Friday, 7 May 2010

Is this the worst possible result?

For the country, I mean, not any specific party.

At the moment, the pattern is

Con 291
Lab 251
Lib Dem 52
Other 27

So the Conservatives do not really have the seats needed to form a workable minority government. Equally, the only genuinely likely coalition partners - Labour and the Lib Dems - do not have enough between them (yet?) to form a parliamentary majority.

The only partnership that gives a workable majority is Conservative/Lib Dem, but that requires the two most widely separated parties to work together in a way that Dave has ruled out.



  1. After all we've been through: 13 years of Labour rule and all that has entailed, Gordon Brown etc., you would have thought Basil Brush would have been able to win a majority. And yet, despite all the money the Conservatives has spent on the campaign, they still couldn't win. And they can't complain that it was because of a Lib Dem surge, because there wasn't one.

    I voted Tory (with a heavy heart) and I regard the failure of the Conservatives to be able to form a government as very bad for the country. But I cannot help feeling it is just. I have never thought that David Cameron's Conservatives looked up to the job - not even in the face of such opposition.

  2. Just listening to Gordon Brown describing himself on the day after the election as the PM. What does that say about the Conservatives?

  3. "After all we've been through: 13 years of Labour rule and all that has entailed, Gordon Brown etc., you would have thought Basil Brush would have been able to win a majority."

    The electorate have spoken: 'None of you, kthnxbai!'

  4. In a sense, you're both wrong. Look at the actual poll figures; the Tories have more votes than gave Labour a majority in 2005, and Labour have fewer votes than the Tories did in that election.

    Therefore, the inconclusive result can convincingly be blamed on asymmetry in the voting system. Alternatively, if you take the view that the current set of seat properly reflects the votes cast, then Labour should not have had a majority in 2005.

    This is, on any measure, a strong rejection of Brown and approval of the Tories. It's just (a) not strong enough and (b) blunted by the pattern of constituencies.

    Interesting times...

  5. Agree. The real failure was not Cameron's, but Howards.
    If he could have run a campaign that took 25 more seats from the unpopular Blair then Dave would be unpacking his PJs about now.

    The Tory result is amazingly good. its only the polls of 42% that make it seem bad. Those polls may have been no more accurate than the ones of a few weeks ago giving Nick Clegg another 40+ seats instead of -5.

    Mr P. The C@W poll of comments had Labour understated,Libs over stated, and the Tories bang on. So we are today where we thought we would be yesterday. but it still feels disappointing.
    Probably will do so until someone finally sends the Met into Number 10 to tell Gordon to get out.

  6. I think that's special pleading P.

    Yes, the system disadvantages the Conservatives (though NB Mr Cameron wants to keep the present system presumably because it disadvantages the Lib Dems even more).

    But however you look at it, in 1992, under the same system, after 13 years of Tory rule, John Major managed an over all majority with 336 seats and 41.9% of the vote.

    In 2010, after 13 years of Labour rule, and Gordon Brown etc. Cameron gets 30 fewer seats, and only 36.1% of the vote. The real losers are the Conservatives because they should have walked it, and vote is an indictment on them. Blaming the boundaries won't do

  7. Great news about Dr Death though - euthanised by his own people! How fitting! Pity about Ed Balls!

  8. You may be right, Albert. I won't pretend I'm not disappointed.

    You should have seen the howls of twittered anguish over Dr Death... quite funny.

  9. Yes, the reason the Tories are not now in office is that despite everything, still not enough people wanted to vote for them. End of (as they say).

    I'm disappointed too (though slightly smug)
    and worried about what we might get instead. Cameron is the kind of boy who is easily led and Clegg will be a bad influence on him.

    I did hear about the following from Johann Hari, which didn't move me to much sympathy:

    Devastating loss of @DrEvanHarris – please tweet him & say thanks for amazing work he did standing up for secularism, science & gay rights.

    "Devastating" is a good word to use of a man who has worked to ensure in the mother's womb is the most dangerous place a human being can be.

  10. Great news about Dr Death though -

    I won't pretend I'm not disappointed.

    My wife wasn't either. In fact, she took great satisfaction in his defeat. It seems that she didn't have a high opinion of Dr. Evans.

    To put it mildly.