I haven't had chance to update the figures, but I realised today, that although LabLibDem have 52% of the vote, they are still 11 seats short of the 326 majority that a single party needs to "win" an election.

It looks like Cameron and Clegg's negotiations are going swimmingly:




Both images courtesy of the BBC news website (Getty images/AP me thinks).

And if you had a PR system with a second choice vote then the majority of one party would have voted for the other party as well.

Thats why I can't see a Lib/Lab pact working as being 11 seats short then they could still get outvoted by the Tories, SNP and the others.

If LibDem & Tories can't work something out then another election me thinks unless the Tories want to try to goven as a minority government?

I think that the Greens and PC will vote with Labour. The SNP and the unionists might drive harder bargains but they have more to lose by a not using their power wisely.

Labour can't govern even with the Lib Dems, Green (singular), PC and the SNP on board. The Unionists are already allied with the Tories.

Maybe Gordon should let Cameron run the country as a minority government and let the public see what the Tories want to cut. During which time Gordon should go and Labour should pick a more electable leader.

Not so sure about that, Labour, LibDems and DUP would total 323 seats. Sinn Fein never turn up so that's 4 seats you don't need. In theory that would be a majority.

Very messy though. Either LibDems get electoral and political reform with the Tories or they form a minority Government, Labour get a new leader (D Milliband hopefully), and then there may be another election in October.

Either way it's tricky, if the Tories get in as a minority there'll be problems in Scotland and Wales where they weren't supported.

The same result may happen but there may be enough for a Labour LibDem coalition without GB .

Nobody really knows.

What I don't want to be overlooked during all this is the farce of voting. As was pointed out by Commonwealth Observers it was worse than Kenya's election and in any other country the UK would be one of the first to start bleating about the irreguarity of the vote and calling for a new election. Well, that is unless it's the US.

I would prefer Alan Johnson, to either of the Millibands. Labour without Gordon will be more electable. I am not so sure who the DUP will support. Plus an early election will drain Lord Ashcroft of more money, though hopefully he will not be allowed to fund the Tories any longer this year.

One of the comments on the BBC website intrigued me.

Somebody said to get things running smoothly for a time and not focus on partisan policy areas, we should have Dave as PM, Gordo as Chancellor and Nick as Home Sec. That rather tickled me

Can someone explain to me :

How do you get proportional representation when you only elect one MP ? You take half a tory and saw on half a libdem?
I get it for councils or smtg like that when you vote for a list, but for a stand alone man?

Why not?

He clearly bought a lot of the results, by pumping money into key marginals.

So the Unions must be barred from funding the Labour party then?

I assume you are talking about trade unions. And of course they should be; How can they oppose a party if they finance it?