Bollitics: The General Election 2010 Exit Poll

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

If you ignore the seriousness of all of this, it is jolly good fun.

I must admit it is good fun but in a guilty "watching a car crash" type way but lets be honest, these are politicians and it does not really matter what party they belong to 99.9 % are words removed. It's just nice to see them squirm a bit on TV.

[kidlewis]

Adam Boulton, Sky News's political editor, and Labour's former director of communications Alastair Campbell had a furious shouting match while being interviewed by the Sky News presenter Jeremy Thompson. Thompson started by asking Campbell whether Brown's decision was motivated by dignity or trying to seek party advantage, which the veteran spin doctor was able to parry by saying that "no party" had won the election.

The interview continued with Boulton taking over the questioning and the temperature rose for a good three minutes before events boiled over.

Campbell accused Boulton of having wanted Brown out of power for some time, prompting Boulton to question if Labour was acting in the national interest

Sky News said Boulton had "defended his integrity" and by implication that of the channel. Later in the evening Boulton also clashed with the culture secretary, Ben Bradshaw.

Campbell "Adam, you're obviously upset that David Cameron is not prime minister."

Boulton "I'm not upset …"

Campbell "You are, you probably are."

Thompson Laughs

Boulton [voice raised] "Don't keep casting aspersions on what I think. I am commenting ... don't keep saying what I think."

Campbell "This is live on television, dignity, dignity."

Boulton "Don't keep telling me what I think. This is what you do, you come on ... you say no one won the election. I'm fed up with you telling me what I think."

Campbell "I don't care what you're fed up with. I don't care what you're fed up with. You can say what you like, I can tell you my opinion."

Boulton "Don't tell me what I think."

Thompson "Alastair, you are being provocative and unnecessarily so ..."

Later Campbell says Brown is entitled to have remained PM while another government is formed, and has handled the situation properly. Boulton presses Campbell on why until today there had been no meeting of the cabinet or parliamentary Labour party. Campbell says that will now happen.

Boulton "In other words, it's you … totally unelected, have plotted this …"

Campbell "Me?'

Boulton "Yes."

Campbell "And you are elected are you?"

Boulton "No, but …"

Thompson "Gentlemen, gentlemen. "

Boulton "You are the one who has cooked this up with Peter Mandelson."

Campbell "Oh my God, unbelievable. Adam calm down, calm down."

[Camera pans away]

Boulton [out of vision] "I actually care about this country."

Campbell "You think I don't care."

Boulton [inaudible]

Campbell "Adam you are a pompous little arse."

Gosh what a pair.

it reads brilliantly and Boulton makes himself look like a tool, however I doubt he is that far from the truth. Mandy might be a complete and utter tool, but as a tactical politician he is genius.

[mykeyb]

If I was a Tory supporter I would be rubbing my hands with glee at this Rainbow Alliance. Scottish, Welsh and Irish parties are going to extract a high price from Labour for their support.

The new government will be forced to start to make the cuts required making them unpopular.

and when it all falls apart the Labour and Libdems will be unelectable for the foreseeable future.

Tories to be in for at least 2 terms of government while the others regroup.

[bickster]

and if you didn't vote then you deliberately sacrificed your voice)

I don't want to sound like former Liberal MP for Southport Ronnie Fearn but……………..on no you didn't, thats utter rubbish, the electorate are there for the politicians to engage with, if they fail to do that then it is only the politicians who can be blamed

but if getting more votes than the other lot isn't seen as a benchmark then it seems to be a funny kind of democracy!

Why? Having a government that represents the majority of the population is democracy, having a government that represents 36.1% of the population who actually voted isn't

[tonyh29]

Libdems will be unelectable for the foreseeable future

more so them as they are kinda between a rock and a hard place

Go with the Tories and anger their supporters

Prop up a lost cause in labour (not to mention putting party before country as it will quite rightly be seen to be ) and anger a country

Best option for the libs is to stick at what they are good at and stay on the fence .. let Cameron run a minority government and promise to look at each policy on it's merit on a vote by vote basis

[Jon]

Best option for the libs is to stick at what they are good at and stay on the fence .. let Cameron run a minority government and promise to look at each policy on it's merit on a vote by vote basis

yep, this is what they should do IMO.

[mjmooney]

Libdems will be unelectable for the foreseeable future

more so them as they are kinda between a rock and a hard place

Go with the Tories and anger their supporters

Prop up a lost cause in labour (not to mention putting party before country as it will quite rightly be seen to be ) and anger a country

Best option for the libs is to stick at what they are good at and stay on the fence .. let Cameron run a minority government and promise to look at each policy on it's merit on a vote by vote basis

I agree with Tony. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[tonyh29]

Libdems will be unelectable for the foreseeable future

more so them as they are kinda between a rock and a hard place

Go with the Tories and anger their supporters

Prop up a lost cause in labour (not to mention putting party before country as it will quite rightly be seen to be ) and anger a country

Best option for the libs is to stick at what they are good at and stay on the fence .. let Cameron run a minority government and promise to look at each policy on it's merit on a vote by vote basis

I agree with Tony. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

even the fence sitting bit ? :winkold:

[mykeyb]

Why? Having a government that represents the majority of the population is democracy, having a government that represents 36.1% of the population who actually voted isn't

When was the last government to be elected with more than 50% of the vote or more than 50% off the populations vote?

