Thought I'd put up a thread for discussion. Not so much on how you voted (it's your business, nobody else's) although feel free to share if you wish, more about the events of the day and the stuff that will almost inevitably follow as the lack of a majority winner causes all sorts of kerfuffle.

First observation : The news media today is bizarre. Legally from midnight onwards they're not allowed to publish anything that might influence people's minds on their vote. The written press get away with it by printing today's editions before midnight but the 'live' media obviously can't do that. So the news both on TV and Radio this morning was,well, a cavalcade of 'and finally' stories basically. Never has so much of what would be trivial filler on a local news programme got national publicity..

Oh and I walked into my polling station this morning to find that they actually had two polling stations in the same room. I didn't even know that was allowed. I went to go to one set of wooden cubicles to fill in the slips and was told I couldn't use them, I had to go to the other set because that was 'my' polling station. Bonkers.

I'll be doing my usual, spoiling my card.

Yeah yeah, I'm sure some will say it's a 'waste of a vote' but it's the 'person' I chose to vote for, which is none of them. There's plenty of other candidates who have got no hope, just like my vote, but as they say if everyone did it, we'd get change.

Also, I've been having many discussions recently about how much more socially acceptable it is to discuss who you're voting for, I would never have asked my parents, for example, but my friends often discuss it.

If you've got a few hundred quid to spare you could register as a candidate and vote for yourself

I'm glad I can't vote because I really don't know who I'd vote for.

If I became a candidate I'd no longer be able to trust myself, and that leads to all sorts of problems!

I voted at 7 this morning. It was all wonderfully British at the polling station.
I had hoped to be first in line (I've managed it before but I think that was for the European elections) but alas there were already 5 or 6 people there waiting... none of whom had bothered seeing if the door was actually open (it was).

It was refreshing that there genuinely seemed to be someone there who didn't know how to 'do' voting which suggests to me this was their first time voting and as such the campaign had actually made someone get up and vote who wouldn't have done so previously (and they were't a teenager).

I could probably have wangled an invite to the Peterbough and North West Cambs (2 different constituencies) counts tonight but it struck me as probably just sitting around at the East of England Show ground somewhere for hours and would be pretty dull apart from the 5 minutes or so when they've actually completed the counts and are declaring the results.

As a Scot I'm very interested to see what the result in Scotland actually turns out to be as well.

This evening I suspect I will try to avoid a chunk of the actual election coverage. They're all starting before the polls even close so there will be several hours of gibbering speculation before the real numbers actually start coming in and quite frankly I've had enough of that over the last month.

The wife and I will vote this evening

It's a selection of backward morons here so I can't vote really - if spoiled votes were counted 'properly' I'd do that.

If I was on the mainland I'd be voting Labour. Not that I believe in their character, if you will, and Ed certainly is a character, but because the Tories can all fcuk right off with their nasty little agendas.

On saying who you'd vote for, over here that's a bit of an issue as you'd imagine. I'm from the unionist side of the fence, and even the splits there...

'Spoiled's' do count! (At least that's what I cling onto)

I have a few friends from your side and they certainly wouldn't discuss their vote, or if they do it's with gritted teeth and usually leads to an argument!

I still don't get why GE candidates don't have to reside in the area they run for ( for example BoJo running in Uxbridge and voting in Islington.)

I suspect it's probably something the undecided voters would take into account, so you wouldn't want that to be the way things were in a marginal seat - at best it gives your opponents a stick to beat you with. MPs are required to have a certain number of surgeries in their constituency a term (I think) but there is actually no requirement to live there and most of them spend more of their time in London anyway.

if you think about it, an MP needs to be available to his or her constituents and you'd hope they were familiar with the place but there's no actual logic as to them having to live in the place. Especially not these days when they're all contactable electronically. Given the size of the constituencies in that setup, it's very unlikely your Euro MP lives anywhere near you. Of course if we had PR for parliament, you wouldn't really get constituencies anyway. One of the arguments for the FPTP system is it means every manageable group of people has a known representative. In theory at least.

Jon

As an example, the Labour candidate in the Peterborough constituency actually lives in North West Cambs - she does live in the City of Peterborough but the way the constituency boundaries have been drawn means she's not in the constituency she's standing for (she's on the 'wrong' side of the river to be in Peterborough). The Tories have been banging on about her not living in the constituency as a result even though it's a difference of about 2 miles.
I would generally agree that it's desirable for a candidate to live in the place they are representing but sometime it just doesn't work out that way sometimes. Having said that, dropping someone in from a 100 miles away or something genuinely is a bit rubbish.

You're telling me that there is noone that lives in Peterborough that would be a suitable alternative labour candidate? I don't doubt this lady is good, but that good? Really?