Clearly its to facilitate an across the board coalition between Lab/lib/fat bloke down the pub.

Big pressure now on Cameron to accept PR.

The Lib Dems believe he is the person that would hold back a new coalition government between the Liberals.

I think he's just taken the bullet for us.

It's hardly a charge over the top, he has just lost the election massively and was going to go whatever the scenario.

Hands up anyone who voted for Alan Johnson as PM?

...or David 'I don't even look 14' Milliband.

I think Alan Johnson is the most horrible, arogant person ever and would be the worse move ever for Labour , my money would be on David Miliband

I agree he is both arrogant and horrible but for the title of worst ever he's got some serious competition from Ed Balls.

It is very ironic how a bloke with that name can be such a shaft.
You'd deffo change that name wouldn't you?...I mean...Ed!!!

I think the guy most under pressure from all this is Cameron.
No one expected Brown to lead his party to victory BUT a lot of the Tories in this land expected Cameron to do just that.
After all Cameron had 13 years of Labour rule to attack, he was also up against one of the most unpopular Labour leaders in modern times.
Cameron failed to win and, in my view, his inability to do that given the circumstances is nothing short of a serious indictment of his ability.
If a Lib Lab coalition does happen then the Tories will be consigned to the opposition benches yet again. On top of that the Tories will be faced with their pet hate........PR.
I seriously think if Cameron doesn't manage to get power this week by one means or another then he will be held responsible by the Party.
The Tories like someone to blame and Mr Cameron is overwhelmingly favourite in that particular contest.

Gordon Brown's resignation has added more fuel to the fire building up under Mr Cameron.

Cameron really needs to win this one..................or else.

Then thats your fault for living in the wrong place.

Same for me.

Was John Majors name on your ballot paper?

The egotistical, incompetent fuckwit will resign as Labour leader but will still demand to be Prime Minister.

62% of the electorate want him binned.

If he survives and you don't take to the streets, you are all cannon fodder and as such, deserve what will happen. Please don't bleat at me about the Conservatives. They won.

What would you rather have: a Labour-Liberal coalition or a Tory-Liberal coalition?

Jack Straw's got a good outside chance as well.

We daren't take to the streets mate, some of us could get shot.

Then stay indoors if you look Brazilian, which I suspect you might....

Hmm, an incompetent leader who decides to do the decent thing and resign. What a novelty that is.

yes but on the news it said it could be the autumn before he actually buggers off

I went brazilian at the time of my snip..............drove the nurses wild.

Better late than never.

Iis he also a c-unt?

No as he was not so pigheaded to stay in the job to the detriment of others. If only CT took a leaf out his book.

Bearing in mind that between them Labour and the Liberals still don't have enough seats and would be reliant upon the Scottish and Welsh self interest groups who've already stated that the price of their support will be to extort disproportionate tax money to be spent in their pokey little off-shoots at the expense of England, would YOU be happy for cuts to be made in England (and probably especially regions like the North East) from OUR taxes in order to prop up a discredited government to feed their power lust?

We can't have a system were the Lib Dems for instance get 23% of the vote and just over 8% of the seats.
No argument on earth can make that fair.

Not sure that I can totally agree, unless we want this political horse trading to go on every couple of years after a string of more frequent general elections.

The flip side of your statement is that we can't have a system where a political party gets just 23% of the votes but gets to hold the other parties and the country to ransom to implement all of its ideas.

Tricky one innit!

None of us. But that's because we have a parliamentary system with a PM and not presidential elections. Now that would be a constitutional change. Viva La Republic!

The Conservatives did indeed win, they got more votes and more seats than anyone else. Thats beyond question. Not winning by enough is their problem.

I completely agree that 23% of the vote equating to 8% of the seats is just plain wrong.

I think the Lib Dems might be shooting themselves in the foot here. How much of that 23% was just tactical voting? PR could lead to a huge drop in their vote especially if they are seen to be propping up Brown for the next 3 months after going on and on about 'real change' for the entire campaign.

And then he will come out with the spin, regarding that their coalition with Labour has brought about the "real change" of PR which is a key thing in their manifesto. This will justify in their voters eyes they have done the most they could to bring about change and make every vote count.

I sound like Alistair Cambell.

Have Labour now offered PR?

The Conservatives won in England though.

So why the fk, if Scotland and Wales have their own Parliaments do their MPs get to vote in Westminster for stuff that only affects England?

That'd have to be the first bit of electoral reform for me like, well before any PR or AV system.

