Just watched Ask Nigel and it came across ok not the usual bish bash bosh.

Election is over the horse trading beings...

What if no-one wins the election?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32336071

I don't think I could stand another one this year. :/\\!!

A random result generator, tried ten versions and one came back Con/Lib and some of the others had so many in the coalition I hardly think in real life it would happen. When Labour in the hot seat and looking at it no SNP it just becomes rather hard, one result I had to add SF for Labour to win can you see that? :hmmm:

Just doing another five.

1. Cons come in front and form coalitions with LD and DUP (331 seats)

2. Cons come in second but Cameron has the right to go first, he can not do it. Enter Ed, without the SNP he too can not do it. Another election is held.

3. Cons come in front and form coalitions with LD (329 seats)

4. Cons come in second but Cameron has the right to go first, he can not do it. Enter Ed, this time Ed will say yes to the SNP and form coalition (327 seats)

5. Cons come in second but Cameron has the right to go first, he can not do it. Enter Ed, without the SNP he can form a coalition with the LD and DUP and SDLP (327 seats)

It's going to be close, very close. I think the Tories might just scrape it with another ConDem coalition, but I think the Lib Dems might well rebel and bring it down again at the next Queens speech.

Honestly though, it's probably going to be the most uncertain election in a lifetime, and the outcome...well, none of the main parties are that brilliant, so whoever gets in we're going to be for it. I just hope that UKIP doesn't get enough seats to gain a foothold anywhere.

Why am I so against UKIP, people might well ask.
They scare me, if I'm honest, because I consider them to be a face of legitimacy for groups like the National Front and the British National Party.
How many people have been removed from UKIP because of anti-semetic, racist or downright offensive remarks that have leaked to the press? Too many, far too many, even if it's been a covert operation from the Tories in order to whittle down UKIP, the fact that their members have been saying these things gives an indication of the type of people who have flocked to the UKIP banner. The type of people who in the 1930s would probably have flocked to Mosleys banner. :nope:
Farage always tries to pass himself off as some sort of 1950s man of the people, he uses the nostalgia that all human beings possess for the past in order to gain votes. The fact is, the past is in the past, and we cannot afford to dwell on it longer than is necessary. Farage himself is no man of the people, he's an ex-city and a public school boy, just like the rank and file of the top members of the main parties.
And in Europe, one must look at the nature of the parties that UKIP have allied itself to, recruiting into its Euro-sceptic alliance in the EU one of the founding members of the Congress of the New Right from Poland, a party whose leader is a Holocaust-denier. I mean, for goodness sake, seventy years ago we put Fascism into its grave, and now we're inviting it back through the polling box?! :/\\!!

UKIP are dangerous, just as the National Socialist German Workers Party was dangerous, but no-one at the time would have realised this, because Hitler didn't come promising to gas the jews and start the Second World War, he made beautiful promises of holidays and rights for the German workers, of glorious projects, of restoring the proud German heritage from the ashes of the Weimar Republic. The rise of NSDAP was a warning to all of us, a warning of where rampant nationalism and pride can lead, and I don't think enough people have listened to it...and that makes me sad...and somewhat scared. :nope:

It's often said that US Presidential elections are watched with a mix of fascination and horror from the rest of the world. They're brutally simpler too. Two entrenched and powerful parties bellowing, slinging mud and burning barrels of money for months on end.

UK elections are a bit baffling and far more nuanced from this end of the pond. The plethora of parties--Labour, Conservative, UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Lib Dems, the Greens etc. It can appear messy, and very layered, but in the end there is maybe more representation for the people especially at local levels. Also, in the UK you have those very strict rules where you're not really allowed to advertise via television or radio as a political party. The internet has allowed for a bit of American-style political advertising in the U.K., but British campaigns don't have money for the hyper-saturation that Americans are used to. And political spending by outside organizations is not allowed. Without a primary system, there are no polarizing, surprising, wild-card candidates, and everything becomes far more predictable and civilised...with an s.

The result is a British political campaign that seems eerily quiet to American ears. I suppose if you don't watch the news you could almost tune it out even over there.

Just my twopence. :D

Good analysis, Torpy. I will be the first to admit, I know nothing about British politics. All this business about forming a government, building coalitions... what happens in a national emergency if they cannot get their act together? Always seemed a kind of dodgy way to run a country.

