The UK Election!!!!

He basically gave several months notice as leader of the Labour Party. He'll continue working this job until a replacement is decided on.Likewise he'll keep working as PM until a replacement is decided. If it's a Labour minister that will be in September. If it is a Conservative minister, it will presumably be before the end of May.

Directly no. How could they? This was not an option on the ballot paper. It might have been interesting if it had been? Wrong. I personally voted hoping for a coalition and so did many others I know. See Message 232How many people expressed the opinion that a hung parliament may be quite a good thing during this election? What do you think they wanted if not coalition politics of some sort? An identical number to the tory/libdem coalition then. The one way in which I have some sympathy with this view is that if you are going to turn British elections into presidential leader led races it does seem a bit much to then say that who leads any given coalition doesn't matter. IF there ends up a lib/lab coalition with a new leader of the labour party as PM that would be kinda bizarre and not very democratic in that context.

Just saw the press conference on the news. Must have used the word 'progressive' at least half a dozen times. This from a man whose party brought us closer to Stalinism than ever before. Progressive my arse!

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

That's why they need to be "coalesced" (Is that the right word for something that is "coallitioned?)

And I voted hoping that Wales will win the six nations. Wishful thinking doesn't count mate. It's what on the ballot paper that does. Expressing opinion doesn't count. It's what on the ballot paper that does. I don't know - I'm not a mind reader. Let's ask Mystic Meg. I can tell you what they ticked on the ballot paper though. Correct. So? I'm not trying to turn British elections into presidential leader led races, don't know why you even thought that. I'm just pointing out the blatant injustice of the party with the most votes being excluded from government.

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

The ballot paper did indeed count. And yet here we are. In a little coalition conundrum. Because "the people" didn't trust any one of the parties to lead the country.I would say we got what we wanted. But as they say - Be careful what you wish for........ I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the increasing tendency of this to be the case culminating in the recent leaders debates on TV as the centrepiece of the election. I don't hold you personally responsible. If the combined votes of a coalition have more (indeed over 50%) then I don't see your problem. When was the last time we had a government with over 50% of the vote?I would have thought you - Mr direct democracy - would have been pro that at least?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Conservative Party votes: 10,706,647
Lib/Lab: 15,432,296Total votes: 29,653,638A very slight majority of voters went for Centre/Left politics. The only problem is of course the fact that Lab/Lib is still a minority in the house.I guess it's like when America talks about democracy, it's only democracy when you vote for our candidate.Naturally - this works the other way too. We need to bare in mind that a million people voted UKIP and they got no seats at all. Presumably UKIP would join up in a coalition with Conservatives. They have 306 seats. That's a fairly powerful position even if they are in opposition. Labour would have to keep a lot of disparate voices in agreement which means policies that pass would not be the voice of a single subgroup of the people, but several parties...perhaps even the Conservatives.Apparently though, trying to develop policies that can win 50% of the support of as many diverse peoples as possible is less democratic than having a single group set the agenda exclusively.Given the results, I think a Labour/Conservative partnership has better long term prospects when it comes to relative politics than Lib/Con. I'd like to see a Lib/Con coalition attempted - where the Lib Dems hold Conservatives to all their promises to the public or face losing support...but I don't rate the length of time it would survive.

I see it like that too. But we cannot ignore the fact that there are those who voted liberal who would consider the conservatives as their second choice and Labour as a no-go option. A minority. But definitely there. True. They arguably lost the cons a majority of seats. So it does indeed work both ways. I am not sure any coalition will really hold up to the travails of realpolitik.

People voted Plaid Cymru, SNP, SDLP, Green and Alliance as well, all of whom, together with Labour and the Lib Dems, are closer on policy to each other than any are to the Tories. Collectively, they represent 54.54% of votes cast (unless I hit a wrong button on my calculator), and I'd suspect that those who voted for Sinn Fein and the minor socialist parties would prefer them to a Tory government too. Yes, it's a small majority, but it would be the biggest electoral majority forming a government since the wartime national unity government more than 65 years ago.How stable this government would be is a slightly different matter.Incidentally, it seems voting reform is quite likely. The Tories are promising a referendum on AV, while Labour are promising AV as a given and offering a referendum on a proportional system, according to the Lib Dems.ABE: Incidentally, even though I would like this coalition to be formed, I hate the term 'progressive alliance' too. Call it what it is - a grand anti-Tory coalition.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

It's because the sum of the parts does not equal the whole. If I (and many others) knew that the party I voted for might water down its policies in order to form a coallition, or include certain people from other parties in government then I wouldn't have voted for them. People voted for specific parties and specific policies, not a combination/variation of them. When was the last time we had a government *voted by the people* with over 50% of the vote? But can't you see that a government which doesn't reflect what people voted for is the antithesis of direct democracy?

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

So, here in The Netherlands, we should do away wit our coalition government, is that what you are saying? I'll have you know that no party here stands a chance of ever getting a 50%+1 majority of seats in the house. Should nobody vote here, because the parties they vote for will water down their policies, in order to form a coalition government? Those coalitions aren't on the ballot, just the parties are. According to you, no coalition should be formed here, meaning no government can ever be established, because no party will ever hold the majority of seats.

O_oSo, because you can't impose the exact set of policies advocated by the party you voted for supported by a strict minority of the populous on the country as a whole it's wrong for parties to come to a compromise agreement between them that represents a reasonable balance between their ideals?How does that figure?A lib-con coalition won't represent the precise wills of either libs or cons but it will represent a compromise position between the two of them, surely that's a better representation of the disparate wills of the voters than either of the parties on their own.

I'm not telling you what to do, you (plural) should decide whether you think your system is fair and reflects the will of your people. Maybe you just need to change the system. So what you're saying is that because the system is setup so that the party that gets the most votes can be excluded from government I should be happy with it. So because the system inhibits the accurate reflection of the will of the people, I should put on a big smile and stop complaining, is that it?Tell you what: I'd be a lot happier if the ballot offered a selection of candidates/parties in order of preference. This way, it could be easily gauged how amenable the people would be to certain coallitions. But it doesn't. So I'm not.

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

Of course not. What you have to remember is that the UK has not experienced this situation in nearly 40 years. For most of us, this is completely new territory. I think that Legend's objections are to be expected and somewhat reasonable. A Lib-Con alliance actually hits my politics spot-on (i.e. bizarre, perverse, but rarely boring) but I can see how it would be anathema for many Tory-voters and Lib-voters.

It's not wrong for the parties; they do what they have to do. It's wrong for the system that allows -even encourages- this to happen. So no one is getting exactly what they voted for and your justification is that it's better for 59% of the voters ( LibDems + Cons) to get something close to what they voted for instead of nothing at all. Then -and by the same token- it's surely even better for 36% of the voters (Cons) getting exactly what they wanted than 59% getting a watered down version, is it not?

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."