Britain's inconclusive election

Struggling for power

As Conservatives and Lib Dems keep talking, Britain still has no new government

See article

Readers' comments




All political parties would benefit from serious electoral reform in Britain. Drive towards more consensus and the moderation that a more "Northern European" model of politics would bring would provide a more socially stable structure.

Currently the absolutism of our First Past The Post system has enabled governments to push through policies that they should have been challenged on; or that would have demanded more reasoned persuasion to get passed.

Current instability will hopefully lead to more stable politics later on. The only party that is afraid are the Conservatives because they would have to finally acknowledge that Britain is more socially liberal than them; that people favour national institutions like the NHS and that we don't want to head towards a more American model; just as most of us aren't that keen on a European one either.


Tories don't want to enter coalition with the LibDems.
LibDems don't want to enter coalition with the Tories.
Tories will not offer PR.

Labour do want to enter coalition with the LibDems.
LibDems do want to enter coalition with Labour.
Labour will offer PR.

Labour plus LibDems got 60% of the vote.
This would be the first government to have got a majority of the popular vote in decades.

Brown has to fall on his sword.

Tories possibly on the way to irrelevance for decades as a party of government.

That is the agenda for the next days.

Another Innocent Bystander

For the LibDms (and I believe the country) the long game is electoral reform to a system that gives a better representation of the public's will.

To believe 36% of the turnout should be a basis for unquestioned power is ridiculous, made more so by the fact in the past it has been. It makes the UK a bit of a laughing stock; did anybody else notice BBC coverage did not dare mention national % of vote let alone total voter numbers after about 12pm? (desipte a 'team of statisticans'?)

A referendum on voting (ideally from a choice of systems) including fixed term parliaments within the year is a must have for the LibDem's team - its Cameron's problem to sell it to his party - if not they should walk away. The third party has been burned before and should not wait another generation to do so again.

If the Tory party don't want a deal on that basis - ie they refuse even to check if the British public want the first past the post system they "believe" in; then its not worth talking LidDems should wait for next election as the "real change" party pionting to an uncompromising record of policy for it (rather than a conversion based on focus groups a month before polling) and the fact they have the integrity to walk away from the illusion of power.

As the article pionts out, the "strong government" the UK system produces tends to lurch between giving the two biggest parties more power than support and ideological policies implemented without external criticism. Reducing this tendency would focus on practicalities and increase stability - something the suddenly all important markets would actually like.


Allocating the seats gained by the three main parties according to how many voters have indeed voted for them, the distribution of seats would be as follows:

Tories: 235
Labour: 189
Lib Dems: 150
Others: 76

Looking at the graph on it is fair to say that the Lib Dems should have introduced the proportional system about a hundred years ago!

Come on, Nick. Now is the time! Don't waste the opportunity on a referendum.

Taking into consideration that the Tories have only received a 1.5 times higher vote share than the Lib Dems, the former haven't made such an impact on the nation as they keep trying to tell us.

Not even the media backing, the clean cut look of Mr Cameron and the recession have helped to motivate people to actually vote for them any more than they have in 2005. Then the Tories have received a 32.3% share of the votes. This time it was 36.1%, which is hardly a change worth talking about.

Nick, do you really want to align yourself with a party who happily take up 305 seats while your party is left with 57, yet the voter ratio between the parties is 3:2!

The Tories claim that the public has voted against Labour. But the ratio between Tory and Labour votes is a closer 6:5!


Technically, in the British parliamentary system, Prime Minister Brown can remain in office until being defeated in commons by a vote of confidence. That is why Mr Brown can begin a new session of the parliament and the Labour government keep on governing as a minority government, as long as Mr Clegg's Lib-Dem don't vote with Mr Cameron's Tories. If Mr Brown submits to the Parliament some bills which can please to Mr Clegg, then his Labour government can stay in office many months.


The first fact is that if Clegg delivers electoral reform, that's change enough to justify having entered a coalition with whoever his party deemed fit.

The second fact is that, under quite favourable electoral rules for them, the Tories were unable to unseat a weak and struggling government. They simply have not title to exclusive power.


With the current electoral system it's always been a case of "never mind the arbitrariness; appreciate the decisive government". This time, however, the result was as unfair as ever but also indecisive. First Past the Post failed to deliver the one thing that is supposedly in its favour.

