Joensuu

Superb post TG. Although the Lib Dems are divided on nuclear. Externally they have to say no to nuclear (as it wins votes), but internally many Lib Dems know it's the only medium term option, and will be an essential stop-gap until enough renewables are built to produce the bulk of the energy demand. Both nuclear and renewables need heavy investment asap.

I'm sure you meant remove the Celtic states rather than remove the opposition? Anyhow, results for England alone give the Tories 9,911,062 votes, vs voters who specifically don't want a Tory government and opted to vote Liberal or Labour: 13,104,532. I think it's cleat to see which party a clear majority of England don't want to be ruled by.

In response to the OP, no reform isn't the top issue at the moment. That'll be the economy. Reforming our unfair system of electing representatives is merely the second most important issue of the day, and I hope Clegg forces the issue. Clegg has three options, and none of them is desirable. He could join the Tories, which won't get him the reform he desires, and will anger both his party, and a majority of the millions who voted for him. He could humour the Tory advances and get into bed with Labour. This should bring the reform the country needs, should go down well with the party and core lib dem vote, but will annoy swing lib dem voters and Tories. Finally he could stay neutral but allow the Tories to govern, he could then block any legislation he doesn't like, and force the Tories to make the worst of the cuts alone, and then to return to the polls within a few months. My guess is he is seeing how far he can push the Tories, while putting pressure on the nationalists to make their alliances with Labour, clearing the way for Clegg to announce that Tory talks have faltered.

Unfortunately what you say is true. Due to government dithering we are going to be forced down the nuclear route for the next 30 years. This however brings us the additional future issues of where to store the nuclear waste, and how to ensure that our dependency on Australian/Canadian fuel isn't restricted (either by economics or force). We can use the nuclear short term fix to build substantial renewable plants, taking advantage of the unique tides of the Bristol Channel, and the winds which hit our coasts. If we are within the EU, I can see a shared energy plan with EU wide grid, sharing the solar energy of the med, and the winds of the north (with a nuclear back up option). Don't worry too much about efficiency of energy capture, that just means a high percentage of the energy at sorce is not converted to usable electricity. In other words, if efficiency is low, you just need more turbines (or to use increasingly more effiecient ones). By 2025 we should be over 80% nuclear. Hopefully by 2050 we won't use fossil fuels, and our nuclear use will have declined to under 10%

Think Plaid, the Northern Ireland Alliance (or something) and the Greens are the only parties who haven't had an embarrassing night of failure...

I'm sticking with the Smeagol theory. If the admins made this a perminant forum, could they introduce 'like' and 'not like' for all posts? That would make the whole thing a touch more democratic...

I have to agree both were liabilities to their parties (please tell me the Ginger chipmunk in leather Blears lost hers too?) But by and large a disapointing night, I wanted yellow success, blue's to squeek a majority of 1, and abject failure by the reds. At least Caroline won.

13 hours or not, the vast majority of people are going to try to go after work. This is especially the case if you work a distance from home. Turning up at 6 or 7pm but still being unable to vote is a complete failure of the polls. I was only able to get to the booth at 8:30pm, thankfully the queue was short, but I couldn't realistically have made it any earlier (unless I'd been granted 3 hour lunch). More reason to make the whole process electronic (and proportional).

Caroline was the only good news on an otherwise bleak night.

Not to my knowledge. Wasn't he of Banter fame?

Dune? Why have you gone all Smeagol on us?

Lib dem / Lib dem

And here was me thinking we built it on slaves, exploitation and gunpower...

Good luck Duncan.

If HMRC's debt is now £34million, and the total debt is £134million, thats HMRC holding 25.4%

You do know this is crazy talk don't you Dune? There is very little to divide the two dirty rags, they are both sensationalist, and full of regression, racism and hypocracy. Your suggestion that you could switch from one to another is like a Skate going to a Luton or Millwall game to escape the inbred chavs.

0.200 for me, with 53% of people not voting for the incumbrent party. I hate how unfair this voting system is.

