United Kingdom Election 2010 (4 Viewers)

[Debauchee]

labour and lib dems want to ban the page 3 girls.


FUCK THAT SHIT

 

[pman]

then we need the tories

 

[Slidey]

The rise of the lib dems has flopped.

Evidence? They're polling the same as Labour. It's just not transferring to a large increase in seats because it's not proportional voting.

 

[cosmo kramer]

Let's go BNP. They won't win but an increase in their share of the votes will send a message to the establishment and increase their viability to regular people.

 

[occer]

Lib Dems got fucked, such a disappointment.

In other news, the UK Election process seems even more fucked up than over here. I hope that the Lib Dems form a coalition somehow.

 

[Rafy]

Evidence? They're polling the same as Labour. It's just not transferring to a large increase in seats because it's not proportional voting.

They have lost seats. Well behind Labour. The electorate left them at the altar.

BBC News - Nick Clegg admits 'disappointing' night for Lib Dems

 

[Lentern]

Anyone know who Englands version of Antony Green is and if so have a link to his website? Everything I've been able to find is like Antony Green half drunk and funding it out of his own pocket.

 

[Rafy]

A hung parliament is now official.

On BBC projections a Labour + Lib Dem alliance would have 315 seats. Conservatives with 307. Both these are short of a majority. Labour would need support of other minor parties. A Conservative + Lib Dem minority is perhaps the most stable option.

 

[Slidey]

The electorate left them at the altar.

No they didn't. Again, they have the same vote share as Labour from what I can tell. Just because they didn't win more seats means little since as I pointed out this isn't proportional representation - it's not even preferential voting.

Also, The Lib Dems are supporting a Tory government.

 

[Rafy]

No they didn't. Again, they have the same vote share as Labour from what I can tell. Just because they didn't win more seats means little since as I pointed out this isn't proportional representation - it's not even preferential voting.

Also, The Lib Dems are supporting a Tory government.

No, Cleggmania clearly fizzled.

The electorate's flirtation with the Lib dems after the first debate, saw a quite significant surge in their support. ( File:UK General Election 2010 YouGov Polls Graph.png ) This did not eventuate and on election day they did not do much better than 2005.

Conservative 298 97 3 +94 10,441,938 36.2 +3.9
Labour 253 3 91 -88 8,423,937 29.2 -6.3
Liberal Democrat 54 8 13 -5 6,619,251 22.9 +1.0


Also the Lib Dems have not yet made an announcement of support for a Tory government. What Clegg has said is that as the largest party, the conservatives should be given the first chance to try and convince the lib dems to support them. The ball in now in Cameron's court to demonstrate to the lib dem's satisfaction that he would "govern in the national interest". Cameron will make a statement soon.

 

[Slidey]

23% compared to polls of 26% or 27% in poll predictions. I don't think that's "clearly fizzled" but it is disappointing for them.

Ah. Although you're incorrect about the ball being in Cameron's court. The incumbent government gets first crack at forming government as per the constitution, which is Labour. It's like Tasmania all over again.

 

[0bs3n3]

23% compared to polls of 26% or 27% in poll predictions. I don't think that's "clearly fizzled" but it is disappointing for them.

Ah. Although you're incorrect about the ball being in Cameron's court. The incumbent government gets first crack at forming government as per the constitution, which is Labour. It's like Tasmania all over again.

Nick Clegg is the leader of the LD's it doesn't matter who phones him first, he has clearly indicated his preference.

 

[Rafy]

The incumbent government gets first crack at forming government as per the constitution, which is Labour. It's like Tasmania all over again.

The Lib Dems can talk to whoever they want. They have chosen to deal with the Tories first. If the Lib Dems agree to back a Conservative government, then it's over for Labour. Con-Lib Dem together have a majority. Technically yes Brown could stay on until parliament convenes and a no confidence motion is passed or the queens speech is rejected, but he would just resign as soon as a Con-Lib dem deal was clear.


Brown just made a statement: "Prime Minister Gordon Brown says that, if talks between Nick Clegg and David Cameron fail, he will talk to Mr Clegg."

 

[Slidey]

Nick Clegg is the leader of the LD's it doesn't matter who phones him first, he has clearly indicated his preference.

His party would prefer to deal with Labour, so his preference may not matter.

 

[Rafy]

All seats now declared. (The election in one constituency was postponed until the end of this month)

Conservative 306
Labour 258
Liberal Democrat 57
Democratic Unionist Party 8
Scottish National Party 6
Sinn Fein 5
Plaid Cymru 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party 3
Green 1
Alliance Party 1

 

[0bs3n3]

So did those Cleggmaniacs jump ship to Labour at last minute or something?

 

[Riet]

So did those Cleggmaniacs jump ship to Labour at last minute or something?

I'd hazard a guess that the polls may have reflected the feelings of the population but because it's not compulsory voting that doesn't necessarily translate to how the result. The LDs might simply of had more supporters in the regular population but because they are apathetic they didn't vote.

 

[Slidey]

There's a few problems comparing the UK's Election to an Australian election.

1) Australia has compulsory voting, so everybody votes and the will of the population is properly represented as Riet pointed out
2) Australia has preferential voting, so the will of the people is more accurately represented
3) Australia has an elected upper house, one which can block bills, and one which is proportionally elected - so while the Greens have no lower house seats they still gain accurate representation in the Senate.

If you held the UK election with Australia's electoral system the Lib Dems would be MASSIVE power-brokers and they wouldn't be "a third party", they'd be THE third party (although that's somewhat true for the Greens now) with the balance of power in the Senate and the balance of power in the Lower House, too.

 

[Lentern]

No, even if he was to match the votes of a major party (and he won't) he's hugely disadvantaged by the sophomore effect. He's not a serious contender, he really shouldn't have been in the debate at all.

Ha, Hahahahahahahahahaha. Ha.

 

[badquinton304]

3) Australia has an elected upper house, one which can block bills, and one which is proportionally elected - so while the Greens have no lower house seats they still gain accurate representation in the Senate.

The thought of smaller states with fuck all population compared to other states, yet getting the same number of senate seats sucks. But I do agree that it is still far more representative than other western demos.