I'm one of those people nearlytoolate. I only think Gordon should remain PM long enough to get a coalition together which will promise a referendum on electoral reform.
Once this coalition is up and running a new leader should be chosen and a referendum held.
This is what I think should happen (if Hameron refuses a referendum on electoral reform) but I see that GB is too unpopular to pull it off.
I think it is right that the Tories have been given the first chance at doing a deal with the Libdems - however it is not Brown's fault if the other two fail to conclude this deal.
Just read this comment on the LibDem Fed Exec site;
"I don?t mind if the Lib Dems work with the Tories for the good of the country, but never at the price of electoral reform. The Lib Dems should try and negotiate the best deal they can for Labour and Liberal voters with the Tories. If they are able to agree a deal which includes electoral reform then fine. If not then they should tell the Tories that they plan to take 24 hours to think about it.
At this point they should go in front of the press and simply state they are ready to work with the Conservatives in a strong coalition as long as they promise to let the people decide on electoral reform in a referendum or they will have no option to start talk with Labour on a minority government. They should say they are offering a full term parliament deal to satisfy the financial markets contingent on letting the people decide in a referendum.
The onus would then be on the Tories to explain why they can?t let the people decide what electoral system they want and why they are against having a deal which would be in the interests of stability!
For me there can be no deal without at least some electoral reform."
Interesting point of view.