And then the riots

Two privately-educated, white, male millionaires prattling about their vision of "politics", without the first idea of what they are talking about. We're in a sort of honeymoon period at the moment, where some are saying "give them a chance". Nope. These Crapperoons are seriously bad news – they may not have the gauche, sullen demeanour of Gordon Brown, but they are far more dangerous.

Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail isn't impressed either. He is one of a growing band – which will get larger with alarming speed. And then the riots will begin.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

"We have ... to rebuild trust"

So, the leader of the Cleggerons (now with his own website - cleggerons.com) beams into No 10 after all. I got that wrong – totally and completely. I never thought that a Conservative Party could make a formal alliance with the Libdims. But then, I should have remembered that this is the "not-the-Conservative Party".

Bizarrely, it seems, it was Brown's own parliamentary party which rejected the idea of a Lib-Lab pact, MPs and ministers attacking it as a bad idea that was always doomed to failure. Hence, once negotiations started up, the Lib-Dim delegation got the bum's rush and went rushing back to the bosom of the Tories.

This gave The Boy his victory, gained not through his own negotiating skills or his "success" at the ballot box but handed to him on a plate by the Labour party which still has some residual scruples.

Not so the "not-the-Conservative Party", which then had the Cleggeron leader in his first speech telling us, "One of the tasks we have is to rebuild trust in the political system". As leader of an unnatural, unelected coalition – which has not yet declared the terms of its coalition – he has to be freekin' joking.

Just to add to the joke, little Georgie Osborne is chancellor of the exchequer. Hague is foreign secretary ... to join the unelected prime minister. That, we are told, should reassure the party. And the cleggie as deputy prime minister has yet to be confirmed.

And so it all starts. It is some 70 years since we last saw a coalition government, set up as Hitler launched "Operation Yellow" on the mainland, an operation which was to culminate in our retreat to Dunkirk and evacuation, and the start of the Battle for Britain. How things have changed. Then, we were reliant on the "few". Now, one might say, never in the field of human endeavour is so little owed by so many to so few.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

'Tis done - the Cleggerons rule

All Hail the Cleggerons! Gordon Brown has submitted his resignation to the Queen. We knew the end must be close when the BBC wheeled out David Dimbleby and a new Conservative anthem was abroad.

Tory Boy blog was predicting that The Boy would be prime minister "by tomorrow morning", so it just had to be true. The impossible has happened – two totally incompatible parties have come together, united in one thing only, their yearning for the trappings of power. And, for that, the Cleggerons will agree to change the voting system to something not one in a hundred actually want, or even care a shit about.

If they go ahead with a referendum on a new system, this will cement in the ultimate farce – a vote on something we don't want instead of a genuine vote on the Lisbon treaty.

Another farcical aspect is the Tory prattling about a "strong, stable government", when the regime will be anything but. And nor will this alliance reflect or represent anything like the whole nation. Cameron managed a dismal 23.5 percent of the popular vote – a mandate this most certainly is not.


Dave's "not-the-Conservative Party" is to be allied with a Europhile party in a formal coalition, headed by a man many would rather eviscerate than vote for - who now becomes deputy prime minister. These two parties conjoined, both contributing cabinet ministers, are an alien construct which lacks moral authority, respect or anything approaching majority approval.

The Cleggerons may enjoy their brief moment of glory – but the honeymoon will be short. Their reign, we hope, will not last much longer.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

Thick, or what?

I had to listen to it twice, just to make sure I hadn't got it wrong. But yes, William Hague did tell the assembled media that "we" – presumably the Conservative Party – believe "very firmly in an elected prime minister".

This is from the author of the stunning slogan, "in Europe but not ruled by Europe", demonstrating beyond peradventure that, if Master Hague is not terminally thick, then he is something even worse.

Once again ... in this country, we do not elect prime ministers. We elect MPs. Political parties then decide on their leaders and the majority party – if there is one – recommends a candidate to the Queen. It is the Queen, then, who appoints the prime minister (and, indeed, all the other ministers).

That Hague can't seem to learn this simple lesson puts him in the same league as Tories – like Cameron – who seem to believe that you can promise a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and then walk away from that promise without an electoral penalty.

We don't expect our politicians to be geniuses, but this lot is so thick they don't deserve even to live, much less form a government.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

A howl of impotent rage

Just looking at the collection of front pages from the media today tells its own story. Not only have the Tories been comprehensively outmanoeuvred, the media didn't see it coming. The strident headlines, therefore, are a reflection of their own impotence and ineptitude.

One should recall in all this that, prior to the election, the media had more or less convinced itself that Cameron was a shoe-in – and even yesterday they were convinced that The Boy was going to be in No 10 by close of business.

