RationalWiki:UK General Election, 2010/Election night special

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Hello, good evening and welcome to RationalWiki's election night special, featuring full coverage of a bunch of internet slackers liveblogging whatever's on the telly. Read our thoughts on the exit poll, the vulnerable seats and how much User:Human has been drinking.

RW Poll in the saloon bar
The RW poll in our very own the saloon bar already predicting a landslide for the Lib Dems even before voting begins.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I voted last week by post. 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm curious: why is everyone voting for Clegg? 22:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By and large, internet based polls are Lib Dem. However, internet polls aren't representitive. Firstly, they'd be nerdier, and the Lib Dems have the best science policy. Secondly, the net is international so people tend to be less scared of foreigners and more accepting, and the Lib Dems are fairly easy going on immigration. The web also tends to be slightly more secular, probably as a result of the nerdiness and more liberal slant, and the Lib Dems represent this. And then perhaps the net tend to be of the younger generation, who aren't afraid to choose different, and the Lib Dems, being the underdog for several decades straight, will be attractive to that. 23:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes a lot of sense. In America the closest we have to the Lib Dems, is, sadly, Ralph Nader. 23:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Conservatives are the party of big business and Labour are traditionally the party of the working class - before Blair this meant largely Trade Unions. However Labour have lost a lot of TU financial backing. In the bad old days the industrial working class voted Labour as it was the only alternative. With record numbers of youngsters going into higher education and the decline of the UK's industrial base the population has become more middle class in attitude. The Lib Dems are not sponsored by big business or Trade Unions but rely on individual contributions, and they tend to focus more on the rights and freedoms of the individual than vested interest groups. They also tend to have greener policies. 07:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Explain it to the Yank
Help this noob out, what should we expect? What time do polls close? Do polls close at different times? Does the press do exit polling to try and make early calls? Are individual seats split up into precincts? For example, will we merely know "such and such a seat was won by so and so," or will we get things like "with 60 percent of precincts reporting so and so has a certain percent lead?"

Will we get maps of the country, or diagrams of the parliamentary chamber that will be color coded as results come in? tmtoulouse 22:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes.-- 23:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you wanted details. Okely dokely. Polls open at 7am and close at 10pm BST, and postal votes were cast a week ago, and already tallied. I would imagine that with this election, everyone and their goat will have hired polling firms to carry out exit polling, and we can probably get to hear fairly reliable exit polling data at about 22:30 BST. Individual seats are individual seats, technically they are split up into different areas (precincts), but solely for the placement of polling stations, votes aren't deliberately counted separately for different areas within a seat. Instead the system tends to be that the officially sanctioned people rush out to the polling stations after they close, collect the ballot boxes, bring them back to the counting centre (one per parliamentary seat), and there they are tipped out. At that point the counters start counting, and results get called once the Returning Officer (the guy responsible for the election in that seat) is satisfied that the count is accurate and that all necessary recounts have been done. And yeah, the Returning Officer really does call out the result. He stands up on the stage (most counts are done in village halls, council halls, etc.), and calls out the tallied result for all of the candidates in the election in that constituency, and then declares the winner.

As for how it gets represented visually, mostly it depends on the channel and the coverage, but the overnight coverage on the BBC tends to have visual representation of every kind, seats in the country, seats in the house, progress down the flagstones of Downing Street, etc, etc. Used to be just Snow and his manual Swingometer. Go figure.-- 23:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The polls all open at 7am BST - GMT+1 - and all close at 10pm. Exit polls are illegal before the polls are closed so the first item on the 10pm news is always a "This is what we think" story. Counting takes place in one central location for each seat. In places like Sunderland South, this means they can do it quickly because everything is pretty close together. Argyle and Bute usually doesn't declare until midday the next day because ballot boxes have to be securely escorted from tiny islands to the central count.
 * The first result is expected at about 10:45pm - Sunderland South has been the first to declare for the past 4 elections and they're looking to tie a record of 5, currently held by Guildford. The first few dozen seats in will almost all be Labour - they always win the inner cities and those declare fastest, so the results don't tell the story but the swing might give a few hints.
 * The BBC website is as good a place as any to go for colour-coded maps, but remember that Tory seats tend to be BIIIIG (large rural seats) and Labour small (inner cities) so when the map turns solid blue, it doesn't really show you very much. A better bet is a site showing lists of target seats for each party, colour-coded by the party that has won. The BBC usually do something like that, but I dunno the URL yet.
 * Other than that... our team of experts will be in the bar and on this page tomorrow night with up-to-the-minute news and opinion :) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was E/C rather than contradiction - should have said. Although they aren't called "precincts", they're called "wards". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I stuck in the term precincts for our American friends. God knows what wards mean in the States, beyond the obvious hospital connotations.-- 23:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the US we call 'em districts; wards only have to do with hospitals. 23:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So explain the common US political term "ward heeler". Wards in the US are parts of districts, usually bits of cities. 03:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We probably confused them with all the polysyllabic words anyway ;)
 * It's worth mentioning recounts. Every candidate has an "election agent" (usually just another member of the same party) who can request a recount if he or she considers that the result was too close. These take two forms: a full recount and a bundle count. Votes are counted into bundles of 500 for each party, and a bundle count simply recounts the number of bundles. In 1992, the final majority in the Conwy seat was just 995. The agent for the Lib Dems, Mel ab-Owain, requested a bundle count since just one misplaced bundle would have given the Lib Dems a majority of 5 rather than a minority of 995.


 * A full vote count takes place in very tight races. Unlike American politics, there's no automatic threshold for a recount - they are always requested. Sometimes several times. If there is still a tie after enough recounts, the result goes down to a coin toss. I do not believe this has ever happened in a General Election, although it certainly has in local council elections. There is no limit to the number of recounts that may be held, although typically three counts showing the same result is considered conclusive. One example was Adrian Sanders, who won his seat in 1997 by 12 votes. On the other hand, Mark Oaten won his seat in Winchester by just 2 votes and the result was successfully challenged in court, leading to a by-election.


 * I'll try to come up with more pointless but interesting stuff to substitute for sleep over the next few hours! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is all very interesting. I only had a very basic understanding of the FPTP system before; it is more intriguing than I thought. Though I doubt Americans would go for it, it does seem to have its advantages. The one question I have is this: if votes aren't counted separately for each Parliamentary seat, does that mean that each district ward doesn't really have its own representative to speak on behalf of that region's interests? Maybe I'm interpreting your previous comment wrong, but that's what it seems like. That idea is very baffling for an American. 23:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No no, votes are counted on a per-seat basis. I vote for the candidate of my choice in my constituency, and the candidate who gets the most votes here becomes the MP. The subdivision below "constituency" (ie one seat in the House of Commons) is called a "ward", but they exist purely for the purposes of administration etc. If one of the parties then has a majority of seats, they get invited to form the new government. In the event of there not being a majority, things get a bit more complicated - the incumbant PM has the constitutional right to remain as PM, even if their party doesn't have the most seats. alt (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact technically even if the incumbent party gets trashed, the previous PM has the right to remain. There's absolutely no point, though, because the first thing the larger party would do is hold a vote of no confidence to force him out. The final selection of PM is based on the questions: can they survive a vote of no confidence and can they get their Queen's Speech bill through? That's not an official requirement, but there's not much point in becoming PM if you don't have the votes to do anything. In practical terms, that might mean that even if Cameron (say) can't get a majority and doesn't want a coalition, he might do a small deal with the Lib Dems on those two points in return for minor concessions. The truth is that nobody knows just what is about to happen. Exciting, isn't it? :) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this actually the role of the Queen? She invites a party leader to form a government, the last PM can't just hang on in and hope to brazen it out without her permission. Normally this will be the largest party but I could imagine that if two parties with a smaller representation formed a majority coalition it would be intimated to her that one of them should be invited. 09:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Queen invites somebody to form a government, yes. Although she can dismiss a prime minister, that would cause a massive constitutional crisis. The former PM can hang on as long as he or she wants - look at Ted Heath in '74 (Feb). Again, this is all technicalities. If Brown only won about 150 seats, he'd resign on the spot. It wouldn't be worth trying to hang on in the face of such a disaster. You've also got to remember that a lot of our country's electoral process is guesswork: that's why there's been the fuss about the Civil Service putting together a memo offering advice as to what should happen in the event of a hung parliament. There's a bit of law, a bit of precedent and a bit of common sense involved but there's no actual hard-and-fast set of rules to detail exactly what happens. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Slight clarification of Replicant's earlier comment: I don't believe there are any laws about performing exit polls; the law is that you can't publish the results of them before the polling booths close. And whilst we're on the topic of results being publicised too early, there was the story a couple of days ago about a Labour candidate tweeting about the results of postal votes, which was a bit silly of her. alt (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The seats in the House of Commons are decided by the result of all the votes in a constituency. Wards are a local government divisions where a single representative is elected to sit on the local goverment body. So normally there is just one polling station in each ward. Local government elections are also being held today in some parts of England but not in Wales or Scotland. The general election was called to coincide with the local elections for the sake of efficiency, that's how many people were able to call the date of the election before it had been officially announced by Gordon Brown. Turnouts for local government elections are not particularly high, about 35% in recent years but when they coincide with a national election the percentage is 60-70%. So this can cause some upsets in control of the local government districts. 08:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry - that's what I meant - it's publishing them that's illegal. Must be clearer next time... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't be around tonight to join in the fun unfortunately, but this is because I'm taking part in the count for our constituency (as I have for a few years) so I'll see some of it first hand :) Enjoy.  08:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Another thing worth mentioning is the actual ballot paper. Anything other than a cross contained wholly in one of the spaces next to the candidate is a spoiled paper. That's right: even if you put a tick in the box, it's a spoiled paper. Normally, a bit of common sense prevails and the returning officer checks with the candidates and agents that ticks are okay. After the first count is complete, the agents and RO adjudicate on the rest of the spoiled papers. Usually this is fairly amicable and anything that clearly specifies an intention to vote for a candidate is let through.

