.

I voted Lib Dem, because first past the post is a joke of an electoral system and they are the only party offering true electoral reform. Since the Lib Dems lost, I'd rather see a stable government with good environmental policies and without any right-wing views on europe, defence, education etc. For me, the lib dem-conservation coalition is the best possible outcome: LDs couldn't have done it alone, cons are strong environmentally and both will have to sacrifice their more extreme policies.

I agree the lib dems should back the conservatives, too. The only other option to have any group with a parliamentary majority would be a labour-lib-SNP-plaid cymru coalition. That would be a joke, since SNP and Plaid Cymru are both special interest parties and every major issue in parliament would be held up by disproportionate consideration for Scotland and Wales. Much better to have a two-party coalition which can be decisive and where the terms of the coalition are clearly laid out in advance, without making unfair concessions to any tiny minorities.

The media have generally not known what to make of the whole situation. Some have been vilifying Gordon Brown, far more than he deserves, really stirring up hatred in the lowest possible way. The general tabloid attitude has been to divide the country as much as possible. The BBC have been remarkably useful, as nobody else really seemed to understand the intricacies of British political doctrine from the election until today.

It was about time Gordon Resigned, actually I think it was exactly the right time. Any earlier and we would have been in an unprecedented situation without any idea how to act, and any later would have made everyone look stupid by allowing the negotiations to continue ad nauseam. He may have a stupid face, the smile of a sex offender and the mannerisms of a goldfish swallowing a coconut, but Gordon Brown did do some bloody useful stuff in his career. Minimum wage, thanks very much G.

Nick Clegg has held up alright and has delivered what will probably turn out to be much closer to proportional representation than the electoral system was intended for. My policy position is actually somewhere in between the libs and conservatives anyway.
I actually think this could be an unusually fruitful coalition (but ask me again in 5 years time).

Well everything's changing so fast. I just went out for a couple of hours, saw this post and decided I need to check on the status of things, only to discover that David Cameron is the new Prime Minister :O.
I have a bad feeling about this. I voted Labour though so I'm biased I'm glad that finally a decision has been made but I would have rather seen a Lab-Lib government even if was unlikely.
I won't pretend to know much about politics but I did watch all the debates (the last was at my old uni, yay! I think Cameron was standing at the exact place where I sat my final exam :/) and just felt that what Cameron was saying was unrealistic and that he was hiding something. Any questions the other two asked him directly he seemed to deflect. I still not clear as to what exactly he intends to do to sort out the economy - all I got was "We need this," and "Labour was done that" and "13 years of Labour failure" and I though "okay, okay, we know all that, but what are YOU actually gonna do?" Gordon Brown did better than I thought he would but I think he likes his figures and stats a little too much (I like figures and stats too, but this might have alienated some people) and you sort of got a sense of him trying to say that things are already getting better or are better when clearly most of the public don't believe that. Nick Clegg held his own and I would have loved if his £10,000 tax free thing were actually possible but I just kept thinking "how on earth are you going to fund that?" I liked a lot of their other policies as well though many seemed too idealistic but as long as the Liberal Democrats remain pro-euro, I can never vote for them . And it was just too unsafe; if the country wasn't in such a bad state maybe more people would have given them a chance, but I think people wanted a party with experience in government (I believe Lib Dems did have experience, like many eons ago...)
So...overall I think Gordon Brown/Labour had the most meat in their arguments and Gordon Brown seemed the most knowledgeable when it came to the economy which is my primary concern (I mean without money, you can't do anything anyway) so I wanted Labour back in power as I felt this would be the most stable solution. Ah well.
As for how the media played it, I don't like how the villified Gordon Brown either and I think overall them and the public get too...emotional? favouritist? about the party leader. I feel people look at Gordon Brown and think "he has a stupid face, the smile of a sex offender and the mannerisms of a goldfish swallowing a coconut" (lol) and let that influence their decisions too much and don't look at actual policies. I might sound old-fashioned but it would be nice to see just an ounce more respect for the a guy who was once Prime Minister. It's not an easy job (look how many grey hairs he got since going into power). I felt the media were quite sensasionalist and as always just looking to make the events sound as dramatic as possible. I didn't like how all the negotiations went either, it all began to feel like a game to me. I pretty much suspect that it is.
Well, nothing I can do about it anyway. I'm not expecting great things from this coalition but I just hope that things don't get...worse :/

IceCream Wrote:In terms of who the lib dems should have backed, it's a kind of a sticky situation for them either way. yknow, i have voted for them in the past, but no way was i going to when Nick Clegg was clearly out for Gordon Brown's head, and i had no idea who they were going to back after the election. In a way, i think this is what caused the lib dems vote to collapse the way it did after their big gains in the opinion polls. I'm sure that kind of uncertainty would have caused some swing back to the 2 major parties.