None of the stupid, vain bastards foresaw the UKIP effect, even though we were writing about it in March and, in fact, coined the expression back in 2005. Even now, despite a full list and an analysis, we are still getting commentators who have not quite understood the scale and reason for The Boy's defeat.

The point about the political commentariat, however, is that it lives in its own bubble, constantly reinforcing its own beliefs and prejudices, talking to itself and rigorously excluding anything it finds uncomfortable or challenging. You will not get accurate or penetrating analysis from this sorry lot – merely the latest "groupthink" as they all rush to tell each other how clever and wonderful they are, huddling together in the belief that the wish is the reality.

Now, every extra day and hour that Brown spends in No 10 is testimony to the failings of the political commentariat, whose capacity for getting it wrong is matched only by "call me Dave" Cameron's incompetence. He will go down in history as one of the most inept and unsuccessful political leaders since Neil Kinnock. Small wonder, they are howling. Short of the capability to understand the world around them, this is their most natural response.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

ABC wins

With the talks between the Tories and Lib-Dims quite obviously stalled, the Cleggie has formally opened discussions with the Labour party – essentially signalling the end of any Tory chances of forming a government.

To "seal the deal", Brown has announced he is standing down as party leader, with his successor to be in place for the Labour Party conference in the autumn. And that is when, most probably, a general election will also be declared – if it has not already been put in place as a result of parliamentary stresses.

As forecast on this blog, therefore, Brown will almost certainly be staying on as prime minister for the Queen's speech – and through into the summer. The chances of The Boy Cameron getting through the door of Downing Street are receding so fast as to approach vanishing point.

The big question now remains as to whether Cameron can keep his job, or whether the faithful will tolerate yet another period in opposition, perhaps giving The Boy another opportunity to learn how to a job he had not mastered when the last parliament ended. Either way, after a tense few days, it looks as if the ABC party - favoured by this blog - has finally won out.

Had the stupid schmuck gone for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, of course, history might have been different. But hey! What do we know? We're not insiders like the great Mrs Dale and Tim Montgomerie who were soooooooo confident of their boy's victory.

Well, we did warn that this might happen. And, as The Boy contemplates the wreckage of his political career, we'd love to be the first to shake him warmly by the throat and say, "We told you so!" But the queue is already forming and we'll have to take our turn. Nevertheless, simply uttering those four little words is sweet enough ... for the moment: We told you so ... schmuck! (That's five, but who's counting?)

RESHUFFLE THREAD

Booker

It's up at last.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

He who lasts, laughs ...

Having in their own ways completely failed to predict the current political impasse, two of the self-appointed gurus of Tory politics are, it would appear, falling out over the wisdom of a Tory/Lib-Dim pact.

Neither of them – along with most of the media – seems to be able to understand that the chemistry of such a pact is so wrong that it may not happen. Nor – imbued with their own "clunking fist" narrative of Gordon Brown – have they appreciated the subtlety of the prime minister's approach – standing above the fray with the message that, when the children have finished pratting about, they can come and see him for a proper deal.

Thus, after the two Cs and their respective teams have exhausted themselves in fruitless negotiations, I fully expect little Cleggie to go crawling to Brown, with the strong chance that we will see the present incumbent still in Downing Street by the end of the month.

But even if the Cleggerons do reach a deal – sufficient for The Boy to slip into No 10 by the back door – it will not last. We are still looking at another election, most probably by October.

Nor is there any great mileage in the Tories squawking about their "mandate". Having acquired a mere 36.1 percent of the votes cast, against a turnout of 65.1 percent, they can claim only 23.5 percent of the electorate. Put another way, less than one in four people voted Tory.

On the other hand, while the Tories took 10.7 million votes, a Lib/Lab pact would command 15.4 million and 315 seats as opposed to the Tory 306. When it comes to a mandate, the Liblabs have greater claim than the Tories acting alone. And, although lacking an absolute majority, Brown could simply "dare" Cameron to go to the country again, bringing down the government and triggering another round of instability.

As far as it goes, then, possession is nine-tenths of the law. And the longer Brown holds on, the greater the chance he has of outmanoeuvring the opposition and staying in place. Not for nothing do they say: he who lasts, laughs longest.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

All Hail the Cleggerons!

As the political pundits desperately try to work out the unknowable, what most certainly has not been factored into this ongoing drama is the inadequacy of the main players.

Far from having all the facts at their fingertips during the election campaign, with a complete and accurate grasp of the situation, it seems the Tories didn't have the first idea of what was going on. Right up to the last minute on the Friday, they believed The Boy was going to be sauntering into Downing Street by midday. Some of the chaps had even been resting up through the latter stages of the campaign, in order to be ready to take hold of the reins, to guide the ship of state and all that crap.

