Electorally Engineered Mutant

The UQ (aka UK) Ltd general election 'result' continues to descend into the mire. Any resolution of the electoral engineering fiasco has become even more impossible. Three issues had been publicly argued that only 24hrs ago, and after 5hr of 'discussion' (horse trading), hadn't been clarified: Trident, immigration and Europe. They seem to have been ducked.

• Trident: "We have not thought it necessary to reproduce all the submissions and evidence which we received but we are most grateful to all those who contributed to our thinking. Suffice it to say...
• Immigration.
• Europe. Talk of adopting the euro as currency has gone very quiet. Suddenly. The huge problems within Europe and the Greek tragedy are not being (publicly) addressed. Within a week or two, the mooted 45bn euros has suddenly grown to many 100s bns euros. Such growth in (double-figure) debt should create more consternation than it seems to have done.

Conflict

The obvious combination considering the numbers game is a marriage between the Tories (306) and Lib Dems (57) and exceeds (306 + 57 = 363) the number of MP seats (326 = 650/2+1) necessary to have a majority holding. The figure of 326 may be technically a majority, but in any mathematics 'massaging' still leaves the real majority out in the cold. The general election paradox: the majority is the 'unrepresented' loser party and the minority comprises the 'represented' winning party. The combination of Labour with others:

• Labour (258) with Lib Dems (57) [315] does not exceed the minimum (326). Some additional MPs are needed from the Others (28). Even messier. The more Others involved the probability of a shorter time is more likely before another general election.

There still appears to be considerable conflict in those areas that seems to be NOT a problem. Apathy is NOT one of the problems as demonstrated by the electorate turnout of +70%, but the lack of effectiveness in dealing with those issues. Considering all the pre-election rhetoric concerning a hung parliament, it is only now that the issue is being addressed because it has to be. The definition of a reactive policy and not a proactive one. One that fails to instill even a glimmer of confidence from a non-government. Now that the voting system has produced its 'result', the politicians assume that a 'mandate-of-sorts' gives them the power to work out a solution that the people must accept. They've been passed the baton and can now run with it where they like. Stage 1 has completed. Stage 2 involves the squabbling (power struggle) and Stage 3 will be 5 years (or very much less) of continued and growing disaster. This is the dictatorship attitude for and within a 'coalition'. It is clear that major differences should not be compromised (but will be) just get into power. This is very dangerous thinking and even before a government has been created and the power game of chess is off... again.

Another paradox is the ace-card held by Clegg (Lib Dems) who had the smallest preference vote (57) against Labour at (258) and the highest Tory (306).