But what about Lab-Lib coalition without GB- surely thats what vast majority want?

A Lab-Lib coalition would sink like the titanic along with Gordon Brown!

The majority of us never voted for Gordon Brown, and at this General Election we didn’t vote for him as well!

After Labour cabinet members endorsing tactical voting, one has to ask himself how many Labour votes consisted of tactical votes? Tactical votes are usually votes not for a particular party but votes against another party.

In reality the spectrum of political parties have got wider. In other words, the voters had more choice of small independent parties or individuals (otherwise known as ‘Others’ at General Elections). Therefore the Labour party making desperate claims that there was more ‘anti-Conservatives votes’ is total nonsense, when the Convservatives received over 2 million more votes than the Labour party.

David Cameron’s Conservatives has won nearly 100 constituencies. Jolly Good Show!

@2

The majority of us never voted for Gordon Brown, and at this General Election we didn’t vote for him as well!

Christ not this canard again. The majority of us didn’t vote for Clegg or Cameron either, because we don’t live in Sheffield or Witney.

We vote for an MP not a PM. You know how elections work, right? Jolly good.

nice try reginald,come on admit you’re heartbroken. over a decade in opposition,ashcrofts millions,95% of the press and still dave couldn’t get a simple majority of one seat.

Who would lead Labour in a LibLab coalition? Another ‘unelected’ PM?

5

Hopefully not Brown, but given the dearth of talent in New Labour it’s hard to say. They might stick Johnson in as a stop gap, tho he’s deeply unimpressive in most regards – unless one of the Millibands suddenly grows some balls of course. If the Oberkimmando der NeuLabour isn’t busy preparing a loaded revolver and a glass of whisky for Brown, they really ought to be.

If you’re waiting for a PM who polls over 50% of the popular vote, it’s gonna be a hell of a long wait!

The more I look at the situation, I reckon Clegg and the LD’s should just say that a referendum on PR within 12 months is a deal breaker for any formal coalition: that’ll sort the men out from the boys. If neither side bites, he should stand back and let them govern as they can, watch them fall over, and wait for a new election in 2011.

I prefer a Lab-Lib deal

Under FPTP, and with more than 2 parties, the logic that more people voted “anti tory” than voted tory is a nonsense. By the same logic, more people voted “anti-labour” than “anti-tory”. It only works if you assume that the Lib Dems are just a branch of the labour party, otherwise it’s a fallacious inversion of the democratic process, the type of logic that mad dictators in tin pot republics use to invalidate legitimate election results.

I also don’t see how a prime minister who hasn’t been elected (twice now) can legitamately stay in No. 10 – he should have resigned/been forced from office on Friday IMO. As part of any reforms the rules should change to the party with the largest absolute number of seats provides the interim prime minister, until a deal is struck, or there is another election.

I think the labour party have made the public so dependent on them, that they sufered a collective failure of nerve this time round, and it will take more than one election to ween them off nanny nu labour completely. I’d say another election later this year will deliver a decisive majority.

The link to the Times article actually points to this article for some reason. Here is the correct URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election_2010/article7120171.ece

(Feel free to delete this comment once it’s fixed.)

8. Matt Munro

‘ I also don’t see how a prime minister who hasn’t been elected (twice now) ‘

To be consistent in applying presidential concepts to a parliamentary systems the new Prime Minister will also be unelected. If elected as it applies to a Prime Minister is to have any rational meaning, it must mean a Prime Minister who wins a majority of seats in the HoC ie 326. Although the more rational would conclude in a parliamentary system we do not elect a PM, we elect an MP.

“I also don’t see how a prime minister who hasn’t been elected (twice now) can legitamately stay in No. 10″
Erm … as I think has been pointed out above, very few of us actually vote for the PM, just those in his constituency, and in that case he has been elected several times, just like Cameron and Clegg. Maybe you’re mixing us up with a country that has a directly elected head of state, like the US, that bastion of democratic principles, (take California by 1 vote get all 55 electoral college votes).