Yah, I think any side he wouldv'e chosen was not going to be ideal. I think Lib-Lab would have had better chemistry but it would have looked bad on Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems to back a party that came second with such an unpopular leader.

IceCream Wrote:Let's hope that Clegg does soften the conservatives. Im particularly interested in what will happen with the economic situation, as i think the conservatives strategy is just absolute bs. Its been proven over & over again that their strategy tends to pull a country back into recession instead of helping growth. Can't say i'm particularly looking forward to the next few years. Oh well, i wanted to leave the UK anyway... :/

At least you know what their strategy is, I just got lost in all the talk :O

IceCream Wrote:As for Gordon Brown, he is easily the best prime minister i have ever lived under. i remember being reallllllly happy and hopeful when Labour got in in 1997.

LOL that's the first time I've heard anyone come right out and say that! Okay I have to admit Gordon Brown wasn't my favourite person I felt kind of...indifferent towards him, and during the debates he kind of grew on me. In terms of whether he was a good prime minister I don't think he was bad at all, just unlucky. Can't bame all the countries problems on him, he is just a person. And does the party ever stay in power when elections happen during times of hardship? It's just a shame he didn't have more charisma, people are a lot more forgiving of those who are charismatic/good-looking/good public speakers/good blaggers...

IceCream Wrote:There are many policies that Gordon Brown has made that have had a direct effect on my life, either in the past or now. Stuff like working family tax credits, help for single parents, the minimum wage, the winter fuel allowance, income support, reduced waiting times in the NHS... even the ability to go to a good university. i found this...

I wish more people would realise this, kept getting tired of hearing "13 years of failure" -_-

IceCream Wrote:And i think that he was a straightforward & decent politician and person. Certainly can't say that about Cameron. Actually, he scares me rather a lot.

Yah, I think that was part of the problem. Wasn't playing the game enough.
Cameron scares me too Just doesn't seem trustworthy. I count down to see how long it takes him to get the claws out...

IceCream Wrote:hahah but the thing about Gordon Brown calling that woman a bigot was funny!! i loved how the news channels really couldn't find much to say about it. I woulda thought it might actually have won him a few votes

LOL, that was hilarious (kinda embarrasing though. Gah) People are such hypocrites, they were like "oh he so terrible calling her that" like David Cameron and Nick Clegg never think anything like that in their heads...Again Brown was just unlucky (and perhaps a little careless

Man, IceCream has really gone way overboard with her alt accounts.

IceCream Wrote:id like to point out that im not not not nest0r!!!!!

no your wrong im Icecream!1 i admit it.

I was actually considering emigrating after finishing my degree (having never lived outside London, let alone the UK).

Cameron for PM has pushed this idea one step closer to reality..

I watch the channel 4 news every day too, not out of choice I might add but my housemate loves Jon Snow. Today was funny, I have to admit. The wedding flowers they superimposed were classic. And Jon's zany socks are always a light touch. Shame about the journalistic standards, but a bit of comedy never hurt anyone!

LOL was watching "the wedding" on channel 4 (and the bbc coverage AND itv, gah, too much news) loved the part were they were like to Cameron "when asked what you think is the funniest joke you said "Nick Clegg" or something along the lines.
Of course it all looks very friendly now coz they have to, put on a front of comaraderie, stability, etc, etc, but it would be very interesting to see how things are a year from now, if it even lasts that long. Divorce footage ahead? :p If the country state wasn't so effed up, I'd actually be quite excited about all the drama expected ahead. They're all trying to preach that this is a "new type of government" and "inovative" and that it's going to work but I reckon in their heads they're all thinking "Ah ****!" I think Clegg looked a little discontent and didn't do enough to hide it, but that could just be my eyes.
(this is gonna sound well dodgy, but I noticed Cameron and Clegg kept...touching each other...were they told to do this by some psycho-analytic body language team, or slightly overdoing the new found intimacy thing? (don't blame me for thinking this way, blame Jon Snow and his "getting into bed with the Lib dems" comments I keep hearing :3)

@aphasiac: lol, don't start packing yet, give him a chance, you never know not that I didn't feel a cloud of dread walking in Conservative Britain for the first time in my living memory (I can only remember as far back as John Major's resignation) but things were never going to be wonderful whoever is in power.