No, to win is to get the most seats, then you get into the discussion of minority/majority governments. The Tories can perfectly well go ahead and form a goverment without anyone else's help.

To say that they didn't win is pedancy of the highest order.

It is tricky, but for pure fairness 23% of the vote should yield 150 seats.
Based on that the Tories (36%) would have 234 seats and Labour(29%) would have 189.
Therefore a coalition of any two from the three would have a working majority.

I know that sounds simple but based purely on fairness then really it needs to be given a go.
Over 6 million people represented by 57 seats is just not acceptable.
Another way has to be found.
Maybe we should move away from one party domination, like most other countries have.
We can't go on like this though, that is for sure.

But further to my point above regarding the Scottish and Welsh colonies, if you looked purely at the stats for England then I'd hazard a guess that you'd get a vastly different picture.

I'm also all for Scottish independance (especially now the oils ran out) The taffs are numerous enough to worry about. Why does England insist on subsidusing everyone? Did you know for example we still give India £1bn a year in overseas aid?

Concurring.

I'd cut the Scots and Welsh free and let them crack on how they want to and we'll have the same relationship with them as we do the rest of the EU.

As for foreign aid, for me that's something you can afford to dish out when you're loaded. At the moment we're skint so that should be at the top of the list for cuts, not schools, hospitals and the like.

On India; a country that can afford its own nuclear weapons and space programme does not need financial aid from us.

When the question was asked............Who won? .......the answer is....no one, it is a hung parliament.
When the question was asked.............Who got the most votes / seats............the answer is The Tories.

Two different questions.

Also the Tories can't form a government until they are asked to do so by the Queen. They will only be asked that question if Gordon Brown tells HM that he can't form a government. So they can't perfectly well go ahead and form a government until the constitution allows them the chance, which would indicate to any rational minded person that they have far from won.
The fact that the Tories COULD if asked form a government with 306 seats, makes it equally feasible that a LIB LAB coalition COULD form a government with 315 seats. The latter option has first dibs under our constitution.
From another angle the LIB LAB group hold 15 million votes against the TORY 10 million.
Further proof that change to our voting system is necessary.

Of course it would be different, but we are talking about a UK election here. Until the UK parliament no longer exists, which is highly unlikely, then we have to include the whole bunch, unfortunate though that may be.

But WHY is it a "UK Election" when these others have their own parliaments to decide on lots of stuff?

Like I said previously, surely this should be at the forefront of any electoral reform?

We have talked about regional assemblies for England but so far any referendums carried out have been rejected.
Why ???? I can't answer that.
There is no desire for an English Parliament or Assembly apparently.
Why not??????????/I can't answer that either.
Personally I prefer the UK to be united, but that's just my opinion.

My focus is on solving the current situation. As far as I am aware there are no plans to have regional assemblies and, in fact, one of the Tory pledges in this election was to abolish regional development councils, so I think your wish of some form of English Parliament is just that.......a wish.

Could be one for the future though.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick Mr D.

I have no wish or desire for English regional assemblies or the like, quite the opposite.

What I would prefer is only English MPs voting on matters that only effect England- Scottish and Welsh MPs only getting to vote on matters that effect them. If that can't be done then the number of MPs from Scotland and Wales should be vastly reduced to reflect the fact that they make most of their laws away from Westminster.

Surely nobody can begin to think it fair that all of the Jock MPs get to vote for our kids to have to pay tuition fees at Uni whilst at the same time their same parties vote elsewhere for the Sweat's kids to get educated foc?

It's looking like a Liberal / Conservative coalition at the moment.

That would also mean that the remaining 12% that votes for 'other' parties would have 77 seats between them instead of 29, giving the BNP 12 MP's for their near 2% share. That is one part of the present system I do like, that the 564,321 that voted for them have no representation at all.

Ah right.
I agree that it is a tad bizarre that jocks can take their kids out of tuition fees while, at the same time, voting for our kids to pay.
Having a daughter just completing hersecond year at Uni, I know all about tuition fees.

I dislike the BNP with a passion but I am not in the business of denying half a million people the right to be represented.
Maybe if the BNP were more prominent then they would be exposed a bit more.
However if we allow people to vote for them, surely they must be allowed into Parliament, distasteful though that might be.
I do see where you are coming from though.

Yes! and it very much depends on how you personally spell it.

"I" - "T" normally works for me.

I've been lead to believe this is Davy Boys latest campaign poster