This is more important than it sounds. A few years ago, in a council election, somebody had written "Yes please!" and drawn a smiley face next to one candidate's name. The vote was rejected. The count finished as a dead heat and the election was decided on a coin toss. The defeated party went to court on that one ballot, which was for their candidate. The judge heard from handwriting experts that "Yes please!" was insufficient to definitively identify the voter from their handwriting so allowed the ballot, reversing the result of the election. Incredibly, this also changed the balance of power on the council and gave the originally-defeated party overall control. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for disagreeing, but that doesn't match with my experience. Counting is done in a logical way.  Pretty much any mark is acceptable, the main judgement used is 'is the intention of the voter clear?'.  Cross, tick, whatever, as long as it's clear, it should be accepted.  There is a fair bit of precedent for this from various cases over the years.  The main things that disallow papers are being defaced, voting for more than one candidate or marking the paper in some way that allows the voter to identified.   See Section 4 of the Electoral Commission guidance].  Ultimately it is up to the Returning Officer to decide, but they get plenty of guidance.  We have big A2 sheets at our counts that give examples of acceptable and unacceptable papers.   The default position is to allow the paperr unless it fails one of the tests (more than one vote, defaced etc.)   08:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right in practice, but legally it's as I say. I very much doubt anybody would get anywhere by challenging ticks as votes, but it's one of those nice little bits of stupid British law - like it being illegal to wear a suit of armour in the House of Commons. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the Tories might well end up just a few seats short of a majority, can anyone expand a little on their alliance options with some of the smaller parties that might be able to provide those votes? UUP is the only one I can think of - the SNP or Plaid Cymru wouldn't join the Conservatives, right? Röstigraben (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The UUP and the DUP are likely to support the Tories. That will give them around an extra 10 seats. Farage might win for UKIP in Buckinghamshire, and he'd be likely to back the Tories on most things. The SNP and Plaid are largely opposed to the Tories' unionism; SDLP will vote with Labour, often. Sinn Fein complicate things slightly since they don't actually take their seats. This all means that if the Tories hit 310-312, they can just about squeak by. Plus, of course, the Lib Dems will support them on some things. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Lib Dems are going to be the biggest spanner in the works. Especially if their popularity stays raised so we have this "three way" going on, rather than just the big two and the Lib Dems wasting space in the corner (So we definitely need the reform to either PR or STV at least). But how they'll react in a hung parliament is anyone's guess as Clegg has been non-committed to that. 11:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One extra thing to note is that the constituency of Thirsk and Malton in North Yorkshire doesn't vote today because of the death of the UKIP candidate during the campaign. It's a safe Tory seat (35% majority last time) but it's one vote Cameron won't have until the end of the month. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Voting etiquette
The BBC has a FAQ on what you can and cannot do in a polling station. 11:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * apparently you have to tie up your horse outside. This also appliues to goats, presumably. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that they don't allow people wearing party T-shirts etc. (at least according to that article).  19:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, you're not allowed to do anything at all in the polling station that might influence how somehow might vote - which includes wearing T-shirts etc and any sort of discussion regarding the merits of the parties/candidates. You can stand outside and talk about whatever you want, but not inside. It's to ensure there's no possibility that someone might feel pressured into voting a particular way. alt (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I don't think that somebody who chooses to wear, for example, a Labour party tie, is really on the same level as talking loudly about the candidates inside the polling station.  20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

State of the pundits
Pundits' predictions: In other words, only Angus Reid think the Tories stand a chance of getting a majority.
 * I'd go with Angus Reid. Opinion polls usually under-endorse the conservatives (no-one wants to admit favouring "the nasty party"), but people will bet on realistic options. except during the world cup, but that's a whole nother thing. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy never made any actual predictions, but per Wikipedia, a "landslide victory" in the UK is one that results in a majority of at least 100 seats. I divided the remaining seats between Labour and the LibDems in a 2:1 ratio. Röstigraben (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Angus Reid's figures underestimate Labour. My own figures are 300-310, 220-230, 80-90. Some of my political friends say the same while others say the polls overstate Labour's support and underestimate the Others. I guess we'll find out later! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that anyone cares, but so I can't pretend I thought differently when at some point in my life I'm tempted to say I'm ok at predicting election results, I'm calling it 325 - 210 - 80. Which is what I thought before the tv debates too, so if I'm right this proves something or other. Bil08 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, nice to see Andrew Marr out of a studio and back waving his arms about in the street. All is well. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And there's that well-known political commentator, Bruce Forsyth. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fiona Bruce! rrrrrrrr.... Totnesmartin (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Exit Poll
UK Polling report has some good background on how the exit poll is conducted and analysed, here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The poll is out: prediction is HUNG PARLIAMENT

First read: BOLLOCKS. The LDs will have at least 20 more seats than that - mainly at the expense of Labour. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All details here, everyone! 21:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BBC confirming what I said above, Brown remains PM until he resigns. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently the exit poll doesn't take into account postal votes, which were cast when the Lib Dems were at the height of their popularity, so how this will work out is anyone's guess.-- 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was never particularly sure what the lib dem's overall would be, but I was fairly sure they wouldn't go *down*. So yeah I don't think this one is particularly accurate. X Stickman (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Predicted swing to the Cons is twice as strong against incoming Labour candidates as against Incumbents. This election is getting yet more unpredictable, even after the exit poll. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Early report from Houghton and Sunderland South is that there was a higher turnout than either normal or expected.-- 21:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hello. A second Labour Minister is singing the perils and problems of First Past the Post. Looks like Labour is going to make a deal with the Lib Dems if they can.-- 21:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And the first result is expected 22:49 BST.-- 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Revised Exit Poll:

First result - what does it mean?
Can I just say that this is the first time I've been on TV? -- PsyGremlin  20:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there isn't time. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The first result in the past four elections has come from Sunderland South. After boundary changes, the constituency that is most similar is Houghton and Sunderland South. The notional result from that seat in the last election is Lab: 66.91%; Con: 15.40%; LD: 14.10%; Others: 3.59% - a notional Labour majority of a huge 51.51%. A rough guess of the result based on the current opinion polls would be roughly Lab: 54%, LD: 21%, Con: 19% - a big drop in Labour's majority but still leaving it a safe seat. Obviously this is a guess based on an estimate based on another estimate, so a pinch of salt or two should be taken at the same time, but anything very different from those figures might be interesting. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reports from Sunderland say the result will be later than hoped because of increased turnout. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First result: Houghton and Sunderland South
 * Lab: 19,137 - 50% (-12)
 * Con: 8,147 - 21% (+5)
 * LD: 5,292 - 14% (-1)
 * BNP: 1,961 - 5% (-2)
 * UKIP: 1,022 - 3%
 * Ind: 2,462 - 7%
 * LABOUR HOLD - 55% Turnout, very low compared to rest of country. The BBC are using different notional results, hence the difference between the described changes and the ones above


 * 8.4% swing to Conservatives. Mind you, such a low turnout probably skews the swing in this case.  Probably should explain that.  This is a safe Labour seat, so there is every chance that Labour voters didn't turn out.  Might be a bit different in marginals.
 * 11% in Washington FFFFUUUUCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKK Totnesmartin (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Second seat and t'others
This one could be interesting, Washington and Sunderland West. Will the swing be maintained?-- 22:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Con= 22% (+7) Lab= 53% (-16) LD= 17% (+1). 54% Turnout. Swing= 11.6% to Conservatives. Ouch.-- 22:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sunderland Central:Con= 30.1% (+5) Lab= 45.9% (-5) LD= 16.9% (+/-0). 57% Turnout. Swing= 4.8% to Conservatives. That's better.-- 22:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

DUP have just picked up a seat. Add a tick to the Conservative column.-- 23:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Alliance Party gain their first seat. Lib Dems hold their first seat of the night. Two ticks to the Libs and allies. Lib Dem (51.9%) seat: 75% turnout. 4.3% swing to Conservatives.-- 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru gain a seat. Interesting, they definitely aren't Tory allies.-- 23:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They picked it up from Labour, though ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, mixed news.-- 00:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives pick up their first seat off of Labour. 9.4% swing, and outside the target seat list, so a Conservative majority might be on.-- 00:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And news is that the Conservatives have picked up Basildon from Labour. Waiting for result for the swing.

Torbay: LD= 47%. 65% Turnout. 1.1% swing away from Conservatives to Lib Dems. That's bloody good news. Seat was 65th on Tories list to get.-- 00:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

An Independent picks up Down North with a massive majority. Interesting. What was the UUP loses the seat. Deficit of one to the Conservative/UUP/DUP alliance.-- 00:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour keep the City of Durham. Shame, it was a target Lib Dem seat. Swing was 0.4% to Lib Dems. That kind of swing doesn't look good for the rest of the night.-- 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tooting:+10% turnout. No Portillo moment. Labour minister keeps his seat. 3.6% swing to the Conservatives.-- 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Guildford: No.1 on the Lib Dems target list. Conservatives hold. 72% turnout. 6.9% swing to Conservatives from Lib Dems. Have written only one thing in my diary:  'Bollocks' .-- 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Recount in Broxtowe. Conservatives take the seat, which was a target, but only with a swing of 2.9%. That's not good news for the Tories.-- 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Aberconwy taken by the Conservatives from Labour. Interesting because that is a Welsh seat and the first one the Conservatives have taken tonight. The Tories wanted to make inroads into Wales to gain their majority.-- 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tories pick up the Vale of Glamorgan as well. That's two Welsh seats.-- 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Lembit 'Mad as box of frogs' Opik loses his Montgomeryshire seat for the Welsh Lib Dems. Strange, he wasn't allowed on TV and still loses his seat to the Tories. Fuck me. 210th on the Conservative target list. 13.2% swing to Conservatives from the Lib Dems.-- 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Somerton and Frome held by the Lib Dems, was a target Tory seat. This is getting weird.-- 01:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris Huhne, Lib Dems (ran for the leadership), Eastleigh, keeps his seat. 69% Turnout. Swing of 3% to the Lib Dems from the Conservatives.-- 01:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Lib Dems pick up Eastbourne. Finally.-- 01:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But they lost Harrogate & Knaresborough to the Conservatives. Over a 9% swing from Lib Dems to Conservatives. This is getting confusing.-- 01:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Newton Abbot falls to the Conservatives from the Lib Dems. 70% turnout. 5.8% swing from Lib Dems to Conservatives. Very small majority though. If another general election gets called soon, then the Conservatives might not hold this seat.-- 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Pudsy, 111th on the Tory target list, falls to the Conservative from Labour. Swing of 7.6% to the Conservatives.-- 03:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative election night
You watching this? Fucking funny. "It's after 10, we don't have to be impartial anymore. We can be as unbalanced as Lembit Opik's face". 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Flicking between that & BBC1 coverage. Paxman's comment a few minutes ago about Gordon Brown clinging on to No. 10 like some kind of squatter made me LOL much more than anything Jimmy Carr is likely to say all night.   22:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stubbing my toe would make me lol more than Jimmy Carr. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BRIAN COX!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Polling Stations - The Big News of the Election
Apparently there are still queues outside some polling stations. Some stations have stayed open, possibly illegally, other polling stations have closed, meaning that voters couldn't vote. The BBC doesn't seem impressed that not everybody who wanted to vote could. Descriptions such as 'third-world politics' have been thrown about.-- 22:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * US elections had judges stacked all night to issue court orders to keep places opened or closed. tmtoulouse 22:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there has been a strong predilection to keep the Law and Politics separate from each other in the past in the UK, hence the expenses scandal.-- 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lewisham: 300 voters told they couldn't vote, sat in, police convinced returning officer to let them vote. This will cause great problems for every returning officer who didn't. In Sheffield Hallam, they apparently put residents and students into different queues ... and the students were the ones left out of voting. That's Nick Clegg's seat, and he's really very unhappy about it. Particularly when a pile of the victims went round to his house! Could well have been illegal. Probably not criminal malfeasance though. People are already saying "Florida." I predict another election in six weeks or so (about how long it'd take) - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tell you what, if this goes to court you can guarantee that the right to vote trumps what the law currently says. I can't see another general election, but yeah, there could be a number of bye-elections, especially if Nick Clegg sees his seat disappear because he's lost the student vote.-- 22:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A somewhat paranoid LibDem party member friend says the seats where people were stopped from voting appear to be disproportionately LibDem targets. Hm. "@alexmyers Just to confirm. Min 50ppl in highbury turned away despite being inside well b4 10pm. #ge2010 please RT" Suddenly telly isn't going on about a hung parliament - THIS is the news story - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "@SkyNewsBreak Sky sources: voters turned away at Ranmoor polling station are refusing to let ballot box out of building. Police there" Holy crap! DON'T PISS THE VOTING PUBLIC OFF - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's been handled differently from place to place. Some doors closed at 10 with people turned away. Some stayed open later. Some let people in but closed the doors. Some even ran out of ballot papers. Another GE within a year. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A whole year? This isn't America! We can run elections WHENEVER WE LIKE! Six weeks practical minimum, a shedload of byelections if not a full rerun - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we going to turn into another Greece? (With the rioting rather than the buggery, we've got the buggery down pat, even Churchill acknowledged that).-- 22:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, that'll happen when the dust settles and whoever's in No 11 when the music stops does the sums and goes "Oh shitting fuck" - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no way there will be another election before September and it's unlikely that the politicians will risk one then with the current global financial shit. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's midnight and the lawyers I know are already running the hypotheticals. And that's just the ones with blogs. I do predict a shedload of byelections if not a general, and the music doesn't stop until someone has a majority or a coalition - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Radio 4, the Sheffield returning officer admits they fucked up in preventing people from voting. That's Clegg's seat, though. Wonder what now. - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Police turning away voters in Dalston: pic, video - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "@PaulNUK2010 Argghh At Chester they turned away 600 voters in a 900 seat marginal because the polling station had out of date voter lists - WTF ?????" - oh man, this election is made of 110% extra-pure virgin clusterfuck. Wow. - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WHAT?? That's insane! In the US that would be grounds for an enormous scandal, which the Supreme Court would then proceed to steamroll right over. What's the procedure on your side of the pond for dealing with such things? 23:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows. That's the beauty of the British Constitution! Really, nobody knows what happens now. We'll muddle through to something or other, but it'll all be made up as we go along - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's like how RW decides things? 03:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Radio 4: "There are also reports that some failed voters in Sheffield are blocking roads around polling stations to stop ballot boxes being removed." I'd just like you to picture me with my jaw flapping around my feet all the way through this. I'm supposed to SLEEP tonight? HOLY FUCK - David Gerard (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. The whole thing sounds completely ad hoc. How the heck have you guys gotten through so many elections without addressing these problems? 23:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't fix people. Cat Panic (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget this is the country that comes to a halt with a quarter-inch of snow. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Up until now turnout has been so piss-poor it's never been a problem. And to be fair, in the past there was so much more industry and manufacturing the votes tended to be split between the day because of shift-working workers.  Now it's much more of an 8am-6pm job cycle so people don't have time to vote in the morning or during the day, and after coming home from work, eating and taking care of the kids they now tend to vote later.  On top of that the British Political system is like the constitution, its worked so far, so nobody could be arsed to change it.-- 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dimbley is calling this a disgrace.-- 23:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Viewers reacted to Dimbleby's statement by going 'DURRRRRRRR'" - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Twitter
How do I unhook my brain from Twitter? This is worse than the US election - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "@Christiane News just in, Hamid Kharzi offers to send election oversight officials for 2015 #ge2010" - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Highlights of the night
Martin Amis, apparently so totally off his face he could barely speak.-- 23:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Banter between Paxman and Dimbley is heating up. *tents fingers* Excellent.-- 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That guy in Brown's constituency holding a fist salute up behind the returning officer has cracked me up. X Stickman (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The graphics flash on the BBC that said: Conservatives hold The Wreckin. Got to love these constituency names.-- 00:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"So the house of lords is some kind of democratic model now, is it?" - Paxman. Oh you delightful card, you made me laugh. X Stickman (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Very serious
This is fun and exciting. Cat Panic (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeremy Paxman is berating people some more. Cat Panic (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Be nice if he berated the Tories for trying to break the conventions than Labour for following them. And considered the people who couldn't vote a story - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He did berate some Tory about the vote not being "definitive", as they are leaping to claim. Right now they are examining the internet with wonder and awe. Cat Panic (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The actual rules: 10pm absolute deadline
http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/voters-being-turned-away-what-the-electoral-commission-rules-say/

