Would not a UK Con-Lab coalition be more rational and more democratic than Con-Lib or Lab-Lib one?

Hear Hear! You make a valid suggestion because as you rightly say both these parties together have an overall working majority over ALL OTHERS and the UK voter seems to have ELECTED a Lab-Con coalition not a Con-Lib coalition, nor an exclusive Conservative government? That decision can not be reversed that is what has resulted As to the comment about the red and blue painting, are you not aware that the symbol of the United Kingdom is red, white and blue not just blue nor just red, and Brown has now stood down anyway?

Somebody says "it will never work" and "they are poles apart" but Conservatives are even more poles apart from Lib-Dems than from Labour but they seem to think a deal with them is on the cards "in the best interests of the British people" despite being poles apart? And it worked OK in WW2 which was a national emergency perhaps comparable to the present situation, yet some might say Chamberlain caused that, so it was wrong for Labour to united with the Conservatives for causing that in 1939? but anyway the banking crisis and credit crunch affecting the whole world was not caused by Brown or Major but was imported from mainly USA, and Osborne-Cameron was just as blind as to what was going to happen as was Brown, so they could be considered equally to blame if anybody in UK was, but hopefully both capable of learning from their own mistakes.

If any message was transmitted by the British voters this time it was a message of "no confidence" in any of the three main parties, but a majority clearly decided either a Labour or a Conservative government was in their best interests and the only major difference on the economy that emerged during leaders debates was that the Conservatives did not agree with putting Nat Insurance up, which they called "a job tax" and Labour wanted a longer period than Conservative before starting on the public expenditure cuts, both seemed to me to being more directed at vote grubbing than genuine conviction.. Surely if the two were in government together with a genuine wish to serve the best interests of the British people they could work out a formula to address these and other crucial issues together. But we have got to have a strong government now if the country is to be saved from going the same way as Greece and too many on Yahoo just do not seem to understand that.

I agree totally with questioner. Whether anybody likes it or not the British population have rejected Cameron's request for him to have an overall majority and rejected the return of a Labour government with am overall majority, nor do they want the Libs to govern on their own. It is clear that very many voters wanted there to be a hung parliament, so that is what we ended up with as the democratic decision of the UK population. It is indeed democratic in such a situation anywhere in the entire world that when that happens there will be a coalition government and it is clearly more rational for this to be comprised of the two parties that have the most MPs in the Commons rather than with parties having much fewer seats. So it is time this petty minded squabbling between Brown and Cameron was suspended until the serious problems facing our economy have been addressed by a government of national unity on behalf of the UK population until our economy is out of trouble again.

The issue is not the political difference between the Conservatives and Labour. Politically, the Lib Dems are probably to the left of Labour and Labour is the true centre party at the moment.

The real reason for there not being even thr prospect of a Lab-Con coalition is that these are the two biggest parties. If one becomes the government, the other becomes the government-in-waiting. Neither of them want the Lib Dems to become the main party of opposition.

I don't think so. The tribal nature of UK politics is such that labour are incredibly unlikely to form a coalition with a party that "got into bed with" their sworn enemies the tories. I'm not sure that labour have any more in common with LibDem than they do with conservative. Tory/UKIP, perhaps, but the nature of our electoral system is such that UKIP could have a huge increase in the number of people voting for them, yet still have so few (if any) seats that they would have little or no value as coalition partners. I'm not so sure that we won't get a majority. People seem to dislike the idea of coalition politics & I'd predict that most people will get behind whichever of tory & labour they dislike least. I wouldn't be surprised if both labour and tory increased their share of votes and seats in 2015. At the same time, I've always said that predicting the result of an election more than 6 months before polling day is folly.

I agree with you Wamibo. Kit Fang UR wrong. the country didnt vote for one party to be in power, but voted for many different parties and most of us wanted a hung parliament coz we had no confidence in either Brown or Cameron. So Cons and Lab should bury there differences anbd form a government of national unity also including Lib-Dems. I suppose we shuf have Cameron as leader of party withy most MPs being PM although I didna vote for the twerp. I could have voted Cons if Hague had been leader but cant stand Cameron either but Cameron got more votes than Brown or Clegg did but not enuff to rule supreme? So we returned a hung parliament democratically?

As a Conservative, I would like to point out that despite what the media might like to portray, there is a real difference between Labour and Conservative policies and ideology - the fact that people think there isn't shows how politically illiterate many in our society have become (I doubt most voters have ever even glanced at a manifesto, let alone read it). The Conservatives will not form a pact with Labour, they are even more opposed to working with Labour than they are to working with the Liberals.

Also, this idea that the British electorate has voted for a hung parliament is a load of crap. I didn't see a 'hung parliament' box on the ballot paper, and nor did anyone else. To treat the electorate like they have a single mind, and the reason we are in this mess is because everyone voted for it (as many politicians seem to believe) is just ridiculous. We are in this mess not because the electorate voted for it, but for a number of reasons, including it being a fact that it is easier for Labour to win than the Conservatives (thereby limiting the possibility of a Tory win, despite record gains) because of the concentration of the vote and other fun and vaguely mathematical reasons, and that no single party convinced the whole country. No one voted for a hung parliament, everyone voted for someone to win. To suggest that the electorate purposefully all colluded to create a hung parliament is stupid - we did not vote to not be dominated by one party, because the electorate is made of numerous individuals, not one collective idea.

Anyway, to form an alliance with Labour would never get the approval of either Labour MPs and members, or Tory MPs and members. They are just too different, and neither will want to work with the other (especially when you consider the huge loss of seats by Labour, and that Labour is to blame for the current mess, so are hardly the people to side with to sort it out). It's simply not going to happen.

Considering the problems that they are facing, you may have a point.

In some ways, such as Trident, the Conservatives and Labour are similar. But I doubt a pact would work as they are far too different on other issues.

Labour and Conservative would never join. It would be the same as if the two people campaigning for presidency both got in. Britain needs two or more choices to vote for. If they both had a coalition then the next election would seem silly.

I hadn't thought of that, but you're right - there's no clear distinction any more between the 3 main parties. THey're all slightly left or slightly right of centre (this is why I can't understand why people on here are so vociferous in their hatred of one particular party - none of them are the same as they were even 20 years ago, so it's pointless dwelling in the past).

Maybe this should be investigated by the Conservatives and Labour if the LibDems continue to blackmail the country.

Kit Fang is harbouring a delusion.

Democracy is the collectivisation of personal political opinion.

It is as if you had one child painting in red, and the next painting in blue. For as long as they are painting different pictures, then you get one red and one blue picture.

Now Teacher says - children must learn to share, so these two are given the same picture to paint. It may well turn out purple. The child with the red brush cries because it is ruined by not being the right colour, and so does the child with the blue brush.

Teacher goes - tut, tut, and instead of sorting it out herself, she gets a child with a yellow brush to help them with their picture.

The end result is what we have at the moment...

Brown