Bollitics: The General Election 2010 Exit Poll

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

This is panning out like a transfer on FM.

Conservatives offer Clegg a contract.

Clegg is considering Conservative offer.

New Labour in Clegg battle

Clegg rejects New Labour

Clegg agrees to sign for Conservatives.

Click yes to continue.

[markavfc40]

Short term I'm sure the lib dems are enjoying the fact that they are the so called king makers. Medium to long term though them formallly getting into bed with the tories is going to have huge detrimental effect in future elections. This whole coalition won't last an longer than 12-18 months before it will inevitably be shown to not be working, an election will have to be called and the lib dem supporters are very unlikely to forgive them.

[Gringo]

Not sure who'd get Transport Secretary

Huhne, perhaps.

I think they should give all three jobs to charles 'hic' kennedy.

[Jon]

Short term I'm sure the lib dems are enjoying the fact that they are the so called king makers. Medium to long term though them formallly getting into bed with the tories is going to have huge detrimental effect in future elections. This whole coalition won't last an longer than 12-18 months before it will inevitably be shown to not be working, an election will have to be called and the lib dem supporters are very unlikely to forgive them.

exactly mate.

Lib Dem supporters/voters will not forgive their party if they get into bed with the tories, without having extracted some major concessions to do so, which they will not get. They have to demand a referendum on PR, which they will not get, and anything less than this, and i'm not sure i'd want them propping up the tories.

[TheDon]

an election will have to be called and the lib dem supporters are very unlikely to forgive them.

It depends on if they can push through a PR type system in that time. If they can they can go to their supporters "it was a necessary evil to get what we wanted", and I think their supporter base would see that the end justified the means.

If they can't get electoral reform in that time then yes, they'll lose some support, but that's only going to really effect the Lib Dem/Labour marginals (are there actually many?) as their supporters would only really have the option to switching to Labour, which they're not going to do in a seat that's a Lib Dem/Tory marginal as they'd be handing the tories a seat, defeating the entire purpose of not voting for the Libs because they helped the Tories.

Basically, I can't see it having much of an effect at all, as when you think of it at a deeper level than a knee jerk "not voting for them again" there's not much logic to support that.

[snowychap]

Not sure who'd get Transport Secretary

Huhne, perhaps.

I think they should give all three jobs to charles 'hic' kennedy.

Though with Charlie's supposed run ins on public transport, I'm not sure Transport Secretary would be too appropriate.

[Gringo]

Medium to long term though them formallly getting into bed with the tories is going to have huge detrimental effect in future elections. This whole coalition won't last an longer than 12-18 months before it will inevitably be shown to not be working, an election will have to be called and the lib dem supporters are very unlikely to forgive them.

The libdems were skeeing power in order to enact change. If they accept power without the guarantee of change then yes the public will treat them as the same sort of spivs that inhabit the red and blue party.

They should have no seats in the cabinet, but instead offer to abstain on govt votes in exchange for a PR referendum to be held in a year's time. That would give the tories a majority for one year and allow them to governs as they see fit. After the referendum it should be back to normal politics and the libs would support/oppose the tories as they see fit.

Being part of the tory cabinet would contaminate the lib dems credentials. Being part of the tory cabinet without a PR referendum would destory the lib dems credentials

[Awol]

Short term I'm sure the lib dems are enjoying the fact that they are the so called king makers. Medium to long term though them formallly getting into bed with the tories is going to have huge detrimental effect in future elections. This whole coalition won't last an longer than 12-18 months before it will inevitably be shown to not be working, an election will have to be called and the lib dem supporters are very unlikely to forgive them.

Well seeing as there is a hung Parliament they either work with the Tories or Labour. I know that they've jilted your lot and that must smart a little, but getting into bed with Labour would have been electoral suicide for Clegg.

Given the options and the obvious fact that Labour have been rejected as the incumbent party then what else could they do?

[Condimentalist]

Though I can't see that having structural means to reduce the influence of extreme or fringe parties would be anything other than undemocratic. Structural means of trying to increase the functional potential of a system would be slightly (and importantly) different.

Yes, fair enough. Perhaps quotas are undemocratic. The STV system, though, would use preference as the control, which is highly democratic and would (probably) reduce the influence of extreme parties.

[Jon]

Medium to long term though them formallly getting into bed with the tories is going to have huge detrimental effect in future elections. This whole coalition won't last an longer than 12-18 months before it will inevitably be shown to not be working, an election will have to be called and the lib dem supporters are very unlikely to forgive them.

