Comments for en-gb 30 Sat 23 Aug 2014 10:42:44 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at John Ellis Megan has a different type of community one that i to love but in the building of this international community we have let our local communities rot. we live on top and next to each other in little boxes but generally don't know the inhabitant of the box next to our little box.My Mrs just got nominated for a national award for the work she/we/the community has done in the last few months. Down to 3 from 10,000 this is how our big society will be lots of little societies getting to know each other. WE had to start doing it for ourselves a long time ago we live with the cuts and the loss of service already and have done for countless years. In some ways life becomes so much easier as everyone knows someone who can fix x,y,z or help with x,y,z government and councils cant do that. Tue 18 May 2010 13:56:06 GMT+1 Megan I am somewhat younger that Mr Wood, but I understand what he's saying... even if I do not totally agree. In his more leisurely age, would I have been able to spend so many holidays in Greece that I've fallen for the place, learned the language and intend to move there sooner or later? Unlike him, I'm useless with cars but I can build and rebuild my computer so that it does just what I want... and make websites sing. I too cherish time to get to know people and places and to share ideas with like-minded folks... what matter that my friends are in the USA, in Australia, in South Africa, all over Europe? With the Internet I can share material with a far wider range of folks than if I had to go meet them or write a letter every time there was something new to share. And I may be younger than Mr. Wood, but my hair is grey. Tue 18 May 2010 10:24:31 GMT+1 John Ellis #Polly_gone 'What a thoroughly inspiring read. I found myself nodding through every point made. We are "travelling through life" so much faster that we cannot see the scenery, cannot collect the moss that is the bedrock of life. Our thirst cannot be assuaged anymore, as we consume more than we can ever taste let alone enjoy.'Could not agree more.It does take tremendous effort to return society or at least parts of it back to a caring sharing society. We have just spent the last 6 months building a community allotment that returns the taste of life to our community. Allows them to slow down meet and enjoy each others company. This one hopefully goes live and opens to the public next month if we can find someone to lay the flags on the site :D. then a month later a Big lunch.Id ask Mark along to the opening but its only little society... and not the big robust Big Society that is apparently needed to fix the inequalities of this little isle. Sat 15 May 2010 09:29:48 GMT+1 polly_gone #47 Peter WoodWhat a thoroughly inspiring read. I found myself nodding through every point made. We are "travelling through life" so much faster that we cannot see the scenery, cannot collect the moss that is the bedrock of life. Our thirst cannot be assuaged anymore, as we consume more than we can ever taste let alone enjoy. We cannot see what makes something work as so many products are "use until I break" designs. So we curse and throw.But, as much as the evil-doers try (whoever they are), we still have ourselves, and we can always control our minds as you so richly demonstrate. And that, my friend, is something that must never be destroyed. What we have misplaced in the last few generations we can, if we really wish, roll back. It will take enormous effort to recover what we have already thrown away, but it can be done.May you live to write many more profound pieces. Sat 15 May 2010 07:35:17 GMT+1 Peter Wood I was interested in the original comment re the desire for change. I am eighty, expatriate, apparently still entitled to vote though no-one ever contacts my wife and me, or our children (all British citizens by birth) to tell us how and for whom we can vote. Did I want "change"? Yes, but a regressive one. When we left England in 1966 for canada, our world was one in which we ahd a fair measure of control over our surroundings. If household objects went wrong, I could put them right. If my car malfunctioned, I could take it apart with hand tools which I or anybody could use, and get it running well again. And so it went. Now in this age of solid-state electronic devices, I can neither see how it works orrepair it myself. One must Remove and Replace. I and ny family, my society, my world, are far less powerful with respect to our surroundings than we were fifty years ago. What have we gained as our share of this Faustian bargain? Pray tell me, for I do not know. The ability to talk to half the world at will? What have I to say to them, or they to me, that could not be said more clearly and effectively by mail? The ability to travel at nearly the speed of sound, so I can be in Europe this evening, and Sydney tomorrow? Fifty years ago I could travel by ship and train, and take ten times as long with that much more time in which