Election? What election?

[Neil Foxlee]

I didn't have to queue, but late voters in Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds and no doubt elsewhere did, with the result that some weren't able to vote (by law polling offices must close at 10pm). In Lewisham, meanwhile, a polling office broke the law by staying open longer. It's scandalous, and will inevitably lead to protests (and hopefully remedial action). The interesting question is why so many were trying to vote so late.

Two further questions: what role would the minority parties other than the LibDems play in a hung parliament? And would an already steadily falling stockmarket plunge in reaction to the political uncertainty thereby created - leading to a financial as well as a political crisis?

Interesting times (in the Chinese sense).

However, the first two results (both in safe Labour NE seats) indicate that the LibDems are doing worse than expected and the Conservatives much better - so it's still wide open (and I'm off to bed).

[NormanD]

In Lewisham, meanwhile, a polling office broke the law by staying open longer. It's scandalous, and will inevitably lead to protests (and hopefully remedial action).

Yes, completely scandalous. They were handing out fruit buns and cups of cocoa, playing guitars and singing improvised calypsos and Billy Jenkins' songs, buying Big Issue and discussing the contents, and planning to lever up cobbles from the local pavements to stone the mayor at Lewisham Town Hall.

Never known such things, mutter, mutter.

[AndyM]

what role would the minority parties other than the LibDems play in a hung parliament?

Well one nightmare scenario is that the Tories could govern with the backing of assorted Ulster Unionists.

[Neil Foxlee]

In Lewisham, meanwhile, a polling office broke the law by staying open longer. It's scandalous, and will inevitably lead to protests (and hopefully remedial action).

Yes, completely scandalous. They were handing out fruit buns and cups of cocoa, playing guitars and singing improvised calypsos and Billy Jenkins' songs, buying Big Issue and discussing the contents, and planning to lever up cobbles from the local pavements to stone the mayor at Lewisham Town Hall.

Never known such things, mutter, mutter.

Careless phrasing on my part, and being quoted out of context on the other. Needless to say, what I found scandalous was people being denied a vote, and not sensible election officials in Lewisham turning a blind eye to the law.

Most likely scenario now (at the risk of being proved completely wrong): Labour will let the Tories take the poisoned chalice, drop Brown and bide their time.

[Neil Foxlee]

I agree with Nick (Robinson):

" Now what?
Nick Robinson | 06:42 UK time, Friday, 7 May 2010

That is the unanswered question at the end of an extraordinary, unprecedented and inconclusive night.

And it may stay unanswered at the end of today and, indeed, at the end of many days to come.

The reason is simple. Winning an election - in the sense of comprehensively beating your opponents - is not enough for the Conservatives. David Cameron has to prove that he can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives argue that Labour has been overwhelming rejected and, therefore, has no mandate to govern. However, they need either the active support or, at least, the acquiescence of other parties to govern.

What's more, Gordon Brown remains Prime Minister until he concludes that he cannot form a government and resigns. As soon as the ballot boxes began to be emptied minister after minister publicly wooed the Liberal Democrats with public pledges of electoral reform. It is clear that their only hope of survival is a coalition.

The irony is that having utterly failed to fulfil the huge expectations of an improved Lib Dem performance Nick Clegg may, after all, play the role of kingmaker in this election.

****

Voters locked out of polling stations, ballot papers running out, scuffles inside polling stations, sit-ins, the police called, some able to vote after 10pm while others were blocked from doing so.

What a tragedy that, after a campaign which engaged and energised many who were previously cynical about politics, tonight's story may be being over-shadowed by the extraordinary revelation that Britain cannot competently run the most basic part of the democratic process.

***

[...] Meantime Ed Davey for the Liberal Democrats has confirmed Nick Clegg's pre-election night statement that the party with the most votes and seats has the right to try to form a government."

[jackdaw version]

It's beginning to look a bit like November 2000 in the US.

And perhaps like the more recent exchange of power with Obama being handed the poisoned chalice by those who did the damage.

I often think the UK is about ten years behind the US in peculiar ways, kind of like a shadow wave trailing the leading edge. Of course, other times, it's absolutely clear that the US is all stodgy and Britannia still rules the waves.

[Neil Foxlee]

Just to confirm the inbuilt Conservative majority in England, as opposed to Scotland and Wales: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/.

Reassuring to note that the BNP vote so far has only gone up 1%, to just over 530,000.

Tories up 3.9% (90 seats up so far), Labour down 6.4% (84 seats down so far), LibDems up 1%, despite being 6 seats down. 65% turnout (slightly up).

Note that the 1% rise in each of the LibDem and BNP votes accounts for all but 0.5% of the difference between the Tory gain and the Labour loss.