“he should have resigned/been forced from office on Friday IMO.”
…. and who’d be PM now then? That nice Dave Cameron with his massive 36% of the popular vote I suppose? Nobody won a majority, and under those circumstances the convention says that whoever is in No. 10 stays there. Blame our freaky “make it up as you go along” constitution, (you know, the one the Tories are dead set against reforming).

What is all this nonsense about not having elected Bordon Brown?
When i am presented with a ballot paper his name is not on it because I do not live in his constituency. We vote for MPs in this country, not Prime Ministers.
If it had not been for G. Brown, Chancellor, we would have been in the Euro and paying off Greece’s debts.

Gaf @ 11:
“…. and who’d be PM now then? That nice Dave Cameron with his massive 36% of the popular vote I suppose?”

Unlike the massive 37% of the vote that Labour got in 2005, of course.

“And in fact a Labour-LibDem coalition (51 per cent) has more support than a full Tory-LibDem coalition (46 per cent, with 52 per cent against). A Tory minority government is just more popular than either (53 per cent), as long as it depends on LibDem support, and much the least popular option (29 per cent) if primarily based on an understanding with the Ulster Unionists.”

So the majority of people prefer a Lab-Lib pact – and an even bigger majority still support a Con-Lib pact, but based on a confidence and supply agreement rather than formal coalition. That ain’t apparent from the title of this, is it?

” think the labour party have made the public so dependent on them, that they sufered a collective failure of nerve this time round, and it will take more than one election to ween them off nanny nu labour completely. I’d say another election later this year will deliver a decisive majority.”
You really have a low opinion of the British public don’t you tory boy. With a
Thatcherite press and media who constantly spew out their hatred and right wing philosophy. Who is doing the brainwashing , the BBC.
If you think that complain to OFCOM, and please tell me the results.
Don’t give me any of that shit that you are not a did hard Thatcherite Tory twat
Be honest boy,although your type it is impossible.
I actually think at least 8% of the Tory vote was due to a dislike of Brown personally. That will not happen next time

If it had not been for G. Brown, Chancellor, we would have been in the Euro and paying off Greece’s debts.

haha – yes, the one thing he got right, though don’t mention it here, they all love the euro…

I think the LibCon deal will happen.
All the senior LD’s are Orange Book types are they not?
Why wouldn’t it?
All this LD’s are closer to Lab stuff is crap.
Not the leadership, anyway.

“All this LD’s are closer to Lab stuff is crap.”

The picture isn’t uniform across the country.

In places, long-standing Con-LibDem alliances have run local councils for years but in the constituency where I live, the Labour Party is nowhere and there are no Labour councillors on the borough council.

In this LibDem-Conservative marginal, there was a significant swing in the votes from the Conservatives to the LibDems at the Parliamentary election. The LibDem MP was returned with a bigger majority and the LibDems also made large net gains in council seats, almost all at the expense of the Conservatives.

@12

What is all this nonsense about not having elected Bordon Brown?

My wife complains all the time that she voted Labour last time only because Tony Blair promised he would serve a full term.

She maintains that had she known Gordon Brown would take over part way through, she would never have voted Labour.

You may find it strange to think that there were some real, genuine Blairites. But there were.

Gordon Brown became Prime Minister after an uncontested Labour leadership election in mid-term. Consequently, his legitimacy was always at issue to some extent and his mandate pretty shaky. For him to now seek to continue in office after losing 100 seats or so to the Tories does suggest some measure of contempt for the public.

@ 13: ‘“…. and who’d be PM now then? That nice Dave Cameron with his massive 36% of the popular vote I suppose?”

Unlike the massive 37% of the vote that Labour got in 2005, of course.’

… which some of us pointed out at the time highlighted the case for PR.

The last PM who DID hold an immediate election to cement their legitimacy after coming to power mid-term was Anthony Eden in 1955. Since then, Macmillan, Home, Callaghan, Major, and Brown have come to power mid-term without holding snap elections, but apparently it’s only wrong when it’s Brown does it. (Out of those, only Macmillan called an election without waiting to the very end of the term.)

And yes, a majority voted against Labour. A majority voted against the Tories too – just like in the last election, and the one before that… in fact, the last government to come to power with an overall majority of the popular vote was Lord Salisbury’s Tory / Liberal Unionist alliance in 1900. The last single party to do it was Gladstone’s Liberal Party in 1880. Has every government since 1900 been illegitimate?

