Would you vote for Proportional Representation?

[Hibbyradge]

If we are given a referendum on full blown PR system, how would you vote?

I realise any referendum is unlikely to be as straightforward as this wee poll, but the result might be interesting.

[cockneymike]

Yes - I think that, although AV is not full blown PR, it is a step in the right direction of making sure people's voices are heard, yet also retaining the very important link between MPs and their consitituents.

Also important would be an elected upper chamber, and fixed term parliaments (although with the right of dissolution, under certain circumstances).

Although I do think that we would want to see a way of maintaining some of the strengths that the current set up of the House of Lords has. For example that so many experts and tremedously talented people from outside the traditional political world can be brought into it to share their wisdom. That is something that we don't want to lose if we can avoid it.

[hibsdaft]

it would be pretty funny after all this carry on if a the UK voted 'no'.

:greengrin

[Beefster]

I'm going for 82% 'yes', 12% 'no', 6% 'abstain'.

I used to think that the polls on here were relatively representative (perhaps they are for Hibs-related stuff) until the General Election voting poll, when we got it all wrong.

[Golden Bear]

It's First past the post for me every time.

PR results in little supported diddy parties having too much say in important national issues - especially when not one party has an overall majority.

PR can also lead to voter confusion and we only need to look at the last election for the Scottish parliament as a classic example of that.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm going for 82% 'yes', 12% 'no', 6% 'abstain'.

I used to think that the polls on here were relatively representative (perhaps they are for Hibs-related stuff) until the General Election voting poll, when we got it all wrong.

I did a few polls on here last year and although I disagreed with the majority opinion on most of the issues, I think most of the results were fairly representative of the national opinion, apart from the extremely high levels of support that the SNP seems to get on here and subsequently there is a large number of people who seem to be in favour of Scottish independence.

As for this particular poll, I am really in two minds.

I am in favour of FPTP because it generally produces an overall majority for one party so that the Government has a strong mandate for power. The situation we have just now, where it has already taken almost a week for the parties to agree on a deal, would become a regular occurrence after every single election if we scrapped the current system.

However, I am also in favour of PR because, as the name suggests, it represents the views of the whole nation more fairly. As someone who voted for one of the minor parties last week, I think it would make people engage more with politics because it would mean that even if you stayed in a constituency that was a stronghold for a particular party, if you didn't vote for that party, your vote wouldn't be wasted like it is just now.

All things considered, I would be inclined to support a change to PR because I think everyone's vote should count towards the overall result.

[Marabou Stork]

I am in favour of PR, but the system that we're going to get after Clegg's jumped into bed with the tories won't really change much at all.

http://i40.tinypic.com/28247ea.png

[Betty Boop]

I am in favour of PR, but the system that we're going to get after Clegg's jumped into bed with the tories won't really change much at all.

http://i40.tinypic.com/28247ea.png

Exactly. :agree:

[PeeJay]

I'm all for PR - here in Germany it has shown itself to be a workable and - generally excellent system. It was funny listening to all the dissers from the Tory party citing Belgium and Italy when mentioning how bad PR could be (instability, chaos), almost no-one mentioned the largest and most powerful country in the EU and its successful history with PR.

FPTP has generally brought about a stable government, but it did not really facilitate political consensus across the UK - too many swings from one political extreme to the other. Having to deal with coalition partners could actually help to alleviate the disenfranchisement of huge swathes of the populace?

After accepting PR - the next step has to be a republic of course, surely? :wink:

[Betty Boop]

I'm all for PR - here in Germany it has shown itself to be a workable and - generally excellent system. It was funny listening to all the dissers from the Tory party citing Belgium and Italy when mentioning how bad PR could be (instability, chaos), almost no-one mentioned the largest and most powerful country in the EU and its successful history with PR.

FPTP has generally brought about a stable government, but it did not really facilitate political consensus across the UK - too many swings from one political extreme to the other. Having to deal with coalition partners could actually help to alleviate the disenfranchisement of huge swathes of the populace?

After accepting PR - the next step has to be a republic of course, surely? :wink:

Which form of PR is used in Germany?

[Greentinted]

Which form of PR is used in Germany?

Mixed Member PR , similar to the AMS as employed in Holyrood

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation

[Betty Boop]

Mixed Member PR , similar to the AMS as employed in Holyrood

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation

Thanks for that. :greengrin

[hibbytam]

Yes, every vote should count.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think this is a strange thing to have referendum on, Why would staunch labour voters vote for PR? surely they would lose seats to the lib dems?