to think over what I intended to say and do at my destination, meanwhile enjoying the travelling for its own sake. I had time to see, to talk, to find out where I was. On arrival, I was more than I had been at my departure. Now, I am the same, or perhaps less than I was, for a jet-liner cramps the soul as well as the body. So the change I would have sought was reversion, not "progress". Was this wrong, as well as impractical? Sat 15 May 2010 06:03:54 GMT+1 polly_gone @BobRocketI totally agree with "do as I do" and suggest that our police enter a coalition with the drug barons to batter out a deal that leaves "well" alone but does uncover and deal with some of the more distasteful by products of trading - human trafficking, child abuse and prostitution, gun law, petty theft and so on.It would be a major step towards treating people as adults instead of drawing lines in the sand that only last as long as the next incoming tide. It may also do tobacco and alcohol a few favours too if there was a modest tax on substances.Conservatives having the audacity? That would be something! Sat 15 May 2010 05:26:10 GMT+1 BobRocket #43 CCYes but that was 2005 when he was allegedly 'still a pot-head' and not a contender, I imagine the blue-rinse brigade is currently having kittens now they realise that 'Nice Boy David' is no better than those 'Liberal' hippies who caused so much trouble in Savernake Forest a few years back, and what is worse is that he is in bed with them right now. Fri 14 May 2010 22:44:37 GMT+1 BobRocket #43 CC@#42 I was trying to be a bit circumspect there.Have you seen who our new Home Secretary is ? Theresa May (bring back that that liberal Jaqui Smith :)She has her hobby horse as 'Elected Chief Constables', most CC's are accountable to their local police authority who have a history of pulling them up short. What people want from a Home Secretary is for murderers and rapists to be locked up and tracked when they are released to prevent re-offending, something which is outside the remit of Chief Constables but within the remit of the HS.Still I live in hope that someone in the Home Office (a career civil servant facing redundancy in the impending cuts) points out her inconsistencies and points her in the right direction, ie. most of the people in this country are law-abiding and good citizens.We are very tolerant of mis-behaviour in this country (tabloids excepted) and do not want draconian legislation to incriminate the vast majority for what is in reality anti-social behaviour.We want serious crimes (white collar as well) dealt with first and foremost, most minor crimes can be dealt with by social exclusion, moral outrage etc. however the morality of the nation is driven by those in power.We need 'do as we do' not as we have had in the past (one hand on an expense pad) 'do as we say' Fri 14 May 2010 22:33:27 GMT+1 John Ellis BobRocket in 2005 Dave C was all for Cannabis and wanted the UN to change the law in view to decriminalizing/legalising. Cameron, the Tory leadership contender, believes the UN should consider legalising drugs and wants hard-core addicts to be provided with legal "shooting galleries" and state-prescribed heroin.Wonder were he stands now with a cannabis market worth 40 billion over the fixed parliament. Fri 14 May 2010 22:01:20 GMT+1 BobRocket Mark,when do you think we will see some movement from the new government regarding the advice given by the ACMD as both parties in the coalition (Con & LibDem) have markedly different manifesto commitments to the previous (Lab) government ? Fri 14 May 2010 16:49:52 GMT+1 John Ellis TY Polly_gone :D it is fitting for the outcome. Its going to be an interesting few years especialy on indervidual rights and the recending of laws. I know that people like myself are going to make themselves heared, were tired of being ill and having to live like a criminal percicuted by the state becuause our medicine isnt in the hands of the tax man and pharmacutical companys..As we flush so much paper down the drain should it not be made of a more sustainable and chemicaly cheaper pulp than wood....? Same with school books...4 times for the same price of wood pulps... Fri 14 May 2010 14:09:37 GMT+1 polly_gone #37 Community CriminalLate arrival here, but I do like your comment and I can confirm that Conservative Central Office does have some yellow toilet paper. Fri 14 May 2010 06:52:34 GMT+1 Rachel Shafto I'm glad I stumbled across this article! To be honest, my husbands grandfather was the guy who 'invented' vox-pop interviewing and I was googling that (he died recently so we were looking up some stuff about him). Anyway, Arthur (Grandad) was pretty opinionated by the sound of things and I'm sure he'd have something to say. It's about time politicians sat up and listened instead of treating us like children who don't know any better. Maybe this will be the kick up the bum our MPs need! Thu 13 May 2010 18:03:13 GMT+1 John Ellis Why Marijuana Is Not A Drug good example of people powerthe recognising of the sick who pharma have failedthe