A Lib-Lab pact would collectively represent a majority of voters. By Reginald’s logic, it would be our first legitimate government in 110 years.

Nick Clegg should consider the wishes of the electorate before deciding to prop up the Conservatives. The majority voted for centre-left parties, only 36.7% voted for centre-right parties.

A coalition of Labour + Lib/Dem + Plaid Cymru + SNP + SDLP + Greens would give a majority with 327 seats representing 55.7% of the electorate.

The only viable centre-right coalition is Conservative + Democratic Unionists which would have 314 seats representing 36.7% of the electorate and would be unable to govern.

The centre-left coalition would be more representative of the United Kingdom, centre-right parties have very little support outside England and Northern Ireland. The Conservatives have practically no support in Scotland.

It seems wrong that we won’t be able to vote for the coalition we’d prefer to have – or even shock horror directly elect the executive. Nonetheless, regardless of how this electoral mess gets sorted, the likely outcome of Thursday’s election is that a new generation will take over power in our country. The passing of the generational torch doesn’t happen that often in history, and it matters. Perhaps the new generation will be more responsive.
Baby Boomers Blair and Brown have been running the show, with primarily Boomer-filled cabinets, and with a Boomer-dominated Parliament for 13 years. The new Parliament, as well as the new cabinet, will be filled with members of Generation Jones (the new media-popular generation between the Boomers and Gen X). And the new PM is likely to be Jonser Cameron. My interest in GenJones was prompted by this very interesting article last week in the Independent about Clegg and Cameron as Jonesers: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jonathan-pontell-cleggs-rise-is-the-sound-of-generation-jones-clearing-its-throat-1961191.html

20

“The centre-left coalition would be more representative of the United Kingdom, centre-right parties have very little support outside England and Northern Ireland. The Conservatives have practically no support in Scotland.”

Agreed. It was interesting to look at the election result maps published in many of the papers: they showed huge swathes of rural England coloured blue, effectively disenfranchising any non-Tory who doesn’t live in an urban seat, and the same for Tories in urban seats.

That kind of split is bad not just from the point of view of basic fairness: the “sectional bias” it introduces is even worse, and potentially self perpetuating.

20

““The centre-left coalition would be more representative of the United Kingdom, centre-right parties have very little support outside England and Northern Ireland. The Conservatives have practically no support in Scotland.””

Surely, then, the centre-left coalition wouldn’t be very representative of England?

23

I haven’t seen anyone publish the figure on “England only” votes cast, and can’t find it anywhere from a quick trawl on line. It is of course quite likely that there is at present a centre-right majority in England, but I doubt it would be overwhelming.

Per my comment at 22 above, it’s another argument in favour of PR, as even if the centre-right is the biggest single grouping in England, it might still be hard pushed to gain a majority all the time, tho granted it would be easier without Scottis and Welsh labour votes.

Parasite wrote above (@14):

“So the majority of people prefer a Lab-Lib pact – and an even bigger majority still support a Con-Lib pact, but based on a confidence and supply agreement rather than formal coalition. That ain’t apparent from the title of this, is it?”

That’s one way of putting it. Another way would be “why have you given an article a title which is contradicted by it’s content?” Presumably when you say that “A majority of the public would prefer a Lab – Libdem deal” you are referring to:

“………..Labour remaining in government in a formal agreement with the Lib Dems. This was backed by 51 per cent and opposed by 45 per cent”

Of course this seems to fly in the face of:

“A Conservative minority government with the support of the Liberal Democrats is, narrowly, the favoured solution to the electoral stalemate, according to a Populus poll for The Times.The poll of 514 voters today showed that 53 per cent supported that option, with 47 per cent opposed.”

doesn’t it?

You really are having trouble interpreting the results of opinion polls, aren’t you?

23

I found the England only figures on the BBC Election site… doh…..!

The combined % for Lab/LD votes is 52.3% (28.1 Lab, 24.2 LD).

The Tories % is 39.6, and UKIP 3.5.