Exact same for the Conservatives, wouldn't they be voting away their parties strength?

True, but hopefully it will stop people voting for a certain part just because they have the majority and a vote for anyone else is a waste. Also means smaller parties like the snp and the greens have more of a say

[heretoday]

I'd vote for it but I wouldn't get excited about it.

[One Day Soon]

I think I'd rather vote to restrict the franchise than vote for PR. Actually after the way this election turned out I think we should probably restrict the franchise anyway.

[GhostofBolivar]

I did a few polls on here last year and although I disagreed with the majority opinion on most of the issues, I think most of the results were fairly representative of the national opinion, apart from the extremely high levels of support that the SNP seems to get on here and subsequently there is a large number of people who seem to be in favour of Scottish independence.

As for this particular poll, I am really in two minds.

I am in favour of FPTP because it generally produces an overall majority for one party so that the Government has a strong mandate for power. The situation we have just now, where it has already taken almost a week for the parties to agree on a deal, would become a regular occurrence after every single election if we scrapped the current system.

However, I am also in favour of PR because, as the name suggests, it represents the views of the whole nation more fairly. As someone who voted for one of the minor parties last week, I think it would make people engage more with politics because it would mean that even if you stayed in a constituency that was a stronghold for a particular party, if you didn't vote for that party, your vote wouldn't be wasted like it is just now.

All things considered, I would be inclined to support a change to PR because I think everyone's vote should count towards the overall result.

FPTP gives a false mandate for power. A government that wins 40% of the vote on a turnout of 75% has no mandate. It is ludicrously unfair that a government that 70% of the electorate did not vote for can have a majority of 100 in the House of Commons. On top of that, we have an unelected upper house. Peter Mandelson was the second most powerful man in the last cabinet and yet was unelected. Our government is made up by people who have no right to govern.

The UK's electoral system is probably the most undemocratic in the western world.

[--------]

I think this is a strange thing to have referendum on, Why would staunch labour voters vote for PR? surely they would lose seats to the lib dems?

Exact same for the Conservatives, wouldn't they be voting away their parties strength?



This is about democracy, and having an electoral system that results in a legislature fairly representing the views and wishes of the electorate.

Of course the big parties don't want it - it threatens their power-base and means that they might have to get their snouts out of the swill-trough now and again and let someone else have a go.

But why change the FPTP system when it's clearly been working so well for the past fifty years?

[The_Todd]

FPTP is a clearly undemocratic system.

Edinburgh South, for example, Labour got 34.7% of the votes, Lib Dems 34%, the Tories got 20-odd% and the SNP 7%

65% of the votes went against the winning candidate, yet he wins 100% of the representation for the constituency. How can you argue that 650 seats won in this manner clearly gives anyone a "clear" or "strong" mandate?

Nationally the Lib Dems gained 23% of the vote, but get 8.8% of the seats. The Tories get 36% of the vote and walk away with 47% of the seats? How does that give a refelection of the mood of the nation? The Lib Dems actually gained vote share this year, but lost their share of the seats. Disproportional representation, more like.

Another problem with FPTP is it encourages tactical voting because many people in their area feel that if they vote for a party which best matches their own beliefs, it won't count for anything. Not only will people not vote for who they actually want, they may not bother at all. Surely this is a situation which suits nobody?

[Hibbie0762]

Was it Winston Churchill who said that the UK's democratic system was the worst one possible - apart from all the rest? FPTP appears unfair on pure arithmetical grounds, but all of the systems currently in use - AV, STV, the SP's assisted places scheme, what have you - are inherently unfair in one way or another.

The choice is between a voting system which in terms of the pure math reflects exactly the proportions in which the electorate has voted, or one which produces a decisive result and a majority Government. PR produces the former - all very neat in arithmetical terms - but is pretty well damn all use in terms of running the country. FPTP tends to produce majority Government (there are rare exceptions :greengrin) but not a proportionate result in terms of votes cast, though it may well be proportionate in terms of voter intentions.

You pays your money and takes your choice. Are you happy with the fact that the Lib Dems as the third placed losers (votes cast as well as seats) have effectively picked the next PM? I doubt that many Lib Dem voters intended to vote Tory by proxy last Thursday. But that kind of tail wagging the dog is what you get pretty well all the time with PR.

So as I said at the start, FPTP looks superficially unattractive - until you start to look closely at the alternatives. I know that there are diehard PR zealots out there who are less concerned with how the UK is run than with ensuring that the sums are correct. But the rest of us, I suspect, would much rather see the firm smack of Government, even if it is the wrong colour. Committees of disparate interests are not much use at solving complex problems.

