The UK Election!!!!

As already stated I don't believe that our "informal constitution" would allow extreme measures such as the segregation and elimination of the voting rights of regions of the UK simply because they cost the majority too much to maintain. But even if I am wrong the argument "but this is just as crap in a direct democracy setup" is hardly a good argument for it is it? How? It takes one issue. One single issue where enough of the population are convinced that the constitution stands in the way of something that the vast majority want pushed through to get the entire constitution rewritten. One issue to get a vote through to reduce the majority needed for such measures. And then your constitution (such as it is) lies in tatters.It simply becomes a matter of how many times the voters need to press that button.

Who decides whether a matter is "constitutional"?

Who words the options voted on?

How is it decided which issues ever get to the point of being voted on?

​

These people will wield huge power. How are they selected? By voting? Isn't that just a parliament that presents continual referendii to the people in whatever biased manner it chooses to do?

​

I just don't think what is being proposed by Legend has been thought out at all.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You can suggest whatever you want. But who decides this? Who decides what is a constitutional matter? If the majority of people want to introduce the death penalty (I believe that they do) I would consider this a constitutional issue. Would you?Even assuming we can agree what constitutes "constitutional" and even assuming we start with your 3 times 80% what is to stop the first (or any subsequent) constitutional vote being to reduce the vote required to change constitutional matters to being a single 55% majority? Because whatever you start with it only takes one single highly emotive issue where the law is deemed to stand in the way of the will of the people for a majority vote on the removal of all such legal "checks and balances" to be eliminated or reduced to the point of impotence from that point on. As per my example: So the entire defence of your position is that it is as crap at holding together constitutional principles as the existing system? Which I still dispute in many cases anyway. You don't actually deny my criticism that the above sitution is possible with regard to just discarding the entire constitution on the basis of one emotive issue? Then why do they spend billions and billions on controlling the mass media? As imperfect as it is parliament often stands as a buffer between the worst excesses of media driven knee-jerk reaction and jingoistic popularism. Hah! It's The Sun Wot Won It

They have all lost.Labour have lost a mass of seats and can no longer govern as a party.Tories have lost because after 13 years including recent scandals and severe economic problems they still cannot get voted in with a majority in the way they assumed they would do only weeks ago.The Libs have lost all their momentum and expectation from the last few weeks.I think all three paties will feel like losers. That is kinda a weird situation.

Yeah, I know what you mean.At least Nick Griffin lost his seat, though too.

Any idea what the government will be like now? I don't think a coalition can be formed, right? As I understand it 326 is the number of seats you'll need for a majority. No one will make that number, and the only possible way to make that happen with a coalition, is when the libdems go with the tories. Not something I can see happening. Though, admittedly, I'm no expert on party stances in this regard.

If the Conservatives get most of the remaining seats then they may try to form a minority government, hoping to get enough support from the smaller parties when they need it.The BBC reports that Nick Clegg has suggested that the Conservatives should be the next government. A deal with Labour looks unlikely unless the Conservatives mess things up - and it will probably require Gordon Brown to resign, too, which doesn't seem that likely at present. Although there may be some sort of backlash to come, there.

A coalition is still on the cards to be honest. Conservatives are looking to get about 307 seats.Gordon Brown just offered as a minimum: instant electoral reform referendum.Liberal Democrats have been trying to get that for close to a century. I think Clegg is being diplomatically open minded. Cameron will need to offer something damned impressive not to turn Clegg's head to the Labour deal.Taking it might hurt their rep - but it might still result in an increase their seat share in a future government...

The big problem is that Labour and the Lib Dems don't have enough seats without taking some of the smaller parties on board, too. Clegg has said that he thinks that the Conservatives should go first, and that he doesn't want Brown as PM. I'm not saying that it won't happen but I don't see it happening today. With senior Tories talking against coalition and against forming a minority government it seems better to let them fail before going back on what's already been said, even for a possibility of electoral reform (which will likely never be delivered - I can't see it being popular with the Labour MPs who risk losing their seats if it happens).

Gordon Brown remains the Prime Minister until he resigns.Normally a resignation is forced when another party commands a clear majority. So we're still Labour under Gordon Brown until they decide among themselves to change. Yeah - the most likely outcomes I think are:a) A Conservative minority government relying on periodic support from LD and/or partial Labour support. This is unstable since they can be overrulled by Lib/Lab cooperation whenever there was significant disagreement (Which would probably be more often than we like)b) A Lib/Lab minority coalition. A little more stable in that the Conservatives can only defeat them with the support of the sundry small parties.David Cameron is about to make his first declaration - he may challenge the other parties to vote him down on the Queen's Speech vote (traditionally held to be a vote of 'no confidence' that occurs at the end of May)

He actually said, in that politician's typical fashion that it was now 'up to the Conservative Party' to 'prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest'. And immediately followed that by pointing out that the election makes abundantly clear electoral reform is required.So presumably, if the Conservatives can't promise electoral reform, Clegg would conclude they have been unable to prove they are capable of seeking to govern in the national interest...

I don't think it will work out quite like that. More, if Cameron can't cut some sort of deal for Lib Dem support he hasn't got a working government. And thanks to Brown he stands little chance of it without some offer in the direction of electoral reform. I think that it's better for Clegg if the Tories are seen to fail before he makes a deal with Brown.

Barely, and the smaller parties would back them on electoral reform anyway (except the DUP who benefit more than anyone else from the current system).

Congratulations to MORI/NOP. Their new exit polling techniques called the election accurately and early. No one believed them but in the end they were exceptionally accurate.What the hell happened? This is the first UK election I've tried to analyze and, frankly, the outcome doesn't make any sense. This is not the American way.I had a number of seats where the margins indicated LibDem slim victories go over to the other two and one go Green, by healthy margins. What a mess. Indeed, a lot more fun than the US election with all its surprises.So now what? Do the Tories go interest and supply with the LibDems or coalition?Seems that Labour is out of the picture regardless of the Con/LibDem negotiations. It seems, from what is being said, that Labour will not be able to govern in a minority parliament with so many parties in the mix. Not for long, anyway. In other parliaments around the world minority government appears to be the norm and quite successful. The UK history is not so inclined.Either there is an accommodation between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats or there will be another election, which, all indications seem to point, may be best for the Conservatives.You Brits sure know how to put on a show. Thank you.[abe] I'm impressed with the opening statements of all three party leaders. Especially Mr. Cameron. We're yet to see how dedicated he really is to the "national interest" but the first noises sounded good. Edited by AZPaul3, : afterthought

Good. Sanity prevailed. Except the greens!! They are the one party with cause for celebration. They got one seat. Their first ever.

Someone (I can't remember which has-been Labour politician it was) pointed out that there is a "progressive anti-tory majority" in the house of commons.With the Scottish National Party, Plyd, Green and Respect all left of centre a Lib-Lab coalition could probably rely on their support on a number of key issues. Including major electoral reform.If I was Clegg I think I would find the temptation of full scale electoral reform just too tempting to turn down and so a coalition of some sort with Lab is where I would go.But as has been pointed out by others it is difficult for him to just ignore the tories greater mandate given what he has been saying all along.Who knows. It is all very interesting.