This and much more is brought home in a piece in the Mail on Sunday, rather confirming that the Tory high command are so far up their own backsides (or each others') that the only way they can see daylight is through the gaps in their teeth.

Once again, of course, we are seeing "bubblevision", where being at the centre of things, far from conferring perfect vision and insight, creates a peculiar kind of political blindness. The self-indulgence of our political classes, however, is rebounding on us, as the supposedly outgoing chancellor is still running the show, over rescue attempts for the euro.

Instead of being at the helm, little Georgie Osborne is relegated to the team negotiating with the Lib-Dims. The unreality is contagious though. One sees this as an attempt by aliens disguised as human beings (pictured) to set up The World Federation of the Cleggerons. Soon enough, we expect them to be standing on the steps of 10 Downing Street proclaiming: "All Hail the Cleggerons! We are the Hairs of Blair! Kneel before us, the mighty ones - someday we will rule the Galaxy."

There again, perhaps we have been watching too much Sky TV.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

A gamble that failed

By my reckoning, the count is 23 – the number of seats in which the Tories came second and the UKIP vote was greater than winning majority. BNP managed this 13 times and, when the combined votes are taken into account, the UKIP/BNP vote was greater than the winning majority in 41 seats.

In theory, at least, this means that these two parties, separately or in combination, deprived David Cameron's Conservatives of their winning majority. Potentially, the Conservative score could have been 347 instead of 306 – a comfortable majority of 22 over the baseline 325.

That said, it cannot be assumed that everyone who voted for the two minority parties would have voted Conservative had there been – as Booker puts it in his column today - a more robustly Conservative alternative, along the lines of the Thatcher offer in 1979, or had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty been on offer.

However, in some seats the margin between victory and defeat was so narrow that what I call the "UKIP effect" can be more or less assured. For instance, in Bolton West, the Labour majority was 92 and the UKIP vote was 1,901. Dorset Mid & Poole North, the majority was 269 and the UKIP vote 2,109. In Hampstead & Kilburn, the majority was 42. UKIP scored 408 and BNP 328 votes.

Quite what the extent of the effect might have been though, will remain controversial, and it is a question the media and the politicians are reluctant to answer. But one thing is for sure – against one of the most unpopular governments in living memory, Cameron has managed to drag defeat from the jaws of victory.

To future generations, Booker writes, it may seem that the most remarkable feature of the 2010 election was that, after 13 years of one of the most disastrous governments in history, as Britain faces its worst economic crisis for decades, the Tory party failed to win a clear victory. He adds:

From the moment Mr Cameron emerged from nowhere as leader in 2005, his defining characteristic was his ruthless drive to create a new "Not the Conservative Party", in his own image. On issue after issue, from his infatuation with "greenery" and global warming to his insistence that his followers should not “bang on about Europe”, he sought to ditch traditional Conservative values and to pursue the Lib Dem, Guardianista "centre" vote. As for his party's more traditional core supporters, he did not so much take them for granted as treat them with contempt.

Such was the deliberate gamble of Mr Cameron's leadership, and the verdict of last week's election was that the gamble has not come off. For five years, it has been evident to anyone in touch with grassroots opinion that a broad swath of natural Tory supporters – including many readers of this column – have watched the antics of Mr Cameron and his little clique of close allies with bewilderment, frustration and dismay. Rarely can any Tory leader have aroused in many of his potential voters so little positive enthusiasm, even if many did last week reluctantly support his party.

Booker is then one of the few journalists who takes the "UKIP effect" seriously. Although support for its individual candidates may have looked derisory – with the media and others quick to put down the small parties – UKIP actually polled some 917,832 votes, making it easily the fourth largest party. And, if it has deprived Cameron of 20-plus seats, it has rewritten political history.

The decision to abandon his core vote and go for the woolly centre, sucking up to the Lib-Dims in the hope that they would gravitate to the Tories, has not paid off.

Even though little Nick Clegg has lost some seats, his party's share of the vote increased by one percent over 2005, delivering him 6,827,938 votes. Taking the near million UKIP votes and the 563,743 polled by BNP, Cameron gambled on ditching 1.5 million to gain a share of the near 7-million Lib-Dim votes. The gamble failed, leaving him with a party virtually indistinguishable from that of the other main parties, and his tenancy of No 10 Downing Street still in doubt.

With the only certainty now that there will be another general election in short order, Cameron needs to walk away from the wreckage of his current strategy or he may yet experience an even bigger failure as the "UKIP effect" takes its toll once again.