[The_Todd]

Was it Winston Churchill who said that the UK's democratic system was the worst one possible - apart from all the rest? FPTP appears unfair on pure arithmetical grounds, but all of the systems currently in use - AV, STV, the SP's assisted places scheme, what have you - are inherently unfair in one way or another.

The choice is between a voting system which in terms of the pure math reflects exactly the proportions in which the electorate has voted, or one which produces a decisive result and a majority Government. PR produces the former - all very neat in arithmetical terms - but is pretty well damn all use in terms of running the country. FPTP tends to produce majority Government (there are rare exceptions :greengrin) but not a proportionate result in terms of votes cast, though it may well be proportionate in terms of voter intentions.

You pays your money and takes your choice. Are you happy with the fact that the Lib Dems as the third placed losers (votes cast as well as seats) have effectively picked the next PM? I doubt that many Lib Dem voters intended to vote Tory by proxy last Thursday. But that kind of tail wagging the dog is what you get pretty well all the time with PR.

So as I said at the start, FPTP looks superficially unattractive - until you start to look closely at the alternatives. I know that there are diehard PR zealots out there who are less concerned with how the UK is run than with ensuring that the sums are correct. But the rest of us, I suspect, would much rather see the firm smack of Government, even if it is the wrong colour. Committees of disparate interests are not much use at solving complex problems.

So maybe we should just replace voting with a roll of a dice in favour of one party if the only aim is to get a majority government? In fact, why bother with democratic processes at all if the pesky electorate are getting in the way of majority government?

Surely just having a majority government shouldn't be a means to an end in itself?

[Hibbie0762]

So maybe we should just replace voting with a roll of a dice in favour of one party if the only aim is to get a majority government? In fact, why bother with democratic processes at all if the pesky electorate are getting in the way of majority government?

Surely just having a majority government shouldn't be a means to an end in itself?Come on, I clearly didn't say that. Rather I was making the point that voting systems were not just about delivering the desired result in terms of the arithmetic, but also about delivering the desired result in terms of the style of Government which voters prefer.

You have to be clear therefore what you mean by democratic process. I am looking at my Chambers 20th Century (a good Scottish dictionary) and it defines democracy as:


"a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people collectively, and is administered by them or by officers appointed by them: the common people: a state of society characterised by recognition of equality of rights and privileges: political, social or legal equality".

Nothing there about the specific voting system needed to deliver those worthy aims.

[PeeJay]

PR produces the former - all very neat in arithmetical terms - but is pretty well damn all use in terms of running the country.

Germany runs pretty well on PR - why do you assume it will be no good in the UK? :confused:

[Hibbie0762]

Germany runs pretty well on PR - why do you assume it will be no good in the UK? :confused:Germany as I recall operates a mixed member form of PR which is a bit PR with elements of FPTP to maintain that Constituency link. Someone will no doubt correct me if I have got that wrong. If you want another example though, what about Israel?

I am not assuming that PR will or will not work in the UK. I am just point out that voting systems are about more than simply the arithmetic. There is no doubt that pure PR will give Parties representatives in exact proportion to their votes. But it may not satisfy voters overall as to the kind of Government which it produces. Compromise politics are all very well, but too often voters get a committee-designed camel when they really need a horse. And the big ideas never come to life. As I said somewhere else, would coalition politics really have delivered the NHS or even Thatcher's economic restructuring (whatever one thinks of that)?

My position therefore is that if and when we have that debate on electoral reform (and from the details emerging, it is by no means clear that it will be a Cameron/Clegg priority) we need to focus on more than just arithmetic and proportionality.

And even if we do go for PR, what kind of PR? For example do we have, say, a 5% threshold to keep the Fascists and other nutters at bay? Or do we make it come one, come all? This is a complex subject and it needs a proper debate. There is no yes-no answer.

[PeeJay]

Germany as I recall operates a mixed member form of PR which is a bit PR with elements of FPTP to maintain that Constituency link. Someone will no doubt correct me if I have got that wrong. If you want another example though, what about Israel?

I am not assuming that PR will or will not work in the UK. I am just point out that voting systems are about more than simply the arithmetic. There is no doubt that pure PR will give Parties representatives in exact proportion to their votes. But it may not satisfy voters overall as to the kind of Government which it produces. Compromise politics are all very well, but too often voters get a committee-designed camel when they really need a horse. And the big ideas never come to life. As I said somewhere else, would coalition politics really have delivered the NHS or even Thatcher's economic restructuring (whatever one thinks of that)?

