OT Hung Parliment!

tailwindhome

By my reckoning we're looking a a Conservative minority government

tailwindhome

David Cameron will fall 19 seats short of a Commons majority, according to a joint BBC/Sky/ITV exit poll.

The Conservatives would have 307 MPs, up 97 on 2005, Labour would have 255, down 94, and the Lib Dems 59, down 4. Nationalists and others would have 29.

That means Labour and the Lib Dems together could not have a majority.

From what I've read GB as sitting PM gets first crack at forming a government

He won't be able to

Cameron will either do a deal with Clegg or try to go it alone

I say the FTSE drops 150 points tomorrow

amnezia

TailWindHome wrote:

David Cameron will fall 19 seats short of a Commons majority, according to a joint BBC/Sky/ITV exit poll.

The Conservatives would have 307 MPs, up 97 on 2005, Labour would have 255, down 94, and the Lib Dems 59, down 4. Nationalists and others would have 29.

That means Labour and the Lib Dems together could not have a majority.

From what I've read GB as sitting PM gets first crack at forming a government

He won't be able to

Cameron will either do a deal with Clegg or try to go it alone

I say the FTSE drops 150 points tomorrow

The FTSE futures dropped 700 points in out of hours trading today but it had very little to do with the election. Its rebounded back now down at to just -200 points but tomorrow will be very interesting.

Eau Rouge

amnezia wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

David Cameron will fall 19 seats short of a Commons majority, according to a joint BBC/Sky/ITV exit poll.

The Conservatives would have 307 MPs, up 97 on 2005, Labour would have 255, down 94, and the Lib Dems 59, down 4. Nationalists and others would have 29.

That means Labour and the Lib Dems together could not have a majority.

From what I've read GB as sitting PM gets first crack at forming a government

He won't be able to

Cameron will either do a deal with Clegg or try to go it alone

I say the FTSE drops 150 points tomorrow

The FTSE futures dropped 700 points in out of hours trading today but it had very little to do with the election. Its rebounded back now down at to just -200 points but tomorrow will be very interesting.

The Stock Market is just a bunch of jittery, panicky, short-termist sheep.

deptfordmarmoset

Eau Rouge wrote:

amnezia wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

David Cameron will fall 19 seats short of a Commons majority, according to a joint BBC/Sky/ITV exit poll.

The Conservatives would have 307 MPs, up 97 on 2005, Labour would have 255, down 94, and the Lib Dems 59, down 4. Nationalists and others would have 29.

That means Labour and the Lib Dems together could not have a majority.

From what I've read GB as sitting PM gets first crack at forming a government

He won't be able to

Cameron will either do a deal with Clegg or try to go it alone

I say the FTSE drops 150 points tomorrow

The FTSE futures dropped 700 points in out of hours trading today but it had very little to do with the election. Its rebounded back now down at to just -200 points but tomorrow will be very interesting.

The Stock Market is just a bunch of jittery, panicky, short-termist sheep.

Does this mean that the ''double-dip recession'' is actually a double sheep-dip recession?

tailwindhome

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Does this mean that the ''double-dip recession'' is actually a double sheep-dip recession?

That's just horrendous!

deptfordmarmoset

TailWindHome wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Does this mean that the ''double-dip recession'' is actually a double sheep-dip recession?

That's just horrendous!

You're right, of course, but beyond the horrendous pun, I have a doubt. With Greek/Euro instability, there will be a lot of ''investors'' who will be seeking to make enormous profits out of hanging the economy upside down until the money falls out of its pockets. It's just a way of making money. Regardless of whether it runs the economy into a wall....

greg66_tri_v2.0

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Does this mean that the ''double-dip recession'' is actually a double sheep-dip recession?

I'll pin my colours. I predict that we're in for a second dip, and it will be savage this time. Lsat it was banks popping. This time it will be countries.

Stevo_666

Greg66 wrote:

This time it will be countries.

And maybe currencies

tailwindhome

What are the chances of a Con/Lib deal?