recognising of the adult populus that dont see alcohol as a way to enjoy ones selfand a massive stride forward in true drug education.Sound like the fundamentals of a big society a fair society. Thu 13 May 2010 10:51:37 GMT+1 John Ellis the big blue dog has a bright yellow muzzle... Wed 12 May 2010 19:50:22 GMT+1 desabled five days after the election and it seems we have twins at no.10clegg should join the tories, he clearly is oneI DIDN'T RENEW MY LIBDEM MEMBERSHIP WHEN HE BECAME LEADERIF CLEGG IS HONEST HE SHOULD JOIN THE TORIES IT IS WHAT HE IS! Wed 12 May 2010 10:13:25 GMT+1 jon112dk 30 million voted. Nick Clegg decided who would be the next government.What a mandate. (...and lets be clear, this time last year I would have been very happy to see the back of labour) Wed 12 May 2010 09:23:03 GMT+1 JacqueS This post has been Removed Tue 11 May 2010 09:33:54 GMT+1 David Morley I am a "floating" voter, having voted differently at the last two general elections. I have also lived in Ireland for a while, and I found their Single Transferable Vote system seemed to work well. For the House Of Commons, I would not support PR, as I believe it gives undue weight to minorities. But why not have an elected upper House of Lords? Having STV for the lower house would give a fairer system, but with a measure of stability, and the upper (scrutinising) house with PR would be able to reflect better the population's views. Would the Conservatives accept this? Mon 10 May 2010 15:25:50 GMT+1 DibbySpot Once you accept the premise that Politicains are power hungry scum out for self aggrandisement the choice is easy - none of them has power or make them all work together to deliver the best result.If they screw it up they lose elections for years to come. Mon 10 May 2010 11:48:16 GMT+1 aristotles23 I think we got the result we wanted,and contrary to what Mark says,I think that we told the politicians that we do not quite trust any one party to govern but seek disparate ideologies to find some sort of consensus and lay it before us.The zeitgeist is clear,a move away from the old style of one party rule,towards more consensual politics.Amazing how a nation can achieve this kind of result without planning it as such.Lets just hope that we do not get gerrymandered into accepting something other than that which we have wished for.Nick could end up being Gordon to Dave's Tony,in other words,doing a deal to let Dave into No 10,with the caveat that Nick gets to divide Dave's cabinet in half by bringing in Vince etc.Its hard to imagine Dave going for that though,I think Dave will make promises to Nick to bring Liberals into a Conservative government,but that he will scatter them far and wide into fairly powerless jobs if he can.I personally did not like the idea of a coalition,but the electorate have decided(most of them),so we should accept that with good grace and seek to move forward from here. Mon 10 May 2010 09:31:53 GMT+1 John Ellis oh well Ubiquity heres to another tommorow when ever it arrives Sun 09 May 2010 22:34:47 GMT+1 Ubiquity @27/28 CC everythings all snafu ( cause to be in a state of complete confusion )music maestro pleaseBob Marley & the Wailers “Come We Go Burn Down Babylon”Bob Marley – Jammin’ [Dub] Sun 09 May 2010 20:30:29 GMT+1 John Ellis This post has been Removed Sun 09 May 2010 14:02:44 GMT+1 John Ellis This post has been Removed Sun 09 May 2010 13:25:26 GMT+1 GeoffWard There is a telling parallel between Gordon Brown, holed-up in Downing Street, and ex-President Zelaya of Honduras, who holed-up in the Brazilian Embasssy. Zelaya's damage to his home nation pales into insignificance compared to the Scotsman's damage to the UK. Eventually, Zelaya's support drifted away from him after the electorate showed a distinct majority vote for the Opposition. The same will happen to Brown as the British public turn against him for trying to hold onto Downing Street when he is observably no longer wanted.The public call in Britain should be to throw him out; Brasil should have done the same to Zelaya - unfortunately the left-wing brotherhood in South America/Central America allows illegal acts to take place with impunity. Lets hope the left-wing socialist brotherhood don't similarly corrupt British politics by grabbing power and doing Zelaya-type 'modifications' so they can never be got rid of. Sun 09 May 2010 12:43:35 GMT+1 corum-populo-2010 The election result has shocked, surprised and possibly annoyed the politicians?Well, that's bad news for them, but good news for the voters.Now let's hope they know how it feels to be dominated and pushed around for a change? Sun 09 May 2010 09:54:13 GMT+1 OldAnarchist Excellent article Mark. I feel the uncertainty surrounding the current scenario is much over-emphasised tough. Countries with hung parliaments usually manage fine and I do not believe the UK will be an exception.. it's just unusual here so it's freaking British citizens out (I lived in Canada for a long while and believe me, the situation is nowhere near as dire as it sounds!)It will be interesting