On the other hand, last time in 2005, I wrote that it could, "conceivably, deny the Conservatives power at the next election," then adding: "Dispute this if you will. Debate it by all means, but it does not seem to me safe to ignore it." Well, they did ignore it and they are quite capable of doing so again. They really are that stupid.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

UKIP effect 2010 - the full list (revised)

This is the full list of seats where the Conservative failure to gain a victory could be considered attributable to the "UKIP effect". This we take to be seats where either the UKIP vote, or the UKIP/BNP vote combined, exceeds the majority of the Labour or Lib-Dim winner. The list starts here - 41 seats [UKIP 23]:

1. Birmingham Edgbaston: Lab 16,894, Con 15,620 – majority 1,274. UKIP 732 and BNP 1,196 (total 1,928).

2. Birmingham Northfield: Lab 16,841, Con 14,059 – majority 2,782. UKIP 1,363 and BNP 2,290 (total 3,653).

3. Blackpool South: Lab 14,448, Con 12,597 - majority 1,851. UKIP 1,352 and BNP 1,482 (total 2834).

4. Bolton West: Lab 18,327, Con 18,235 – majority 92. UKIP 1,901.[*1]

5. Dagenham & Rainham: Lab 17,813, Con 15,183 - majority 2,630. UKIP 1,569 and BNP 4,952 (total 6521).

6. Derby North: Lab 14,896, Con 14,283 – majority 613. UKIP 829 and BNP 2,000 (total 2,829).[*2]

7. Derbyshire North East: Lab 17,948, Con 15,503 – majority 2,445. UKIP 2,636.[*3]

8. Don Valley: Lab 16,472, Con 12,877 - majority 3,595. UKIP 1,904 and BNP 2,112 (total 4,016).

9. Dorset Mid & Poole North: Lib-Dims 21,100, Con 20,831 - majority 269. UKIP 2,109.[*4]

10. Dudley North: Lab 14,923, Con 14,274 – majority 649. UKIP 3,267 and BNP 1,899 (total 5,166).[*5]

11. Eltham: Lab 17,416, Con 15,753 - majority 1,663. UKIP 1,011 and BNP 1,745 (total 2,756).

12. Gedling: Lab 19821, Con 17,962 – majority 1,859. UKIP 1,459 and BNP 1,598 (total 3,057).

13. Great Grimsby: Lab 10,777, Con 10, 063 – majority 714. UKIP 2,043 and BNP 1,517 (total 3,560).[*6]

14. Halifax: Lab 16,278, Con 14,806 – majority 1,472. BNP 2,760 and UKIP 654 (total 3,414).

15. Hampstead & Kilburn: Lab 17,332, Con 17, 290 – majority 42. UKIP 408 and BNP 328 (total 736).[*7]

16. Hull North: Lab 13,044, Con 12,403 – majority 641. UKIP 1,358 and BNP 1,443 (total 2,801).[*8]

17. Hyndburn: Lab 17,531, Con 14,441 – majority 3,090. UKIP 1,481 and BNP 2,137 (3,618).

18. Middlesborough South & Cleveland East: Lab 18,138, Con 16,461 – majority 1,677. UKIP 1,881 and BNP 1,576 (total 3,457).[*9]

19. Morley and Outwood: Lab 18,365, Con 17,264 – majority 1,101. UKIP 1,506 and BNP 3,535 (total 5,041).[*10]

20. Newcastle-under-Lyme: Lab 16,393, Con 14,841 – majority 1,551. UKIP 3,491.[*11]

21. Norwich South: Lib-Dim (gain) 13,960, Con 13,650 – majority 310. UKIP 1,145 and BNP 697 (total 1,842).[*12]

22. Nottingham South: Lab 15,209, Con 13,437 - majority 1,772. BNP 1,140 and UKIP 967 (total 2,107).

23. Penistone & Stocksbridge: Lab: 17,565, Con 14,516 – majority 3,049. UKIP 1,936 and BNP 2,207 (total 4,143).

24. Plymouth Moor View: Lab 15,433, Con 13,845 - majority 1,588. UKIP 3,188 and BNP 1,438 (total 4,626).[*13]

25. Rother Valley: Lab 19,147, Con 13,281 - majority 5,866. UKIP 2,613 and BNP 3,606 (total 6,219).

26. St Austell & Newquay: Lib-Dim 20,189, Con 18,877 - majority 1,312. UKIP 1,757 and BNP 1,022 (total 2,779).[*14]

27. St Ives: Lib-Dims 19,619, Con 17,900 - majority 1,719. UKIP 2,560.[*15]

28. Scunthorpe: Lab 14,640, Con 12,091 – majority 2,549. UKIP 1,686 and BNP 1,447 (total 3,183).

29. Solihull: Lib-Dim 23,635, Con 23,460 – majority 175. UKIP 1,200 and BNP 1624 (total 2,824).[*16]

30. Somerton & Frome: Lib-Dims 28,793, Con 26,976 - majority 1,817. UKIP 1,932 and Leave-the-EU Alliance 236 (total 2,168).[*17]