In NZ we have proportional representation, and the country is quite split on weather it's been good or bad. We're actually holding a referendum to coincide with the next election, to see if we want to change.

The system we have is MMP. It's unlike AV, because you only have one vote. But the entire countries votes are added up, and seats are dished out according to a parties share of the vote. So if a party gets 10% of the votes, they get 10% of the seats.

I personally don't like it. While it might give fairer representation, it means that governments always need support of the minor parties. We actually haven't had many coalitions, the smaller parties just pick a side to support, so we just have minority governments. However, the government is strongly influenced by it's support partners. Here, this means that Labour have to keep the Greens happy, and National (our conservative party) have to keep ACT (our libertarian party) happy. It certainly doesn't make the governments more stable or more centrist. Quite the opposite.

I don't really know how it would pan out in the UK, but it could be detrimental to the lib dems. We had a party before MMP which was similar in a similar position, called The Alliance. In the last election before MMP, they had 20% of the vote, but only 2 seats. When MMP came along, people voted in similar numbers, but soon they realised that Labour was struggling against the minor parties, and started losing votes. Now The Alliance is of parliament. The same happened with other parties too.

If proportional representation were introduced, there would likely be an influx of new parties, like there were here. With the lib dems not really holding a solid position (far left, centre left, centre right, far right), I'm not sure if they'd survive after several elections. If NZ is anything to go by, they won't. But I know Germany manages to keep a decent selection of parties in power, although I don't know enough to say if they're stable or not.

I'll be voting to change the electoral system at the referendum. Then at the election after that, they're going to have a referendum over what to change the system to. I'll probably be voting to change it back to FPP. But I've got 5 years to make up my mind

Take that, UK! So much for your little empire, ha ha ha.

Hmm, did I miss the moment for that?

We're all DOOOOOOOOMED

I'm a bit older, I remember the last Tory government. It was bad and I remember the excitement of 1997. But then it all changed when less than a year later Labour removed free education, and suddenly I had to pay £3,000 to go to uni, when my brother and sister went for free.

Does anyone really believe that video posted above? Crime cut by a 3rd..seriously? And sorry but fuel allowance and minimum wage are totally overshadowed by the £1billion+ being spent every year killing innocent people, in an invasion that even the foreign office's own lawyers have declared completely illegal.

Our benefit system is totally broken. 2.6million people are claiming incapacity benefits, in a country of 61 million with a working population of 3 6m. Does that sound right to everyone - Almost 10% of adults in Britain are so badly disabled that they cannot possibly find any type of work? Doesn't ring true here.

Finally the NHS is fantastic, but mainly when you're seriously ill. But try getting a GP appointment at short notice, or any kind of physiological help (4-12 months waiting list, after which you probably no longer need the service). Oh and try finding a good dentist on the NHS, one who isn't either not accepting new patients or who isn't rushing you out of the door after 10 minutes.

phew [/rant] - but still once I graduate, maybe move overseas. Japan isn't realistic, so maybe somewhere in Europe or Canada.

@aphasiac I agree that free university education is nice, but it's a waste of public money. Attending university and applying yourself to your studies is a good way to increase your future earning and quality of life. If people are allowed to go to uni for free, combined with interest free loans for living, it's basically a much worse form of benefits. Huge swathes of students do sweet F.A. at uni and waste public money in the process. People wanting to go to uni can so so at their own (much delayed) expense, which they can offset against future earning potential. Working hard is then encouraged.

Blahah Wrote:@aphasiac I agree that free university education is nice, but it's a waste of public money. Attending university and applying yourself to your studies is a good way to increase your future earning and quality of life. If people are allowed to go to uni for free, combined with interest free loans for living, it's basically a much worse form of benefits. Huge swathes of students do sweet F.A. at uni and waste public money in the process.

The system worked before 1997/8! It would work as long as universities are strict - you work or you get kicked off the course. Now there is money involved, uni's seem to be alot more reluctant to fail people..

Blahah Wrote:People wanting to go to uni can so so at their own (much delayed) expense, which they can offset against future earning potential. Working hard is then encouraged.

