So what exactly was the point of voting?

[notsureatall]

....the electorate are being totally ignored and the general election might as well not have happened. Who gets to govern is being decided by a few double-dealing, self-interested MPs from a third-rate party with hardly any seats.

The Tories won the most seats. They should take power.

And I say that as a Labour voter

I agree but as a minority government what would be achieved?

The Tories won most seats in England.

There was no change at all in Scotland but it made for a nice trip out to the polling station.

True, diddl, but if there's a Lib-Lab-and-anyone-else-who-we-can-get-to-join-us coalition, there will be so much conflict of interest that nothing significant will get passed anyway.

The Tories - with or without the LibDemns - should take power for a few months and call another general election ASAP.

I agree. I hate all these backroom deals that are completed without any say from the electorate.

ah but uk history states its unlikely to last long. look at last time it happened. 2 general elections in one year.

I did ask DH this morning why it was the party with the least votes (out of the 3) that are deciding what will happen. Seems a bit arse about face tbh, and people will lose any confidence in the whole thing.

I think we should have a re-vote.

it is because they are in power and as legislation stand because they werent beaten by a majority they have the right to remain in power. However, untenable it is.

Heck, even John Reid thinks Labour should clear the field.

I am cross that the LibDems are holding things up. I actually voted for them because I think our LibDem MP is very effective, but I am unimpressed with this.

Unless they make this work, either by stepping back and telling the Tories to form a minority govt, or by getting on board and helping deal with the economy I think they are going to wind up even more in the political wilderness than they were before. This is their chance to show that they are ready for government and not just a bunch of single-issue pr-whining lightweights.

As for Gordon Brown saying he'll resign so the LibDems can make a deal with Labour, it should be impossible for the two losing parties to end up in power. If they do it will be ironic that a party that goes on about improving our democratic system will have blatently ignored democratic principles altogether. I certainly won't be able to vote LibDem again if that happens.

I don't understand OP

The electorate aren't being ignored. They have 'spoken' - as people keep saying - and now the parliament that has been elected has to work out how and who should govern.

I don't see any double-dealing. I see negotiating - which happens with hung parliaments.

Tbh I also think it's a more mature way of doing politics, than the banging of one tribal drum all the time.

Partly because then people end up getting disappointed, because inevitably things change as they go through parliament - and everyone calls them hypocrites. It's a really dumb way to do business.

We compromise all the time in our personal lives - without risking our integrity - because we know that's the way to get things done - why should politics be any different?

OP I agree it is a disaster.

The fact that Labour have offered the Lib Dems AV without a referendum when it wasn't even in their manifesto is outrageous. Something as important as a change in the nationl voting system shouldn't be able to be used as a bargining chip in political negotiation.

'This is their chance to show that they are ready for government and not just a bunch of single-issue pr-whining lightweights.' Quote of the week there from Haliborange, I love it! Why isn't there a 'I nominate this post for the round-up button'?

ahundredtimes, I don't understand what you don't understand.

It is not democratic that the make-up of the government is to be decided by a few MPS belonging to a party that were frankly embarrassed at the polls. And that the PM, who lost the election, should think it's OK to carry on as our nation's leader for another few (crucial) months

It is not democratic that, as Alibaba says, Labour (and the Tories) have offered the LibDems something that was totally against their manifestos

Malcolm Rifkind has likened what is going on Zimbabwe - Mugabe lost but wouldn't give up power.

"The fact that Labour have offered the Lib Dems AV without a referendum when it wasn't even in their manifesto is outrageous. Something as important as a change in the nationl voting system shouldn't be able to be used as a bargining chip in political negotiation."

Completely agree. It stinks.

A couple of people have said to me "but if we had PR the Lib Dems would have done better."

True, but they didn't do well with the system we have. And if people really cared about PR/electoral reform surely we would ahve pushed the issue when Labour had a ginormous majority and their only "issue" seemed to be where to spend the money next. If PR is a central issue in these negotiations (as surely it must be) I think maybe the Lib Dems ought to consider that they didn't come first in the election - or anywhere close- partly because the electorate doesn't care about that issue as much as they cacre about sorting out the scary deficit.

