Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

news just in...definitely hung parliament...no chance of conservative majority

196 replies

Heathcliffscathy · 07/05/2010 09:54

according to the bbc

OP posts:
Crazycatlady · 07/05/2010 11:56

Sterling is tumbling. This is NOT GOOD.

TDiddy · 07/05/2010 11:59

Sterling's further devaluation was/is perhaps inevitable. Arguably that is part of the necessary adjustment given the govt's balance sheet.

SamanthaFox · 07/05/2010 11:59

Well it's always been part of the electoral system that this could happen...they ought really to have some kind of strategy for dealing with it.

I'm convinced it's all a conspiracy anyway.

TDiddy · 07/05/2010 12:01

Britain has a very good civil service and we are an orderly lot so no better place for this to happen.

GnocchiGnocchiWhosThere · 07/05/2010 12:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SamanthaFox · 07/05/2010 12:03

It would be WONDERFUL to have a Lab/lib dem consortium

I am really excited about that.

stirlingstar · 07/05/2010 12:04

What's all this about the DC's minority government being the answer that goes with what the electorate wants?

The electorate wanted a variety of things.

From the current BBC front page (not all seats declared yet) - Tories have 291 seats / 36% of vote. Lib + Lab would have 303 seats / 52% of vote. So I don't see how a lib/lab coalition is less what the electorate wanted than a tory minority gov is? In fact, it satisfies a larger proportion of the electorate. (And you could make similar argument for eg Con-Lib coalition)

JackBauerIsZonerrific · 07/05/2010 12:06

I just find it bizarre that a losing party could join with another losing party to make a government. Just seems all arsebackwards!

stirlingstar · 07/05/2010 12:09

It depends whether you look at the whole thing as a black & white win/lose, or as a system that tries to represent the electorate. By "represent" I mean incorporating some measure of relative support of all the parties.

GnocchiGnocchiWhosThere · 07/05/2010 12:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TDiddy · 07/05/2010 12:13

The ball is in the Tories court but they could go to pieces over PR. Wouldn't like to be in DC's shoes.

bubbles4 · 07/05/2010 12:15

What I find interesting is that if we had proportional representation how would the vote have changed and in who,s favour.

I cant be the only perso who voted tactically to keep a certain party out and would have voted differently if we had proportional representation.

TooPragmatic · 07/05/2010 12:24

Politically speaking, NC and DC are natural bedfellows. So it would make more sense for NC to put his support behind DC, rather than GB.

(NC's party, on the other hand, is much more closely alligned with the view of the Labour party so it will be interesting which party Mr Clegg decides to support.)

TooPragmatic · 07/05/2010 12:27

agreed, bubbles4.

also the results really show what a politically divided country it is. (Did you see the results in Scotland? something like 41 to Labour, 10 to Lib dems, 1 seat to the Tories. I would be very miffed to be ruled by a Tory-led minority gov't if I were in Scotland)

TooPragmatic · 07/05/2010 12:28

it's a really strange outcome, as not one of the three main political leaders is content.

electra · 07/05/2010 12:37

I think it will be some time before we know anything for sure because politicians don't ever like to state their positions about anything (because they cannot un-say it!) and in this event there will have to be compromises - I cannot see how the tories will reconcile their policies with libdem or anyone really.

It seems clear to me that a lot of people must have plumped for who they thought would be the lesser of two evils.

When you think of how unpopular GB has been since he became PM together with how much was spent on the tory campaign and all the media support also in their favour and they didn't manage an overall majority...... people were obviously not convinced enough by DC either...

noddyholder · 07/05/2010 12:39

If DC and NC don't form a coalition and the tories go ahead with a minority govt how soon will the next election be?And considering the mess they are inheriting and the measures they will have to bring in to tackle the deficit isn't it going to be impossible for cameron to get elected next time?Isn't this a gift to brown?

stirlingstar · 07/05/2010 12:41

I have the same question as bubbles4 - and I would have voted differently under PR.

TooPragmatic · 07/05/2010 12:41

noddyholder, that's the view of Mervyn King (which was not-too-discreetly blurted out by some US economist he spoke privately with.)

TooPragmatic · 07/05/2010 12:45

bubbles4, surely the biggest winners of PR would have been the Lib Dems.

noddyholder · 07/05/2010 12:46

The lib dems would have gained hugely with PR Bring it on!

JetSetWilly · 07/05/2010 12:51

thanks mycat and tdiddy

somebody please tell me what PR stands for - it's on the tip of my tongue...

littlelapin · 07/05/2010 12:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

itsmeitsmeolord · 07/05/2010 12:55

Now can you exaplain what proportional representation means?

(because I'm not actually too sure )

Disclaimer; I know what the word proportional means and I know what representation means, just not what it means in political terms/implications.

said · 07/05/2010 12:55

But isn't the LibDems share of the vote distorted by all the tactical voting? I voted LibDem but wouldn't necessarily if there was PR