The libdems were skeeing power in order to enact change. If they accept power without the guarantee of change then yes the public will treat them as the same sort of spivs that inhabit the red and blue party.

They should have no seats in the cabinet, but instead offer to abstain on govt votes in exchange for a PR referendum to be held in a year's time. That would give the tories a majority for one year and allow them to governs as they see fit. After the referendum it should be back to normal politics and the libs would support/oppose the tories as they see fit.

Being part of the tory cabinet would contaminate the lib dems credentials. Being part of the tory cabinet without a PR referendum would destory the lib dems credentials

fully agree with all of that Grings.

Buy surely the tories will not accept a referendum on PR? and thus it won't work.

[markavfc40]

They should have no seats in the cabinet, but instead offer to abstain on govt votes in exchange for a PR referendum to be held in a year's time. That would give the tories a majority for one year and allow them to governs as they see fit. After the referendum it should be back to normal politics and the libs would support/oppose the tories as they see fit.

Being part of the tory cabinet would contaminate the lib dems credentials. Being part of the tory cabinet without a PR referendum would destory the lib dems credentials

The former is what they should do but they won't and it will be suicide for the Lib Dems.

[markavfc40]

Short term I'm sure the lib dems are enjoying the fact that they are the so called king makers. Medium to long term though them formallly getting into bed with the tories is going to have huge detrimental effect in future elections. This whole coalition won't last an longer than 12-18 months before it will inevitably be shown to not be working, an election will have to be called and the lib dem supporters are very unlikely to forgive them.

Well seeing as there is a hung Parliament they either work with the Tories or Labour. I know that they've jilted your lot and that must smart a little, but getting into bed with Labour would have been electoral suicide for Clegg.

Given the options and the obvious fact that Labour have been rejected as the incumbent party then what else could they do?

I'm certainly not smarting that the Lib Dems are not going to side with Labour. In actual fact you couldn't be more wrong.

As I have said previously medium - long term I don't think its a bad thing that the Tories have got in with no overall majority. They will form this coalition with the Lib Dems which will fail spectacularly with in 12 - 18 months by which time the Tories will have once again been shown to be the incompetent look after the few while **** over the many party they are. That will be enough to ensure they do not get anwhere near an election win for many, many years.

Ok its short term pain for long term gain but hey ho I'll take it.

[JulieB]

These aren't normal times though...with one eye on the Eurozone et al...

UK PLC is tinkering on losing it's international appeal altogether for investors

The markets are not going to like it if they cobble something together.

What the City wants is stability and a government that's going to seriously tackle the deficit.

The electorate will look badly on ALL of the parties if they start playing party politics just now

rather than putting the national interests first.

However how long any concensus will last is anybody's guess!

[thetrees]

Ricardomeister,

Question, how much money do you think the 50% tax bracket raises for the Exchequer? Once you've found that out I'd hope that such a learned fellow as yourself will conclude that it is actually a punitive measure leading to little or no material benefit.

Of course you could just continue insulting everyone who has a different opinion to yours, but that isn't very constructive.

Pot, kettle and black come to mind!!!!

It is not my job to find that out for you (I have done my own research) so it is a rather pointless and desperate question to ask imo.

My point is all about fairness in society. I would have no problem in paying an extra £5k (if I were on £200k pa) to help the vulnerable and less fortunate and I just cannot understand why anyone else would.

If you were interested in how much money can be raised for the Exchequer then you would have agreed with me that the £15+ billion pa denied to the Exchequer from tax evasion/avoidance/fraud should be addressed as a priority but surprise, surprise the Tories and their cohorts would rather prioritise benefit fraud which is worth a tiny fraction to the Exchequer. Very conveniently not one of you have come back about that point!

The Tories and their cohorts, a large amount of whom have been brainwashed by the Tory rags, have very little interest in fairness. To state that the 50% tax band is discriminatory while a 25% basic rate of tax is fair is totally immoral and totally unjustifiable imo.

The difference between people like me and people like you is that I feel eternal gratitude for the opportunities that I have had in life and I would like such opportunities extended to as many people as possible. That is certainly not something that can be said about the Tory party and many of their supporters who are more bothered about keeping as much as they can for themselves. That is greed and that is selfishness and that is immoral in my book.

Okay, I'll try to shout loud enough so that you can hear me all the way up on that moral pedestal that you purport to occupy, accepting that even if you can hear me, you are unlikely to listen.

My proposal was designed to raise enough money to get us out of the mire, with everyone who earns a decent wage taking a share of the burden. Such is the fairness of the tax system in this country, those who earn more pay more by virtue of that fact.