My position therefore is that if and when we have that debate on electoral reform (and from the details emerging, it is by no means clear that it will be a Cameron/Clegg priority) we need to focus on more than just arithmetic and proportionality.

And even if we do go for PR, what kind of PR? For example do we have, say, a 5% threshold to keep the Fascists and other nutters at bay? Or do we make it come one, come all? This is a complex subject and it needs a proper debate. There is no yes-no answer.

All fair points - I would suggest the German system would be a good one to follow, but there's no escaping the fact that someone somewhere will always view a particular system to be inherently unfair. A change in the political mindset in the UK could be brought about by the political parties being forced to enter into a consensus with other parties. To be honest though, even with a change to a PR system there is no guarantee that major problems can be solved - the bottom line is simply that bad politicians will deliver bad results.

[Hibbie0762]

All fair points - I would suggest the German system would be a good one to follow, but there's no escaping the fact that someone somewhere will always view a particular system to be inherently unfair. A change in the political mindset in the UK could be brought about by the political parties being forced to enter into a consensus with other parties. To be honest though, even with a change to a PR system there is no guarantee that major problems can be solved - the bottom line is simply that bad politicians will deliver bad results.I think you have hit the nub of it there - the UK has always favoured an adversarial system rather than a consensus one, and frankly it seems to work pretty well for us. Moving to a Parliamentary system which was all "after you, Claude" would be a very difficult cultural shift to make, I suspect.

Even though the Scottish Parliament was set up with a voting system designed to promote consensus, it is still pretty adversarial really. Maybe it is just in our national character to be an aggressive bunch and we quite enjoy doing politics that way. :greengrin

[HibsMax]

It's First past the post for me every time.

PR results in little supported diddy parties having too much say in important national issues - especially when not one party has an overall majority.

PR can also lead to voter confusion and we only need to look at the last election for the Scottish parliament as a classic example of that.

The Electoral College system in use over here (similar to FPTP) is the reason that Bush beat Gore.

So my vote goes for PR.

I've never understood how the winning party can actually have less votes than the 2nd placed party. Hey, who cares what the majority thinks? ;)

[Hibbie0762]

I've never understood how the winning party can actually have less votes than the 2nd placed party. Hey, who cares what the majority thinks? ;)You can't really deduce what the majority thinks or intends purely from the votes cast in a FPTP system, because it is an Electoral College and voters cast their vote both to get the individual candidate they want in their local Constituency and to contribute to what they want the governing Party to be. They are well aware that they are not casting their votes to be reflected exactly in the distribution of seats.

Of course the very sophisticated UK electorate often vote tactically to stop another Party winning so the whole thing becomes very complex. And largely unavoidable imbalances between urban inner city Constituencies and rural Constituencies skew the position further.

So PR is the system for the pure mathematicians among us. It is not however the system for those who want majority government. Is the question, does it matter whether the Government works so long as the votes are distributed exactly evenly? Or is it, does it matter whether the votes are distributed exactly evenly so long as the government works? You choose.

[Ryan91]

I voted Lib Dem at this last election, because that is the party that I feel represent my views best, they are a very strong party, 23% of people voted for them and get 57 seats, Labour get 29% (6% more of the vote) and win more than 250, to me that is un-democratic, pure proportional representation would not work, STV (Single Transferable Vote) would work as it works on a constituency based level is what the Lib Dems want, what the Tories proposed with the Lib Dems to form a coalition was a referendum on what is called the AV (Alternative Vote, effectively a mix-up between FPTP and PR), it's not a full PR system but really it's a step in the right direction, hopefully this can lead to bigger Liberal Democrat gains in future elections and a step toward an electoral system based around PR, not around some crappy system invented by the Victorians.

[GhostofBolivar]

Was it Winston Churchill who said that the UK's democratic system was the worst one possible - apart from all the rest? FPTP appears unfair on pure arithmetical grounds, but all of the systems currently in use - AV, STV, the SP's assisted places scheme, what have you - are inherently unfair in one way or another.

The choice is between a voting system which in terms of the pure math reflects exactly the proportions in which the electorate has voted, or one which produces a decisive result and a majority Government. PR produces the former - all very neat in arithmetical terms - but is pretty well damn all use in terms of running the country. FPTP tends to produce majority Government (there are rare exceptions :greengrin) but not a proportionate result in terms of votes cast, though it may well be proportionate in terms of voter intentions.

