that Labour snuck that one in at the last minute in a piece of electoral bet-hedging? They've had 13 years to do this after all."

It was in the manifesto. That's what they stand for election on: parties take manifestoes seriously (whether you believe that or not), and they are the only document that reneging on remains a big deal. It's not their fault if you couldn't be bothered to read it.

"And this is after the politicians lectured us that we had to vote with our hearts and not tactically.

Which way do they actually want it?"

Eerm.... you employ them so how about deciding for yourself whether to vote with your heart (oh, blessed naivete, heart and politics, oxymoron of the Millennia) or with your head.

Wtf is up with the sneering tone rollmops? This thread is about politicians telling us that we have voted for a hung parliament, when in fact we all voted individually for what we wanted.

Don't you think it's hypocritical of politicians to tell us to vote with our hearts (ie for the party we truly support the most or hate the least) instead of tactically, and then to tell us condescendingly that by doing just that, we've got ourselves to blame for having a hung p?

I don't remember them saying 'be careful, don't vote for who you really want in power, vote for who you think might make the least offensive majority'.

I don't blame politicians for telling me how to vote - I'm free to make my own choice, but I do blame them for now telling me I'm the equivalent of a two year old in a toyshop who just doesn't know what they want.

I do know what I want, and I voted for it.

You answered your own question, Morris, didn't you?
"Don't you think it's hypocritical of politicians to tell us to vote with our hearts (ie for the party we truly support the most or hate the least) instead of tactically, and then to tell us condescendingly that by doing just that, we've got ourselves to blame for having a hung p? "

Politicians = hypocritical

The whole point of this thread is how annoying it is to be told by pols that we got it wrong after we did our democratic duty.

What is your actual objection to this sentiment?

Not sure where some people are getting the idea that most of the population doesn't want PR, since they voted for one of the two main parties...?

Just because people didn't vote Lib Dem, doesn't mean they don't want PR. And likewise, just because you do want PR, it doesn't automatically follow that you will therefore vote for the Lib Dems, since you might think every other policy of theirs is nonsense (I include myself in this contingent).

I wholeheartedly support PR but voted for one of the two main parties because as long as we have First Past the Post, it's fairly pointless to do otherwise - plus, I didn't want a hung parliament, since FPTP is not set up to deal with one (as we're seeing). Plus, I don't like the LDs.

It was in the manifesto.

it hadn't been mentioned much prior to the run up to the election - and given said manifesto would have been prepared with this election in mind bet-hedging is exactly what it looks like.

"I absolutely recoil at the thought of proportional representation with labour being the biggest party."

which do you recoil at? PR or labour?

Personally, I would be in favour of PR as it should mean the party with the most votes gets the most power.

"I absolutely recoil at the thought of proportional representation with labour being the biggest party."

which do you recoil at? PR or labour

labour wouldn't be the biggest party...
not if people stil voted as they did last week.

though we have just had 13 yers of labour railroading parliament with the strength of their majority - is that preferable?

Politics is a necessary evil, sadly. However, it's the devil we know, so to believe the honesty and openness of the politicians, is naive beyond absurd.
What I find ludicrous is that the very people who did their 'democratic duty', didn't pause to think of the consequences of their vote but marched, in droves, to the polling stations, all blue-eyed and bushy tailed and giddy with the belief that their party is the only true and honourable one who will carry this country to the greener pastures.
All the nonsensical BNPs, Ukips etc. etc. were voted for, same goes for the LibDems who clearly didn't have a chance; by voting for the 3rd party you are asking for hung Parliament. You payeth your money you taketh your prize....

Does anyone object to proportional representation because they think it's unfair?

I just realised that most if not all of the posts I've seen saying we shouldn't have it went on to say "because the party I don't want might get in".

Oh OP YES! I keep shouting at my TV that there was no option on my polling card saying "all of the above"

I voted for ONE party who I would like to see lead

but if PR is voted in then we WILL have voted for hung parliaments all the time!

I often wonder why "Yes, Minister" wasn't marketed as a documentary that is is....

by voting for the 3rd party you are asking for hung Parliament.

um no, they were voting liberal..and they actualy got a reduced share of the vote...

I don't object to PR-variants because of fairness, i objct because it could put 12 BNP MPs in parliament...instead of none.

onagar I object to PR because I believe it is unfair that say for example, the 4th and 5th most popular parties can get into a leading majority over say the 2nd and 3rd most popular party

pr = no of votes = no of seats
BUT
pr DOES NOT mean percentage of votes = percentage of power because of how leading coalitions can be formed. FPTP is closer to % of votes = percentage of power in most cases

Rollmops, I don't think that makes sense. Every party must start somewhere. If people are only supposed to vote for the party most likely to get in we would have a single party system.

Of course they must, bless them. However, the voting public should use the scarce gray matter they have and decide which party would get this country out of the current mess the soonest and vote accordingly.

And, take into account the political reality and not the fluffy promises made by the representatives of the 'necessary evil'; majority government would bring political and economic stability that would be a rather good thing. By voting tactically, the public could ensure the said majority government.