

British Election Results in Hung Parliament - Chirono
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/default.stm

======
jules
Isn't this a little bit ridiculous:

    
    
        Labour. Seats: 251, Votes: 29.3%
        Lib.Dem. Seats: 52, Votes: 22.9%

~~~
axod
The problem is:

    
    
      Conservatives: South, land owners
      Labour: North, working class
      Libdem: Students all over the country spread thinly
    

Maybe libdem should claim wales as their own and relocate all the libdem
supporters there.

For all the noise made about libdem in the run up to this election it was
surprising just how badly they did. Even their share of the vote was only up
1%.

~~~
arethuza
Labour presumably also has strong support from people employed by the state -
most of whom I would not describe as "working class". I suspect that this
explains why the Labour share of the vote seems to have grown strongly in
Scotland.

~~~
zeemonkee
That's very true.

Almost every one of my friends and family in Scotland work in some part of the
public sector - NHS, education, local government etc. I'm unusual in being
self-employed/private sector.

Scotland has become a socialist country almost by stealth - a combination of
government investment/bribery (Labour wanting to ensure a healthy majority
north of the border, to keep the nationalist vote down) and death of
traditional industries.

In Edinburgh you might see more jobs in the financial, media and other
sectors, but that is not the case for much of Scotland.

~~~
arethuza
A lot of those finance jobs are in RBS - and who owns that now? :-|

------
SandB0x
Where did the Lib Dem vote go? They're going to end up with fewer seats than
before. Really disappointing. Either the opinion polls are bullshit (how
and/or where are they held?) or people are just extremely fickle. What kind of
person still hasn't made up their mind the day before an election?

The only way Labour and the Lib Dems can form a majority government is to try
and bring in a host of minority parties. It's unlikely and nobody knows how
this is going to pan out.

~~~
ErrantX
My theory is that the turnout, generally, was still low; and those not turning
out have a high proportion liberal voters ("whats the point" etc.).

That and the libs didn't really capitalize on their initial success the other
week.

My take? Labour will offer the Lib Dems voting reform and form a coalition
with them and the SDLP - that should be enough to hold it, just.

I have to admit I was hoping for a bigger share for the Lib Dems - which would
have given a more balanced coalition (whichever way they went). Now their
position is weaker.

~~~
arethuza
Labour and the LibDems will join together to form a government and change the
rules ("electoral reform") so that with their combined 52% and a form of
proportional representation the Tories will have real problems getting into
power again.

Although it looks like Nick Clegg lost he will actually end up with more power
and influence than anyone from his party has had for an awfully long time.

I did find the views of the SNP rather alarming - that if the Tories got in it
would probably create the right conditions for them mounting a realistic
campaign for independence. I have no desire to be stuck in a wee country, oil
running out, with a bunch of insane socialists and RBS.

~~~
axod
It's unclear that libdem+labour will even be larger than conservative seats.

All money is on Cameron being our next PM.

I'm not sure Clegg actually has _that_ much power, his party has lost 13 seats
so far.

~~~
robin_reala
And gained 8. That’s still not good, but it’s not as bad as you’re painting
it. At current standings a Conservative minority govt would have 294 seats,
and a Lib/Lab coalition would have 304.

~~~
tome
304 is still nowhere near a majority (326), and it's doubtful whether it's
enough to govern.

------
easyfrag
Depending on your view on the role of government this is not necessarily a bad
thing. Canada has had a series of minority governments over the past few
years, and that has not been a factor in the recent economic crises.

~~~
ivenkys
Its not necessarily a bad thing , the issue here is none of the other smaller
parties have anything in common with the Tories,who look unlikely to form a
govt. on their own. Of course, a rag-tag coalition ideologically opposite of
each other might still work but not very well, i suspect.

~~~
kmfrk
That is representative democracy in action.

I don't mind that more than 35% of the British people are represented in
government.

~~~
ivenkys
I don't mind a rag-tag coalition , my problem is with the stability of it.

Its probably better for parties with at least a common minimum program to work
together than two parties that have nothing in common trying to stick together
and run a government for 5 years.

~~~
kmfrk
I guess the problem with Great Britain is that there are no recent historical
accounts of it working combined with the fact that the economic crisis
requires immediate, resolute action.

Having the Lib-Dems be the king-makers at every election might be a weird case
---assuming that no other popular parties begin emerging.

------
iaskwhy
I find it ironic that the result of democracy (in the abstract sense: the
diversity of opinion) is a non governable country. It kind of shows what type
of people we have in politics: stubborn opiniative people who don't even know
how to listen to other peoples' point of view.

Elections in a democracy only seem to work when there's not a democratic
parliament. Or maybe we are just not used to this and need some time to get
used to the idea of different point of views other than the two main parties.

~~~
thingie
Which result would mean a governable country? There are possible coalition
governments or even a minority government. Possibly, they won't be as strong
as a single party majority government would be, but they are definitely
workable. I'd rather see this as a strength of democracy where you can have
some kind of government even if there are many different opinions without
single prevailing political force (without having to kill all opponents).

~~~
iaskwhy
Maybe you didn't understand what I said or I didn't explain myself properly
but it's very rare for a government without a majority to not fall after some
months/few years. I'm blaming it on the politicians who can't form a strong
government from coalitions.

In a perfect world (utopia), there would be no need for coalitions, they would
just vote accordingly to the interests of the people they represent.

In a not so perfect world but still a pretty good one, a coalition should be
enough for a strong government and majority governments would be rare for our
own good.

In our world, this still doesn't happen.