UndercoverElephant

Well it's unlikely that a Labour/Liberal coalition would have a majority. I guess it depends on what concessions the Conservatives are willing to make to the Liberals and vice versa.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I'd say as far as deals go, the most likely is Lab drop Brown (Brown said in an interview broadcast this morning that he would "play his part" or somesuch in securing a strong Govt etc - ie fall on his sword if need be) in favour of Postman Pat. Then do a deal with the Libs.

Ah the irony. The Libs - in favour of fairness. So they team up with the first losers to displace the party with the most votes and the most seats. How fair!

And the PM debates that we all saw. They did Gordo no favours. So what does the party who now claims to believe in fairness do? Drops Brown. Hands up who remembers Alan Johnson on them.

That serial dissembler Mandelson said this morning that in 1997 Lab was all in favour of AV+ PR. But they felt they couldn't carry the public with them. Who'd've guessed that all this time they've been just dying to drop first past the post?

Ominously for Libs, he (I think it was him) also hinted that in a coalition with the Libs there would be "consultation" on every issue. "Consultation". That would be this, then: "We're doing X. What do you think?"
"X is not a good idea. Don't do it."
"Yeah, well, we're doing X."

Ah well, we'll be reliving this all in either the autumn or the spring next year. No mistake.

alfablue

Greg66 wrote:

That serial dissembler Mandelson said this morning that in 1997 Lab was all in favour of AV+ PR. But they felt they couldn't carry the public with them. Who'd've guessed that all this time they've been just dying to drop first past the post?

I think this was the intention but Labour could not get the support from enough its own mp's at the time, so it was dropped.

As far as a minority conservative government goes, it could all be over in weeks when they introduce the finance bill following the emergency budget. Unless the Libs do a U-turn, they would vote with Labour against the +£6 billion additional cuts this year. Either that or the Conservatives administration will have to be a very anaemic version of that promised by their (albeit murky) manifesto. They may be in government, but they will not be "in power". A coalition would allow for more dynamic government than a neutered Conservative one would allow, and at this time of financial jitters, a Lab-Lib-Others coalition is the least-worse alternative.

rjsterry

I think the Lib Dems are a lot closer to the Tories than people think, especially where I'm from in the West Country. There was an interesting bit of statistics this morning that showed that the swing from Labour to Conservative followed a fairly predictable pattern across the country, but when looking at LibDem vs Con, there was no pattern at all. Supposedly safe seats swapped sides for both parties, and yet a lot of marginals stayed put or became less marginal (as my constituency did). I would say this suggests that in these constituencies, it was more about the individual candidates and their personal effectiveness/conduct, than which party they represented.

A minority government has been reasonably stable in Scotland for the SNP, so I can see a Tory minority government, doesn't sound so unlikely. The lack of a full majority would mean that they would have to temper their policies slightly, but it could work. All depends on how grown up everyone decides to be.

alfablue

I think you are right (closer to Tories), the Libs attempt to be all things to all men, and this varies region by region.

On a national level, however, there seems to be little common "blue water" between the Tories and Lib Dems, and it wouldn't take long for an opportunity to come up where they side with Labour and vote down the government. Next stop, vote of confidence, Tories lose, new election etc. Meanwhile, the economy melts down.

unscarred

A Lib-Lab coalition isn't going to be big enough to form a majority, combined they're probably going to be about 15 seats short of the 326 needed. Even with the DUP, the Conservatives won't be able to get much over 300 either.

A Liberal-Conservative coalition might be made to work, and would stop some of the back-bench Conservatives who've opposed the modernisation of their party from throwing their weight around.

What worries me is if legal challenges in marginal seats don't get resolved quickly the uncertainty in the markets could be enough to prompt a uk.gov credit downgrade.

rjsterry

Maybe. Or, the Tories might decide that it would be better to adjust their policies, such that they can gain LibDem, and maybe even Labour support, and then on we go. It's possible, but we'll have to see. Looking from the other side, the LibDems would be pretty daft to try and force a second election over any issue other than something like, say, a new Poll Tax, that they think they would get general public support for. Otherwise, they would almost certainly be blamed for the upheaval, and lose out in the ensuing election.

shouldbeinbed

Lib: centre left, people first europhillic and nailed on for PR

Con: centre(ish) right with a strong underbelly of much further right, rich uber alles and highly eurosceptic and strongly opposed to any sort of electoral reform.

such strong opposites only tend to attract in cheesy movies

the only saving grace for the tories is Cleggs assertion that the biggest losers (cos they're all losers compared to their stated aims) should have first dibs at forming the government rather than convention of the incumbents getting it.