It's supposed to all CUT OFF DEAD at 10pm.

However, it's clear the rules were bent, e.g. in Lewisham, in order to prevent the disappointed would-be voters setting the place on fucking fire. So the question is whether the rules would in fact stand up in court, or to LOTS OF REALLY FUCKING PISSED OFF PEOPLE.

(No-one knows the answer to that question, and anyone who says they do is a fool. IT'S ANYBODY'S GAME NOW! It's like watching a lawn bowls match suddenly turn into rollerderby. With FLAMETHROWERS.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It must be strangely exciting watching your government make up the rules as it goes along. 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. That's what a government is supposed to do. Cat Panic (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been doing that since 1066. Google "british constitution" and be amazed... Totnesmartin (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)You know, it's strangely normal.-- 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote WP: "The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to those of most other nations." Wow. Just, wow. 23:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Tetronian, it's really nothing. What the government actually is bears no real resemblance to what people think it legally should be. Cat Panic (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how the UK works. No written constitution means that it can be changed overnight, like it probably will tonight.-- 23:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if they can fix the voting process to make sure everyone gets a chance to vote, then at least something good will come out of the chaos. 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I moved here? Australians are so well-behaved - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is the dark green party that just won a seat? Cat Panic (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sinn Fein.-- 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cat Panic (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the Greens got Brighton - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet to declare, they were just discussing the (high) possibility Totnesmartin (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason that this is important is that the Great British Public, or appreciable numbers thereof, are pissed off enough to riot. That is not actually normal. It means you've fucked up really badly. Even the police are taking it easy, 'cos even the dumbest uniformed thug should realise that police stopping people from voting is just a touch problematic for legitimate government - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What seems to me to be the deciding thing in this is how long the people have been waiting. It's clearly advertised that the polling stations close at 10, so everyone knows that. People who show up at 9:59 don't really have anyone to blame but themselves, to be honest. But if people have been waiting since, say, 9:30 or 9, or even earlier, and then get turned away because the staff couldn't work fast enough, there's a serious issue there. And yeah, it's amazingly unusual for the british public to be pissed off enough to actually do stuff in public rather than just bitch and moan to each other over breakfast. X Stickman (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Denny de la Haye (Independent candidate, Hackney South): "Some of the people who didn't get to vote tonight queued for 2 or 3 hours, so those posting 'last minute voting' jokes are wide of the mark." Hackney South was one of the clusterfuck seats, with people who'd seen the council's election workers at 7am saying they were drooling incompetents and wouldn't be able to cope with a large turnout - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've only got the BBC coverage on, as well as this page, and they don't seem to be covering any details beyond "people couldn't vote" and "that's fucking ridiculous". If people have been there for 2-3 hours and have been turned away, that's.... that's pretty crazy. X Stickman (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yankee peanut gallery
I just started watching the newscast, so far it seems much, much better than US coverage of elections. 23:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude! There's an actual NEWS STORY happening, with RIOTS. They were expecting to be simultaneously on the edges of their seats and bored silly all night - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They're just talking about it now. But, as you say, they're way, way too calm. 23:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, now come the obligatory interviews with angry citizens. 23:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...And now back to the discussion of the exit poll. You're right, they seem far more concerned with the hung Parliament than with the riots. 23:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)The BBC seem to like ignoring riots in the UK for the same reason that American broadcasters don't televise streakers. It just encourages them.  Of course, we do like to televise streakers so there you go, it all works out in the wash.-- 23:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah!! "BBC reporter Danny Carpenter in York says hundreds of postal ballots have gone missing in the city. The problems are being blamed on a printing error and a temporary closure at the local postal sorting office. In York Outer, the Lib Dems had a notional majority of just 203, meaning the missing votes could have a significant impact and pave the way for a losing party to challenge tonight's result in the courts." Crazy stuff. 23:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, can someone explain why they are talking about the BNP now? 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There you go, a LD win! 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 22.9% swing. Fuck yes. Cat Panic (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think. That might be a different place. They keep moving onto new places without me really noticing. Cat Panic (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was the Alliance win in Belfast, although they are Lib Dem allies.-- 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't listen to Cat Panic. Cat Panic is a moron. Cat Panic (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, this newscast actually requires concentration to figure out what is going on. It's very different from what I'm used to. 23:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Presidential election is fifty elections in parallel. The UK general election is over six hundred elections in parallel - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh, now they've gone to a CNN-esque "magic map." Come on BBC, don't jump on the "more graphics = better" bandwagon! 00:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now they're saying the government was trading/selling bonds on the day of the election. Huh.
 * ...and it looks like the first Tory win of night just came in. 00:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Complete with the platonic ideal of a Tory being all speechy about it. Plus, many thanks to the police, obviously. Cat Panic (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I found it funny how the speech was about change. If Andy Schlafly is watching, I'll bet he's scratching his head in puzzlement. Conservatives =/= change in his world. 00:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)I remember the manual swing-o-metre. Give me more graphics any day of the week.-- 00:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, American news stations have gone overboard with graphics. The newscasters are literally half-hidden behind graphics, and they are pointed at graphical maps/charts/whatever behind them. It makes it impossible to form a coherent thought amid the blur of digital enhancements. 00:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, they just said that the BNP got more than twice the number of votes than the Greens in Torbay. But the LDs held it. Not too shabby. 00:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Goddam, more "magic map." Well, I'm off to eat and do a few things; I'll be back in a bit. 00:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold it: what the FUCK is this green-screen thing they've got now? 00:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how it goes swish. Cat Panic (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Silly graphics are a time honoured election night institution at the BBC.  00:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Graphics or Andrew Marr, tricky decision ;-)-- 00:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Whats up with the random interview on a yacht party? tmtoulouse 01:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They have to prepare some filler like this just in case nothing really happens all night. The thing is, when things do happen, like now, they're kind of stuck with the filler. Cat Panic (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm back. Wow, Labour's doing pretty well so far. What happened to the supposed Tory majority? Or is it too early to tell? 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, more of this green screen in the floor stuff. (It is growing on me, though, despite my hatred of the graphics takeover in the media...) 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Too early to tell. Labour votes tend to be concentrated in city areas, whereas Tory votes tend to be concentrated in the big rural seats, so Labour seats tend to be declared first.  Hence the fascination with swing as a prediction tool.-- 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering about the emphasis on swing. It's slowly making more sense as the night goes on. 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, swing is just about the only prediction tool anybody's got in a tight, 600 seat First Past The Post system.-- 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, of course, Britain is a nation of swingers.-- 02:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued
LD is looking disappointing overall, only 6 seats so far. 01:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, now they're up to 8. Still pretty low overall, though. 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh! "The Lib Dems have also taken Eastbourne from the Conservatives - we'd thought that they hadn't managed to do that, but we stand corrected!" From the BBC. 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but now they're making from of some former LD MP for losing an apparently solid LD constituency, I forget which one. 01:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was quite pleased with "It seems like the Conservatives aren't doing much better than when you were in charge!" Not really relevant to this thread, but I still like it. Cat Panic (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember that line.
 * I also notice they're not talking about the riots anymore... 02:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear fuck, its now Labour 89, Tories 87. I guess it does take longer for those rural votes to come in. 02:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and the Tories move into the lead. I wonder: will the size of their majority be important (assuming a hung Parliament)? 02:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the rural vote is working out who the hybrid man-sheep children voted for. The size of a majority is massively important.  If the Tories are short only, say, 8 seats, they could probably form a lose alliance with the UUP and DUP to get a working majority.  If, on the otherhand, the Conservatives are short by 40 seats then it's up to the Lib Dems to decide if and who they want to ally themselves with.  In general, large majorities are always favoured by governments because it means they can ram through legislation that may be unpopular with wings of their own party.  Tiny majorities on the other hand can leave you with a John Major government, who started with a very small majority and, through death and defection, ended up leading a minority government.-- 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. I was wondering how different it would be with FPTP. So, then, we just have to hope that the Cons don't have too large of a majority so that the LDs and Labs have bargaining power. Makes sense. 02:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Not exactly. Majority means that one party holds more than 50% of the seats in the House of Commons.  If the largest party after the elections holds less than 50% of the seats then it doesn't have a majority.  Funnily enough there is no official term to describe the gap between the number of seats a party has and the number of seats it needed for a majority, all you'll hear is, for instance, that the Conservatives are 22 seats short of a majority.  Confusing, but the whole point of the FPTP system is that one party is meant to end up with a majority, and so doesn't have terms to adequately deal with the situations in hung parliaments.-- 02:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, well, well: "One of the problems facing the Tories is that the Lib Dem vote is holding up particularly well in the more marginal seats they're defending. Our analyst Prof John Curtice notes that in constituencies where the Lib Dems were first and Tories second in 2005, the Lib Dem vote is up on average up by five points." 02:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Two comments: 1) I've changed my mind: I like the BBC's use of graphics. Unlike in American news, it actually has a purpose. 2) Damn, these votes take a long time to come in. In the US, we would have forgotten about the whole thing already. 02:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like the LD votes are still trickling in. On another note, they've stopped talking about the riots entirely. 02:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, our election system was originally designed to work in, say, 1496, and it hasn't changed a lot since. Just about the only thing that has sped up the count is the use of auto mobiles as opposed to horses to get the votes to the counting centres-- 02:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the riots have stopped I think. People have got work tomorrow you know&hellip;-- 02:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it seems odd that its 4:00 and only half of the results are in. Anyway, I've fallen asleep for the third time; I'm off to bed. I'll check in around noon British time. I do pity all you Brits staying up on coffee, it must be rough. 02:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Norn Iron
There goes Peter Robinson - victory for the Alliance, NI's only neutral party. This election just keeps on getting better. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Update
They are interviewing Captain Picard. I am interested in his view of all this. Cat Panic (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha! 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FUCKING TWITTER
DON'T YOU DARE FAILWHALE ON ME NOW YOU BASTARD AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, more conspiracy than cockup
"@anwen Police were turning voters away in Hackney South and Shoreditch from 9.20pm. #stitchup #ge2010" - David Gerard (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They're already seriously talking of a rerun in Sheffield Hallam - Nick Clegg's seat, where all the students (serious LibDem skew) were stopped from voting. You bet that'll be the least burning shit down inducing idea and will be seen as just the right thing to do elsewhere - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New Statesman video of voters being turned away - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Coalition
Just in, Brown will seek coalition if there is a hung parliament.-- 00:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hell yeah. It's like having your head in the noose and the trap door sticking - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I regret that there is no "Hug Gordon Brown" option in this election. Cat Panic (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure wish he'd discovered born-again socialism earlier than three days before the bloody election. Thirteen years earlier would have been nice - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)"Hang Gordon" maybe.-- 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

