2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

[TheWatcher]

Originally Posted by Angua

Under the current system it requires less than 37% of the vote for Labour to get a clear majority. Over 40% is required for a clear Conservative majority. With something like 50% or more for a Lib Dem working majority. Hardly a fair or equitable system.

Exactly. It's a ridiculous system.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Tory "offer" was a joke! They did not promise a single thing, a inquiry into reform? We have had that already. Cameron seems to think that the sole purpose of the Lib Dems is too prop his party up. That's not what I voted for. The Tories have not got a majority, they need to conceed something.

I hope the Lib Dems reject him and force them to govern as a minority governent. Real half-arsed display of leadership there, he clearly doesn't have enough authority in his party to offer anything

You seem to expect them to concede everything though and it doesn't work like that. Even if the Lib Dems join Labour they still don't have a majority and it would I suspect be extremely harmful to the Lib Dems to be seen to prop up Gordon Brown. Their position is not as strong as you seem to think it is.

At least it was genuine as opposed to Labour's newly discovered interest in electoral reform. Labour are quite simply desperate to stay in power.

The Lib Dems (unofficially) seem to disagree with you, a source describing it as interesting and worth considering, not to mention that Cameron has never ruled out a PR referendum and the devil is in the detail and the negotiation. To give the Lib Dems everything straight away would be bad negotiation and the kind of desperation that Labour are reeking of right now.

It seemed to me to be a measured opening gambit in a weekend of negotiation, nothing more.

http://order-order.com/2010/05/07/th...tion-part-iii/ is interesting and a very nice thought actually, if it can take the best bits out of both parties

How predictable we all are certain partys didn't win therefore it's "blame the system" rather then accept your party whichever one didn't do enough to win torys made the biggest mistake here this election was there for the taking but i wasn't convinced enough by their campaign i thought it was a little too positive and needed a little more of the passion of attack.

But on the plus side as i voted tory i am now a toff despite the fact i live in a housing association owned house am on state benefits didn't go to private school damn i did well out of this election. As for the nauseating horse trading that is to come i can see this going either way for the lib dems they may get some of what they want though no where near all or anywhere near all of it or the public may view them as blackmailing the country while they attempt to get what they want risky game methinks for mr clegg.

Personally i would just prefer to go back to the polls for a run off but won't happen so guess were all going to have to get used to huge amounts of insincere liking between people idealogically opposed while they try and come up with something to keep\gain power not very gratifying to see for any of us.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You seem to expect them to concede everything though and it doesn't work like that. Even if the Lib Dems join Labour they still don't have a majority and it would I suspect be extremely harmful to the Lib Dems to be seen to prop up Gordon Brown. Their position is not as strong as you seem to think it is.

Err..No I don't. It's clear I don't. I expect them to concede something. Most people expect the Tories to maintain control over the Economy, Defense, Health, Education, Europe and so on. The Tories are offering nothing and around 23% of us voted Liberal Democrats, not Tory, Lib Dem. There is no right for the Tories to demand a collation because they have got the most seats, they need to offer something that those 23% voted. Such as electoral reform.

Otherwise there is no incentive for the Liberal Democrats to partner with the Tories. If they get nothing then why vote with the Tories. They are under no obligation too.

At least it was genuine as opposed to Labour's newly discovered interest in electoral reform. Labour are quite simply desperate to stay in power.

Easy to be be geniune when your offering nothing.

The Lib Dems (unofficially) seem to disagree with you, a source describing it as interesting and worth considering, not to mention that Cameron has never ruled out a PR referendum and the devil is in the detail and the negotiation. To give the Lib Dems everything straight away would be bad negotiation and the kind of desperation that Labour are reeking of right now.

Cameron isn't giving anything because the party aren't completely behind him after he failed to secure a majority. Already the mere mention of an inquiry to reform, something Labour did a decade ago, has created hassle.

It seemed to me to be a measured opening gambit in a weekend of negotiation, nothing more.

I hope your right.

---------- Post added at 16:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:02 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

How predictable we all are certain partys didn't win therefore it's "blame the system" rather then accept your party whichever one didn't do enough to win

We have been blaming the system long before this result, many of us voted Lib Dem to reform the system. The Liberal Democrats actually got a large share of the vote than last time, they have less seats. The system is rubbish.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

We have been blaming the system long before this result, many of us voted Lib Dem to reform the system. The Liberal Democrats actually got a large share of the vote than last time, they have less seats. The system is rubbish.

No, the libdem candidates in the other areas are rubbish, otherwise they'd have gotten more votes.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

No, the libdem candidates in the other areas are rubbish, otherwise they'd have gotten more votes.

I wasn't aware that everyone voted for the candiate rather than the party. It's quite clear what I am talking about anyway.

Liberal Democrates. 23% = 57 seats
Labour 29% = 258 seats.

That is not a fair system. At all.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

Err..No I don't. It's clear I don't. I expect them to concede something. Most people expect the Tories to maintain control over the Economy, Defense, Health, Education, Europe and so on. The Tories are offering nothing and around 23% of us voted Liberal Democrats, not Tory, Lib Dem. There is no right for the Tories to demand a collation because they have got the most seats, they need to offer something that those 23% voted. Such as electoral reform.

