Not quite right, Brown made his statement first on a written note handed out, at 10:25 BST,

Chronologically perhaps but politically its deeper than that! Brown and his advisers obviously knew open overtures to Clegg were not going to work until the Liberal Democrats had explored options with the largest party. Clegg was very clear on this before the results came in. It would have been humiliating for Brown to try an approach like Cameron only to be told he was second in queque. By issuing his statement he therefore kept the impression of taking the initiative and remaining statesmanlike although in reality this process is currently outside his control.

It can as well end in a Lib/Lab deal in the end but only if it secure a Electoral reform. It would also include Brown stepping down but with "dignity".

Yes but if a coalition government is agreed it could be disastrous for the UK to be leaderless while the Labour Pary elected a new leader. Especially with the current state of the UK economy and the the sensitivity of the financial markets. So Brown would need to remain until electoral reform legislation was passed and a clear strategy agreed on the economy set in place.

Just a crazy idea, could it be possible with Clegg becoming PM in a Lib/Lab coaliation? Crazy yes but the Neptune link between Saturn/Uranus have already turned so much upsidedown and it would really be an Uranus chocking solution that probably would make Cameron drop his chin!

Indeed it would really be an elegant solution of the "Labour leader problem" as it would probably be political incorrect to replace Brown with another Labor head as PM and it would allow Bronw to step down with dignity and Labour could solve its leader problem in the background prepareing for next election, whenever that will be.

I thought before it was too early for Clegg but I must say he really has been impressive in the after match and he may be ready for it. After all, he's a Capricorn and Saturn sits on top of the Poll Close chart.

Just thinking outside of the box...

to form a government Cameron or Brown need to go to the Queen with the understanding they have a viable support in the parliament to pass legislation.

I heard today that Brown doesn't need to go to the Queen unless he goes to offer his resignation. He already is the Prime Minister and remains the Prime Minister unless he steps down or faces a vote of no confidence. I also heard that he doesn't need to do anything at all until May 25th (some Parliamentary report is needed then). Of course the reality is that there is pressure to end this quickly.

I heard today that Brown doesn't need to go to the Queen unless he goes to offer his resignation. He already is the Prime Minister and remains the Prime Minister unless he steps down or faces a vote of no confidence. I also heard that he doesn't need to do anything at all until May 25th (some Parliamentary report is needed then). Of course the reality is that there is pressure to end this quickly

.

I thought he did, but only after he was in a position to form a new government.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Queen ... ister.aspx

Otherwise why did former Prime Ministers like Thatcher and Blair go to the Queen to 'kiss hands' after each election victory? I agree he remains in power as PM unless he resigns or loses a vote of confidence against him. However, following a general election there has to be a state opening of Parliament with a Queen's speech where the government puts forward its programme of legislation. This is currently scheduled for May 25th.

Its quite a thought that if David Cameron becomes Prime Minister he will be the 12th person the Queen has dealt with in that role with the first being Winston Churchill

More pressing though is the state of the UK markets and the danger of this threatening the UK currency or credit rating if this drags on too long.

Hello all

Deb's right about the 25th. The Queen is due to open Parliament then.

But before that is Mercury direct

There is also a quick move at the local level to sweep under the carpet the voting shut-outs, which will probably cause legal action to be taken.

Life is what happens when we're busy making other plans.

Regards

H.

Whatever way the political negotiations end up its clear the Liberal Democrats are the 'king makers'.

There has been quite a lot of talk in the media about the 'triple lock' that the Liberal Democrats have set in place before they can enter a coalition or pact with another party. These rules were established to prevent the party leader entering into a political agreement without the wider agreement of the party's MPs , Federal Executive and wider membership.

Here are the basic rules:

i) in the event of any substantial proposal which could affect the Party?s independence of political action, the consent will be required of a majority of members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons and the Federal Executive; and,

(ii) unless there is a three-quarters majority of each group in favour of the proposals, the consent of the majority of those present and voting at a Special Conference convened under clause 6.6 of the Constitution; and,

(iii) unless there is a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at that Conference in favour of the proposals, the consent of a majority of all members of the Party voting in the ballot called pursuant to clause 6.11 or 8.6 of the Constitution.