I expect in a true PR election the Lab/LD and Tory figures would slip, as more people would vote for minor parties like the Greens, UKIP, BNP…but even then, it looks like there IS still a centre-left majority in the “English” electorate.

I don’t think it’s necessarily true that all the small parties would benefit in terms of votes, though obviously all would have a better crack at seats. The Green vote shows much more variation between existing partly-proportional systems and GE than the UKIP and BNP votes, because at the GE Green supporters vote tactically (usually for the Lib Dems, sometimes Labour), while UKIP and BNP voters are more likely to stick with their parties. This suggests that the Green vote would go up more in a PR system than UKIP’s or the Nazis’ would.

27

Possibly not “all” small parties would benefit, but I’d certainly expect some to see significant increases if people thought their votes weren’t “wasted”. You might also see some different “issue based” groupings emerge. I do think the total % voting for minor parties would increase, tho still not amounting to a huge absolute number.

In England, the only minor parties to get any significant support were:
UKIP (3.5%), the BNP (2.5%) and the Greens (1%). You are probably right that UKIP and BNP have a core support, but they do attract significant “protest” votes, so might see their support levels rise under PR (more’s the pity!).

I think the Greens could see their support increase rather more, as many people sympathetic to them (or those who can’t bring themselves to vote for the “big 3″) would vote Green if they didn’t think it was a wasted vote.

Guy Fawkes – where are you when we need you?

Where is the fairness in a Lib/Lab coalition for the people of England. England has voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative government. A Lib/Lab coalition would leave us once again having our health and education policies dictated to by Westminster politicians who, in many cases, have no say on these matters in the constituencies that they represent. If the LibDems really believe in fairness then they will see to it that the West Lothian question is addressed as part of their electoral reforms. Nick Clegg should be true to his words and help to enable the party with most seats to form a government and not side with the Labour party just to further the political progress of the LibDem party.

“Where is the fairness in a Lib/Lab coalition for the people of England.”

We live in the United Kingdom and our parliament governs the whole of the UK, not just England. The majority voted for centre-left parties, only 36.7% voted for centre-right parties. A Lib/Lab coalition would be more representative of the whole of the UK, support for the centre-right parties in Scotland is practically non-existent.

A centre-left administration is what the majority of the electorate voted for, live with it!

“England has voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative government. ”

So you support PR then? No? Fuck off.

The tories only got 39% of the vote in SO called tory england. Very poor indeed.

At last the Lib/Dems have come to their senses and have entered into serious talks with Labour. Give them PR based on STV, hold another election based on the new system and the coalition will be elected on a landslide.

We will never see another rightwing government again, this is what really worries the Conservatives.

The first priority of the new government should not be the economy, it should be getting rid of the rightwing clique of BBC correspondents led by Nick Robinson. I have never seen such a biased lot in the supposedly neutral BBC, it clearly broke Robinson’s heart when the Lib/Dems opened negotiations with Labour, he blustered and whined, saying it was not fair. It is not as if he will be out of a job, he has a good career in front of him at the Sun!

A centre-left administration is what the majority of the electorate voted for …

No, it did not.

” A centre-left administration is what the majority of the electorate voted for …

No, it did not.”

Yes it did!

The “Rainbow Coalition” of center-left parties are Labour + Lib/Dem + Plaid Cymru + SNP + SDLP + Greens. They would have a majority with 327 seats representing 55.7% of the electorate.

The only viable centre-right coalition is Conservative + Democratic Unionists which would have 314 seats representing 36.7% of the electorate and would be unable to govern.

John, the electorate did not vote for a centre-left administration in the same way that it did not vote for Brown, Cameron or Clegg to be PM: it is not how our system works; such options were not on the ballot papers.

What happened is that the Conservatives achieved 36%, Labour 29%, and LibDems 23% of the vote (and so on, per party). That is all one can reasonably claim* about the result in itself. What the parties wish to do with the results is another matter.

“What happened is that the Conservatives achieved 36%, Labour 29%, and LibDems 23% of the vote (and so on, per party). That is all one can reasonably claim* about the result in itself. What the parties wish to do with the results is another matter.”