Well said, and a good analysis, and thank God that our election campaigns are rather muted in comparison. I dread to think how bad it must get in the US as you get closer to the election. :dead:

In a time of a national emergency a coalition of the main parties can be made. In WWII, the Labour and Conservative parties entered a coalition, lead by the Tories. It lasted from Chamberlains resignation in 1940 until 1945. Generally speaking though in terms of major actions of national importance the two parties tend to agree on things, if we got into a war or if there was a terrorist attack, the main leaders would put their differences aside to co-ordinate a response. The aftermath of that response might be debated in length by both parties, but it would still happen. :yep:

I had a English guest here in the US in the summer of 2012. He was somewhat floored by the non-stop carpet bombing of TV commercials, radio adverts, bumper stickers and the festooning of every vacant scrap of ground with a crazy patchwork of signs and banners even with five months to go until the event itself.

Although it long ago crossed over into doubleplus-ridiculous-verging-dumbthink territory, living here you just learn to filter it out. I do imagine the ad agencies and printers love the temporary boost to their business.

If you remember that:-

• we have 650 small elections, each to choose a representative
• we therefore vote for a parliament (not a government)
• the parliament then chooses who can govern (notionally)
• the Queen then names her Government (sort of)
• Parliament approves the Queen's speech (this time, though, the Queen might not give it because it might get voted down)
• the Prime Minister doesn't have to be from the largest party (nor, indeed from the government)
• the Prime Minister doesn't even have to be an M.P.
• 10 Downing Street is the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury (not the Prime Minister)
• The Prime Minister is, nowadays, the First Lord of the Treasury
• The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Second Lord of the Treasury and is thus the most senior person in the Treasury.
• ...and so on...

then it's all very simple. Like Cricket. Oh yes, we haven't got a written constitution, either.



What larks!

What was that silly thing Ed did yesterday doing a Moses?

Come on we don't need this sort of silly thing, get your act together Ed.

Yes, that was very strange - I don't know who advised him that it was a good idea. :timeout:

It's a bigger, more stoney version of Blairs pledge card from a few elections ago, I can see the idea behind it "Here are our pledges, so you can be reminded of them and remind us of them." But they're so wishy-washy that it undermines the entire point.

Still...not long to go now, then the real fun starts when none of them can get into power! :haha: :/\\!! I wonder if Dave will try for a minority government and I wonder how long that'll last if he does. :hmmm:

Precisely, a potentially long drawn out period of minority governments lasting a couple of months at best before the need for yet another pointless general election and nothing of much worth being achieved during the period.

Why should Britain tremble :doh:

I'd quite like the Belgian result - 589 days without any government. How refreshing that would be.

I notice the Independent is pushing for a Tory-LibDem alliance to exclude the SNP. Interesting how a parliament for a treaty between England and Scotland can be thought of as legitimate if it excludes Scotland's representatives from government. :88)

And they did not fall apart into the gutter, makes you think. :hmmm:

I would do the job for half the money Dave is getting.

You know, it's pretty near on certain that it's going to come down to some form of coalition, or possibly a minority government. The two heavies won't admit that because they don't want to be seen as giving up, but it's pretty obvious that neither Labour or the Conservatives are going to get an outright majority.
So it's going to likely be down to some sort of shady deal which we'll have no input in. What a way to run a railroad... :nope:
I think we should definitely consider the Belgian alternative. :yep:

So much for being Independent...and I quite liked that paper too...I guess that just leaves the I, and IIRC that's run by the Independent too. :nope:

Still, the major parties are digging their own graves, and that of the union too, because the SNP is going to get most, if not all, of Scotland and after the slagging off that the English parties have been doing about Scotland and the Scots, I think if you were to hold another referendum any time soon about Scottish Independence, it wouldn't be the same result as last time.
The Scottish aren't stupid, and they'll remember all the promises that the three parties made to keep Scotland in the union, and they'll remember all the insults that the three main parties have made in the run up to this election, and I don't think that any celebrity endorsed published letter will be enough to save the union if another referendum comes along.

I was disappointed with the Independent too. Mind you, many of the papers are owned by rich non-domiciles so perhaps it's not too surprising.

The anti-Scottish stuff is really inexcusable: anti-SNP is fine, that's politics and zoomers can be expected in the comments on-line, but the nonsense seems to be being applied to any Scottish influence even in articles.

A second referendum will be a very different thing, I think. I suspect the Yes side will have learnt a lot from the first, whereas the No side will, extrapolating from this election, have learnt nothing. :hmm2:

Oh well, good luck to all. Only one day to go.