LD hold Torbay
With a pretty huge share, if I heard all that right. Cat Panic (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was 1.1% swing. 00:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any swing from Tory to LD is just fine by me. Oh, and apparently the Tories wanted it for their imaginary majority. Burn. Cat Panic (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the first good news I've had since the polls closed.-- 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes me slighty more optimistic for Totnes. Slightly. Totnesmartin (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Totnes
BOLLOCKS! Totnesmartin (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, fuck a duck.-- 02:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Martin. 02:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At least the 9/11 truther came last. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Con hold Putney
Damn it people. Cat Panic (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Low result predicted by "senior Tory"
"@faisalislam spoken to a senior Tory, v sceptical of the LibDem numbers, estimating Con at 290, Libs at 70ish" - Faisal Islam is the economics editor for Channel 4 News, which is probably the best (IMO) television news show in Britain - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a jolly good show. Cat Panic (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, Have I Got News For You and Mock The Week. A lot funnier, and just as accurate as serious news programmes.-- 00:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just love seeing Jon Snow take apart the deserving - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would so vote for Jon Snow. Cat Panic (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I want hot rational man on man action with his pounding brain - David Gerard (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol! My previous comment was very nearly "I am deserving and he should take me apart" Cat Panic (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Lab hold Kirkcaldy
Yay. Cat Panic (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

With a swing from the SNP to Brown. They must be feeling sorry for the bastard.-- 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Turnout up 4 points. Interesting.-- 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh
Things I have foreseen -


 * "My parliament is hung" t-shirts.
 * Some guy coining the word "liblab".

Cat Panic (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever wins, the memes lose. Cat Panic (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, dude. One of LibDems' meme-attempts this time was "Labservative" - David Gerard (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty bad. Cat Panic (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already heard the term "liblab" be thrown around by commentators (especially conservatives) on the BBC coverage. X Stickman (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stunning foresight there, but the term "Lib-Lab" has been around forever. 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I concede that one, but "My parliament is hung" is going all the way, baby. Cat Panic (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

T-shirts with 'My other Prime Minister is&hellip;'-- 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes we Khan
I am asleep and this is a dream. Cat Panic (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for all the liveblogging. I am interested and wired on coffee. Cat Panic (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am superglued to Twitter. I have desperately needed to pee for the past two hours. BUT I MUST HIT F5 AGAIN - David Gerard (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good job I don't know how twitter works, or I'd be doing the same. X Stickman (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't touch Twitter - it's worse than opium. The BBC newscast is good enough for me. 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hackney kicking off
"RT @RooftopJaxx Police amassing at #hackney town hall & helicopter overhead - que pasa?" - I saw vague allusions to such in Manchester too - anyone local with better news? - David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't heard anything down this way. Broccoli (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Voting for change
So I voted for "change" thinking that this was a historic election where the electoral landscape would be changed forever. And I thought that lots of like-minded British folk would do the same. So, why am I watching the election coverage, where it seems that so many fuckers have voted for the Tories? Don't they remember the 80s? Once again, a waste of a vote. Might as well just stay drunk for the next 5 years. Bondurant (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So true. Everyone I knew voted for LD, but suddenly it's just not a three horse race any more. How the hell did this happen? Cat Panic (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All the people who would like to vote LibDem don't becuase everyone knows they can't win, so they don't. Broccoli (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC, but basically what the vegetable said) I more or less had a change of heart at the last minute and went with Labour instead of Libdems. I'm bloody glad I did too, as they seem to be doing absolute shite considering ole Nicky was saying it was now a race between the Tories and themselves. 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What the vegetable said is always a given, but it really seemed different this time. Cat Panic (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the Tory masterplan is also fucked. Cat Panic (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine was a tactical vote, in a way. Living in a safe Labour seat, I went Lib Dem, if only to increase their share of the overall vote and hope that it increased their legitimacy in campaigning for true PR. Bondurant (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to piss on your chips but I'm quite happy and certainly not surprised that the lib dems cant get a seat. Frankly the whole business about Lib Dems representing any sort of change I'd be interested in was just large scale projection onto a party no-one knew anything about. Ooh, as I write Opik gets the boot. Top notch.

I'd also note that on the Election 2010 page on the BBC, Clegg has got a distinctly more depressed face than the other two. Maybe if things turn around they'll put a smiley on him or something. Bil08 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they are holding onto their share, but not gaining anything. They'll get 20% or more of the vote, but less than 10% of the seats in parliament. Democracy in action. Bondurant (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In '83 it was 25% of the vote and 3% of the seats. That's FPTP for you.-- 01:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only two words satisfactorily describe that situation: Fucked. Up. Seriously, it's stupid that a party can win the minds of so many voters but not transfer that power to the national level just because they're third, and not even a distant third at the moment. 09:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Scotland
saving us from a Tory majotity. Totnesmartin (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Got too love those majotities.-- 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Scotland. 01:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Wales, it's turning Blue! At least Lembit Opik is gone. Bondurant (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Story so far&hellip;
The Tories aren't winning the targeted seats that they needed for a majority. The Lib Dems aren't winning the seats they need and Labour is losing seats, so who knows what will happen at this point.-- 01:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tories catching up, but Labour are 16 ahead at the point I type this. Not even 1/6th have been counted yet, but atm looks like a hung parliament. 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oop, Lab 17 ahead now. 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 19. Cat Panic (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh. 18. I'll stop now. Cat Panic (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything seems quite strange, Libs just lost big in Wales, nobody knows what's happening. Plaid aren't doing as well as they would like. Broccoli (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm. the Bonds market opened early especially for this. Currently holding steady at the moment, although the sovereign debt crisis has now hit New York.-- 01:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wales
There goes Lembit Opik. Who will save us from the asteroids now? Totnesmartin (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will, I was always a dab hand with that triangle.-- 01:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn!
Oliver Cretwin survived. Totnesmartin (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour Ministers
One Labour Minister gone. Ha, ha, ha, ha! (Basildon South & Thurrock East)-- 01:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Eastbourne
Libdems have taken it from the Tories - target consitutency. 01:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LD have also won Eastleigh. Cat Panic (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If my memory serves, a bunch of Tory districts thus far have swung to LD, far more than Labour ones have done so. 01:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, but slightly troubling
"Despite Nick Griffin's pessimism over his chances in Barking, east London, our analyst Prof John Curtice says evidence is growing to suggest that the BNP are putting in their best ever performance in a British general election. Looking at the nine seats declared so far tonight in which the BNP also stood in 2005, it appears they're up by an average of two points." Why are they doing well, I wonder? Can someone explain? 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of muttering about immigration right now, and the BNP did a surprisingly good job of looking like the opposite of Labour for a while, which somehow wins you votes regardless of your actual policies. Cat Panic (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand that mentality alright. 01:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Immigration has been the big drum in the past few years in the UK political scene. Shame really, given how much Britain has benefited from immigration, but there you go-- 01:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Basic politics, Tetronian my son. Times are tough, people become disillusioned and look for a more often than not radical alternative. However, they BNP received tiny amounts of national media attention during the election campaign. The biggest thing that's drawn attention to them was about 2 days ago when a BNP candidate campaigning in Barking tried kicking the shit out of an Asian youth. 01:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm well aware of that paradigm. In the US it's basically the norm, especially as far as immigration is concerned. Case in point: the immigration law passed in Arizona. 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I heard about Brown calling a bigot a bigot about half a dozen times, but I hadn't heard about that. Cat Panic (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for some strange reason most of the British public have this irrational hatred of Nazis. I'm not sure why.-- 01:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cameron
Cameron keeps his seat. 73% turnout. Swing from Lib Dems to Conservatives of 6%.-- 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 'ol shiny face. Stopping just short of a victory speech. But Tories are just about to overtake Labour in the number of seats. Bondurant (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It looked that way, but Lab has actually pulled ahead a little. Cat Panic (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm listening to Cameron's speech online after retaining Witney. Pile of shite pouring out his mouth. He's saying some people haven't been able to vote, "and that must never happen again!" Now he's saying the Tories have already won. Now it's "change." He just doesn't come across as a likeable guy. He comes across as a nob. I'm going to bed... 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I guess he is going to claim victory after all. Not that they really can do that at the moment. Cat Panic (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he went on a bit. Shame, because I actually went to some lengths to make sure that I listened to no more than 5 minutes of what that guy had to say for the whole election period, and had saved up for this. Actually can't really remember what he said now, probably uninteresting. Bil08 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Did he just claim that he did not run a campaign that included attacking the other parties? 'cos god damn, cameron. God damn. X Stickman (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In his words: ""It's already clear that the Labour government has lost its mandate to govern this country," says Mr Cameron. It looks as if the Conservatives are on target to win more seats than they have for some 80 years, he says. "It's clear the country wants change and that change is going to require new leadership". He adds: "Whatever happens, we will do all we can to bring about that leadership."" 02:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Darling holds seat
More yay. Cat Panic (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Less yay. Totnesmartin (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Alistair Darling (Chancellor of the Exchequer) keeps the Edinburgh seat for Labour, actually increasing his majority. "It's not my fault" seems to have worked as an election strategy for him.-- 02:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just found out he's an ex-commie like a fair portion of the Labour party apparently. I thought he was just another boring suit. Bil08 (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I like him. He's not a git and does ooze. Broccoli (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, of course, he's the only love-child of a badger in Parliament. Got too love him for that.-- 02:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He reminds me of Sam the Eagle from the Muppets, with his black eyebrows. Bondurant (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

gah
Politicians denying what their leaders have said. Coffee burning stomach but not keeping me awake. May collapse onto keyboard. Totnesmartin (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, it's 3:30 over there, isn't it? 02:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. And the green vote has slipped back :( Totnesmartin (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They just mentioned that the Greens lost a lot of votes this year. The BNP apparently outdid them by a factor of 2 or more. 02:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Harrogate & Knaresborough
Lib Dems lose another to the Conservatives. Bil08 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC) This really is the silver lining for me. A lot of Cleggomania bs to mock for a good day or so.