You pays your money and takes your choice. Are you happy with the fact that the Lib Dems as the third placed losers (votes cast as well as seats) have effectively picked the next PM? I doubt that many Lib Dem voters intended to vote Tory by proxy last Thursday. But that kind of tail wagging the dog is what you get pretty well all the time with PR.

So as I said at the start, FPTP looks superficially unattractive - until you start to look closely at the alternatives. I know that there are diehard PR zealots out there who are less concerned with how the UK is run than with ensuring that the sums are correct. But the rest of us, I suspect, would much rather see the firm smack of Government, even if it is the wrong colour. Committees of disparate interests are not much use at solving complex problems.

That's a wild misquotation although I like the way you warped it to support your own views. In that quote Churchill said nothing about the electoral system of the UK. What he said was:


No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

[--------]

Germany as I recall operates a mixed member form of PR which is a bit PR with elements of FPTP to maintain that Constituency link. Someone will no doubt correct me if I have got that wrong. If you want another example though, what about Israel?

I am not assuming that PR will or will not work in the UK. I am just point out that voting systems are about more than simply the arithmetic. There is no doubt that pure PR will give Parties representatives in exact proportion to their votes. But it may not satisfy voters overall as to the kind of Government which it produces. Compromise politics are all very well, but too often voters get a committee-designed camel when they really need a horse. And the big ideas never come to life. As I said somewhere else, would coalition politics really have delivered the NHS or even Thatcher's economic restructuring (whatever one thinks of that)?

My position therefore is that if and when we have that debate on electoral reform (and from the details emerging, it is by no means clear that it will be a Cameron/Clegg priority) we need to focus on more than just arithmetic and proportionality.

And even if we do go for PR, what kind of PR? For example do we have, say, a 5% threshold to keep the Fascists and other nutters at bay? Or do we make it come one, come all? This is a complex subject and it needs a proper debate. There is no yes-no answer.


THat's basically what we have in Scotland - I have a constituency MSP responsible for the local area, and list MSPs are there to ensure that the party representation in Holyrood reflects the overall voting pattern more accurately and faithfully.

I'd rather have this system than what's just happened - the new government being decided by an inner caucus of the leaders of the party that came third. After next year's Holyrood elections, we could see a Tory-Liberal alliance in Westminster, and a Labour-Liberal coalition in Holyrood.

Nick Clegg gets a job and a limo; we get David Cameron and the Tories. Liberal principles in action.

Grrrrr-eat! :rolleyes:

[Beefster]

THat's basically what we have in Scotland - I have a constituency MSP responsible for the local area, and list MSPs are there to ensure that the party representation in Holyrood reflects the overall voting pattern more accurately and faithfully.

I'd rather have this system than what's just happened - the new government being decided by an inner caucus of the leaders of the party that came third.

Nick Clegg gets a job and a limo; we get David Cameron and the Tories.

Grrrrr-eat! :rolleyes:

And you don't think that'll happen more often under all variants of PR?

[--------]

And you don't think that'll happen more often under all variants of PR?


It probably will - but with the prospect of a Parliament that accurately reflects the opinions of the electorate.

What we had here in Scotland was Gray and his cronies going round telling everyone to vote Labour "to keep the Tories out" - and what have we got?

A Tory government in Westminster, supported by Mr Facing-Both-Ways.

[Beefster]

It probably will - but with the prospect of a Parliament that accurately reflects the opinions of the electorate.

What we had here in Scotland was Gray and his cronies going round telling everyone to vote Labour "to keep the Tories out" - and what have we got?

A Tory government in Westminster, supported by Mr Facing-Both-Ways.

A coalition government consisting of 2 parties with 60% of the vote.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

I did a few polls on here last year and although I disagreed with the majority opinion on most of the issues, I think most of the results were fairly representative of the national opinion, apart from the extremely high levels of support that the SNP seems to get on here and subsequently there is a large number of people who seem to be in favour of Scottish independence.

As for this particular poll, I am really in two minds.

I am in favour of FPTP because it generally produces an overall majority for one party so that the Government has a strong mandate for power. The situation we have just now, where it has already taken almost a week for the parties to agree on a deal, would become a regular occurrence after every single election if we scrapped the current system.

However, I am also in favour of PR because, as the name suggests, it represents the views of the whole nation more fairly. As someone who voted for one of the minor parties last week, I think it would make people engage more with politics because it would mean that even if you stayed in a constituency that was a stronghold for a particular party, if you didn't vote for that party, your vote wouldn't be wasted like it is just now.