Unfortunately I bet the crash has won more votes than flying around with a banner would have. But why was he in the plane? Couldn't he have entrusted the banner work to someone else? Was he hoping to use a megaphone to play flight of the valkyries in some form of airborne assult on Buckingham's hearts and minds? Why do we have such antiquated electoral process that the people of Buckingham don't get a proper chance to vote? I do hope the crash helps to dilute the tory vote nationwide, not enough to win the Belgium hating UKIP any seats, but enough to see a few more marginal seats swing yellow. Come on all true Tories, vote UKIP

What is it with the figure £17m? Each time their debt has increased it has been by the same amount!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-whorsquos-who-of-celebrity-political-endorsements-1962049.html?action=Popup&ino=1 To be honest I'm not sure people give two hoots about endorsements. I can't see many politican's gain much, but I can see them becoming tarnished by association... Alan Sugar might lose votes for Labour, Simon Cowell & Phil Collins could lose some for the Tories. I guess the people with most to lose are the celebrities themselves, I'm not sure I will look at Ranulph Fiennes in the same light now I'm aware of his political allegiance.

Privatisation isn't the evil that the left wing makes out, nor is it the economic miracle the right herald. IMO there is a very basic rule that makes privatlisation successful: can this industry operate in a real market, or will it function as a sudo-monopoly? Where real market forces have been able to work on an industry, generally it has become more efficient. Where this is impossible the sudo-monopoly has ended up becoming a cash cow for the share holders, and a political disaster. For example: A post delivery service can operate under real market conditions, and can be run effectively in a competative market. The government only needs to ensure that all delivery companies are unable to refuse services or raise prices for outlying areas (i.e. people living in lower value postal regions, such as Orkney don't suffer as a result of the privatisation). A train network is divided into regions. As most routes only have a single operator, there is no competition, and in effect each company operates it's own monopoly. Running a single route with multiple operators vieing for slots would create a market, but also a legistical nightmare ('your train was deliberately running slow, so that mine missed it's allocated slot' etc). As such, no true market can be established. This will result in spiraling fairs for passengers, which can only be capped by central government capping fairs or creating quangos and fining offending companies. Unfortunately, as the network is essential, the government can't allow it to collaspe, therefore the regional monopolies can easily pay their shareholders, then run up operating losses which the state is forced to bail out.

Perhaps the think tanks think swing voters will be scared by the eyebrows. When Darling became Chancellor, I thought he was just a stooge for Brown to keep power in no.11. He looked as wet as a lemon in a monsoon, and I can picture him spending his spare time collecting train numbers or rare stamps. But to be fair to the chap he has actually started to muscle himself into a niche almostly playing Brown and King off against each other. Much as I couldn't bring myself to vote Labour, his quite, reasoned approach to running a economy in such turmoil has been a pleasant surprise. Perhaps I am wrong to judge Osborne (just as I was wrong to judge Darling), but frankly the though of Osborne mucking it up scares me (the Tories would have won this election already with Clarke in place IMO).

Absolutely. Although, the marked voting decline in safe Labour seats might also be reversed. Take for example Liverpool, where the turnout has dropped signficantly (Labour vote has dropped from c. 140,000 in 1992 to c. 100,000 in 2005). I imagine that one of the main reasons for the reduction in votes cast in Liverpool is due to the seats being very safe, so the voters realise that it doesn't matter whether they vote or not and would rather stay at home. Whereas in most safe Tory seat the turnout has not dropped significantly, mainly because many Tories see voting as their civic duty, and irrespective of whether it matters or not, will ensure that they make it to the poll booth. As such, reforming the system will make both Labour and Conservatives need the same number of votes to win a seat (benefiting the tories), but convesely the number of votes cast for Labour is likely to also increase. Of course the real winners would be the smaller parties, and of course democracy.

Problem is that premise might not be correct: Without English aid, but with all of it's share of the North Sea oil, Scotland would have a budget surplus of £837 million (in 2007-2008 ) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7465840.stm Does this mean that Scottish taxes are actually helping to keep English services running? I can't find any figures on Wales of NI, and can only assume that they are indeed net beneficiaries. However when counter balanced by the Scottish economy, you might find the economic impact on the English economy of all three countries becoming independent would be negligable.