Newton Abbot
Oh Christ and another. 2 horse race indeed Clegg. (Yes, I am taking it out on the LD's just to make me feel better about Brown getting it) Bil08 (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Lib Dems
14 seats, can't stop laughing. EddyP (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just you wait, you Tory scum... we'll perform as badly in this election as we did in the last one. Broccoli (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually a bit uneasy earlier when I said that the Libs wouldn't get more than 80 seats, given that more or less everyone was saying they'd get 100 or so. Now I'm feeling really very silly about having put it so high. Bil08 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about going on and on about this, but you watch now when Clegg gives his support to Cameron. All those silly lefties who thought that the LD's were a reasonable, even left-wing, alternative to the other two parties, and not just another bunch of unprincipled hacks (and from what I've been told they are the biggest bunch of unprincipled hacks going in British politics). Bil08 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If they do join up with the Tories, it might be interesting: the Conservative party opposes the LibDems on most policy areas, and while Dave might want to do a deal, his party might be less reasonable. Broccoli (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Christ, Cameron would be crucified by his party if he entered an alliance with the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems have a very simple price for alliance entry and that's PR.  PR would spell the end of majority Tory governments for good.-- 03:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And as Bil08 mentioned, many Libs vote for the Dems mostly because they hate the Tories and don't like Labour either. Bad for Clegg, too. Broccoli (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, there is a special policy in the LD party that prevents leaders from entering into coalitions without the explicit support of the party at large. (?) Cat Panic (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which could spoil any Lib-Tory deal, though a Tory minority with Lib support would still be possible, wouldn't it? Broccoli (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Brown got the first try at a minority government even if Lab technically lost the vote? This is all confusing. Cat Panic (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But Clegg might decide not to support such an unpopular leader, resulting in Dave getting a shot. Broccoli (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea what Clegg would do in that situation, but my gut tells me he'd prop up Labour before the Tories. But really, if it comes to that, all bets are off. Cat Panic (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With the party support thing, Party leaders get their own way in such situations. Technically it's up to Brown to first make the decisions as the sitting Prime Minister, but it all comes down to who gets what seats.  Just about the only way to know what's going to happen is to see the make-up of parliament tomorrow.  Even though everybody goes on about a 2 party system and a three party system, there are a lot of smaller national parties (Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland) and so all the possible permutations are numerous.-- 03:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * StuntedDwarf, on the libcon alliance see me, above. The unprincipled hacks bit. Besides, PR has had it at this point. LibLab doesn't have enough seats. The Libs can stay out of government if they want, and see if they get another shot in next 70 years or so. Bil08 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We still haven't heard from all of the potential LibDem South East yet. But it isn't looking good for yellow. Broccoli (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Clegg is between a rock and a hard place here. Side with their ideological opposites or side with a grossly unpopular leader. However, if he plays it well, it could come out pretty good. A temporary alliance with the Tories on the condition of electoral reform followed by a second election under a proportional system, the Lib Dems could be in a much stronger position. Meanwhile, Labour would have regrouped without Brown at the helm, making them more palatable to the electorate - who seem to be under the idiotic impression that Brown caused the recession and has the ability to magically make it disappear, something that in fact no one can do (FFS), but I digress. Anyway, it's not an easy decision and it can't be helped. There's too much dissatisfaction with politics right now to make anything other than a hung parliament a realistic eventuality so something needs to give, and it should be the electoral system. 09:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Clegg just reaffirmed his statement that the strongest party should have first dibs on trying to form a government, while also calling for electoral reform once more, so that's probably a non-negotiable condition for his support. But why should the Tories accept this? They're the ones who stand to lose the most if the next election, which could be pretty soon, is held under list PR. On the other hand, if nobody can form a government and new elections have to be held, they'd have another shot at getting a genuine majority. If the Lib Dems want a change in the electoral system, Labour seems to be their only option, but then again, even the two of them would not have enough seats for a majority. Seems like we are living in interestimg times. Röstigraben (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

overtake
Now more conservative than labour wins: 105-100. Totnesmartin (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably because the more rural Tory areas take longer to collect the ballot paper in. Ah, why do people still vote Tory? Broccoli (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Has our dear home county come in yet? EddyP (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Estimated at 4:30. One of the most rural areas around. Broccoli (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Burnley
BNP stronghold on the council, now has a Lib Dem MP. Thank fuck. Totnesmartin (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

London
Where are the London results? Just three so far. Totnesmartin (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Final predictions
From the BBC website: "Just to sum up a bit. Our analyst Prof John Curtice says that at this stage, it's looking like we've got a real cliffhanger on our hands. It seems unlikely the Tories will have enough support by just relying on the backing of nine or so democratic unionists in Northern Ireland. But equally, it isn't at all clear that Labour and the Lib Dems would have enough seats combined to be able to outvote everyone else either." So, basically, no one wins. 02:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, but Labour, Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru and the SNP aren't worlds apart ideologically speaking. And both the SNP and Plaid would pant at the chance to get PR in a general election.  So there is a prospect of a grand alliance.-- 02:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah crap, today's MTX treatment is kicking in. Uber-nausea.  I'll be back in a bit.-- 02:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Phew, feeling better, at least for now. Sipping cold water seems to be the key&hellip;-- 03:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That boat on the BBC
I hate it. It's a stupid idea and I'm annoyed that it exists. X Stickman (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you can always sit there and hope for an iceberg. There's a silver lining every time.-- 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Evan Harris
Just lost his seat to the Tories. Best Rational MP gone :( –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a night of 'whatthefuckery'. I've never seen the swing so lumpy.  I mean, it's never uniform, but it's not normally this bad.-- 03:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The BBC just said that they can't predict anything based on the exit poll. Broccoli (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lost by only 176 seats as well. Jaxe (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Redcar
Swing to the Lib Dems of 21.8%. That's frightening. Ashfield has a swing of 17.2% to the Lib Dems. Not that they won Ashfield, but that is one hell of a swing.-- 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My seat
Merthyr & Rhymney. 16.9% swing from Labour to the Lib Dems. Still held by Labour of course. You could put a dead hedgehog on the ticket in the Valleys and as long as it was running (well, rotting) under the Labour rosette it would win. Still, another big swing to the Lib Dems that doesn't achieve anything. Bring on PR.-- 03:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a now "resident" of Merthyr since they pwned my village, can I vote for my valley was Green? 03:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jacqui Smith
And she's gone. 'Nuff said.-- 03:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sniped. EddyP (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why she thought it was right for her to stand at all. Broccoli (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because she wasn't offered a seat anywhere else. So back into the party with her, where she will bob about until offered another job, probably internal to the Labour Party.-- 03:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ms Smith, for her part, is not looking for victory so much as absolution. "I believe that you should stand for election when you fear you'll lose, as much as when you expect to win," says Ms Smith, who is bright, breezy and brittle." TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]] 03:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And I've got some magic beans for sale&hellip;-- 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck, wait
I'm a British citizen, can I vote? Is it too late to ask? What's that "plaid" party? Can I vote "leek"? 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's about enforcing the wearing of kilts in Wales. 07:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Chesterfield
Interesting: looks as if LD voters went toiry & Labour took advantage. 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like in many places LibDem support vanished when it came down to it, which is something that is often predicted in close elections, but somehow wasn't this time. Broccoli (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it didn't go Tory so that's something, hung parliament wise.-- 03:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Rutland and Melton
Very important seat. Well done conservatives! EddyP (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alan Duncan MP. Quite nice, as Tories go. Broccoli (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * EC) You can't base everything on HIGNFY appearances Broccoli: look at Boris J. TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]] 03:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a local MP, he's decent. Also, a personally nice guy. Some kind of libertarian politically - on social and economic stuff. Broccoli (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Try this Eddy: the Libs took second place, and pushed Labour into third. That is a big change for a place that last went Liberal in 1906. Broccoli (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Conservative vote was virtually unchanged though. EddyP (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Prediction
Tory majority. Lib dems are failing quite badly, and Labour need to get half of the remaining seats to reach the exit poll prediction. EddyP (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Two thirds of the seats are done, Tories are still over 100 short, and the Lib Dems will surely pick up at least 20 more seats. Broccoli (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I forgot Others. I'm revising it now. EddyP (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confident that the tories can take half the remaining seats and get the majority. Bil08 (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Based solely on the percentage of seats held now projected to the full 650 seats we get: Con= 323  Lab= 237   LD= 50   Others=39.-- 04:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course there are still pretty much all the London seats to declare, and a lot of the Northern ones, so there can be a Labour resurgence there.-- 04:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a lot of Cornwall/Devon. Natural Lib Dem territory there.-- 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Morley & Outwood cup their Balls
Ed Balls holds on, but only just. Majority of 1101. 9.3% swing to the Conservatives.-- 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Best news I've had all morning. Broccoli (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Fascism
No, I'm not going to make that smear, but to diversify my ranting a bit, I'd like to draw a bit more attention to the BNP share of the vote. They got nearly 200,000 votes last election. So far they've got 358,000 votes. 2% nearly. UKIP aren't showing up so well (yeah, fuck you Pat Condell they're not so far off the BNP) but they've also surpassed the votes they got last election already. Bil08 (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the BNP is getting a lot of votes. But be happy; they've got no seats, and apparently this campaign broke their finances. EddyP (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think they scrubbed their image and put out a lot of "look, we're just doing it for the good of Britain" propoganda out, but people - the fickle things that they are - will tire of it pretty soon and treat them with a lot more cynicism. 09:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The big advantage of everybody losing is that everybody wins too
For example, when even Charles Clarke gets the boot, I win in my own special way. Bil08 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Clarke loses his seat to the Lib Dems. That is quite stunning. Not unexpected, but stunning none the less. 4.0% swing to Lib Dems.-- 03:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hazel Blears
Burn the witch! EddyP (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hooray for Salford! Broccoli (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Ginger Bog Brush held on. Good for her.  Second thoughts, I'll take that back.-- 04:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I could have anyone killed, it would be her. Everything about the woman offends me in some way. EddyP (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Clegg
The Liberal Democrats have a habit of removing leaders who slip up. Anyone think if their performance doesn't improve, they might get rid of him, too? Broccoli (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubtful, our last set of leadership elections were kind of embarrassing, given some of the candidates' personal lives.-- 04:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But the LibDems do have a wonderful talent for self-destruction. Broccoli (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Clegg has slipped up. His debate appearances did more for the party in a few hours than they've collectively done in decades. Not that this actually transferred into seats, of course, as Lib Dem candidates seem to fall into one of two areas; distant third with fuck all chance of winning regardless of how Clegg performs on the national level, or marginals with the Conservatives who will be taking votes from Labour so will dethrone them pretty easily, hence the negative swing in Lib Dem seats even though their popular vote is at almost record levels. 09:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Birmingham
Labour just about holds on to most of Birmingham, with the Lib Dems getting one of the seats. Tories really needed at least one of those.-- 04:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This goes to show how bad it's been for the Lib Dems. I heard there were three LD "definites" and two "possibles". Still a couple to go, but given that one of the "definites" was lost by 20%... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hammersmith
Holds for Labour, with only a 0.5% swing to the Tories. Not good news for the Tories, they really worked hard to try and get that seat.-- 04:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New prediciton by the BBC

