Like you said, it won't help Labour. It'll hurt them the most. But Gordon is desperate- he knows he's going to be out of power soon anyway, and he's doing everything he can to keep it for a few months (he'll lose it at the next election, of course).

He might actually beat Salmond for the position of First Minister of Scotland. Labour destroyed the SNP in Scotland- mostly thanks to the fact that their entire Cabinet is Scottish.

Hell, no. Let them get into power, and the self-serving Lib Dems and spineless toad Mr. Brown will introduce PR. Then we can say goodbye to any Conservative government for a very long time. The last time one party got 50% of the popular vote in an election was 1935. It was the Conservatives, yes, but I very much doubt they'll be able to repeat it.

I mean, I'm all for some sort of electoral reform, but proportional representation is even more flawed than our current system. No, it doesn't "represent the people". Firstly, 23% of Britain just voted for it. That means 77% voted against it. Secondly, say 23% vote Lib Dem and 26% vote Labour. Nobody has voted for a Lib Lab coalition. And Gordon being aforementioned spineless toad, he'll do whatever Clegg (Clegg, with 57 seats) wants to get that coalition. That means 23% of the British electorate has got its way. 23%. The Conservatives are a lot more likely to actually stand up to Clegg and say "No, we're in power, we'll give you some decisions, but we are still the ruling party", rather than clinging on to the nice big house and £200,000 salary which doesn't belong to them.

I think this sums it up quite well...

But he (CLEGG) said that his party would be pursuing the four priorities identified in their manifesto: fairer taxes, help for disadvantaged schoolchildren, a green economy and "fundamental political reform".

Mr Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the Lib Dems' long-time demand for the replacement of the first-past-the-post voting system in Westminster elections should not form a stumbling block to the creation of a stable government.

Tories had won the right to see "the larger part of our manifesto" implemented after winning more seats and votes than any other party, in a campaign in which they opposed proportional representation, said Dr Fox.

"It would seem to me very strange in an election that was dominated by the economy...if the government of the UK was held to ransom over an issue that the voters did not see as their priority," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"I don't think that it's reasonable, given the result of the election, where we did come clearly ahead of any other party, that an agenda would be applied that was very much against what a very large proportion voted for."

I think this sums it up quite well...

But he (CLEGG) said that his party would be pursuing the four priorities identified in their manifesto: fairer taxes, help for disadvantaged schoolchildren, a green economy and "fundamental political reform".

Mr Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the Lib Dems' long-time demand for the replacement of the first-past-the-post voting system in Westminster elections should not form a stumbling block to the creation of a stable government.

Tories had won the right to see "the larger part of our manifesto" implemented after winning more seats and votes than any other party, in a campaign in which they opposed proportional representation, said Dr Fox.

"It would seem to me very strange in an election that was dominated by the economy...if the government of the UK was held to ransom over an issue that the voters did not see as their priority," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"I don't think that it's reasonable, given the result of the election, where we did come clearly ahead of any other party, that an agenda would be applied that was very much against what a very large proportion voted for."

Perhaps they could come up with some middle-ground electoral system. From the wordings of that statement, it appears that the Conservatives only opposed proportional representation. A system like AMS is a good in-between which is both more proportional and keeps constituency links, and the Lib Dems would be happier with that than nothing. What's more, Labour already passed a bill on holding a referendum for AMS - Conservatives don't have to follow this bill, but it is already in the pipeline.

On another side that may keep the Tories and the Lib Dems more co-operative is devolution. Conservatives typically oppose devolution bills, but I think they now realise that further devolved powers, particularly in England, will actually increase their power within the UK as a whole. These kinds of concessions on devolution bills may see Lib-Dems less willing to push electoral or other forms of Westminster (elected upper-chamber, royal prerogative, that kind of thing) reform.

---

What's with all this uproar from the LibLab-pact crowd about the Conservatives not having the mandate to form a Government? Conservatives achieved 36.1% of the popular vote, last election Labour achieved 35.6%, and the turnout was roughly 4% greater this time. In short, more people voted for Conservatives in 2010 than did Labour in 2005. The fact that the Conservatives achieved fewer relative seats would mean that their support was more evenly spread througout the country than Labour's - perhaps supporting their case for mandate of the UK.

Just some food for thought.