to see what Lib Dems do now though - for Clegg's party the question is who can offer them the best deal. LD will definitely be able to negotiate more aggressively with Labour who is placed the worst of the major parties. Given that the majority would prefer the Tories though, tactically the move may not serve him well in the long run.I loved this satirical UK election cartoon I found a link to on Rory Cellan-Jones's blog - for me it summarised the popular sentiment of the British public toward all the major parties at present.I can only hope that we take this opportunity to push for electoral reform in UK. At least 1 good thing can still come out of this situation. Sat 08 May 2010 21:07:03 GMT+1 Norbert Mbu-Mputu LET'S BE HONEST!I am very surprising and started asking myself if some people have something particular against G. Brown; especially some medias. What I read this morning shocked me... portraying Brown as a Scottish... squatter... who must give the key to the winner... If I understand the British Constitution, as explained by all the specialists, there is no winner after this election. British people did not trust and give their confidence to any of the leaders.If one of them was the winner, why he did not got the requested seats ?... It is not for Brown to go, but for any other to be able to win, or they are all the looser. How could we forgot that during the last days of the campaign, Tories campaigned very hard to avoid the hung parliament... and, now, we got it. It is them who are the real looser!... How will they tie this alliance with the Lib-Dem?... I am laughing myself again... Lib-Dem, a bid disillusion and they are also the real looser again... they did not believe in themselves that they just have 50 seats... Brown... had the big problem of dealing with the 13 years of the Labour and the Blair war heritage! We need really to have more respect for him as he tried very hard to move the economy forward... really... The reality of the election is that everyone has lost, started first by the Tories who did not secured their seats and got what they did not wanted and expected, the Lib-Dem also. As for Labours, everyone new that they would not win... It was an impossible mission for them.So, just to be honest... The Constitution has not been made by Brown and by Labours... Brown is just doing what the Constitution requests him to do, and now we all need to wait and to see how will be the now coalition and especially how it will work.Incredible how journalists and some analysts could not help us to understand where, why, how we are where we are. According to the now constitution, there is no winner... It is not Brown who is locked the 10 Downing Street doors, but British decided to lock it and the strong message is that, if they were all serious, all the main leaders need to resign and to call for another election, where they all would not been any more candidates, as they have not been able to convince British that they could run the country and to have the majority of seats. Like Brown or not, like the Labour or not, like the Tory, Lib-Dem or not, the message is clear: according to the Constitution, there is no winner. We need to stop talking about the number of the seats, the numbers of the electors, etc… JUST TO BE A LITTLE HONEST. We hope that the respectable journalists Jeremy Paxman and Andre Marr, to name just few of them, will help all of them to understand this reality. Sat 08 May 2010 21:04:06 GMT+1 JorgeG The contradictions are endless, but they are reinforced and replicated by the political parties, none more so than on the key issues of immigration and Europe:As far as immigration is concerned you have a complex interaction of contradictions, for example between the (predominantly white British) powerful fat cats managing British plc, who want as much cheap labour as they can get, and the working classes who feel that they are priced out of the job market by immigrants who are both (generally) more hard working (because they have no other choice) and are happy to work for less, or between British populace's endless demand for curry, chinese and a long etc. of restaurants and take-aways - of course run by immigrants - and their collective visceral rejection of immigrants (talking about the majority). That is without going into the issue of an NHS and elderly care infrastructure which have immigrants as their workhorses (managed of course by white British people, in general, at the top).As far as Europe is concerned, the contradictions are more laughable still. If there was tomorrow a referendum about whether the UK should remain in the EU or leave, it is odds-on that the British people would vote to stay in the EU, yet they refuse to accept that the EU is, by its nature, a moving process of European integration, and also refuse to accept the main pillars of this process of integration, i.e. the euro (admittedly in a bit of turmoil at the minute) and Schengen (i.e. the border union) which results in a Kafkaesque situation, endorsed by the political elite, of this country being the only member of an EU that only exists in history books, as the current EU is inextricably linked to its basic integration pillars, basically currency union and border union. Sat 08 May 2010 18:02:44 GMT+1 Kit Green I believe that most voters choose their party in the same way as they choose their football team. Sat 08 May 2010 16:00:39 GMT+1 Megan The 'party' system is the bit that's really archaic. As athom points out (#19) every voter can - if he wants to - go through all the manifestos to see which party is the 'best fit'... all too often the 'least worst fit'... with his own opinions, and hence make his choice.But when you listen to people talking politics amongst themselves, it's not party politics you hear, but views on specific issues. We have moved on from the monolithic 'my party right or wrong' approach, but the politicians have not.PR is not going to solve that, nor any other tinkering with the voting system. PR actually strengthens the 'party' idea, as the party gets to choose who goes to the head of their list and if the electorate prefer the bloke at #11 over the one at #1, tough cheddar. The bloke at #1 is still the first elected. Yes, it may mean that minority parties do get heard (hence I have a BNP member as one of my region's MEPs - *hawk spit* but someone voted for him!) so some issues will get an airing provided there's a single-issue party there to represent them.What might is a return to the concept of the MP acting as a representative of his constituency and speaking with its voice. I feel rather sorry for mine, he's likely to get a lot of e-mails informing him of what I'd like him to say and how I want him to vote. Obviously I'm only one of many, but if the many speak up it will become apparant what the will of the constituency as a whole happens to be. Sat 08 May 2010 12:49:17 GMT+1 athom Thank you Mark for highlighting that the public does not act as one - we have just seen "tens of millions of different acts". Having just read the BBC article 'Election Analysis - Deal making time' I was very annoyed to read the Tory MP comment that "the party offering PR just came third, why should we agree to something the voters have just rejected". If the only item that had been on all the manifestos had been electoral reform then I could agree that this would show that the public did not want a PR voting system. But lets not forget that:1) There are many different items on manifestos and each person makes a decision based on what items on the manifesto they regard as being most important, and not everyone will believe that electoral reform is the most important issue to vote for but this does not mean that they do not consider it of importance.2) No referendum has yet asked the public what type of voting system they would like - Lib Dems laid out some ideas about what type of system they would like. I am sure the people of Britain do want change but not everyone agrees with the changes laid out by Lib Dems and so did not vote for this model. Perhaps the confused message from voters is because they want change, and it is not that they "do not know what kind of change they want", but that for very few the manifestos showed the change they actually want.Arguably, yes Britain has shown itself to be "politically tribal" in this election but if Britain had, for example a single tranferable vote electoral system I think we would see this change very quickly! Sat 08 May 2010 10:56:49 GMT+1 Ubiquity @17CC As in other speculative fiction, free will is not an ... The landscape has trees, caves. There are wild animals. ... and I see in it little but a reworking of a tiresome science-fiction cliché - a hive ... 'is she turning into Doris Lessing, from feminism to sci-fi daffiness?...... to be gulled into a world of walking trees and talking lions. ... ... Sat 08 May 2010 02:12:07 GMT+1 John Ellis just been chatting on FB and this came to mind its so fitting to todays climate. Trees. Fri 07 May 2010 22:37:22 GMT+1 Peter Mersaton An intriguing day indeed - it was funny to watch the initial reactions of the commentators to the exit polls. Most refused outright to believe the numbers, citing the inaccurate numbers from 1992. The low Libdem result, especially, threw everyone off.My feeling was that polling accuracy has gone up a lot since then, and indeed the numbers are pretty much spot on. Personally, I think the FPTP system is really showing its age and we can't go on ignoring it and still present ourselves as a legitimate democracy.P. Fri 07 May 2010 20:21:54 GMT+1 tc's an interesting one. The voters wanted CHANGE.....mainly on Immigration and Europe and the respective three parties offered CHANGE but did not elaborate what that actually meant in real money.....just Change , change, CHange, ChAnGe,, CCHange. Tonight all three leaders will go to bed with that B......y term ringing in their ears. What has been missing from this entire election is TOP QUALITY indepth debate on policy. What we got was ChanGe, chhaangEE waffle!! Labour, the Conservatives, and