UK Elections - Exit polls / First impressions / Constituency Results

redout

Bond-007 wrote: »

A LAB/LD coalition will not work, Cons will have more seats than the 2 combined.

Not important.

They can ask the Queen to form a minority government.

sink

Only under the conditions of complete electoral reform and an early election could I see a LIB/LAB coalition. It's almost untenable. Far more likely is a minority Conservative government. I can't see the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives working in a coalition

Either way I reckon there will be another election in a year.

Ickle Magoo

mike65 wrote: »

Labour are not wanted either though.

Yep, labour not wanted in england, torries not wanted outside of england...it's going to make for difficult governing of the UK either way.

Our man in Havana

redout wrote: »

Not important.

They can ask the Queen to form a minority government.

Which will fall at the first tough vote in the commons.

Our man in Havana

Either way I reckon there will be another election in a year.

That is a certainty now.

Pride Fighter

OS119 wrote: »

i
quite how English voters/taxpayers will react to them be required to fork out for larger/frozen block grants for the other nations while their own services get squeezed even harder is perhaps not something Labour and the LD's will want to concentrate on.

That little argument that people use always makes me laugh. Southern England raped Wales, Northern England and Scotland in order to make the south more prosperous. They stole the Scottish North Sea oil, and various industries in the areas I mentioned then sold those areas up the swanny with Thatcher.

Southern England should have to pay for the damage they did to them and sheer theft they enacted on them.

LordSutch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yep, labour not wanted in england, torries not wanted outside of england...it's going to make for difficult governing of the UK either way.

Agreed, but I think the conservatives did better than expected in some unexpected seats, 'take Wales for example', although admittedly they only have one seat in Scotland, & no seats at all in Northern Ireland.

mike65

Pride Fighter, calm down!

Ickle Magoo

Camelot wrote: »

Agreed, but I think the conservatives did better than expected in some unexpected seats, 'take Wales for example', although admittedly they only have one seat in Scotland, & no seats at all in Northern Ireland.

5.6% swing to tories aside, 8 seats out of 40 is a resounding rejection of the conservatives.

mike65

The combined population of Scotland, Wales and NI is less than Greater London.

LordSutch

Two more seats.

Con gain Thurrock from Labour.

Con gain Hendon from Labour . . .

toomevara

Fascinating stuff thus far. Looks like Brown's going to try for a deal with Clegg, a lib-lab coalition with a few others..the Scots Nats,Plaid, Caroline Lucas etc...

Is it now time for SF to abandon their policy of non-attendance at Westminster given that they could, if they chose, have a key part to play in the formation of a govt? Certainly the unionist politicians will be a key part of any conservative minority government strategy.

Really disappointed with the Lib-Dem cave-in, but hopefully this uncertainty will lead to a change in the FPTP system which is no longer workable in the increasingly fragmented world of British Politics.

mike65

My own prediction is that with the economy being the number one issue time is tight, the markets will drum their fingers today but something will have to be ready to roll by Monday morning.

The LDs backing Labour has little credibility esp with Brown in charge, the Tories can form a minority government and dare the rest to bring them down at a time of global financial uncertainty. I think we'll see that first.

Our man in Havana

Clegg ruling out Lab/LD coalition.

toomevara

mike65 wrote: »

The LDs backing Labour has little credibility esp with Brown in charge, the Tories can form a minority government and dare the rest to bring them down at a time of global financial uncertainty. I think we'll see that first.

Agree, just heard Clegg speaking, seemed to me, reading between the lines, to rule out a labour pact saying the party with "the most votes and the most seats, should be given first chance to form a government."

Ickle Magoo

mike65 wrote: »

The combined population of Scotland, Wales and NI is less than Greater London.

Well, the tories always were the english national party, that's why the other countries don't vote for them. The population of greater london and their voting practices didn't stop devolution and if the next government thinks middle england is more important than those who voted against the tories in the other countries that make up the UK, then it's just going to get even more divisive.

The Scot Nats were praying for a tory govenment because they know how unpopular they are going to be north of the border, I'm sure the NI & Welsh assembly's are in a similar position. Even with the larger population, the tories despite being the popular party in england is going to find it nigh on impossible to pass any legislation in any other part of the UK, it's just not going to work as a national government. I predict another election very soon.

sink

It's an almost certainty now that the Conservatives will form a minority government and David Cameron is going to be the new prime minister.

not bakunin

Bond-007 wrote: »

Clegg ruling out Lab/LD coalition.

Hardly ruled it out. He said it's up to the Tories to act in the public interest, i.e. if they can't give the LDs what they want, they'll head to Labour. Clegg said a conservative/LD coalition "would be almost impossible on policy grounds".