[Neil Foxlee]

Latest from Nick (Robinson):

"There is only one potential stable majority available. That is a combination of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems.

The question, therefore, is what terms will David Cameron offer and what will Nick Clegg accept. Oh, and one other thing, will their parties accept their proposals?"

Hmmm... Surely no go without electoral reform, which Cameron will never concede. Clegg would be holding his nose and wouldn't commit to anything but temporary cooperaton without said reform. All parties will be trying to anticipate the effect of their actions now on their performance in the next election.

Quote: "George Parker, political editor of the Financial Times, tells BBC World Service: "I think the Tories will talk to Nick Clegg. I don't think they'll be prepared to offer a deal on electoral reform because, for the Conservative Party, they see that as a way of excluding themselves from power for a generation."

[Neil Foxlee]

Clegg has confirmed that the Conservatives should have first call on trying to form a government. Even if Labour made an offer he couldn't normally refuse - i.e. electoral reform - the financial crisis especially might mean that putting it to a referendum wouldn't produce the desired result (and without a referendum, it would lack legitimacy, especially coming from two losing parties).

I'm tempted to observe that the electorate as a whole has got the result it deserves: knowing that tough action is needed, but not wanting the pain this will bring; wanting a change from Brown, but not committing wholeheartedly to Cameron; and not, for a significant proportion of them, voting for what they believe (a recent YouGov poll found that around 50% would vote LibDem if they thought they could win).

[Neil Foxlee]

"Tory sources not ruling out offering PR - they could of course offer a referendum to do deal with the Libs but campaign against it, tweets the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg."

That would be a gamble for the Cons.

A more positive take on the electorate getting the result it deserves: one thing that emerged from the instant-reaction focus groups on the leaders' debates was that attacking opponents was a turn-off and that talk of cooperation got a positive reaction. So perhaps people would welcome at least a period of two parties working together.

[Des]

[quote="Neil FoxleeLaura Kuenssberg."

[/quote]

Call me shallow, but has anyone noticed her mouth? It's amazing - it seems to be moving much faster than what she's saying, and attempting to escape from her face! I can't keep my eyes off it.


Carry on.

[NormanD]

I'm tempted to observe that the electorate as a whole has got the result it deserves: knowing that tough action is needed, but not wanting the pain this will bring; wanting a change from Brown, but not committing wholeheartedly to Cameron; and not, for a significant proportion of them, voting for what they believe (a recent YouGov poll found that around 50% would vote LibDem if they thought they could win).

This sounds like a frustrated plea

'the electorate as a whole has got the result it deserves'

It suggests to me that you are not part of this, or are in some way above it, like a distant, wise observer. It's all part of the 'democratic process' that you so uphold and that I consistently call part of a fraudulent capitalist system. You bought it - it's shoddy goods you can't take back.

As for 'tough action' being needed, perhaps your earlier jokey question to Des about his voting intentions had he lived in the Weimar Republic (presumably in the post-1930 elections) comes back to mind.

[Neil Foxlee]

On the one hand you describe what I said as a 'frustrated plea'; on the other, that it suggests that I'm not part of this, or am in some way above it, like a 'distant, wise observer'. Am I engaged or detached? Both, I guess - I try to look at things from a variety of perspectives.

But Norman, you're detached in a different sense, seeing the whole thing as a fraud - which on one level, I can perfectly understand and even sympathize with. I believe in (bottom-up) democracy as an ideal that can never be perfectly realized, knowing that under the present system - and the unrepresentative electoral system is only part of the problem - most real power lies elsewhere. Believing in an unrealized/unrealizable ideal of democracy doesn't mean I 'buy' 'democracy' as currently constituted. To put it another way, what I believe in is democratization as a never-ending process rather than 'democracy' as a state that has been (or can be) achieved once and for all.

As for 'tough action', it all depends what sort of action: I'm sure you'd ideally like tough action against the fraudulent capitalist system yourself. [PS - I should have put 'fraudulent capitalist system' in quotes, as I was quoting Norman.]

[joel]

the fraudulent capitalist system yourself.

Which non-fraudulent system that is an improvement would you propose?
The UK has had 31 years of "strong" government. Perhaps there is something to be said for weakness and negotiation.

[Neil Foxlee]

Sorry, the words "fraudulent capitalist system" are Norman's, and I should have put them in quotes. If it's me not Norman you're asking, my position is the same as on 'democracy': I don't have a picture of an ideal society in my head, but rather would proceed by incremental changes in things that need to be changed.

I wasn't calling for strong government per se, but tough action where it's needed - eg on splitting retail and investment banks, introducing a so-called Robin Hood tax on financial transactions and raising Capital Gains Tax (18% since 2008). But don't get me started...