31. Southampton Itchen: Lab 16,326, Con 16,134 - majority 192. UKIP 1,928.[*18]

32. Stalybridge & Hyde: Lab 16,189, Com 13,445 - majority 2,744. UKIP 1,342 and BNP 2,259 (total 3,601).

33. Stoke-on-Trent South: Lab 14,446, Con 11,316 - majority 4,130. UKIP 1,363 and BNP 3,762 (total 5,125).

34. Sutton & Cheam: Lib-Dims 22,156, Con 20,548 – majority 1,608. BNP 1,014 and UKIP 950 (total 1,964).

35. Telford: Lab 15,977, Con 14,996 – majority 981. UKIP 2,428 and BNP 1,513 (total 3,941).[*19]

36. Wakefield: Lab 17,454, Con 15,841 - majority 1,613. BNP 2,581.

37. Walsall North: Lab 13,385, Con 12,395 – majority 990. BNP 2,930 and UKIP 1,737 (4,667).[*20]

38. Walsall South: Lab 16,211, Con 14,456 – majority 1,755. UKIP 3,449.[*21]

39. Wells: Lib-Dims 24,560, Con 23,760 - majority 800. UKIP 1,711 and BNP 1,004 (total 2,815).[*22]

40. Wirral South: Lab 16,276, Con 15,745 – majority 531. UKIP 1,274.[*23]

41. Wolverhampton North East: Lab 14,448, Con 11,964 – majority 2,484. UKIP 1,138 and BNP 2,296 (total 3,434).

Analysis will follow on a separate post. There is a list, incidentally, circulating by e-mail, claiming 25 UKIP scalps. However, that list is flawed, containing Lab/Lib-Dim contests, where the Tories came third. Those results would not have been affected by the UKIP vote.

RESHUFFLE SPECIAL THREAD

The UKIP effect

A quick but inaccurate sounding suggest that the minority vote cost David Cameron his victory. What in 2005 I termed the "UKIP effect" cost the Tories an estimated 28 seats. And, neglected entirely by the media and the claque, it was very much in evidence in this election.

My early calculations indicate that over 20 seats could have gone to The Boy if he had courted the minority vote, which would have meant offering a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

An example of this is the Dudley North result. Labour gets 14,923 votes in a marginal that the Tories expected to get, putting them on 38.7 of the vote. Graeme Brown for the Conservatives gets 14,274, and Mike Beckett for the Lib-Dims gets 4,066.

But the "killer" is UKIP. Against a majority of 649, Malcolm Davis gets 3,267 votes - 8.5 percent of the vote, up 3.9 percent. Easily, the UKIP vote handed to the Conservatives, would have given them the seat. On the other hand, there is the BNP which polled 1,899 and the National Front on 173. Some of those might have gone to Labour, but others would have been Labour on their way to Tory.

With only two results yet to declare, the Tories are on 305, Labour – in contrast with the first exit poll – is "over-performing" with 258 and the Lib-Dims are on 57. Add the 20-plus seats attributable to the UKIP effect and The Boy could be in Downing Street right now.

And not one of the media pundits have even mentioned this. Nor will they – their brand of politics is a reality-free zone.

RESHUFFLE SPECIAL THREAD

The only certainty

"Any government formed in the next few days will not be able to command a stable or overall majority in the Commons. So the new Parliament is unlikely to last more than a year or so. A second general election is probable either later this year or in the spring of 2011," says The Times.

Forget the welter of low-grade and over-excited comment. That is probably the best that we can expect. The realities of power make it so.

In the meantime, I do not see Brown handing over the reins of power. If I had to put money on it, my scenario would be Cleggie and Boy Dave failing to come to terms, and Gordon planting his flag in the Commons, daring the boys and girls to bring down the government in the midst of a financial crisis, then declaring an autumn election.

And isn't it so very interesting that, after this election, all the parties are being so candid about that crisis. The speeches we are hearing now are of a tenor that was curiously absent before the election.

What we have to factor in right now is that virtually all of the professional pundits got it wrong. The volume of prattle is inversely proportional to its value - the "bubble" is so up itself that it is reacting, rather than thinking, and will consistently get it wrong.