UndercoverElephant

Let's face it though, the Liberals would clean-up if proportional representation was introduced. I can understand why they're pushing for it.

kurako

The elections for the Scottish Parliament (Welsh too maybe?) use a PR system. They were set up under the Blair govt. I remember there were also plans for regional devolution in England but there just wasn't the will for it. It is slightly opportune to be hinting at it again (see Mandy on BBC last night) but that's politics.

The most damning thing for me is the Tory's failure to win outright. We've got a long standing and not overly popular government, one financial crisis and another in the offing and a PM with problems projecting the folksy, cheery public image which seems to be a requirement of 'leaders' these days. The conditions were right for a landslide victory and yet they couldn't pull it off.

Although I lean to the left I'll admit it's nice to see Wacky Jacky get the boot. Her poor husband will have to pay for his own p0rn now.

bigmat

Clegg putting ball in Cameron's court. He'll be looking for big concessions I imagine, in relation to economy and political reform. If he can get those then Lib/Con might be best outcome.

waynej

A hung parliament could work, but to do so the parties would need to put aside their dogmatic idealogical stances and work for the good of the country - not going to happen. The ugly sisters will resist at all costs.

If one of the 2 main parties comes up with a policy in a hung parliament the other 'main' party will object in public even if they agree in private. The political capital to be gained is more important than the good of the country to them.

In every policy there will be aspects that all the parties like; the tories like this part but not these parts, labour like different parts, etc. Rather than find a compromise way that satisfies everyone and gives the best solution they will fight and reject entire policies for the simple reason that the other party came up with it and it doesn't suit their ideology.

IMHO we'll be going back to the polls in less than a year and in the mean time the mud slinging and political fighting will be 'savage'.

Cynical viewpoint but given what we've seen for countless years, I can't see anything else happening.

rjsterry

Any coalition is going to involve both sides making concessions, neither side will get everything that they want, and will need to decide which things they can do without/deal with later in the interests of getting on and running the country, which goes back to my earlier comment about acting like grown ups. Fingers crossed.

tailwindhome

The BBC wrote:

BREAKING NEWSLib Dem leader Nick Clegg says he sticks to his view that the party with most votes and seats - the Conservatives - should seek to form a government.

1049: Clegg says it is for the Tories to prove they are capable of running the country in the public interest, says the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. Read Laura Kuenssberg's tweets

1048: Former Liberal leader Lord Steel says some sort of agreement "in the national interest" between the Lib Dems and Tories is possible, given the need to deal with the deficit. But a formal coalition is unlikely, he adds.


1046: Mr Clegg says he will "redouble" his efforts to bring in "real change". The fluid political situation means it is vital that parties act in the national interest, he adds.

I believe those are called 'signals'


Much as my natural inclination would be to vote Labour (if I lived on the GB mainland) I have come to the conclusion that a Con/Lib coalition is the best outcome given the mathematics of the election result.

I think it would be suicidal for Labour to attempt to govern even with the Libs support. Not just in the short term but in the longer term also. An 'unpopular' government making 'unpoplar' decisions could see them in opposition for the next decade +

lost_in_thought

I don't know much about this, but it just seems incredibly unfair that the party in the majority (alright, so not enough of a majority) doesn't get to run the country. And that the party that came 3rd gets to basically decide who's in charge.

Eau Rouge

Bad night for the LibDems, who now find themselves in a very awkward position.
The country may never forgive them if they prop Brown up. The country may never take them seriously as a party if they abstain and give the Tories a practical majority in the House.
Their best option may be a non-Brown Labour party, if they think the public would accept such a thing. It brings with it the poison chalice of having to make the cuts in spending over the next few years that any government will have to make.