LordSutch

Just heard one interesting option open to Labour (Sky News) in the event that the Lib Dems agree a pact, which would involve Mr Brown stepping down & Mr Clegg getting the top job

Maybe a bit fancyful?

Inquitus

Possibly the worst possible result. Britain has a rampant National Debt and now will not have any sort of Gov be it Tory minority or Lib Lab or w/e thats able to address it.

toomevara

not bakunin wrote: »

Hardly ruled it out. He said it's up to the Tories to act in the public interest, i.e. if they can't give the LDs what they want, they'll head to Labour. Clegg said a conservative/LD coalition "would be almost impossible on policy grounds".

Indeed, its a interesting one. Obviously Clegg's major requirement will be a referendum on electoral reform, but Cameron and Co are constitutionally opposed (no pun intended) to such a move...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

toomevara

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There was me thinking it was the Belgian airforce....;)

who the fug

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, the tories always were the english national party, that's why the other countries don't vote for them. The population of greater london and their voting practices didn't stop devolution and if the next government thinks middle england is more important than those who voted against the tories in the other countries that make up the UK, then it's just going to get even more divisive.

.

1951 general election the Tories came to power on the back of their Scotish seats, only in the last 20 years have they become more southern based.

With regards the past with Wales & Scotland and paying for past problems , I think the phrase is bugger off if you want to is the mood of the population in South East and take Durham & Cumbria with you

Ickle Magoo

who the fug wrote: »

1951 general election the Tories came to power on the back of their Scotish seats, only in the last 20 years have they become more southern based.

With regards the past with Wales & Scotland and paying for past problems , I think the phrase is bugger off if you want to is the mood of the population in South East and take Durham & Cumbria with you

I'm not sure my father was born in 1951, it certainly wouldn't be the political flavour in my lifetime.

Buggering off if you want to is all very well as a cute soundbite, the trouble is westminster seems to have an issue with the UK breaking up, that's why they compromised with devolution. With different laws, education system, etc, etc I don't think what middle england thinks really bothers those north of the border either, other than not voting tory as a deliberate two fingers, of course. :pac:

andrewdeerpark

First election in over 15 years where the murdock press: Sun, Times & Sky News did not bring their backed candidate directly to power. Never heard of balanced media coverage Mr Murdock!

Good to see the Britsh people seeing through their right wing bias coverage (which is still going on, reminding you of Fox news and the 1st George Bush election victory, in current attempts to railroad all options bar a Cameron PM (most likely however)).

Aswell as voting reform surely some blackout media coverage the day before polling would be a welcome addition.

Frank Spencer

Can someone briefly explain what sort of voting reform is being sought? Thanks.

Ickle Magoo

It would be the age old PR Vs first-past-the-post reforms, I imagine?

Our man in Havana

Frank Spencer wrote: »

Can someone briefly explain what sort of voting reform is being sought? Thanks.

The introduction of PR and a list system.

Eliot Rosewater

In his statement, Clegg has thrown the ball in Cameron's court. Depending on how the final numbers fall, Cameron may be able to pass any legislation he wants once the Lib Dems abstain. So the Lib Dems wouldn't even have to vote with the government.

Lib Dem support could be bought for electoral reform I'd say.

toomevara

Cameron to make a statement at 14:30. Apparently labour are prepared to do a deal on AV, fixed term parliaments and election to the Lords, all surely very attractive to the Lib-Dem grass roots?

andrewdeerpark

This is Cleggs big chance to get electoral reform, he needs to do a deal with who ever will provide such in the 1st 6months of government. A bit stupid of him saying in public that Cameron should form the next government however here is where the Murdock press are twisting things BBC reported:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667071.stm

Main sentence:

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said the situation was "fluid" but the Tories had the first right to seek to govern.

As against sky news:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Gordon-Brown-Hopes-Of-Lib-Dems-Pact-Dashed-As-Nick-Clegg-Says-Tories-Should-Get-Coalition-Chance/Article/201005115627426?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15627426_Gordon_Brown_Hopes_Of_Lib_Dems_Pact_Dashed_As_Nick_Clegg_Says_Tories_Should_Get_Coalition_Chance

My reading Sky pushing for Cameron no balance, fairness or honest reporting.

who the fug

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure my father was born in 1951, it certainly wouldn't be the political flavour in my lifetime.

Buggering off if you want to is all very well as a cute soundbite, the trouble is westminster seems to have an issue with the UK breaking up, that's why they compromised with devolution. With different laws, education system, etc, etc I don't think what middle england thinks really bothers those north of the border either, other than not voting tory as a deliberate two fingers, of course. :pac:

I grant you that the grandees in the tory party are attached to the union, but the Oiks could nae give a , if somebody runs with the issue it could get very interesting.

Scotland always had different laws so nothing new there, and with the ending of shipbuilding steel and coal plus oil on the decline, it might be worth unloading the place.

They only joined the union because they were bankrupt

whatawaster

Is it possible that Clegg made that statement just to cover his tracks, so to speak.

He made claims during the campaign about the rights of the largest party to "seek to form a government."
By appearing to negotiate with the conservatives first, he shows himself to be as good as his word, even if he reaches no agreement with them.

Ickle Magoo

who the fug wrote: »

They only joined the union because they were bankrupt

Well, technically "they" didn't join, there was no referendum or vote offered. In fact the idea of joining the sasanachs was so unpopular that even with royal approval it took four goes to get the treaty of the unions passed in scotland, it was only ever a popular move among the upper classes - funny how little some things change in 300yrs.

Eliot Rosewater

Would a Lib/Lad deal even be tenable at this stage, in terms of numbers?

Keano

whatawaster wrote: »

Is it possible that Clegg made that statement just to cover his tracks, so to speak.

He made claims during the campaign about the rights of the largest party to "seek to form a government."
By appearing to negotiate with the conservatives first, he shows himself to be as good as his word, even if he reaches no agreement with them.

That's what I was thinking. He's in a powerful situation and knows it.

loldog

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, technically "they" didn't join, there was no referendum or vote offered.

No, there was Culloden.

Of course, these days, in the context of the EU, Scottish independence seems less momentous somehow.

.

Ickle Magoo

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Would a Lib/Lad deal even be tenable at this stage, in terms of numbers?

It wouldn't give a majority, they would also need to lasso in all the independents and regional parties which I think is untenable. It's a fascinating situation.

mike65

loldog wrote: »

No, there was Culloden.

Of course, these days, in the context of the EU, Scottish independence seems less momentous somehow.

Maybe its cos Scotland if it were an independent state would be bankrupt in 2010. The failure of its two once world class banks has been a body blow to the notion of going it alone.

Ickle Magoo

loldog wrote: »

No, there was Culloden.

Of course, these days, in the context of the EU, Scottish independence seems less momentous somehow.

.

The act of the union preceded culloden.

It certainly lost momentum over the labour years, I know a lot of people who were tactically voting to ensure the tories didn't gain seats, it'll be interesting to see if cameron forms a government and does anything to affect scotland, what that does to the national vote at the local elections...

who the fug

loldog wrote: »

No, there was Culloden.

Of course, these days, in the context of the EU, Scottish independence seems less momentous somehow.

.

OT
Culloden was after the union, and Scotland would not have been independent if they pretender had won, he was only interested in London not Edinburgh

whatawaster

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Would a Lib/Lad deal even be tenable at this stage, in terms of numbers?

Lib Dem + Labour will have more seats than the Conservatives alone, i think.

Both will need help to get a majority.

The Conservatives would get support of DUP and probably no one else.

The LibLabs would get support from SDLP, Alliance almost certainly. Both the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists would be more likely to support the LibLabs.

Any government without LibDem support would be very unstable. They really are the Kingmakers

Ickle Magoo

who the fug wrote: »

OT
Culloden was after the union, and Scotland would not have been independent if they pretender had won, he was only interested in London not Edinburgh

Yes, as I pointed out, the union preceded culloden, scotland had already been signed up to join with england. You brought up culloden so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with regards to popular opinion in scotland - which is what I posted about.

Ickle Magoo

mike65 wrote: »

Maybe its cos Scotland if it were an independent state would be bankrupt in 2010. The failure of its two once world class banks has been a body blow to the notion of going it alone.

Hmmm, not convinced on that either. Stupid bank execs and boards are not the measure of a nation, as most countries can testify...

who the fug

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes, as I pointed out, the union preceded culloden, scotland had already been signed up to join with england. You brought up culloden so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with regards to popular opinion in scotland - which is what I posted about.

Excuse I did not bring up Culloden

Ickle Magoo

who the fug wrote: »

Excuse I did not bring up Culloden

Well I didn't so I don't know why it's being bandied about regarding scottish popular opinion, either in the 16th century or today!

loldog

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes, as I pointed out, the union preceded culloden, scotland had already been signed up to join with england. You brought up culloden so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with regards to popular opinion in scotland - which is what I posted about.

No, I brought up Culloden, the point being that talking about motives for the original Union are a bit pointless. The Union was imposed militarily by a military junta in London.

.

who the fug

Given the cuts that will have to be made in public spending (30 Billon is the figure been thrown out) it may be in the Tory party interest not to be in power as some of these cuts will have to be made in the North East

thetonynator

Have to say that irish elections are much more exciting, it drags on for ages without knowing which way it has gone, and PR is much better t watch results coming in . . .