No one could predict the way the seats would fall, says a fatuous little BBC girlie ... if she pulled her head out of her arse, the result exactly reflects the mood of the country - a pox on all of you. Only the BBC, the political classes and the claque have no idea what is happening in the real world - they did not see it coming.

RESHUFFLE SPECIAL THREAD

Reshuffle special

Continuously updated - Last entry 09:10 Hrs


Despite the queues, the ranks of election monitors and the security, I struggled through to the polling station to cast my votes – one for the locals and the other for the national reshuffle. Appearances, however, can be deceptive. The tellers reported that by midday, they had registered as many votes as they had in the whole day, back in 2005.

This seems to be borne out by other local reports, and The Guardian is also reporting a higher than usual turnout in some areas. Thus, one of our earlier expectations is confounded – the initial thoughts were that the turnout might be quite low. What else have we got wrong?


Meanwhile, Farage failed in his attempt this morning to achieve perfect unity between himself and the soil of England, although he came very close indeed (pictured). He is reported as escaping with cuts and bruises, but the pilot was less fortunate, having been referred to a spinal unit for treatment.

In their rush to report the episode, the media seems to have missed a delicious irony ... that Farage, the man who would block Polish imigrants, was flying in a PZL Wilga, an aircraft of Polish manufacture, and a type incidentally which is used by Polish border guards - presumably to help keep the Russians and other undesirables out of the EU.

There will, presumably, be other ironies, as the day develops, not least that Farage will watch the count from a hospital bed, stone cold sober. Under normal circumstances, the odds on the world coming to an end today would have been better.

I'll keep this post updated, to chart developments and add observations, for as long as I remain sentient ... and sober. It is going to be a long night.

UPDATE 21:40 Hrs: They've been "queuing out of the doors" in Sunderland, the first real opportunity of getting rid of Labour in 40 years. Local boy Lee Martin, a Conservative, is slated to win the seat for Sunderland Central - and may be the second seat of the night to declare.

UPDATE 22:01 Hrs: BBC/ITN exit poll from NOP/Mori suggests a hung parliament. Cons 307 (short 19 of a majority), Lab 255, Lib-Dims 59 (down 3) and others on 29. Some scepticism on the result, especially the Lib-Dim figure. And, of course, this does not measure the postal ballots.

The first to declare is expected to be Sunderland South ... normally a safe Labour seat.

UPDATE 22:07 Hrs: Michael Thrasher, poll expert, on SKY "very confident" of the exit poll result - but he does not mention the postal ballots. Those went in at the height of Cleggomania, and could skew the overall result.

UPDATE 22:20 Hrs: Tory Boy Blog doesn't believe the exit poll. Thinks The Boy will have a "good night" and will emerge with an overall majority. Teresa May claims, "biggest loss of Labour seats since 1931".

UPDATE 22:36 Hrs: Labour win for Sunderland South ... declaration in five minutes. Lots of people in Sheffield turned away when polls closed, having been unable to handle the queues.

UPDATE 22:48 Hrs: Slight delay on Sunderland declaration ... problems about spoiled votes?

UPDATE 22:53 Hrs: Sunderland South result: BNP 1961, Lib-Dim, 5,292, UKIP 1,022, Cons 8,147, Lab 19,137, Ind 2,462. Turnout 55 percent. Labour vote down 11.7 percent but Tories up only 5.2 percent ... exactly in line with exit poll in England. The ABC party is a skulking presence at the feast.

UPDATE 23:04 Hrs: Refined poll prediction ... Cons 305 (21 short), Lab 255, Lib-Dim 61 and Others 29 (adding in data from last hour of voting).

UPDATE 23:20 Hrs: Betfair reckons that Con and Lib-Dim exit poll votes under-represented, and Labour overstated. But this is "pub talk", with money attached. The ABC vote may be decisive. Already, pundits are asking why the Tories aren't doing better. Look no further than two words: David Cameron.

UPDATE 23:32 Hrs: Washington Sunderland West result: Lib-Dim 6,382, Con 8,157, Lab 19,615, UKIP 1,267, BNP 1,913. Labour vote down 16.2 percent but Cons only gain 6.9 percent. BNP keeps its deposit. A "very strong" anti-government vote, but only a fraction of it is going to David Cameron's Conservatives.

UPDATE 23:40 Hrs: Pundits are saying that the Lib-Dim "surge" has completely evaporated - an artifact of the media hype attendant on the TV debate, which did not carry through into the polls. So much for the "media election". All the papers coming out for The Boy don't seem to have worked either. Early days yet - the betting exchanges are still rooting for an overall Tory majority.