Otherwise there is no incentive for the Liberal Democrats to partner with the Tories. If they get nothing then why vote with the Tories. They are under no obligation too.

Easy to be be geniune when your offering nothing.

Cameron isn't giving anything because the party aren't completely behind him after he failed to secure a majority. Already the mere mention of an inquiry to reform, something Labour did a decade ago, has created hassle.

I hope your right.

They're offering openness and discussion, the actual substance of the offer will be discussed behind closed doors, and no doubt be negotiated on.

I did see some offers there - mention of changes in taxation to follow the Lib Dem's ideas more closely, changing priorities in some policy areas to more closely match those of the Lib Dems, it certainly wasn't 'nothing' and what wasn't said is every bit as informative as what was said.

Fear not, it was a negotiating position not the final offer.

1607 Shadow foreign secretary William Hague says cabinet jobs for Liberal Democrats are not "off the table" in negotiations to try to form a government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport..._a_sterli.html

The Liberal Democrats hold the balance of power. And senior Lib Dems tell me that there are two non-negotiable conditions for them to prop up a government:

1) There would have to be an unbreakable pledge to hold a referendum on reforming the voting system;

2) Gordon Brown must cease to be prime minister.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

No, the libdem candidates in the other areas are rubbish, otherwise they'd have gotten more votes.

They did get more votes than last time - just not in the right areas.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

I wasn't aware that everyone voted for the candiate rather than the party. It's quite clear what I am talking about anyway.

Liberal Democrates. 23% = 57 seats
Labour 29% = 258 seats.

That is not a fair system. At all.

Labour 29% spread across more constituencies = 258 seats
LibDems 23% spread across fewer constituencies = 57 seats.

Seems easy to understand to me.
If the LibDems were better at it they'd get more votes across the nation.
Interesting how despite the landslide against them in 97, the Tories didn't whinge about the voting system.
To quote Russ, the LDs need to "man up" and do better with the voting public.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

They're offering openness and discussion, the actual substance of the offer will be discussed behind closed doors, and no doubt be negotiated on.

Fair enough. I am quite angry at the moment so sorry if that's coming though in my posts.

I did see some offers there - mention of changes in taxation to follow the Lib Dem's ideas more closely, changing priorities in some policy areas to more closely match those of the Lib Dems, it certainly wasn't 'nothing' and what wasn't said is every bit as informative as what was said.

They said they would make it higher priority but I guess they need to add some detail to that.

If electoral reform was the massive issue many would like us to believe rather then a topic to get excited about when it comes time to negotiate a coalition why didn't more people vote for the lib dems and labour the two partys that made a big point of it. Fact is at a time like this when this country has so many other real problems to deal with and get sorted out electoral reform is an indulgence that we simply cannot afford. Sure those who are passionate about it will claim it is a big issue but the rest of the public i think are more bothered by the other multiple more pressing issues and want them dealt with for all our futures.

Also havn't labour done a lot of tinkering with boudaries and stuff that has made it very hard for anyone to unseat them hence this election in the last thirteen years might be wrong but i am sure i have heard on the tele someone saying they had set things up to benefit them more then any other party.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Labour 29% spread across more constituencies = 258 seats
LibDems 23% spread across fewer constituencies = 57 seats.

Seems easy to understand to me.
If the LibDems were better at it they'd get more votes across the nation.
Interesting how despite the landslide against them in 97, the Tories didn't whinge about the voting system.
To quote Russ, the LDs need to "man up" and do better with the voting public.

The Lib Dem support is scattered across the nation isn't it? That's the problem, where as Labour have strongholds in urban areas and the Tories in rural area, the Lib Dem support is spread thingly over a whole bunch of places never reaching enough to overcome the incumbent party. Which is why they need a very high swing to every get near government.

Anyway I am not saying it wasn't "easy to understand", I am saying that only 7% more people voted Labour yet the seat distribution is unevenly favors them.

It may be fine if you voted for the winner, but it's pretty demoralizing if your voted for the Liberal Democrats and your vote just never bloody matters.-

Originally Posted by Guardian

If you divide the number of votes each party received by the number of seats they won (as things stand now), you get these figures:

Conservatives: 35,021
Labour: 33,338
Liberal Democrat: 119,397

[Ignitionnet]

My biggest concern about all of this is, after hearing Alex Salmond talking about the 'mighty hand' he and PC have been dealt, is that if Tories and Lib Dems can't come to some kind of arrangement Labour will happily sell a large part of England down the river in order to remain in power and keep the public money flowing to their heartlands.

The idea, given cuts are inevitable, of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland either seeing no spending cuts or even spending increases while England picks up the tab is totally distasteful but is certainly something that I wouldn't put past Labour at all.

News just in from Sky:

William Hague has told Sky News that Nick Clegg and David Cameron have spoken on the phone... last half hour.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Mick

News just in from Sky:

William Hague has told Sky News that Nick Clegg and David Cameron have spoken on the phone... last half hour.

Trust it to be from SKY ( Daves buddy ) ?