By adopting the £10000 tax free allowance and raising the basic rate to 25p in the £ a person earning £15k a year would save £455 a year on the present system.

Someone on £20000 would save £205

Someone on £25000 would be burdened with a higher tax bill of £45 per year and someone on £30000 by £295 per year.

The new 50% tax band is also backed up by graduated removal of tax allowance, ensuring that people who earn over £100k a year (not £150k) are punished. I am sure that you think that a middle aged person on £100k is 'rich', but I can assure you that it wouldn't pay for flash cars and a house on a private estate.

I have no problem with paying a higher basic rate of 25% and no problem paying 40% on everything else that I earn, so am not seeking to 'keeping as much as I can for myself', merely paying what is fair.

I work about 70 hours a week, not including travel and time away from my family and have expanded a one man business to employing two more people on above average salaries and devolved large amounts of work from mainland Europe to subcontractors and government departments in the UK.

Last year was a tough year (global recession) when many companies were asking staff to take pay cuts but I delivered 6.5% pay rises and large bonuses to my staff at Christmas.

I also paid in the last tax year a hefty amount of income tax and national insurance to the exchequer.

But you think that I should pay more, that I am greedy and selfish and immoral.

I think that I would back myself and Awol to produce a more balanced and fairer and moral society for all than one whose views are entirely based upon prejudice.

[snowychap]

The libdems were skeeing power in order to enact change. If they accept power without the guarantee of change then yes the public will treat them as the same sort of spivs that inhabit the red and blue party.

They should have no seats in the cabinet, but instead offer to abstain on govt votes in exchange for a PR referendum to be held in a year's time. That would give the tories a majority for one year and allow them to governs as they see fit. After the referendum it should be back to normal politics and the libs would support/oppose the tories as they see fit.

Being part of the tory cabinet would contaminate the lib dems credentials. Being part of the tory cabinet without a PR referendum would destory the lib dems credentials

Though, playing a bit of devil's advocate, one of the reasons that the Lib Dems may have lost some of the support that they had gained in the aftermath of the 'I agree with Nick' telly prog, is the effectiveness of the Labour/Tory The last thing we need is a hung parliament campaign.

(I do also accept the argument that it might have been to people not liking their policies - and some of their policies being mercilessly misrepresented :winkold:)

On that hung parliament basis, if they aren't seen to actively support a government in its decision making and a minority government starts to struggle to get things through then one can bet that the blue/red party spin machines will go in to overdrive telling the public that it's all down to a lack of 'strong' government and blaming that on the fact that people didn't support either of them (the Reds and Blues). It could lead to a real squeezing of, mainly, the Lib Dem vote and, bizarrely, a return of 'security' to the one party/two party political state.

All pure conjecture, I admit.

Just throwing another possible scenario out there.

[LJRM050389]

At time like this I do sometimes question whether I should move more to the left and become a full on socialist!

Why are markets telling us what to do? It's our democracy!

[Gringo]

The new 50% tax band is also backed up by graduated removal of tax allowance, ensuring that people who earn over £100k a year (not £150k) are punished. I am sure that you think that a middle aged person on £100k is 'rich', but I can assure you that it wouldn't pay for flash cars and a house on a private estate.

I would guess 4 times the average salary might be called rich by a large majority of the country

beeb"]A gross annual salary of £58,917 gets you into the top 5%.

But the standard that has cropped up in newsprint over the years is "the top 1%". It takes £118,027 to get into this bracket. And if you are earning £150,000 - the amount that triggers 50% income tax - you are in the top 0.6% of salaried people, according to the ASHE.

I think that I would back myself and Awol to produce a more balanced and fairer and moral society for all than one whose views are entirely based upon prejudice.

Why is it based on prejudice? Do you think only the poor support the "rich" paying more tax?

[drat01]

Rather than those maps that just show physical size on constituencies

Very interesting to see how each party is reflected in different parts of the UK

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The rich will still have more disposable income and still have a far more comfortable life than the majority of the population, so really I don't see what they are **** moaning about.

Greed is a horrible and petty thing.

[thetrees]

Why is it based on prejudice? Do you think only the poor support the "rich" paying more tax?

The 'prejudice' comment is the stance of the original poster.

On your question, no. On the basis of your message I may be 'rich' (i'm not!) and, as I have demonstrated, I am more than willing to pay more tax but believe that the burden should be spread to include more people, albeit taking lesser amounts of the burden depending upon what they earn.