UPDATE 23:45 Hrs Sunderland Central result: Lib-Dims 7,191, Lab 19,495, UKIP 1094, Con 12,770 and BNP 1,913. LABOUR WINS despite a strong local effect in favour of the Tories. This was one of Cameron's key swing seats. Swing 14.1 away from Labour but the Tories not picking up the loose votes.

Angry scenes at Islington South, as voters turned away. A protest in Manchester, Hull and other places. Turnout in declared constituencies 55 percent. Frustrated voters in Sheffield blockading polling stations, preventing ballot boxes leaving.

UPDATE 00:02 Hrs: Osborne claims an "extremely strong result" for the Tories. However, we are reminded that Cameron said that not getting an overall majority would be a "failure". Fraser Nelson and sundry clever-dicks are still predicting an overall Tory majority and/or refusing to accept the exit poll.

UPDATE 00:32 Hrs: Voter trouble in Maidstone - more people not allowed to vote. Cameron refuses to answer questions on state of play.

UPDATE 00:49 Hrs: Shinners hold West Tyrone, increased swing on DUP. DUP gets to keep Antrim North. Alliance gain Belfast East from DUP - Peter Robinson is out. Six results in according to the BBC. On "voter chaos", Electoral Commission admits "we were caught out". Possibility of some results being challenged.

UPDATE 01:17 Hrs: Cons gain Kingswood from Lab. Loss 7.9 by Labour - swing of 4.9 to Tories. Torbay - Lib-Dims hold. UKIP 2,628 Labour 3,231, Lib-Dims 23,126 and Cons 19,048. This was a Tory target. Putney, Con 21,223, Lab 11.170, Lib-Dim 6,907, BNP 459 and UKIP 435. Conservative hold. Labour down 10.2, Tories up 9.7.

Blunkett complains about slowness of the count. Results certainly do seem slow in coming - paint drying seems more interesting.

UPDATE 01:35 Hrs: Blunkett and Paddy Ashdown believe Tories will win an overall majority. Kirkcaldy result (Brown): UKIP 760, Ind 184, Lab (Brown) 29,559 Scots Nats 6,550, Scottish Lib-Dims 4,269, Cons 4,258. Brown INCREASES his majority.

UPDATE 01:52 Hrs: Kenneth Clarke keeps Rushcliffe with an increase of 3.1 percent. UKIP gets 2,179. Tooting result: LABOUR HOLD - Tories thought they might get it. Sadiq Khan for Labour gets 22,038, an increase of 0.8 percent. Matt Clarke for the Tories gets 19,514, an increase of 8.0 percent, but the Lib-Dims lose 4.8 percent and other small parties get squeezed. UKIP only gets 624. No consistency and no clear trends. Variable swings with different rules seem to apply to different seats. Tooting and Gedling, Torbay, Telford - key Tory targets - all missed.

UPDATE 02:15 Hrs: Exeter Ben Bradshaw, Labour 19,942, Cons 17,221, Lib-Dims 10,581. This was another of the marginals that the Tories were supposed to have won. With 580 seats still to be declared, it still looks as if we're going to see a hung parliament.

UPDATE 08:15 Hrs: Heh! Brown back in Downing Street - for the time being. SKY NEWS prediction Cons 309, Lab 259, Lib-Dims 54 and others 28. UKIP effect cost the Cons AT LEAST 12 seats, but almost certainly more. The media haven't twigged it, but it looks as if UKIP could have cost "call me Dave" the election. Several recounts in progress by 58 more seats to call.

One big loser of the night ... the professional pundits who were soooooooo confident the exit poll was wrong.

EVEN WITH DIM-LIBS ON-SIDE, LAB CAN'T MAKE A MAJORITY.

UPDATE 09:10 Hrs: An anti-Conservative progressive alliance? It seems almost certain that there will have to be another general election within the year. No one, not any single party, has a mandate. In a way, it is the most logical outcome. All the parties lost the election.

UPDATE 09:41 Hrs: Now, officially, a hung parliament. Conservatives are the largest party but no one party can command an overall majority. The parties are going to have to talk to each other sensibly, but they're knackered. Tory shadow ministers are "shell-shocked".

RESHUFFLE SPECIAL THREAD

Anyone But Cameron

Although the main Westminster parties – as always – have been at pains during this election campaign to avoid references to the European Union, this is the one issue that stands above all others. There is not and cannot be anything more important to us as a nation than the questions of who governs us and who makes our laws.

Increasingly, that body is not the Westminster parliament or the British government, and over the term of the next parliament, their powers will diminish further as the Lisbon Treaty begins to bite.