On a separate note, don't you think it is great how everyone is talking about politics? I even met a woman in her 40s at the polling station who had never voted before. It's really good.

notsure - I think it's because this is the result of a democratic election! It's not the MP's fault that the election ended up this way.

Nobody won the election. The constitution insists that Brown stay as PM until another party can form a government. Firstly it goes to the Tories, with the majority of seats, to see if they can do that - and if they can, then Brown leaves and the way is clear for the Tories.

If they can't, then anyone else is allowed to see if they can.

A Lib/Lab coalition government would represent 60% of the votes cast - and would therefore represent a majority.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't think it's undemocratic, because it is the result of a democratic vote iyswim

Oh and Rifkind would, wouldn't he? They want to play this as some kind of grubby deal which is denying them the power they feel is theirs.

The fact remains that it automatically isn't theirs as they didn't win the election with an outright majority. There's no point blaming other people for that - well, only Conservative people who failed to win.

it's becoming more and more like some dodgy election in somewhere like zimbabwe.

the people vote and then everyone just ignores what they vote for and carries on.

Well not quite Nancy! Mugabe voted out and he chose to stay regardless . . .

If there is a Lib/Lab coalition they are represent over 50% of the vote don't they?

"the people vote and then everyone just ignores what they vote for and carries on."

No one's being ignored, quite the opposite in fact. The people voted and gave no one party control of the House of Commons, therefore there has to be discussion and some form of compromise reached.

If what they people vote for was being ignored then one party would just stomp off into number 10 and try to run everything on their own.

In particular the Tories cannot just "take power", to begin with that would be something that would be ignoring the electorate. They would also be unable to get any legislation through the House of Commons, would be vulnerable to a vote of no confidence and would collapse in no time.

As said the people voted to give no party overall control so this whole coalition process is exactly what's been ordered.

"If there is a Lib/Lab coalition they are represent over 50% of the vote don't they?"

A Lib/Lab coalition would have over 50% of the vote, and they'll place their moral backing on this, but they don't have over 50% of the MPs. Therefore there will have to be some kind of coalition involving other parties too, which is what this "progressive coalition" thing is that you'll hear being mentioned.

Excellent post Badger

yes, you are right. I wonder if they will be able to pull off this progressive coalition though. It seems such a huge cultural shift for everyone to understand

reasonable discussion of what could happen if Tories try for Minority government

(not bad for telegraph!)

"I wonder if they will be able to pull off this progressive coalition though. It seems such a huge cultural shift for everyone to understand"

I'm not sure, it covers such a broad and disparate range of interests that I'm not sure it will be very stable.

As a particular example Plaid Cymru have already made quite clear that they want to push for additional funding for Wales and to be spared to harsh spending cuts that seem to be coming.

If they don't get that will they threaten to bring down the alliance?

If they do get it how will voters in England feel about bearing even more cuts in order to buy the support of a party in Wales? Wales already has more than 10% tax spent on it per person than England and Plaid are pushing for even more.

This isn't picking on any one party, each of the smaller parties in the alliance will be pushing for similar self interest policies as the price for their support.

Awkward, so very awkward.

The parties have to interpret what the voters chose. Most times it is straightforward when a majority want one party. In this case, they have to work out an ideological match which reflects the majority.

I do have sympathy for conservative voters being ganged up against by an "anyone but Tory" party. But on the other hand, if the Conservatives are not ideologically similar to the others to make it work, that doesn't reflect the majority choice. You could argue that the majority chose "left of conservative" in its many guises and that a rainbow coalition reflects this choice.

I think Nick Clegg is in a horrible position. If his party was politically aligned to the Conservatives, the choice would be obvious. But it's not.

"The fact that Labour have offered the Lib Dems AV without a referendum when it wasn't even in their manifesto is outrageous."

William Hague has claimed that, however Labour are denying it saying that they will offer a referandum.

I support electoral reform but it's so important that it's got to be through a referandum.