I get the impression that some parts of the Conservative think they should rule the roost by right. But surely everyone eventually has to realise that British politics has changed. It's much more fragmented than it used to be (with increasing votes not just for the Lib Dems but other smaller parties as well). 36% share for the biggest party is likely to be as good as it gets. And you need an electoral system that fits this new multiparty world.


When Gordon Brown wasn't PM -it seems a century ago- he had grand plans, not only to overhaul the electoral system, but to give the UK a formal, modern Constitution.

What happened? Mr Brown became PM. With power and duty, his intellectual ambitions vanished.

Now it's time for young leaders to take over. But they must be aware that day-to-day responsibilities will prevent any leader from giving any attention to electoral reform.

My humble proposal:

1) A Conservative-Liberal coalition, giving Mr Cameron the tools for effective government.

2) Mr Clegg becomes head of a top-level commission responsible for preparing the new Electoral Law. A referendum within six months.

3) General elections next year.


So let me get this right -the Lib Dem's got 1% more votes than last election but 5 seats less. Hmm. You don't have to be Carol Vorderman (mathematical whizz kid) to work out that something's wrong.
Cameron has no right to protect his Con party if it means not serving the electorate - selfish at best, criminal at worst. Brown has been voted out - though he was never voted in. Clegg is well, Clegg. Again - hmm.
What a mess. Sort it out chaps - and quickly.
Or - let's have another election.


Despite the fact that the elections are all heated up and opportunities for coalitions are tense, regardless of who becomes prime minister, they would have a lot of work ahead of them. Does it really matter at this point who would survive the election if they probably can't survive the hard road ahead to economic recovery later?


Let`s say it openly. It is time for Britain to see a real change, both in terms of the Party that will form the next Govt and the electoral system, which, as it stands does not reflect the outcome of the elections. A dose of proportional representation is important to adequately mirror the wish of the electorate. The first past the post system is outdated and needs to be revisited. Such a move in Britain will have a spillover effect in other Countries with electotal systems modelled on the British one.

One Mick

You should consider the preferential voting system in the lower house of the federal parliament of Australia (where I live).

We have electorates, much like your constituencies, which maintain the important relationship between the sitting member and their local supporters. At the election, voters number their preferences of all the available candidates (they have to number all, or the vote is invalid). The winner is the first candidate to get 50% of the votes. If no candidate gets 50% (very common), then the preferences of the candidate with the least number of votes is distributed amongst the others - and so on until any one candidate gets above the 50% mark.

This system has served Australia very well, as it means votes are less 'split' between two parties with similar ideologies. Of course, our upper house, the senate, is an entirely preferential system within each state.

Anyway, worth noting that there are other options between the obvious unfairness of a first-past-the-post system and the permanent coalitions of preferential voting.


The one alternative no one speaks of is a Labour-Tory unity government. Perhaps if the EU economy collapses in the next few months, they will do this to respond to the emergency.


Nick Clegg´s manifesto: "It is in Britain´s interest to be part of the Euro."

So how much can last a Lib-Tory coalition?

The next British Government will be very weak and unstable.


This is good stuff - more negotiating will foster a more 'balanced' Parliament.

This is as democratic as we can get - compromising between parties with different goals and philosophy.


Brown should step down...Labour should recognize that Cameron will need help cleaning up Brown's mess...U.K. needs strong leadership...

Political Animal

Unlikely that a Proportional Representation system would result in anything other than permanent coalition governments.

Transferable voting would seem to offer the best option of a reasonable compromise for reforming the current electoral system whilst still ensuring a single party in charge of UK government.


The most important role of a new government is not the economy - albeit that is the most pressing - but electoral reform. The Liberals have a once in a century opportunity to correct the inadequacy of our voting system whereby a party that gets the support of less than a quarter of the electorate, and little more than a third of the votes, is considered to have a mandate. Only the most fanciful reading of a broken electoral system can consider that the majority of the British people would like to see the Tories running this country. All we can conclude is that a broken system has failed to give one party a working majority in the House of Commons for the first time in almost two generations. The Liberals should partner with whoever delivers electoral reform and if that has unfortunate short-term consequences, so be it.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