A government has never been or doubt will ever be supported by the majority of the GBP.

[Malachite]

This is going to get very interesting.

The way the election has finished has made it really diifficult for anyone to form a strong government apart from the Conservative and Libdems. The Rainbow Alliance will have to try and keep so many plates in the air in trying to keep everyone happy it will be almost impossible to govern properly.

The Libdems will obviously put PR as their no1 concession in any negotiations as this may well be the only chance to get something done on it.

When they get round to sorting out electoral reform perhaps they might look at changing the current rules that means in a hung parliament the sitting party get first dibs at forming a government regardless of how well (or not) they have done at the ballot box.

Does anyone else think we could well be doing this all again in 6 months time.

Really good post this.

Not only do i think we will go through another General Election, i think its the only proper way now, i don't think any of these leaders look even half capable of leading a country, someone Text in to Sky news saying they all look like boys and a re a national disgrace, i agree with that, Clegg late last night came out of the Lib meeting with his party split and in a rage of a mood.

It now needs credibility and it needs someone to stand up and show leadership, by stating OK, we can't find consensus, we can't find a middle ground we can properly work with, the labour party will have a new leader, the country deserves the absolute right to elect that leader, we will go again in the autumn, and let the people decide.

[Jez]

[Malachite]

Why? Having a government that represents the majority of the population is democracy, having a government that represents 36.1% of the population who actually voted isn't

When was the last government to be elected with more than 50% of the vote or more than 50% off the populations vote?

A government has never been or doubt will ever be supported by the majority of the GBP.

Thats the problem with our electoral process.

Its all about manipulation.

[Richard]

Not sure how Labour could think they could keep a rainbow alliance together when they cant even keep it together in their own party!

[kidlewis]

perhaps if Everton and Villa merge clubs points they could win the premiership.

[GaztonVilla]

From the outside looking in, as an Irishman living in the UK...

IMO, by virtue that no party reached the target of 326 seats, there was no "winner" of this election. Yes, the Conservatives got a greater share of the seats which, to me, shows them to be the electorate's "least worst" option.

For the Conservatives to claim that Labour lost the election seems a bit disingenuous. To have a loser you must, logically, have a winner. To claim that Gordon Brown lacks legitimacy and was right to resign having failed to get the majority required, surely Cameron should face the same fate?

To then say that the Liberal Democrats should either enter into a coalition with the Conservatives or provide them with support for a minority government seems to be moving the goalposts somewhat.

The parliamentary system dictates, in very simple terms, that any party or man which commands the support of 50% + 1 commons seats forms the government. If Labour and the Liberal Democrats can do that with the support of other parties, then so be it. If the Conservatives can do it with the support of any other combination, then so be it as well.

I find it distasteful that the Conservatives are throwing their toys out of the pram because the Liberal Democrats won't dilute their ideology enough to support a Cameron government.

Voters of the Lib Dems voted for a specific set of Lib Dem policies (I would like to think so anyway. The anti-Lab anti-Con argument is hard to prove) and therefore the Lib Dems have a responsibility to attempt to form a government which will provide a legislative agenda as close as is possible to their manifesto.

If Clegg can get 75% of his manifesto by supporting a Labour-led coalition, surely that is better to his voters and MPs than getting 50% from a Conservative-led coalition?

[snowychap]

It does seem to be a constitutional anomaly that the party with most seats and which received the largest share of the vote by a clear two million ballots isn't automatically entitled to try and form a Government, be that by coalition or as the largest minority.

It has always seemed more of a constitutional problem, for me, that a minority party (i.e. one that the majority of people have not voted for) has been able to be such an unchallengeable government (Labour and Tory).

[PauloBarnesi]

Can you trust the Liberal Democrats? They are behaving like every harlot in history.

Kimberly Fortier? I feel sorry for Stephen Quinn myself.

[snowychap]

If you ignore the seriousness of all of this, it is jolly good fun.

It's great,

[kidlewis]

my worry is that the nationalist parties will only side with this rainbow alliance if they are guaranteed that the cuts won't effect their country. So if this alliance happens, will England be heading down the shitter faster than a dodgy Prawn Bhuna?

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Not sure how Labour could think they could keep a rainbow alliance together when they cant even keep it together in their own party!

I am starting to think that none of them are fit to govern, Zippy, George and Bungle wold make a better go of it I think if they can get Rod and Jane on board but Freddy will cause problems of course.