The policies of these parties are clearly stated in their manifestos. The ones I mentioned have a centre-left manifesto, the Conservatives and Democratic Unionists have a centre-right manifesto. The percentage of the electorate voting for these parties has been published and there is a clear preference for a centre-left agenda.

The problem the Lib/Dems had with their negotiations with the Conservatives was that they represent different political viewpoints, they have insufficient in common to form a government. The Rainbow Coalition parties have all approached Labour and the Lib/Dems to offer their support, they have similar viewpoints and can form a government with a majority, the Conservatives can’t, they have insufficient support.

John, what proportion of the electorate read each manifesto and voted accordingly?

“John, what proportion of the electorate read each manifesto and voted accordingly?”

Most people have a political viewpoint, left, centre or right. They tend to support parties that most represent their viewpoint (I didn’t, I was forced to vote tactically).

I agree that most do not read the party manifestos but they do have a rough idea what the parties stand for and what side of the political spectrum they represent.

The parties have been classified as to their political leanings and have ended up in the centre-left and centre-right camps as a simplification. This is what I meant when I said that the majority of the electorate had voted for a centre-left agenda. They didn’t actually vote for a centre-left agenda but they voted for a party which could be classified as in that part of the political spectrum.

From this it is fair to deduce that most of the electorate support a centre-left agenda. This is surprising considering the virulent rightwing press we have in this country. Perhaps most do not read the papers?

@John Palmer

As is constantly stated by many on this site, New Labour is right-wing, neo-con etc etc. If this is really the case, then many Labour voters can be categorised as centre-right.
Left / Right labels are menaingless to much of the electorate anyway.

It would be more use to try and quantify the “anti-Tory” vote. It would certainly appear that this grew stronger in the last days of the election, and is very strong in Scotland.
If there is majority in favour of a Lib-Lab pact, AND it can be shown that there is a majority against Conservative involvement in government, then there’s your mandate.

John,

Most people have a political viewpoint, left, centre or right. They tend to support parties that most represent their viewpoint (I didn’t, I was forced to vote tactically).

I dare say a number of people felt forced to vote tactically.

…From this it is fair to deduce that most of the electorate support a centre-left agenda.

No, because only 65% of the electorate felt sufficiently moved by their unread manifestos to vote. Turnout != electorate. Roughly a third of the electorate voted Labour or LibDem. That is not ‘most’.

I know people are keen to have their favoured team in government but to claim there is a mandate from the electorate for any party seems unreasonable (although I think there may be an uproar if England is governed by a non-Tory party, judging by the map).

Watchman,

As is constantly stated by many on this site, New Labour is right-wing, neo-con etc etc. If this is really the case, then many Labour voters can be categorised as centre-right.

Well, quite. I fail to see how many of Labour’s policies are of the centre-left. Certainly in my area of interest they seem to the right of Michael Howard.

It would be more use to try and quantify the “anti-Tory” vote.

If “anti-Tory” means “anyone who voted for a different party”, that’s easy: it’s 18.94m vs. the Conservatives 10.7m.

“As is constantly stated by many on this site, New Labour is right-wing, neo-con etc etc. If this is really the case, then many Labour voters can be categorised as centre-right.”

Invading Iraq did reflect a rightwing tendency, most old style leftwingers like me were horrified. I have always suspected that Tony Blair was a Tory mole planted by Maggie Thatcher, ringing her up for advice on his first day in office was a dead giveaway.

Nick Clegg is another Tory plant, like Blair though his days are numbered. Your sins will always find you out.

“It would be more use to try and quantify the “anti-Tory” vote. It would certainly appear that this grew stronger in the last days of the election, and is very strong in Scotland.”

The Scots can’t forget or forgive Maggie, this governs the way they vote.

“If there is majority in favour of a Lib-Lab pact, AND it can be shown that there is a majority against Conservative involvement in government, then there’s your mandate.”

The Guardian are holding a poll on who Nick Clegg should back:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2010/may/07/nick-clegg-david-cameron

Given the overtures from Gordon Brown and David Cameron, who should Nick Clegg back?