The Labour promise of electoral reform seems a red herring to me. A referendum will have to wait until after emergency budgets and the like, by which time whatever government we have will be massively unpopular. An unpopular government strongly opposed by a Tory party some will see as having been hard-done-by, and blameless for the cuts, is going to have a very hard time winning a referendum. I don't doubt many voters will be fooled into believing that a "strong government" wouldn't have made things so bad (which will be tosh) and reject PR anyway.

alfablue

I don't know much about this, but it just seems incredibly unfair that the party in the majority (alright, so not enough of a majority) doesn't get to run the country. And that the party that came 3rd gets to basically decide who's in charge

Look at it another way, it could be seen as unfair that the party with 36% of the vote governs the country, when 64% expressed through the ballot box that they didn't want them.

lost_in_thought

alfablue wrote:

I don't know much about this, but it just seems incredibly unfair that the party in the majority (alright, so not enough of a majority) doesn't get to run the country. And that the party that came 3rd gets to basically decide who's in charge

Look at it another way, it could be seen as unfair that the party with 36% of the vote governs the country, when 66% expressed through the ballot box that they didn't want them.

I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I also don't think it's better that the party with 29% of the vote still have a good shot at being in charge when 71% expressed that they didn't want them, and this chance is based on the decision of a party who 77% didn't want.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

I don't know much about this, but it just seems incredibly unfair that the party in the majority (alright, so not enough of a majority) doesn't get to run the country. And that the party that came 3rd gets to basically decide who's in charge.

For the politicians and the people involved in politics it's fun.

The people that came third don't really get to choose who gets in power, but they can choose who to support and in turn get some of their policies pushed through, where under normal circumstances they wouldn't.

For the Lib Dems, they don't have that much say (compounded further by the fact that the small number of seats gained). If they support Labour they still won't be able to topple the Conservatives unless Gordon calls in support from the other minority parties - and that will only be successful if they hate the Conservatives enough. The smart money would be for Clegg to sit back and tell Gordon/Labour (because Gordon must step down for this to work) that if they secure enough of the minority (to ensure that the Lib's seats will then topple the conservatives) then the Lib's will support them. If not he goes with Conservative. In actual fact Clegg needs this as well because I can see him pushing more Lib policies through a Labour coalition than a Conservative one.

For the voters (like me, who couldn't decide who to back because they're all as bad as each other) I think this is great, no one wants to say it but no ouright winner emerged because none of them were good enough. They're all too egotistical to admit it but certainly the losers of each party will most likely step down (win for me) and the winner will have to bend his stance inorder to win (i.e. less tax for double millionaires - sorry Greg, Lit and down with inheritance tax could be a possible outcome - which no single party supported together they all went with one or the other and having both would mean win for me).

Simples.

In the long term, this could mean double dip recession, a leaderless Britain or stagnation in economic growth. Or it could mean stablity. I'd like to think that this has at least opened up new/preferred possiblities as oppose to what was on offer yesterday, which was like struggling to find a 'lesser of three evils' scenario.

alfablue

lost_in_thought wrote:

alfablue wrote:

I don't know much about this, but it just seems incredibly unfair that the party in the majority (alright, so not enough of a majority) doesn't get to run the country. And that the party that came 3rd gets to basically decide who's in charge

Look at it another way, it could be seen as unfair that the party with 36% of the vote governs the country, when 66% expressed through the ballot box that they didn't want them.[/quote

I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I also don't think it's better that the party with 29% of the vote still have a good shot at being in charge when 71% expressed that they didn't want them, and this chance is based on the decision of a party who 77% didn't want.

But if Lab and Lib get together they will represent the wishes of 54% of the electorate.

UndercoverElephant

Would a coalition of two parties who shared a total of 59% might just be a better outcome?

Apparently only relatively few European countries have a majority government; including us and Greece.

Perhaps a coalition doesn't sound too bad? If we got rid of the party whips and MP's actually got a free vote, perhaps it could work well.