Gordon is gone. A new dawn(fades)?

[GalwayBayBoy]

Adam Boulton losing the head again on Sky News when someone said he was "sore" about the latest developments.

[tyroneboi]

According to Kay Burley, a Hung parliament is what the British voters wanted and that is what they got:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJh2bTK1ew

[ziggysego]

Anybody catch Sky News earlier with the "exchange of views" between Alastair Campbell and Adam Boulton? Campbell definitely come off best and looked like Boulton was about to smack him. For a political editor of a news channel his bias towards the Tories is nothing short of a disgrace and totally unprofessional. Sky News are really losing the plot over these coalition talks. First that cow Kay Burley yesterday and now Boulton this evening.

I was watching it live on the telly. Couldn't believe what I was seeing. Adam completely lost the head and Alastair was made to look reasonable.

[ziggysego]

Ed Balls is not a suitable labour leader candidate. Too many giggles in announcing 'Prime Minister Balls' /via @sammywilsonmp

[never kickt a ball]

According to Kay Burley, a Hung parliament is what the British voters wanted and that is what they got:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJh2bTK1ew

Aye but Sky News is sh1t:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbnmyM5UFKQ&feature=player_embedded

[never kickt a ball]

Ed Balls is not a suitable labour leader candidate. Too many giggles in announcing 'Prime Minister Balls' /via @sammywilsonmp

"Parliament hung by Balls" ............there's a headline worth waiting for.

"Cameron caught by Balls after fresh election"

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Don' t want to start a new thread on this but why do all media outlets talk about this 326 magic number. There is 650 seats so yes 326 you would have a majority. 5 of which are SF. So the majority needed is actually 323. it doesn't make that much of a difference only if lib dems and torys don't agree then this would be the alternative the lib dems have.

Lib dem 57 lab 258 = 315 They need 8 seats thats snp + Sdlp/pc or 2 ind.

I would think that Gov. would last longer than lib dem/torys alliance

[deiseach]

Don' t want to start a new thread on this but why do all media outlets talk about this 326 magic number. There is 650 seats so yes 326 you would have a majority. 5 of which are SF. So the majority needed is actually 323. it doesn't make that much of a difference only if lib dems and torys don't agree then this would be the alternative the lib dems have.

Lib dem 57 lab 258 = 315 They need 8 seats thats snp + Sdlp/pc or 2 ind.

I would think that Gov. would last longer than lib dem/torys alliance

You think? John Reid was absolutely right when he noted that the price the SDLP, the SNP and Plaid would exact would be cuts falling almost entirely on the English, English people who voted decisively for the Tories. Lib/Lab can't seriously think this is a price worth paying for a spell in government which would only work if everyone not in the cabinet is given a role as a whip

[Hound]

You think? John Reid was absolutely right when he noted that the price the SDLP, the SNP and Plaid would exact would be cuts falling almost entirely on the English, English people who voted decisively for the Tories. Lib/Lab can't seriously think this is a price worth paying for a spell in government which would only work if everyone not in the cabinet is given a role as a whip

Not sure of the relevance of talking about "England"? England gets 82% of the seats, so that's a good share. And its hardly true to say the English voted "decisively" for the Tories when 60% of English voted against them.

Of course without PR we can never tell, but its certainly not clear or decisive which of a Tory/Libs combination or a Lab/Libs/Others combination would obtain a majority of UK votes if they were the only two choices.

[deiseach]

Not sure of the relevance of talking about "England"? England gets 82% of the seats, so that's a good share. And its hardly true to say the English voted "decisively" for the Tories when 60% of English voted against them.

Because the English will see public services in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales being ringfenced at the expense of, well, the English. Do you think the Tories won't make hay with that? Every bye election in England would become a referendum on those policies, further weakening an already weak coalition

[Hound]

Not sure of the relevance of talking about "England"? England gets 82% of the seats, so that's a good share. And its hardly true to say the English voted "decisively" for the Tories when 60% of English voted against them.

Because the English will see public services in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales being ringfenced at the expense of, well, the English. Do you think the Tories won't make hay with that? Every bye election in England would become a referendum on those policies, further weakening an already weak coalition

There's nothing new in that. Still the English didnt vote decisively for the Tories. 39% first preference in England is pretty good, but still a large majority didnt give them No.1. Says a lot that despite the mess the economy is in, there's a huge element that still don't want a Tory govt. 

I'd imagine the UK results are giving FF a bit of a boost. FF will have a realistic chance of retaining power if they get rid of Cowen, on the "lesser of two evils" basis.

[deiseach]

There's nothing new in that. Still the English didnt vote decisively for the Tories. 39% first preference in England is pretty good, but still a large majority didnt give them No.1. Says a lot that despite the mess the economy is in, there's a huge element that still don't want a Tory govt. 

Nothing new? I think it'd be very new, or at least it would be blatantly obvious in the way the Tony Gregory deal was. I take your point about 39.5% not being 'decisive' but Ukip picked up 3.5% of the vote in England so there's a Tory vote there that is tantalisingly close to the kind of numbers required for a majority even in a PR system - FF would have gotten one in 1987 with 44% of the vote but for the existence of the PD's. As you say, PR would tell us a lot more but doesn't mean we can't speculate

[Hardy]

Ed Balls is not a suitable labour leader candidate. Too many giggles in announcing 'Prime Minister Balls' /via @sammywilsonmp

"Parliament hung by Balls" ............there's a headline worth waiting for.

"Cameron caught by Balls after fresh election"

Labour led into government by Balls.

Balls crushed in leadership contest.

etc.

Carry On Governing.

[deiseach]

I see Labour are ruling out coalition with the SNP. Can't say I blame them, Alex Salmond *doffs cap* gets off at insulting them at every opportunity. But they can't be serious about trying to cobble together a minority government. Unless they plan to climb into bed* with the DUP . . .

*Feel free to insert "everyone else has" joke here

[orangeman]

Gordon's gone - Tories and Lib Dems in bed together.