When I voted the figures were:

80.5% Gordon Brown, with his PR referendum deal
19.5% David Cameron, with his ‘comprehensive offer’

This is the view of Guardian readers, Sun readers would probably vote differently.

This is enough for tonight, I want to watch “Keeping Mum”.

Goodnight all.

@ John Palmer

Quite. So, Tony Blair was a Tory mole, and Nick Clegg is a Tory plant. Blair won three elections, following 4 defeats for Labour. Clegg became very popular with the electorate even if many voters moved back to the two main parties.

One of these two statements is correct:

1) The electorate has just voted for a progressive alliance.
2) The electorate voted for a centre-right government, except for a few extremists, but couldn’t decide between Tory New Labour, Tory LibDem or Old Tory.

In reality, there are clearly a mixture of both sides amongst Labour and LibDem voters.
If a Lib-Lab alliance can form a more stable and popular government than Lib-Con, then fine, that’s what should be formed. But let’s drop this progressive alliance stuff.

Can i presume Clegg and the libdem voters are quite happy for all the cuts to fall on England?

To get a deal with the nationalists the government would surely need to promise no cuts in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland: the ‘English’ taxpayer, who voted overwhelmingly Tory on Thursday will be stiffed once again.

Shamefull.

“Quite. So, Tony Blair was a Tory mole, and Nick Clegg is a Tory plant. Blair won three elections, following 4 defeats for Labour. Clegg became very popular with the electorate even if many voters moved back to the two main parties.”

Many of Blair’s actions were right wing rather than left wing, particularly the invasion of Iraq. He came from a Conservative background. Clegg is a free market Orange Book Liberal whose beliefs appear to be to the right of the mainstream Liberals.

“2) The electorate voted for a centre-right government, except for a few extremists, but couldn’t decide between Tory New Labour, Tory LibDem or Old Tory.”

I think there is some confusion here between the “electorate” and the party leaders. Most of the electorate vote for a party that most represents their hopes and ideals but realise that once the party is in power these are tempered by expediency.

Power corrupts, look at Israel, a state founded on socialist principles but which has veered to the extreme right during it’s years of absolute power over the Palestinians.

The parties most of the electorate voted for have a centre-left agenda but in power they do have their right wing moments. We still cherish our beliefs and prefer to ignore harsh reality when our “left wing” leaders imprison without trial, abolish juries and modify the “right of silence”. We still believe their hearts are in the right place.

We add our support to those comments favouring a Lib/Lab government. We live in Scotland where a rainbow coalition has (in fact), although SNP would struggle to agree, governed very well and enabled local governments to do the same. If the electorate felt that their vote counted there would be more involvement in elections and a bigger turnout at the polls. Also we feel there would be less of the idiot parties turning up in their silly hats and daft policies to confuse the less discerning of the electorate. It will be a sorry day for the Lib/Dems in Scotland if Nick Clegg ends up in the Tory camp, we think the orange will speedily turn to yellow on the electoral map and soon after there will be no more UK.

From the Telegraph:

“Mr Clegg told his MPs last night that he remained committed to a deal with the Tories because it was the logical thing to do. Senior figures endorsed the view, telling him their heart was with Labour but their heads said go with the Tories, chief among them apparently Vince Cable. Saint Vince must see an opportunity. Which may be why he was seen this afternoon in the Treasury holding meetings with private office people. Is the Chief Secretary job on offer?”

The chance of a lifetime ends up as jobs for the boys!

So what happened to this stuff about the public prefering a LibLab pact, Sunder, Will Straw, Don Paskini etc?

It was a useful stick to hit the Lib Dems when they were talking to the Tories, wasn’t it?

Quietly sidelined and forgotten when an actual LibLab deal was on the cards.

Fucking scum. You gave us to the Tories.

Mark

That’s ludicrious, offensive language.

The LibDems took the decision to join a Conservative-LibDem coalition. Of course it was a difficult decision between that, or a loose arrangement to put a Tory minority government in, or negotiating a coalition with Labour.

There are lots of very different and conflicting claims about the negotiations themselves – many of them from interested parties with an agenda on different sides, so those who were not in them can not be at all certain of which are accurate.