results

[Jon MW]

not when you get same people on the list as in the first past post

joe bloggs beats tony boggs in the first past the post with a huge 25% majority

but tony is on list and get in on there

then comes a issue in the area and joe tells tony to bugger off as he kicked his butt in the fpp system

happens in scotland

I think that comes under making sure any system is implemented well.

And highlights a problem with PR, Tony Boggs is rejected overwhelmingly by a constituency but if it was purely a PR system he'd still end up as an MP because of votes gained in other parts of the country.

[Ironside]

true PR will give us a hung parlament every election and really take away the joys of an election

i'd prefer a single transferable vote where a candidate doesnt get into a seat untill they get 50% of the votes

will still give us good election nights will give smaller parties a chance

but also mean that we are still able to have majority single party government

[kinboshi]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. 

On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories?  Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government?  I just don't see what's in it for them.  If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position.

Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. 

[Jon MW]

...
Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. 

On what basis?

[ripple11]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. 

On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories?  Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government?  I just don't see what's in it for them.  If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position.

Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. 

The UK financial markets desperately need a stable gov.....a lib/tory coalition (360 ish seats) gives that. Lib dems can take credit for thinking of the country.
The lib dems can take credit for any "good policy" they can push through, and dissociate with the bad.
They don't need to do a formal coalition...and can keep at arms length.
None of them have seen inside No.10.

[Ecosse]

Ok, I will not refer or quote to previous accurate analysis lol.

Shady situation but TightEnd has been explaining all.

My biggest shock in this election is the fact that in my own constituency (Renfrewshire East), Jim Murphy actually increased his share of the vote to 50. something %

WOW. Scotland will never learn. Labour = Communism = FAIL

Gerrymandering (boundary changes) of course has made this a safe labour seat, check the  history of the seat (used to be safest seat in Scotland) for Tory.

Thatcher legacy does live on for sure. I'll be heading to the nearest pub as soon as she pops her clogs.

..............

[Woodsey]

hahahaa, GTFO squatter.............

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2964713/Gordon-Brown-squatting-in-No-10.html

[MANTIS01]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. 

On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories?  Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government?  I just don't see what's in it for them.  If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position.

Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. 

The Lib Dems aren't abandoning their main principle, which is to do what's best for the people of the country. With the Conservatives winning most votes and most seats and the country crying out for stability I think anything other than a pact with the Tories would be amiss. If they get into bed with Labour there is no majority and no stability. With just 50 odd seats the opportunity for Clegg to influence the direction of the country with Cameron is a greater power than his actual seats should offer. I can see Clegg getting into the cabinet giving him valuable experience he could never have dreamed of and an opportunity to see the inside workings of the Tories. All that is much better for the Lib Dems than just taking their 50 seats, going home, and not wanting to play government anymore.

[kinboshi]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. 

On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories?  Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government?  I just don't see what's in it for them.  If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position.

Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. 

The Lib Dems aren't abandoning their main principle, which is to do what's best for the people of the country. With the Conservatives winning most votes and most seats and the country crying out for stability I think anything other than a pact with the Tories would be amiss. If they get into bed with Labour there is no majority and no stability. With just 50 odd seats the opportunity for Clegg to influence the direction of the country with Cameron is a greater power than his actual seats should offer. I can see Clegg getting into the cabinet giving him valuable experience he could never have dreamed of and an opportunity to see the inside workings of the Tories. All that is much better for the Lib Dems than just taking their 50 seats, going home, and not wanting to play government anymore.

Would a ConDem coalition provide long-term stability and give Clegg the ability to influence the direction of the country, or really just provide them with the veneer of power where they can try and put a spanner in Tory proposals they don't agree with?  LibDem policies certainly wouldn't be promoted by this pact.

The best thing for the country might be no coalition, and a short-term minority government under the Tories, followed by another election this year.  Just in my opinion.

[Rod Paradise]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. 

On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories?  Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government?  I just don't see what's in it for them.  If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position.

Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. 

They dropped their knickers to Labour in the Scottish Parliament so quick it was unbelievable (a few years back) - a great many points on their manifesto were not negotiable..... which is true, they were dropped immediately they had a sniff of a Minister's job. Hopefully the UK party will have a bit more spine.

[thetank]

I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR.

Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR.

Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off.

I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour.
If my party puts up a 19 year old on a gap year I'm probably going to vote for someone else.

There are problems with FPTP, but surprsing number of safe seats changed hands, or almost changed hands this year. A sign that politics becoming less tribal all the time, a trend that people are making up their own minds more and more rather than voting just for who their parents did.
Long way to go still obv.



I like how election night is uncertain. With national polling being more and more accurate, under PR we might be able to know who won and by how much before we actually vote.




My biggest worry is that a party can get in who just cites populist policies that sound good in the pub or in the columns of redtop newspapers but don't take into account the complexity of the situation, or potential negative ramifications.
If 70% of people everywhere know you're shite, it'll be tough to get enough votes in a single seat as you can only work with the 30% who are idiots. Under PR obv they've got a chance to get a decent number of seats.
I don't know if we need to pay public money to stick a load of MPs from wacky parties in the commons to talk bollox and slow things up.
Not just right wing wacky, you'll get a lot of seats taken up by single issue lefty parties. Facebook group to promote the Pro Squirrel party, who to be fair don't just look after squirrels, but other woodland creatures who happen to be cute.



The idea that PR is completely and unquestionalbly fair is also a bit of a fallacy.
If you had a deal between 1st place and 3rd place party, more people voted for 2nd place party but they have less power than 3rd place party. It's not an out of the world example that 3 times as many people could vote for 2nd place than 3rd place, but 3rd place party ends up with 3 times the amount of actual power.




Under PR you've still got the safe seats for top brass, in fact, unless you spend money on having primary elections of something like that, the safe seats are about 5,000 times safer.



I'm not against the idea of reform altogether, but I don't want to go full on into PR with both feet.

[Jon MW]

...
I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour.
...

This is my main problem with PR, the principle of voting for someone to represent you rather than some party is much more important than the people who focus on the safe seats and party politics would give credit.

A lot of seats with this election were decided on local issues, with PR those issues wouldn't matter.

Even in combination methods which try and make the election 'more' proportionate you are likely to end up with constituency sizes which are much larger than the current ones, further removing the representative link between constituency and MP (and we are meant to have a representative democracy after all)

[Bongo]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference.

The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues.

[kinboshi]

I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. 

In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference.

The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues.

Of course they voted with the Tories on some issues, they were in opposition to a government with a majority.  That's not the same thing as siding up to the Tories now and fighting for scraps in the hope they get some of their policies raised.

To say the LibDems and the Tories are aligned in their policies is pushing it quite a bit.  Not saying they're close to Labour either, but this isn't the opportunity the LibDems have been craving for (again all imo).

[Bongo]

A blogger made a list of where they align and where they don't:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/05/areas-where-cooperation-between-conservatives-and-the-liberal-democrats-is-easy-possible-improbable-.html