the LIb Dems have had too easy a time regurgatating the same old claptrap over and over. Had UKIP and the Greens featured more often in debates we would have been far more beneficial in drawing out differences. SOOOO many dull debates I'm suprised respective programmers did not pick up on the repetition. The last ITV Dimbleby programme was a damn good example of this rep from the 'big three' with Caroline Lucas from the Greens sitting on the sidelines which was a) appalling and b) dumb for when she spoke (all 4 minutes of it) she brought a breath of fresh air to the entire programme.......whereas the 'big three' happily snored their way through it. Well good for deservably an MP. Fri 07 May 2010 16:48:15 GMT+1 Mark Kelly The chants of "Change!" from all parties echoed those of the last American Presidential elections, and I think that message was actually decisive in pushing more people into the polling stations. But as the internet and other media have made it easier to compare and contrast our politicians, the change on offer simply wasn't there.This may explain why there seemed to be so many floating voters right up until polling day.There's no doubt that a hung parliament is a gamble when it comes to matters of the economy, but if living under a hung parliament means opposition MPs have to work together and puts a stop to the Labour tactic of rushing through policies without being scrutinised, then perhaps a hung parliament is exactly the sort of change the British people need. Fri 07 May 2010 15:27:51 GMT+1 JapRobin Mark, the biggest fundamental breach of democracy is the disparity between percentage of votes and number of seats won. Only when we've got that right can we begin to try and understand how the electorate feel. Fri 07 May 2010 15:10:18 GMT+1 edge540 jon112uk - I absolutely agree regarding the 'common message'.Choosing between the parties is the equivelent of deciding whether to poke your own eye out or cut off one of your legs.I would like to see much more consensual politics. To hear some MPs stating only their policies are right and everyone else is wrong is simply childish. If MPs had to gain cross-party support for bills then perhaps we could avoid some of the mindless over-legislation that we have been subject to in the past. Fri 07 May 2010 14:55:28 GMT+1 robbieb7 Define Britain? Scotland and Wales have devolved government I thought? Yet it is they who have dictated that England cope with a hung parliament. Vast swathes of England sit in a sea of blue. Almost everywhere south of Birmingham, the engine room of England which is the south, knew the dangers of a hung parliament, knew the dangers the economy faced, knew we needed strong government and voted as such, for a conservative government. Take the regions with national assemblies away and Conservatives have a cakewalk. George Osbourne isn't trusted with the economy, but the tories need a mandate to lead. The best outcome now is a coalition with Cable as Chancellor, but I fear Cameron isn't strong enough within his own party to force that through. Electoral reform MUST happen though, and devolved government should mean tribal, regional differences don't interfere with what the majority of England want, unless we get our OWN parliament. Fri 07 May 2010 14:54:40 GMT+1 SSnotbanned Along with individuals, certain politicians have said that the markets would also have a say(on the result). Doesn't look as though they like the look of a LibDem-Conservative deal. Hardly rising is it(FTSE,FOR-EX)?? Fri 07 May 2010 14:52:54 GMT+1 Paul Bowes "Voters wanted change but they didn't know what kind of change they wanted."Some voters wanted change: others didn't. Those who did wanted different types and degrees of change. And most important of all: it's clear from the result that many voters felt that they couldn't trust any of the politicians on offer to deliver change. The collapse of the LibDem bubble illustrates this most clearly. The only party not tainted at the national level has a leader who is out of the same mould as the rest - a career politician with a background in the elite that has governed this country without interruption for decades.The only hope is that a hung parliament will force the changes that politicians on all sides have been avoiding for the whole of my lifetime (I am 52). It should be manifest that a party that cannot command at least 50% of the popular vote cannot claim a general mandate to govern alone. The last party that was able to do so won the election of 1900 and barely squeaked 50.3% - this at a time when half of what would now be the electorate was disenfranchised.We need real democracy. The question is whether we will get it, or whether Clegg - who holds the balance - will sell out those who had faith in him. Fri 07 May 2010 14:52:47 GMT+1 WilliamCB Spot on about the infinite number of reasons. All the mood of the nation stuff is complete nonsense. It's impossible to give a reason for why these votes have the result they do - but try telling a historian that. Fri 07 May 2010 14:52:07 