 * So no one can form much of a government right? tmtoulouse 04:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tories would be short even with Irish help, and LibLab would need practically everyone else for one. Lib/Tory would work, in theory. Broccoli (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. In theory you could have a Labour, Liberal, Alliance, SNP, Plaid Grand Alliance, but that's one hell of a lot of cats to ride herd on.-- 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite astonishing that there's still no definite result. Lib/Con is the obvious choice but there's a huge gulf between their policies and it's doubtful either leader could carry their party with them. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, looks like a lot of London isn't declaring for a few hours, so I'm off to bed. See everyone later.-- 04:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, you'll miss the possible Green seat. Broccoli (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tories now need more than half of the remaining seats to go it more or less alone. Broccoli (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Green Party win in Brighton
2,000 ish majority. Really good result. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. About time the Greens had a seat. Maybe it'll be part of the Grand Cat Herd Coalition. Broccoli (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm ecstatic. Those nutters finally got a seat! No really, everything about this election has made me happy. If only Ed Balls had lost. Bil08 (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

BNP Crash in Barking
Nick Griffin finishes third. Thank fuck for that. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which rock do the BNP voters crawl out from under? Broccoli (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Liberal Fascism Part Two - With (strict) Proportional Representation Nick Griffin certainly would have won a seat (along with 30 of his pals, given their current vote count). UKIP would have picked up a few dozen themselves. The fact that the Lib Dems know that this would happen, yet still insist on having PR so that they can have their place on the political stage, is another reason to consider my whole "unprincipled hacks" theory. (Yes, I'm aware of STV. But I have chips to piss on.)Bil08 (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be more democratic. After all, the facists still represent a viewpoint of the electorate. Should racist bigots be disenfrancised? Broccoli (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Bil08 (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be suggested that if such parties are unacceptable, they should simply be banned. Broccoli (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest possible respect, Bil, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Please learn how the various systems of PR work before you make such stupid fucking statements. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. I am aware that there's no voting system proposed in which it's a simple "party gets 30% of vote, gets 30% of seats", but that's what PR systems aim towards (again, obviously no-one wants exactly that, there are qualifications. I think I've made a point of being deliberality hyperbolic, see also, liberal fascism). What I really dislike is when people rave about how it's ridiculous that minority parties get significantly fewer seats than their popular support might indicate, and then when it's pointed out that most minority parties consist of nutters who deserve significantly fewer votes than their popular support might indicate they backpedal and try and reason that really, it's only their favourite minority party that might benefit from PR. Bil08 (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'm telling you that you're talking utter crap. PR systems have thresholds and on their level of support across London, the BNP would gain the square root of fuck all. Now stop being a troll with your "liberal fascism" bullshit and fuck off to educate yourself. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Christ, the liberal fascism thing was such an obvious joke, but fine, I repent, I apologize for taking Jonah Goldberg seriously and believing him and applying it to what are really just a generally bland bunch. Edit: shit, forgot to point out that you're wrong, btw. Educate yourself har har.Bil08 (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For every BNP voter who was counted in a PR or STV system, hundreds of Lib Dems would get their voices heard. Popular opinion polls showed them race to near 30%, yet they still got around 10% of the seats - my vote for them counted for exactly nothing thanks to being in a safe labour area. That's disgusting and shouldn't be allowed to continue, even if it does give the BNP more influence - after all, they speak for that proportion of the electorate, we can't whine about that. 09:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sheffield Hallam result
We can now finally expect Nick Clegg to begin squirming and backpedalling on television! Broccoli (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He is being a bit truthful about the situation 'disappointing' and 'engaged many people in the election campaign... even if they didn't vote for the Liberal Democrats' Broccoli (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wells
Lib Dems gain Wells from the Tories. David Heathcott-Armory - one of the biggest expenses cheats - is out. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hung Parliament
Am I right in saying that if there's a hung parliament, the Queen gives Labour (as the party in power) the first whack at forming a coalition govt? -- PsyGremlin  06:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what all the talking heads are saying. But a Labour/Lib alliance won't get it, and I think it starts to get untenable to have an alliance of 5-6 parties. But what do I know I am a yank. tmtoulouse 06:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, there is giant joke waiting to be made here, and I am too lazy to make it...  07:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically yes, but in practice whatever coalition gets formed today with a majority will present itself to the Queen as the next government, so the ball is still really more in in the Lib Dems' court than in Labour's. & In practical terms the fact that Brown is incumbent doesn't really trump the fact that the Tories got more votes & seats.  07:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hung. Queen.  Labour.  Please insert verbs and other connective tissue.  07:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe whack was also mentioned. tmtoulouse 07:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a Liberal Labour coalition. Firstly it would be too complicated getting the seats, secondly I don't think the country wants to see Brown hanging on - it would be too unpopular.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who cares "what the country wants" as long as some slog can get power? 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they would be punished for it when the next election come round. And it would come round pretty quick I suspect.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So it would be best to kick Labour out to get rid of Brown, and any harm the Tories can do will be fixed later? 07:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * EC. I'm not talking about what would be best for the country. I'm talking about political possibilities/probabilities.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest the only majority coalition that would stand a chance of forming a strong enough government would be a Conservative/Lib Dem. However, the political manoeuvring and back tracking that would require is probably unacceptable to both parties. 08:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck
Fuck. - Fuck (fuck) 07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. 08:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although my view comes from a NZer, blind to the Brisitsh political eye, Gordon Brown certainly seems to have cashed his cheque sometime ago. Its good to change to an oppostition upon occasion - if only to sharpen the former incumbents eye. Acei9 08:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the election winner is not clear it's pretty clear that Brown lost. Sadly, not liking a result doesn't change it. :-( --BobSpring is sprung! 08:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you couldn't vote, you can sue
According to Geoffrey Robertson QC (who is a God-class ninja human rights lawyer of deserved fame). £750 seems cheap, but if a lot of people do this it will make damn sure this never happens again - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we officially have a hung parliament through-and-through, so I think this will probably force a by-election in those places. Suing is just childish, and the law is the law. Perhaps things can be changed for next time. 08:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely hung
No-one can gain a majority - not Tory, not Labour, not Labour/LibDem. A LibDem/Tory coalition would make the numbers, but such a coalition is vanishingly unlikely. Hung, but not well-hung - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But Con/lib is the only thing that would work. I think they've got to find a way to do it. If not that ... what?--BobSpring is sprung! 09:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another interesting thing is the question of how long the horse-trading will take. In Spain we almost always have hung parliaments and it can take for ever to construct them. But, in the current climate, it would be better to do it sooner rather than later.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) We've still not got the final results in but it's now up to Gordon Brown to make the first move. Resign or try and cobble a coalition with the Lib Dems and perhaps nationalists. Personally I think he should resign but people in power tend to cling on to that power for as long as possible no matter what. If he does resign then I see Cameron going it almost alone (with the Ulster Unionists) and hoping that he can do enough to command a full majority ("we need strong government!") at another election in a year's time. With Sinn Fein not sitting at Westminster the required majority is 324 and the Conservative/Unionists look to get about 317. I expect to see the whips working overtime during the next 12 months.  09:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Clegg approaching Cameron for deal
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK - Fuck (fuck) 09:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds like Clegg is looking towards Cameron. If Brown tries to hold on by his fingernails it won't look good.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They got the most votes and the most seats, so they qualify for Clegg to approach first. He's saying "Your move" - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On the bright side, if this happens, it will be terrific to see Andy's reaction when it goes from "Conservative landslide", to "majority only through coalition with Liberal Democrats. DickTurpis (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I imagine that the name "Liberal Democrat" must make him see "Red".--BobSpring is sprung! 10:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean anything to people like Andy though. His head is so far up his own arse he'll simply twist it like the conniving little shit he is to say "liberals become conservatives in England!! Britain!" 10:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The American conflation of liberalism with socialism makes it very difficult for them to make any sense of UK politics. 10:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

All happening.
So the Lib Dems are making eyes at the Conservatives. Brown has no obligation to resign. Cameron is going to make a statement - presumably claiming victory - in a couple of hours. Meanwhile, the Labour party seems to be preparing a box of sweets for the Lib Dems with whom they say they should be able to work. At the same time the pound is slipping though not drastically.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The SDLP vote with Labour anyway, so a Lab/LD/SNP/SDLP coallition could work. For the Tories, the only people who would want a formal deal would be the DUP, and that still doesn't put them over the line, so they'd need the Lib Dems too. This has still got a long way to run. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting to see Brown's sudden fervent commitment to electoral reform.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

By my count a coalition of the left-leaning parties: Labour, Lib Dems, SDLP, and Greens, yields 318. Throw in Scottish National and we're at 324 with 4 constituencies left to report. Is such a coalition feasible? What would the SNP demand? DickTurpis (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't need the Green. Lab+LD+SDLP+SNP does the job. Throw in PC and really go for constitutional change - more power to Wales and Scotland, PR, etc. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * By my count they're still 2 votes short of the magic 326 (do Sinn Fein's non-seated PMs still count towards the total, or do they bring it down to 645?), though there are 3 seats still uncounted. Seems the larger to coalition the less feasible it is. What bone would they have to throw to the Scottish and Welsh nationalists? Surely not full independence, but Scotland already has a Parliament, what else can they get? DickTurpis (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless Labour or Lib Dem can pick up one of the two remaining seats (which based on the post at the bottom seems unlikely) it looks like a Labour/LD/SDLP/SNP/Green coalition still comes to only 325. I guess bringing in Plaid Cymru or Alliance would do it, but that's a lot of different parties to form a government. I'm betting on a Tory minority government, though I don't really know how that works. Is it likely that the Lib Dems will get in bed with the Conservatives? DickTurpis (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But any coalition that complex would never last.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, although it probably won't happen, it could last. The SDLP are, I believe, Labour's "sister" party in NI and the Alliance certainly are the Lib Dems' "sister" party. That means bringing those two in is less problematic than you may think. SNP+PC are largely left-of-centre and would support a lot of stuff as long as they get more power for their parliament/assembly. Lab+LD+SNP+PC+SDLP+All = 328 - over the 322 you need for a majority given that Sinn Fein won't take their 5 seats. Plus you'll get Green support on some issues too. As I say, it almost certainly won't happen, but it's not totally impossible. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is impossible in politics - at least in the short term. The problems would be (a) getting everybody to agree on everything all of the time - not some of them some of the time and (b) each one of these would have their own individual "price". For example the Scots and Welsh nationalists are quite openly speaking of how many millions they would require for their particular electorates if they were to play ball.  So you could do it, but you would pay a price in stability and a quite literal financial price as well.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I certainly don't think that a coalition that diverse is terribly feasible (though I'm very far from an expert) which is why I'm betting it's going to be Cameron somehow (minority of LD coalition). If Sinn Fein is removed from the equation (which I wasn't clear on) and the magic number becomes 323 a somewhat more likely coalition of Labour/LD and their "sister" parties still falls 4 seats short. Greens could give them another, I'd guess, but they'd still be shy. Tories and DUP would be the same number as Labour and Lib Dem, coincidentally, and just 8 seats from a majority. Don't see too many other places for them to pick up the remainder without Lib Dems, though (except maybe that one independent in Northern Ireland, don't know where she is politically, though, and she's not enough to matter). Whatever the result, this is a lot of fun. DickTurpis (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Sets Out Terms for Deal with Lib Dems
Cameron's terms:
 * 1) Fix "Broken parliament"
 * 2) No closer deal with Europe
 * 3) Tougher immigration
 * 4) Strong defense (ie, keep Trident)

