UK General Election 101Follow

The Shadow Treasurer also gets a "Right of Reply" televised speech the day after the Government Treasurer does his/her televised Budget speech. The Shadow Treasurer describes his/her theoretical alternative Budget that they would apply IF they were in government right now given the same national situation.


I'm watching the results come in. And so far they are really surprising. 91 Labour, 90 Conservative, and only 13 for the Liberal Democrats.

It seems like that UK citizens have looked at their first-past-the-post voting system, and decided that if they want to get rid of Labour, then they can't afford to vote Liberal Democrat, even if they prefer that party. They seem to be giving their vote to the Conservatives, to ensure a Labour loss.

That's with the vote so far. Of course, things could change radically later, only about a third of the seats are determined so far, right?

Edited, May 6th 2010 10:22pm by Aripyanfar

113 Conservative
105 Labour
15 Liberal Democrats.

Yup, against all the polling, it's looking like an outright Tory (Conservative) win. Or not. I'm not counting in the minor parties/independants, of which I assume there are some, according to the Map of UK, but not showing up on the Three-Party count on the BBC.com front page.

Edited, May 6th 2010 10:47pm by Aripyanfar

Yeah, I realised later my maths was off, but decided to edit my post, instead of making a new post, because it didn't seem like anyone else was posting in this thread at the moment.

New edit:

*nod* thanks. Yep, hung it is. I also wasn't factoring in the Lib Dems slowly further mounting up their total from the low base that they have so far. Still, I'm very surprised at how low the Lib Dem vote is, compared to pre-polling.

How do you think the hanging will be resolved? A Conservative-Lib Dem coalition? Labour, as the sitting government, gets the first chance at negotiating a coalition, in UK law, right?

Edited, May 6th 2010 11:07pm by Aripyanfar

What a mess. As I said elsewhere the Libs and the Nationals in Australia are accustomed to forming stable coalition governments. In the Upper House Labour often ganged up with the Democrats or with the Greens on a regular basis to reach compromises with each other in amending bills, in order to stymie the Liberals, or to pass pure Labour Lower House bills when Labour doesn't have an outright majority in the Upper house.

But we're used to the necessity of political parties negotiating compromises here, because of the long standing proportional and preferential voting systems. I believe the UK has had some minortiy governments in the last 100 years, but it's not a normal thing for you, is it?

Conservative 201
Labour 152
Lib Dem 30
others: unknown.

407 of 650 counted.

Does this put Conservatives at finishing at about 300 seats, do you think?

Edited, May 6th 2010 11:43pm by Aripyanfar

Thanks for keeping me company

Good Luck!

I've recently found that putting on BBC World News is a great way to get Thom to sleep, but this election coverage was like chloroform. I barely had a chance to hand him a stuffy and he was lights out.

Like I'd stoop so low

All this ******** could've been avoided if everyone voted Tory.

That's only partially true. 326 is the official majority but the House is almost never fully seated. Both sides of the Northern Irish MPs have a history of not turning up. Lib-lab could have a functioning majority, or thereabouts. It would be weak and wouldn't last very long though, for sure. But a tory-lib coalition would be unstable too, they just don't share that many policies.

I just can't see what the lib-dems would gain from a Tory coalition. Especially since a new election will be called in the next 12 months regardless of what happens. Their best bet is to join up with Labour and push through electoral reform as a priority. If they get that through it'll be the biggest victory for the lib-dems in 100 years. It'll change their status in British politics for the foreseeable future. And I just don't think they'll get electoral reform with the Tories.

But well, I might be wrong, the temptations of being partially in power might prove too hard to resist.

So I checked out the other parties via wikipedia and the larger ones (at the moment) seem to be left of center but focused on independence for either Scotland or Northern Ireland. Seems like such a remote possibility to me (total outsider) that either Northern Ireland or Scotland would become independent.

That's usually the case, but Labour really are that desperate. The Tories aren't.

I agree with Red that the deal's not yet in the bag.

Here are some scenarios and my take on their implications:

1. Tory/Lib-Dem coalition. No way will Cameron get PR or any serious electoral reform past his shadow cabinet, never mind the back benchers or the party members. If Clegg were to accept this he'd be a blithering idiot. (I don't rule it out because Clegg is proving to be a blithering idiot.)

Impact would be a hugely unpopular Government (nasty decisions need to be taken) and I'd reckon on a new election in late 2011, or early 2012

2. Labour/Lib-Dem coalition (bolstered by SNP, PC and Alliance). Good odds for Cleggy to get some improvement in the electoral system. Given Brown's unpopularity and Clegg's personal vitriol against him lately, Labour would need a new leader.

Impact would be dependent on who gets the PM job, Milliband, Balls or Darling are too smug to hold the electorate's (or Murdoch's News Corp) attention - Election later this year or early 2011. Alan Johnson might hold it as PM for about 6-12 months longer.

3. If (big if) Clegg & Cameron can't agree terms, Brown could play it canny and resign, hoping to force a purely Conservative minority Government. I suspect this is already being discussed at Millbank to prepare a negotiating stance on Monday if the other two parties can't agree. There are already rumours that Brown is deliberately pissing off Clegg to make this more likely (My sources use the words "threatening", "ranting" and "diatribe").

This would force an unpopular Tory administration to step down within 18 months. and go into obscurity for 10 to 20 years.

There is, however, the sordid factor of money. All the above scenarios predict another election in the near future that Labour and the Lib Dems simply cannot afford. They're totally skint. The tories, on the other hand have the shady Lord Ashcroft and his bottomless pockets to rely on.

In summary. . . .

Because during 3 debates and the whole campaign, he's talked a lot without saying a single fUcking thing.