Part of the reason for such substantial barriers before a leader can form a coalition is rooted in the history of the Liberal party. In 1977 the new Liberal Party leader David Steel accepted the invitation to enter a coalition with the then Labour leader James Callaghan. The Lib-Lab pact only lasted about 18 months. The general view is that the Liberals gained very little from the pact and in particular there was no change to the electoral system. Moreover, at the subsequent election in 1979 the Liberals clearly shared a lot of the unpopularity of the The Labour party which lost to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative party.

Thank you for clarifying the triple lock rules Mark. When I heard them I thought that the membership consent was needed from the outset as well and it is hard to imagine that happening over the weekend.

Even so a lot of liberal MP's would hate to support the conservatives.

A while ago I seem to remember French voters felt they had no choice but to vote for an unpopular candidate and held their noses as they voted to indicate their distaste for him. Perhaps the liberal MP's will do likewise.

I do hope something is sorted out before the markets open on Monday.

Matthew

Breaking news on the BBC is that Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown spoke last night. Liberal Democrat internal 'sources' describe the conversation as something of a disaster with it ending up as an angry exchange with Brown allegedly ranting at Clegg without listening.

So while the Liberal Democrats have an ideological mountain to climb to reach a policy consensus with the Conservatives they seem to be handling negotiations in a more subtle and consensual way than Brown. At present at least it seems the chemistry between Clegg and Brown is just too poor for them to work together despite the policy similarities. This apparently goes back to the expenses scandal discussions between the party leaders when Brown negotiated with Clegg and the latter seems to have been rather bruised by his manner. On the other hand there is clearly more chemistry between Cameron and Clegg.

Deb wrote:He has elected a great time for his announcement, with Venus on the MC, and the Moon having just entered Pisces about to form a mutually applying sextile with ASC-MC-ruler Mercury, and Sun trine the Ascendant. He is obviously going to claim his glory in that speech.

I hope that the Moon is feeling particularly strong, as in every other way this is the same chart as for the Dow plunge in NY the day before ( see Yuzuru's thread http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5332 ) where it resulted in a complete reversal of trades!

But that's electional astrology isn't it? Being able to pick a good moment in an otherwise crazy time. I think all these things are connected in the Saturn-Uranus symbolism that cut across the axis of the close of polls chart. Its interesting that we had all that crazy 'unable to vote' chaos at the close of the polls - just as we came up to the time captured in that chart. People are suggesting that the turn out was exceptionally high, but it wasn't, it was chaotic and eratic at the end:

Was this really the biggest vote rush since Margaret Thatcher swept to power?

The short answer is no. On a national level, turnout stands at just over 65 per cent (with two seats still to declare), with more than 29-and-a-half million votes cast.

That?s higher than the last couple of elections, but a fair bit lower than all the others in the past 30 years: 1997 (71.4 per), 1992 (77.7 per cent), 1987 (75.3 per cent), 1983 (72.7 per cent) and even 1979 (76 per cent

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/201 ... -30-years/

So that close of polls chart, with Saturn on the MC opposite Uranus, also gives a lovely signature of the chaotic scenes as the doors were abruptly shut on the voters.

BBC have a page dedicated for the election with a news roll and occationally they send live video as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/liveevent/

MarkC wrote:Breaking news on the BBC is that Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown spoke last night. Liberal Democrat internal 'sources' describe the conversation as something of a disaster with it ending up as an angry exchange with Brown allegedly ranting at Clegg without listening.

Well it has been denied from official scources but that's just "logical" in any case. It's a well know fact that Brown has a shortcut to bad temper, so it could be true but it can as well be someone who took adavntage of this knowlege planted the rumour to disurb the process and causing confusion.

I like to once again bring attention to the current position of Neptune and how it creates an inconjunction to Saturn and Semi-Sextile to Uranus, in the Poll Close chart also bringing in Mc/Ic to the picture.

It's also interesting who Clegg during the campain stressed "no more dealmaking behind closed doors" and that's exactly where he ended up! Of course it's just normal that negotiations aren't broadcasted live, but he need to be careful to really put the cards on the table for the public to see, once they are at that point.