Offers the Lib Dems:
 * 1) a "pupil premium" - in both parties' manifesto
 * 2) a low-carbon economy
 * 3) movement towards Lib Dems tax plans (taking lowest earners out of tax)
 * 4) Civil liberties - scrapping id cards
 * 5) Electoral system - committee of enquiry on electoral reform

It's gonna be hard for Clegg to turn that lot down. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope he's not dumb enough to fall for "committee of enquiry" - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In political terms I thought it was a good pitch.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A "committee of enquiry" is what Ted Heath (Tories) offered the LibDems in 1974. They told him to fuck off too - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The two parties have opposing tax policies - what happens there? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they'll mix and match. Take the low earners out of tax (LD) if they can cut inheritance tax (Con). On PR... I dunno. If Clegg refuses the deal over PR, it won't look good to the population. OTOH, the party will be seriously pissed off if that's all he gets. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the LibDems don't get PR, this will all have been wasted. If they do get PR, it's death for the Tories - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Trident must be a biggie for Clegg though, because he made a huge point about wanting to scrap it to divert the case elsewhere. 14:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Committee of enquiry only? Bollocks, every constitutional academic worth his weight in fucking salt will tell them ditching first past the post is a hundred years overdue. The tories have dodged the question every time (see the Today programme on wednesday), and they're not going to change their minds now.Webbtje (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this happen various times here. The two parties get together behind closed doors and announce something which has anything radical removed and which represents least point of difference. It's why I don't like PR (Hey! Don't shout at me - I know there are different systems.)--BobSpring is sprung! 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Committee of enquiry only? We've already had one of those with the Jenkins enquiry.  End result of it was that Labour ignored the findings because they said to change the FPTP system and that didn't suit Labour at the time.  A Committee of enquiry is Sir Humphrey Appleby territory, I can't see the LD's being so stupid as to fall for it.-- 16:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If Clegg gets PR, the party will forgive him anything up to and including baby-mulching machines in every city square. If he doesn't, he's fucked. - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to rehash that debate, Bob, but from the sound of it Cameron was saying "We'll give you some things we don't like if you give us some things you don't like" - ie, keeping the points of disagreement rather than bargaining them away. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit difficult to keep your points of disagreement if you are working in a coalition. Or if you do, you've got to find a way not to talk about them too much.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave one example above: Take the low earners out of tax (LD) if they can cut inheritance tax (Con). The Tories are clearly going to keep more of their agenda since they're the larger party, but Cameron was offering the LDs a few things he didn't like to get them on board. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then our debate is over terminology. I would call such things "concessions" or "negotiated positions" rather than "points of disagreement".--BobSpring is sprung! 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Still to come

 * Amber Valley (Lab - Con hoping to gain - recount)
 * Con GAIN majority of 500 or so.
 * Devon West & Torridge (Con - LD outside chance of gain)
 * Con HOLD
 * Dudley North (Lab - Con hoping to gain - recount ongoing)
 * Lab HOLD majority of a couple of hundred.
 * Fermanagh & South Tyrone (Sinn Fein - apparently in a recount with an "independent unionist" and they've brought a solicitor in)
 * SF HOLD by FOUR votes!!!!
 * Hackney South & Shoreditch (Lab - just crap counting - surely no chance of a change)
 * Labour HOLD
 * Lancaster & Fleetwood (Lab - Con hope to gain - recount ongoing)
 * Con GAIN majority of 333
 * Morecambe & Lunesdale (Lab - Con hope to gain - bundle check ongoing)
 * Con GAIN
 * St Ives (LD - Con hoping to gain - presumably a recount ongoing)
 * Lib Dem HOLD Huge swing to the Tories.

Plus Thirsk & Malton, which votes later this month. Certain Con hold. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That means Con: 307; Lab: 258; LD:57; Others: 28

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

BBC Redux
Did anyone else guffaw when Jeremy Paxman was interviewing the three party spokespersons before the first results came and and asked the Lib-Dem's Edward Davey "Would you be prepared to get into bed with Peter Mandelson?" 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not as much as I laughed when he was talking to Mark Oaten and said "You've had a good pounding". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Proportional Representation
How would PR work exactly? You can't have proportional representation and still have geographical representation can you? Admittedly, I haven't looked into it at all, but it seems like its not straighforward. Also, it would give BNP about a dozen seats, wouldn't it? DickTurpis (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and No. The Single Transferrable Vote keeps a local link, and it's unlikely the BNP would gain a seat (they haven't done so far in European elections, for instance). They have one or two good seats but very little support in most places. See Debate:Proportional_representation for more. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a BNP member of European Parliament? Anyway, is Single Tranferrable Vote the same as Proportional Representation? I thought they were different concepts, albeit they both had the effect of increasing victories for 3rd party candidates. Well, I go take a gander at that link. DickTurpis (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies - the BNP have 2 in the Euro parliament. I'm tired! STV is one form of PR - there are many. The Party list system is what Labour - well, Gordon Brown - favours then there's the Additional Member system they use in Scotland and Wales. There are also some good external links on that debate page - well worth reading. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My favourite (stupid) quote of the day about proportional representation is from an unnamed Tory quoted here: "The party offering PR has just come third in this election. Why should we agree to something the voters have rejected?" Er, yeah, 'cause the party who always come third coming third again is as good as a referendum on the issue.  17:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a little flak on Facebook from (I assume) Tory voters because PR would let the BNP gain influence. Okay, so that's a negative, but it at least reflects the electorate. If the reason to avoid a PR system is to prevent the BNP getting anything, then why don't we just outright ban all unsavory viewpoints. I'm fine with that, I'd kind of like the idea of having the BNP completely removed from existence, but just drop any pretence of it being a democratic and representitive process first. It seems weird, but I'd prefer a dictatorship over a hypocracy [sic].  22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Morning After
Well I was wrong. I didn't think the exit poll was right but it turned out to be almost bang on the money. Private Eye's "Those previous Liberal revivals in full" column, which I read thinking "Yeah but it'll be different this time" was right.

At least the Tories don't have a majority. Cameron's detailed, thought-out offer to the Lib Dems clearly shows that he isn't seriously considering a minority government. If the Lib Dems agree to his terms then the government might last for a couple of years. If not then maybe I was wrong here too and there'll be another election later this year.

Gordon Brown is finished. Even if he can somehow stitch together a multi-party coalition, one of the conditions will be the Brown doesn't lead it. I don't know who it would be but Brown is too unpopular to continue.

Nick Clegg is in a difficult position. The Lib Dem membership is more left- than right-wing and propping up Cameron will not go down well. Similarly, it's difficult to see how he can do a deal with anybody other than Cameron given his previous comments on the subject.

It's going to be an interesting few days. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how long this new government (whatever it is) is going to last. Weeks? Months? Years? My money is on another election before the end of the year.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely within 12 months - perhaps a lib-con alliance to slash spending while bringing in voting reform.I can't see the libdems getting their big prize without major compromises elsewhere. they may not even get that. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say there is no chance that Cameron would give PR. So Clegg's got two options:
 * a)Going with Con/lib, no PR, and enraging his supporters.
 * b)Going with Lab/ lib and 1) enraging the country by keeping Gordon in power and 2) making a mess of it because that government will be to rickety to last with all the little parties involved. I'd say that he'd be punished by the electorate if he goes down that route.  And the electorate will also remember the cuts that were recently introduced.
 * Although Clegg seems to hold the balance of power he is, in fact, in a cleft stick. I’d say new elections before the year is out.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Our guess is as good as anyone elses, but as mentioned above, Clegg's fucked three ways towards the weekend - join Cameron, lose grassroots support, join Brown, infuriate the nation, especially given that Labour have less seats than the Tories. Less than a week before the election Clegg was saying it was a two-horse race between the Libdems and Cons, but here they've actually gone down by 5 seats compared to 2005. Despite our parliamentary system people always look to the leaders of the parties, and Brown's lack of popularity will has shone through, and I imagine if he stood for re-election a very similar occurrence would happen, possibly with the Tories getting a majority. Flogging a dead horse comes to mind. 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Full Seat List

 * You know it's surprising that the Tories are not in favour of Scottish independence. 39 Labour MPs,  12 Lib Dems, / 7 Scots Nat.  Take those out and they couldn't lose.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing; sever Scotland and Wales and cast out havens of liberalism that won't influence your election results. It would have made for big Conservative victory, but not necessarily in the long run. I assume even the Tories think of long term effects of secession rather than quick political victories. Also, I'm not sure what the statistics are, but there's no majority in favor of independence in either Scotland or Wales, I'm pretty sure. The SNP has just 6 seats out of 59, so they'd be jettisoning a large number of people who want to stay part of the UK. Also, it would be hard for them to justify this stance for Scotland while remaining committed to Unionism in Northern Ireland, as they have been for more than a century. But just one Tory MP in all of Scotland can't make the region look too appealing to them. DickTurpis (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the Tories went with the breakup of the Union they'ld lose all their grassroots support. Bye, bye South England.-- 18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Council Elections
Labour have one thing to smile about: they're doing really well in the Council Elections that took place at the same time. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And the BNP are getting their arses kicked. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I love that the BNP had very little, if any at all, mainstream media coverage up to the election. They got half a million votes nationally, and while not good by any means, it was less than 2% of the electorate that managed to vote. 19:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's like an intelligence test. They had to form an X correctly - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Honeymoon's Over David
I thought he'd get at least one more week before the Awkward Squad started kicking off. Apparently not.-- 20:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast. But I'm surprised that this is the strategy they're taking, since it makes for bad press for the Tories. 20:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tory plan didn't resonate well with the voters - or not as well as it might have. But, lacking a clear victor, and as the political establishment is awash with failed hopes, I rather think the knives will be out all round.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Coalition Talks
So, the coalition talks are still dragging on. As a Lib Dem supporter my view of the subject is:

i) Hoping like hell Clegg is just going through the motions of talks so that he can turn around to the public and say: 'I did try to form a government with the Conservatives, but they didn't want to know.'

ii) Hoping that if not (i) then Clegg is dragging out talks so that the internal divisions in both the Tory Party and the Labour Party start to tear both parties apart, giving Clegg a bit more room to manoeuvre. Failing that, hoping that Brown will agree to step down before Clegg enters talks with Labour.