Higher future earnings means you pay more tax over your lifetime. Should pay for itself in the long run.

IceCream Wrote:but, why isn't Japan realistic??

Because I can't speak Japanese ! Plus my line of work is video games, and Japan isn't exactly short of nerdy programmers..

aphasiac Wrote:The system worked before 1997/8! It would work as long as universities are strict - you work or you get kicked off the course. Now there is money involved, uni's seem to be alot more reluctant to fail people..

This doesn't work, and never did. The reason people can coast along without doing any work is that universities as a collective can't exclude people who have worse educations or aren't as intellectually able. Some can, but in general universities have to cater for everyone. As a result getting a 3rd, 2-2 or even a 2-1 is pathetically easy at almost any university. Student life is largely about wasting time, getting drunk etc. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone, but it does to a significant proportion of people.

aphasiac Wrote:Higher future earnings means you pay more tax over your lifetime. Should pay for itself in the long run.

That assumes you're going to stay around and pay taxes in your home country. It also puts the burden of a potential future boost for you on today's taxpayer. Make no bones about it - you are the only person who definitely stands to benefit from you getting a degree and doing well. What about people who drop out? Should the tax payer fund their indecisiveness as a gamble on future tax revenues?

The private model of university funding works, really well. America has been doing it for a long time.

@shihoro that's kind of my point: students don't work hard, take pointless degrees and get out into the labour market with pretty much nothing to offer. By providing free or heavily subsidized uni we are effectively giving people a free pass to do nothing. If students have to borrow in order to bear the full financial burden of their own education it's an incentive to work hard and make something of yourself.

Also bear in mind that repaying student loans is really not a big burden on most people. You don't pay anything at all if you're earning under 15k, and over 15k you pay back a tiny percentage of your pay each year, interest free. It's not the same now as it is for people who graduated 15+ years ago.

I agree that the stupid idea of getting 50% of young people to go to university has left a generation of under educated graduates in non-subjects. I just don't think it's an argument for free or cheap uni - that kind of system is too open to lazy abuse.

Coming from someone who is about to start uni in Scotland (free):

Due to a) university being free up here, and b) not as many jobs being available, most students are going to uni when they leave school. This massive increase in applications for uni has led most of the major universities to cut back on the number of students they will accept. If university was not free, I can tell you right now: most of the people in my year would not be going.

Now, I won't argue against the fact that getting your tuition paid for you is nice. And for the students who will actually work hard and end up using their degree some day, it's probably worth it. I'm an American by birth, and the university fees I would have to pay if I were still living there are gastronomical. However, that at least makes people think twice about going to uni. Yes, my parents are loving just having to pay for my accommodation, but if Scotland made students have to pay for uni like England does, the funds could probably be SO much better spent.

My take on tuition fees is that the path of "more graduates funded by having them pay for it" tends to mean that the people going to university are likely to be biased towards those from reasonably well-off middle-class backgrounds who feel confident about getting a reasonable job afterwards and less worried about the prospect of four-figure debts. I think it would be better to try to aim to bias university intake towards those people who'd benefit from it most; this means dumping the idea of a 40 or 50% target...

On the election itself, as a LibDem supporter I'm treating this as my team having finally won :-) I think you need changes of government occasionally just so Party B can get rid of some of the more outrageous things Party A implemented, and vice-versa. (It looks like we'll be getting rid of ID cards, for instance.)

I did feel a peeved at having my post box at university being bombarbed with fliers from the Lib Dems, whose contents completely revolved around the premise that, as a student, I'm apparantly against student fees by default... Maybe I'm just selfish but I'd rather not pay for all other people's higher education if it just constitutes a few years of partying and some "spiritual awakening" of attending an academic institute. It's already cheap compared to other nations anyway. As previous people have said, there number of quality jobs aren't going to increase by putting more young people through the degree mill.

I would like to see a progressive, economically liberal government in power, but I feel some of the progressive policies which I approve of the Lib Dems for will be quashed by those of the Conservatives which seem more knee-jerk-ish and lowest-denominator pandering in comparison. I'm afraid I'm too young to remember Conservative rule (apart from seeing John Major on TV once or twice when he was PM) and don't know the first thing about economic theory, so I can't really comment on their economic policy... I doubt much will really change at any rate. Though a smaller public purse would be nice.

Bleh, I hate politics.