To be fair it’s only recently become a marginal, and that was due to some impressive campaigning by the Tory candidate, a large injection of cash and focus by the main party (the whole “let’s castrate Balls” push), and the fact that Balls only started campaigning late in the process (because of such a large notional majority).
But he’s certainly loathed by many in the Labour party and the media, and would be a divisive figure.
I must say, I’m loving every moment of this post-election furore.
I thought the Tories and Tory press despised electoral reform. I guess I was wrong. When are they going to propose a change in law to redefine ‘parliamentary majority’ to mean the single party with the most seats? I assume they’ll be some method to stop the other 344 seats voting against them?
So you’re saying if he became PM, Balls could really take a licking?
Ahem.
The will of the majority, as expressed at the ballot box was - ‘Not the Tories’.
They got 36% of the vote.
Labour and Lib-Dem got 52%.
If the two progressive parties can form a govt with a majority in the house then that is their right. Nothing unconstitutional at all.
If the tories want a Con-Lib govt they had better make a decent offer.
I think a Lab/Lib coalition followed immediately by a Referendum on electoral reform and an election on the new basis as soon as possible after would be the way to go.
Good God I hope not. If you form a minority government, the fact that your more unpopular policies will get shot down by the opposing parties uniting and outnumbering you is part of the package. Any method of the biggest (but still minority) party being able to force something through, even though a majority of MPs had voted it down would be un democratic in my view.
Isn’t that one of the purposes of a voting system, though? Not to exclude parties I personally detest, nice as that may be, but to exclude the fringe? There’s always a small segment of the population with strange, incomprehensible, radical ideas, whose participation actually makes governing harder, and they need to be excluded.
As I noted above, there are plenty of safeguards available in a PR system to prevent fringe parties being given seats.
It certainly could get quite hairy.
But I guess while the coalition negotiations are ongoing Balls has to be content to just hang around.
Too bad Andy Dick isn’t British, he’d be a fine partner in the coalition.
Credit where credit is due: that a man with the surname Balls has come even this close to becoming PM is an achievement in itself. I’m picturing a “Boy Named Sue” type of childhood.
“In their effort to appeal to gay voters, the Coalition will spotlight Dick and Balls”? 
No. Safeguards to that purpose might be desirable; but it is not in any sense “one of the purposes of a voting system” as such.
I’m reminded of a cartoon I saws once: Two elegant Chinese gentlemen in Confucian dress are sitting by the Great Wall. One says to the other, “You know what would really be funny? A Wang Dynasty. Now that would really be funny.”
Yes, it is, or at least it should be. Radicalism is both dangerous to a society and disruptive to the functioning of government.
That’s exactly what George III thought 
Well, and wasn’t he right?
Lord North certainly thought so. Bloody Americans.
The rumour the BBC is currently spreading about moving immediately to a fixed term Parliament would surprise me hugely, if it ends up being true - particularly given the whole no-outright-majority mess we currently find ourselves in. The entire system is set up such that if you lose a confidence vote, you have to call a general election, fixed term or not - is this something that’s been a key plank of Lib Dem policy that I’ve just missed? Or is this something they’re floating to see if it will be well received publicly, and will think about the details later? (If the latter, colour me unimpressed. )
That’s as may be, but putting down radicalism neither is nor should be “one of the purposes of a voting system.”
Radical fringe-minorities get less radical, anyway, when they get a seat or two at the table and realize now they just might get some of what they want, but only if they’re willing to make compromises like ordinary politicians.
How so, given that between them they got a majority of the votes? :dubious: