Let the Tories get in, really screw up in an almost impossible scenario, vote against them in a few months, bring in PR and voila - Prime Minister Clegg.

Just what I said to a colleague just 15 minutes ago. LOL. He's not stupid.

More like 'Nick Who?' I guess he could brazen it out and invest in some 'third is the new first' badges, but hopefully he'll just get his hands on an old copy of Daniel Boorstin's 'The Image' and reflect on the failure of his absurd attempt at a demotic conjuring trick. Then this Westminster-educated common man's Cameron can then go back to Belgium, or wherever it is that he has his large personal estate, and raise wild boars or supine proletarians.

Prime Minister Clegg PR?
Hardly.

I think the people have made it fairly clear, judging by their proportion of votes, that there is not really that much support for the LibDems.

23% isn't bad and given proportional representation and the collapse of the Tories after 6 months of financial disaster, I wouldn't be too sure Emma.

13 years of bad government by Labour, including more than 6 months of financial disaster, didn't send the voters rallying to the LibDems. There has rarely been a better chance for the LibDems than 2010. If PR was applied to the current election results, I think LibDems would still be in third place.

Not convinced, JK.

Look: there is no satisfactory voting system. There are several unsatisfactory voting systems, each one with its own pros and cons. The idea that PR, in any of its myriad forms, is in some rational sense 'superior' to the others is wildly contentious. It's being called for by many around Clegg because it suits them, plain and simple. Nothing admirable about that. Nothing at all. If you want a better election result, get a better electorate. If you want a better electorate, educate and inform it better. No party is seriously interested in doing that. Clegg is as cynical as the rest.

Emma Bee wrote:
If PR was applied to the current election results, I think LibDems would still be in third place.



and quite rightly, but they would have more accurate representation than they do now.

first past the post is loaded against anyone but Labour and Conservatives breaking through in any meaningul way.

Labour and Tories have regional power bases and are thus greatly favoured by the current system. Lib Dems' support is more evenly spread so even if they got the same % of the vote as, say, Labour, they would get a fraction of the seats. That cannot be right in my opinion.

david wrote:
Emma Bee wrote:
If PR was applied to the current election results, I think LibDems would still be in third place.



and quite rightly, but they would have more accurate representation than they do now.

first past the post is loaded against anyone but Labour and Conservatives breaking through in any meaningul way.

Labour and Tories have regional power bases and are thus greatly favoured by the current system. Lib Dems' support is more evenly spread so even if they got the same % of the vote as, say, Labour, they would get a fraction of the seats. That cannot be right in my opinion.

That's a bit confused IMHO. Where a particular party and/or ideology is currently and/or traditionally most concentrated shouldn't really be a logical justification per se for a certain voting system. The Liberal vote collapsed historically in terms of regional density (mainly) because of the emergence of the Labour Party and the failure of the leadership to respond adequately to the needs of the industrial working class. That's a problem of ideology and strategy. It won't suddenly disappear if people get a second or third or transferable vote. There's nothing intrinsically impossible about the Liberals winning via the existing system. Fixating on the voting system won't help, though.

The LIBERAL vote collapsed - at one point they were on 30% and have been ahead of Labour in the Polls for the whole campaign.

They have ended up with LESS seats than last time despite the BBC talking them up as a challenger - which shows that the LIBS Have been set up by NEW LABOUR and the BBC To just take votes away from the TORIES when the country wanted REAL CHANGE - not BROWN back in power because the Liberals stole votes in marginal seats from the TORIES because of the BBC BRAINWASHING.

The BBC Has won the election and got the best result possible for BROWN.

This man has NEVER WON AN ELECTION - yet clings to power like a true DICTATOR. He makes HITLER look totally democratic and in favour of civil rights.

His STATEMENT just now was pure theatre and rubbish - he has out MUGABBEED the tinpot Banana Republic Dictators of the Third World.

The UK will see our CREDIT RATING reduced within days if BROWN does not move out. Then we will see our economy collapse just like ICELAND and GREECE>

This is what BROWN wants - he wants to destroy the UK. It is part of the plan by the NWO. He will be fine and looked after - whilst the rest of us will be struggling to survive.

Desperate times./

BR wrote:
The LIBERAL vote collapsed - at one point they were on 30% and have been ahead of Labour in the Polls for the whole campaign.


Polls and votes are quite different things. A poll is based on a few candid responses to a questionnaire, and depends on how the questions are worded. How we respind to a poll doesn't really effect a great deal.

Voting involves a considered choice at a time when it matters the most, effecting how the country is run for the next 4 to 5 years.

It's easy to say we think one candidate performed the best in a debate, but not so easy to decide that this qualifies him to run the country. The people have clearly made their choices.

BR, are you actually capable of writing without peppering your posts with capitals? Most of us manage to do so.

Lots of people here have asked you not to go overboard with capitals, even the owner of this site.

I am no longer reading your posts unless I can, well, read them.

I won't give you the attention you thrive on.

"Voting involves a considered choice at a time when it matters the most, affecting how the country is run for the next 4 to 5 years". An admirable view, but is that, empirically, an accurate description of what happens?

I think Spoonface, in the spirit of casbah bargaining, will offer LibDems a referendum but with the Tories campaigning against PR. I don't really mind which of the two main parties provides the PM - it won't be Brown for Labour - probably Milliband or possibly Johnson (my preference) - though I can't stand Cameron; whichever it is won't last beyond the next election. In 6 months.

JK2006 wrote:
I think Spoonface, in the spirit of casbah bargaining, will offer LibDems a referendum but with the Tories campaigning against PR. I don't really mind which of the two main parties provides the PM - it won't be Brown for Labour - probably Milliband or possibly Johnson (my preference) - though I can't stand Cameron; whichever it is won't last beyond the next election. In 6 months.

I like Johnson too, JK. But I fear he's too honest for his own good. Miliband - either - scares the bejaysus out of me!