All things considered, I would be inclined to support a change to PR because I think everyone's vote should count towards the overall result.

Scotland is being ruled by a coalition that was not elected by Scotland. PR is a must, although I think the UK election system simply does not work where it involves 4 countries. Now that each area has it's own government or assembly, the general election is looking more and more ridiculous.

[--------]

A coalition government consisting of 2 parties with 60% of the vote.


And I'd guess that none of those who voted Liberal did so wanting Cameron as PM, and none of those voting Tory wanted the Liberals in the mix.

However, since we don't have fixed-term Parliaments, what Cameron will do is use the Liberals to get himself established, do nothing too unpopular for the first 6-9 months, and when the opinion polls look good he'll call another ection hoping to be elected with a proper Tory majority, and THEN we'll all be in the crapper.

And Mr Facing-Both-Ways will be out on his yellow Liberal backside.

[bighairyfaeleith]

And I'd guess that none of those who voted Liberal did so wanting Cameron as PM, and none of those voting Tory wanted the Liberals in the mix.

However, since we don't have fixed-term Parliaments, what Cameron will do is use the Liberals to get himself established, do nothing too unpopular for the first 6-9 months, and when the opinion polls look good he'll call another ection hoping to be elected with a proper Tory majority, and THEN we'll all be in the crapper.

And Mr Facing-Both-Ways will be out on his yellow Liberal backside.

Apparently they are introducing fixed term parliaments of 5 years a pop. Not sure if the tories can just call an election, unless they do so just before they pass the fixed term thing in parliament.

I'm sure they will find a way though if they want to

[HibsMax]

You can't really deduce what the majority thinks or intends purely from the votes cast in a FPTP system, because it is an Electoral College and voters cast their vote both to get the individual candidate they want in their local Constituency and to contribute to what they want the governing Party to be. They are well aware that they are not casting their votes to be reflected exactly in the distribution of seats.

Of course the very sophisticated UK electorate often vote tactically to stop another Party winning so the whole thing becomes very complex. And largely unavoidable imbalances between urban inner city Constituencies and rural Constituencies skew the position further.
Thanks but I knew that already. :wink: The same sort of tactical voting is very much in play over here.


So PR is the system for the pure mathematicians among us. It is not however the system for those who want majority government. Is the question, does it matter whether the Government works so long as the votes are distributed exactly evenly? Or is it, does it matter whether the votes are distributed exactly evenly so long as the government works? You choose.
Your question seems a little skewed and implies that PR works and FPTP doesn't....how do we know that before we try? To me I would like to see a government that both works and is an accurate representation of what the people want. Why can't we have both?

[Sir David Gray]

Scotland is being ruled by a coalition that was not elected by Scotland. PR is a must, although I think the UK election system simply does not work where it involves 4 countries. Now that each area has it's own government or assembly, the general election is looking more and more ridiculous.

It was a UK election last week, not a Scottish one. Whoever wins the UK general election rules over the whole country (Scotland included), not just certain select bits. There is a massive Conservative support in the south of England and yet they have been ruled by a Labour Government over the past 13 years, a government that was not elected by that part of the UK.

You could also say that the people in central Scotland (a Labour stronghold) have a Government at Holyrood just now that they didn't want. In any national election, there will always be areas that are strongholds for a party that doesn't win.

[The_Todd]

And I'd guess that none of those who voted Liberal did so wanting Cameron as PM, and none of those voting Tory wanted the Liberals in the mix.

However, since we don't have fixed-term Parliaments, what Cameron will do is use the Liberals to get himself established, do nothing too unpopular for the first 6-9 months, and when the opinion polls look good he'll call another ection hoping to be elected with a proper Tory majority, and THEN we'll all be in the crapper.

And Mr Facing-Both-Ways will be out on his yellow Liberal backside.

I suspect that the LibDem vote might collapse at the next election, as a lot of it is formed by either old Labour voters pre-SDP days, Labour voters who thought the Lib Dems were a viable centre-left alternative or Labour voters voting tactically to prevent a Tory win - none of these categories will be particularly pleased that their votes created a Tory government. Also how long before the first Lib Dem MP crosses the floor?

Of course, some Lib Dem voters will be entirely comfortable supporting the Tories and they'll either stick with the Lib Dems or maybe go all the way and get the blue rinse.

In all, if Labour choose the right leader who can energise and rid the party of some of it's more authoritarian policies then I don't think Labour will be out of power all that long.