iii) Failing (i) or (ii) that leaves three possibilities.  a) Formal coalition with the Conservatives, which means giving up PR. The Parliamentary Lib Dems will vote 75%+ for that in all likelyhood, which leaves the Exec. My feeling is the Exec won't vote with a majority of 75%, so that leaves a ballot of the members, and there is no way in hell that the members will give up PR. b) Supply and Confidence understanding with the Conservatives.  We won't bring them down in a vote on the Queen's Speech or the Budget.  The only reason that we would do that, I would think, is so that we could try and get a Private Members Bill through forcing PR in the next election.  Problem with that strategy is that the Conservatives, as the government, could easily let any Private Members Bill run out of time on the floor.  Of course, that would then lead to a Lib/Lab pact then voting down all government Bills.  End result, early general election, piss-poor turnout, and no way of knowing the result, although the most likely outcome would be a Tory majority, if only a small one.  c)  Talks with the Conservatives break down and the Lib Dems try and go for the Grand Cat Herding Alliance. End result of that is anybody's guess. Most likely the alliance would last just long enough to get PR up and running in time for a new General Election.-- 18:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be good if he switched allegiance back & forth to play Labour & the Tories against each other to the Lib Dems' advantage, like a sort of Fistful of Dollars situation. But realistically I can't see it going down like that.  Coalition or alliance with Tory party looks most likely.   18:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd day that Conservative coalition is the only game in town. Clegg has a problem in that there are two constituencies: his own party and the British electorate. He's got to try to keep them both happy and I don't think it's possible.
 * Cameron's speech the other day seemed to be addressed to the Lib Dems - but, in fact, it wasn't - it was addressed to the general electorate who were supposed to read it as an open-handed offer to engage in constructive talks.  He offered (or at least seemed to offer) the Lib Dems a lot and the general public - which is generally indifferent to PR - were meant to say "Great - a quick fix!"
 * If it falls over because the Lig Dems insist on something which the great British public regard as rather technical the Cons would certainly try to spin it as being brought down by the Lib Dems demands. In fact the cons might even prefer this.  Why?
 * Whatever government takes power next time 'round is going to have to make some pretty tough decisions about taxing and spending. It's also liable to be fragile because it's a coalition.   The cons might be quite happy to see their opponents take the heat for six months expecting they pick up a majority when the government fails a confidence vote.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that polls for the Times show that 60% of the public want a change to PR, that's a definite majority, and stands up a lot better than the pathetic 25% of the possible vote that the Conservatives actually got.-- 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Monday's announcement from the Lib Dems
After the necessary meeting with the Parliamentary MPs the Lib Dem spokesman, David Laws, said over a mobile phone (why?), that the negotiations are continuing and that the party will continue listening to both parties. Methinks that this is a pressure ploy to start wringing necessary concessions from the Conservatives, and rack up the pressure on Labour to get concessions from them. From the point of view of letting the public or the party in general know what is going on however, this press release was sodding useless.-- 15:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Second announcement from David Laws. Boiled down it basically said that what the Tories are offering at the moment isn't enough for the Lib Dems to enter a coalition, or other forms of alliance, with the Tories.-- 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * TBH, I'm surprised the talks with the Tories have lasted so long. They have little in common and a liblab coalition seems to make more sense. 15:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Leak from a senior Lib Dem source. They are looking to begin official negotiations with Conservatives, whilst continuing with negotiations with Labour. Interesting.-- 15:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bloody Hell
5pm statement expected from Gordon Brown. Details to follow. Completely unexpected.-- 15:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Brown says: Constitutional duty to stay on until a stable government can be formed. Euro crisis and aren't we (Labour) doing well dealing with it. Official confirmation that the Lib Dems will begin formal discussions with Labour. Cabinet is meeting soon to discuss the outlines of a coalition deal and minutiae. We want to form a progressive government, per the will of the people, blah, blah, blah. '''WILL STEP DOWN!!! STAYING ON ONLY IN A CARETAKER CAPACITY. HAVE ASKED THE LABOUR PARTY TO START THE LEADERSHIP SELECTION PROCESS!!!''' No questions taken.-- 16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck me.-- 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fuck me.-- 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fuck me.-- 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently applause was coming from inside Downing Street as the Prime Minister made his statement.-- 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That may have removed the deal breaker for the Lib Dems... Bondurant (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just blown the whole thing open again. Given the events of the previous section, it looks like the Lib/Lab/Nat option is right back on! Oh - and fuck me, too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Oh yeah.  The pressure on the Conservatives just increased a thousand-fold, and all of the small parties are smiling again.-- 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only spanner in the works is that the PM will have to be a Labour one, being the majority party (although not by much in the actual popular vote) so they won't have actually stood in the election. Essentially we'd end up getting a PM that wasn't in the running, fine for an interim coalition measure but not ideal as far as the electorate is concerned. Not sure if Clegg would have the balls to try for PM in a Lib-Lab deal, though. 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Except, of course, we have a Parliamentary system, not a Presidential system. People only get a vote on who their local representative is, and usually they base that decision on which party they support.  It's up to the parties themselves who the leaders are.  Put simply only those voters who live in the constituency get to cast a vote for a Party Leader, and even then the vote is only to send the leader to parliament as an MP.  The idea that anybody who becomes PM was voted into that position by an election is laughable.-- 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes & no. One of the common criticisms of Gordon Brown is that he was never voted in as PM by the wider electorate.  The same would now apply to his successor, if indeed we do end up with a Labour PM.  Nevertheless, this is great news & I am rooting for LibLab coalition, but I can foresee some credibility/legitimacy issues with a coalition of parties who individually got fewer seats than the Tories under a leader who was not leader at the time of the election.   17:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the public never voted Tony Blair to be PM, they never voted Major to be PM, they never voted Thatcher to be PM. Each of them were selected to be leaders by the parties themselves, and the general public never got a say in whether they should be leaders of the respective parties.  Each of them ran to be MPs in seats that would have voted in a scabby rat if it ran under the right colour rosette.  So at no point did the public vote in any of the previously named people to be PM.  In fact at no time in British history has a PM been voted into position by the electorate.  For them to be voted in by the public would require either a direct vote by the electorate (each party leader gets put on the ballot at each constituency, the votes counted up, and the person with the most votes becomes PM, not going to be happening), or leadership contests get decided by the electorate as a whole (yeah, right, neither the Tories or Labour would let the unfaithful vote on who would be their leaders.  Hell recent history has seen that given the chance they'll try and stitch up the result so that not even the grassroots of their own party get a vote).  That just leaves PR, where if the makeup of the Commons reflects the percentage split of the vote in the country as a whole, there could be some argument that could be made that the PM that then steps up might have in some way been elected into position by the will of the people, but that's an argument that frankly sucks.-- 18:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the British public vote for their own MP they do so in the full knowledge of who the PM will be. It is frequently a very important part of the decision making process. In fact, I'd say that many people are only voting for - or possibly against - a particular PM. I well remember "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie - Out, Out, Out!!".
 * You might argue that such people do not recognise some fundamental constitutional truth - but it's how they vote.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But they don't vote for a PM. At best they vote for a party, and either support whoever is the leader or hold their nose.  Can you honestly tell me that all those grassroot Tory voters voted for Cameron?  At best I'ld say between a half and a third of the Tory grassroots specifically support Cameron and would have voted directly for him to be PM if given the chance.  The rest would have voted Tory but, given the chance, would have voted for another Tory to be PM.  Basically the point I'm trying to make can probably be best illustrated with an example:
 * In the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Obama was voted in as President with 52.9% of the voting electorate directly voting for him.
 * In the 2010 British General Election just 0.11% of the electorate directly voted for Cameron, 0.10% directly voted for Brown and 0.09% directly voted for Clegg.
 * In other words at best, the public votes for a party in a general election, and all too often hold their nose at who the leader is. They certainly don't get to vote on who the PM will be.  If they could I reckon we could see some very interesting results (Vince Cable as PM for example).-- 19:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we have to disagree. The party leaders present the policy of the party. They are its most prominent public face. That's why they appeared on TV in the debates and it's why the Lib Dems had a surge in the polls - people liked the nice young Mr Clegg and wanted to vote for him.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bob. Although people don't technically vote for the PM directly, who the party leader is has a pretty big effect on deciding which way floating voters swing.  Probably more than who their local MP candidates are in a lot of cases.   21:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"you know, usually at this point in Dr Who, Nick Clegg turns out to be the Master" - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy watching Adam Boulton of Sky News be driven to apoplexy by Alistair Campbell. Most entertaining. DogP Marmite Patrol 20:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Roll on the follow up election
When the whole discussion can start again (unless terminal boredom sets in) - and a few more scandals be brought to light.

Can an talk page archive be done.

212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Talk Page could be archived, but there's no point, it's short enough. This page is the article itself.-- 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative vote vs. PR
I see that the Tories are offering a referendum on "alternative vote," and Labour is offering Alternative voting and a referendum on PR. Quelle est la différence? tmtoulouse 21:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Tories and Labour know that AV results in just as safe seats with just as little room for minor parties as FPTP, because that's what it does for their equivalents in Australia - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose I can google it, but anyone have a quick summary of what the alternative voting is? tmtoulouse 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of putting an X on your ballot, you number your choices in order. That way you can vote for the Trivial Fuckwits party as number 1 and put the Tweedledum Major Party as 4 or 5, as long as it's ahead of the Tweedledee Major Party. In practice, this is too complicated for actual voters and they either number the boxes in order, number them in reverse order, or fill in their sheet as the major parties suggest - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's basically IRV? And PR is what, a way to force seats based on overall results?  01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (post-shout) Yes: AV=IRV. PR is a way of making sure that each party gets the same proportion of seats as they got votes: if you got 35% of the votes, you'll get (as near as possible) to 35% of the seats. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't aimed at any particular editor, but it needs saying:

AV IS NOT A PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM

Sorry to shout, but when the Tory press starts screaming that the Lib Dems turned down PR - they didn't. See this and repeat after me: "AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For those who favour PR I think it's a foot in the door. Despite claims that it can be more disproportionate in the UK it would probably benefit the Lib-Dems in seats where neither of the big two had an overall majority and would probably reduce the number of Tory seats. I just hope that all those "purists" who regard the coalition as an unacceptable pact with the devil will regain their senses and see that it is a temporary necessity and will actually enable some reform as well as implement some Lib-Dem policies which wouldn't have been possible if they remained out of a coalition. Hopefully with AV the next election will be even more hung and we can then finally move to a fairer system. Like it or not change rarely happens overnight and when it does it can be disruptive. Better to have gradual change than no change at all IMHO.  10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like the health care reform thing here in the US. Too bad we have no left-wing parties to improve things.  10:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

All Over?
Looks like it's all over. The rumour that Brown is going to resign tonight is so strong as to be almost definite. A full coalition between the Tories and Lib Dems looks likely. Other rumours say the Lib Dems could have as many as 6 seats in the cabinet. I imagine we'll find out later. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is worth it purely to see how the Assfly copes with the phrase Liberal-Conservative alliance. Hopefully the Lib Dems will get their pound of flesh from the Tories in return for supporting them.  17:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BROWN RESIGNS –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Going to be interesting to see the terms of the final pact.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And Cameron in with a full coalition with the Lib Dems it appears. Interesting times. Although I hate to be the calm rational one about this, I have to point out that A) it's not going to royally fuck over the country and B) it's not going to magically make everything better overnight either. I imagine business as usual as determined by factors well outside the control of government. Hooray. 20:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Guardian got a good photo of Clegg's priorities here. Hopefully they'll repeal all Labour'r nasty attacks on civil liberties at least. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I was thinking that the sensible position was to have Tory minority government, it seems that the Lib Dems would kick the really bad Tory habits about feeding the rich with the blood of the poor, while we still get to benefit from the slightly more realistic financial planning of the Conservatives. It could be worse, but I doubt we'll actually physically feel the change. The Daily Mail will still say things cause cancer, charvers on the street will still hurl abuse, teachers will continue to be a little bit feckless in the face of unruly kids and... and well, whatever, I'm almost back to my uncaring cynical self again. 20:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A large part of what governments do is simply reacting to events outside their control. Let's see how well they react.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's done. News just came in from the party, the Lib Dems have voted to accept the deal. Let's see how this works out. P.S. We might want to get ready to live-blog the next general election in 6 months. Yeehah!!!-- 00:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They've agreed on fixed-term parliaments (no more timing the election to favour the government) so I think we're safe. Shall we close this page now, it's been nearly a week. And it's our longest page. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Looks like it's all done and dusted now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to "close", it's just "over". Well, it was until I made this edit. Let it sit as it is.  06:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now it's REALLY over
The last seat to declare in the general election, Thirsk and Malton, stayed Conservative as expected. That means the new coalition got over 76% of the vote, which isn't bad.

Several commentators had suggested that either the Tories or the Lib Dems, or both, would suffer because of the coalition agreement. Doesn't look like it was a factor.

The reason for the delay was the death of the UKIP candidate after nominations had closed. Election law meant that UKIP was allowed to nominate a new candidate and the other parties had to stick with what they had. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)