GMT+1 Peter_Sym "If voters wanted to give all the parties a dead leg and try to force those quarrelsome politicians to start working together, it might be argued they have got their wish."Well thats more or less what I wanted so I more or less got my wish. I was going to vote Cameron 6 months ago but his contant negative attacks on other leaders for actions he himself would have been unable to do differently (Iraq- he voted for it too. How would he have sent our troops off better equipped with a months notice? Immigration- 90% is from other EU nations- he doesn't oppose our EU membership so how can he possibly limit immigration etc) totally turned me off him as a PM. Most of the rest of the developed world has a proportional system. Ours is a 2 party system in a multi-partied nation and doesn't work anymore. Hopefully the bizarre situation where the Conservatives need the support of the Lib Dems to get anything done means that we'll get a better system in place..... that or we have the same pantomime again in 6 months time. Fri 07 May 2010 14:30:07 GMT+1 Ken Mayo Please tell me why, in this country, that we still use an archaic system of government through conflict instead of selecting the best, professionals to do the relevent jobs, Cameron say as leader, Cable as chancellor(one of the few that has actually worked in a high power job) etc. Harmony and mutually beneficial purpose have always proved to reap greater rewards than conflict of ideals.Proportional representation and a proper selection process of qualified individuals - what is so difficult to comprehend or so terrifying about that? Fri 07 May 2010 14:19:55 GMT+1 Megan It is clear what a lot of people wanted: an intelligent and honourable candidate who would represent them, putting their interests and those of the UK before party or self.But where were those candidates?Not in the 'big three' nor in the minor but known parties - Plaid Cymru, SNP, UKIP, BNP and the like.And if they t'were independents - well, the lazy so-and-so who ran as an independent here didn't even bother to leaflet, so how can I judge if he'd be any good? Fri 07 May 2010 13:36:10 GMT+1 jon112dk Yes, England usually is very tribal, with some swing voters.This time around, both on the media and in the real world, I have seen so many people who just could not make up their minds even on the day of the vote. If I could pick up one common message it was ...."I don't really want to vote for any of them"Another issue I think is going to come out of this election is the deterioration of the electoral process. Mass fraud using the (15%!!!) of votes cast by post, concentrated in certain areas. Polling stations 'too busy' to record the votes of people coming in the evening because they were working in the day, but having taken the votes of those who don't work all day long. Ex-pats and soldiers denied a postal vote. etc. etc. Most of it (coincidentally I'm sure) favouring the current government. This is getting worse than zimbabwe.I'm starting to wonder whether oposition parties should be inviting EU or UN observers like they do in countries we like to lecture about 'democracy.' Fri 07 May 2010 13:23:07 GMT+1 WJR The failure to allow hundreds of people who had queued here added to the hundreds (thousands?) of expats voters still waiting for their postal votes is nothing short of a disgrace. The Media is full of "high turnout" headlines, but over 30% of voters still felt too disanfranchised to bother going to the ballot, which should be concerning at best.Can any real change happen when the system is so heavily in favour of the two incumbent parties anyway?22.9% of the votes yield the Lib Dem 54 (just under 8%) of the seats, while Labour with 29.2% of the votes get 254 (about 39% of seats) and the Conservatives 36.2% voters gives them 299 (or roughly 46% of seats).Not to mention the "others" parties..."Great election" indeed.... Fri 07 May 2010 13:22:02 GMT+1 BluesBerry Mark, your article is right on! I quote because I cannot say it any better: “Voters wanted change but they didn't know what kind of change they wanted.”If Gordon Brown cannot get the “confidence” he needs to remain PM and run a minority Government; then, it will come down to David Cameron.If David Cameron cannot get the “confidence” he needs, then it will come down (could come down to) another election.You know what?In these times of uncertainty, another election may not be a bad thing, especially for all those people who stood in the rain & never got to vote.Without a more powerful, decisive government, I fear Parliament will be operating like an army stuck in a bog. Fri 07 May 2010 13:17:27 GMT+1 John Ellis very strange morning but i think it will be a strange few days local elections happened here as well with a massive swing to labour traditional Tories ousted. Lets hope the 24 hours news channels loose out in the tempering of the new government and allow the right government to for free from pressure.We are the new spin doctors this has been shown in this election. Fri 07 May 2010 12:49:15 GMT+1