Thus, in many respects, we are not electing MPs who will go on to form our government. We are electing an electoral college which will then appoint members to serve on the councils of our supreme government in Brussels. That government, untouched by the inconveniences and uncertainties of elections, will simply acquire some new faces, but the agenda will not change, and nor will it be accountable to us. For this reason, we have referred to this election as the electorally mandated reshuffle.

It could, of course, have been different, had David Cameron intended to honour his promise and give us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. That promise was made, most clearly in The Sun on 26 September 2007 (pictured above).

Ironically, in this piece, Cameron writes prophetically of the "final reason" for giving us a referendum as one of "trust". Gordon Brown talks about "new" politics, Cameron added, "But there's nothing 'new' about breaking your promises to the British public. It's classic Labour." Thus declared our putative prime minister: "And it is the cancer that is eating away at trust in politics. Small wonder that so many people don't believe a word politicians ever say if they break their promises so casually."

In November 2009, Cameron then went on to break his own promise, a breach of trust that he justifies by saying that his promise was conditional on the treaty not having been ratified by the time he became prime minister. And it was in that November that the treaty was finally ratified.

But if Mr Cameron chooses to rely on the "small print" of his September 2006 article, there were no caveats in his speech of 26 May 2009. Then, unequivocally – with no caveats or reservations, he said: " ... a progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people. We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty ... ".

It is that promise to which I intend to hold Mr Cameron. Breaking your promises to the British public "is the cancer that is eating away at trust in politics," the man said. "Small wonder that so many people don't believe a word politicians ever say if they break their promises so casually."

In November 2009, Mr Cameron crossed the line. Having dickered increasingly unconvincingly about what he would do if the treaty was ratified, telling us that he would "not leave it there", he finally broke his many promises and decided to do just that, to "leave it there".

At that time, I made a promise – that I would not vote for a Conservative Party that did not include in its manifesto a commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. It did not and, since I am not a politician, I intend to keep my promise. I cannot in all faith and honesty vote for Mr Cameron's Conservatives. Further, I cannot recommend that anyone else does either – that would be to forgive the unforgivable.

So, the choice later today becomes ABC – Anyone But Cameron, in practical terms expanded to include Brown and Clegg. Irrespective of the consequences, there is no other principled choice.

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

Vote early, vote often

The Times picks up the electoral fraud story, charting the goings-on in Tower Hamlets. A last-minute surge of electoral registrations in the borough means that 5,000 have gone through without any checks.

Of those, a dozen voters have been registered to the home of a Labour candidate, Khales Uddin Ahmed, running to be a councillor, rising from five to twelve in recent weeks. But a neighbour said that only three people live in the maisonette on a council estate in Bromley-by-Bow.

When challenged by a Times reporter, Ahmed, a restaurateur, locked himself behind his door and insisted that all the other occupants were out. "You are discriminating our family," he said. "I am not going to give you any information." He declined to say how many bedrooms he had.

Round the corner, in a house where a mother and daughter, both Labour councillors, live, three people have recently been added to the voting register, bringing the total to eight. Rania Khan said that the new names at the four-bedroom house were her husband and two nurses they had taken in as lodgers. "That's showing the need of the people of Tower Hamlets with the overcrowding situation," she said.

At a maisonette in Poplar, where a Labour councillor, her husband and four children live, three new adults have been recently added to the roll. When The Times asked to speak to the newcomers, Shiria Khatun, who is standing in the elections, slammed the door. Her husband shouted: "Get out from here, bloody bastard." Ms Khatun later said by telephone that the new residents were two nieces and a nephew who were sleeping on a sofa and the floor.

These are but a few of the cases where new names have been suddenly added to the voting register as living at addresses occupied by Labour candidates, in a borough which has a history of allegations of voting irregularities.

The council and the two parliamentary constituencies in the borough are up for grabs in tightly fought contests between Labour, the Conservatives and the Respect party. In one, Bethnal Green & Bow, George Galloway of the Respect Party held the seat but he is standing now in the adjacent constituency of Poplar & Limehouse, a new seat emerging from recent boundary changes.

Both constituencies have large immigrant communities, predominantly Bengali and Bangladeshi Islamists. They have imported some of the less desirable political practices of their sub-continent, which have found a ready home in two formerly safe Labour seats.

Scotland Yard has now started four criminal investigations into possible election irregularities, but these are by no means the only areas where there are concerns about vote rigging. Complaints have been made in Ealing, West London – another area with a high immigrant population. Forces in West Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Derbyshire, Cleveland and Gwent are also studying complaints and arrests have been made.

All of this, of course, is shutting the stable gate after the horse has bolted. The pathetically weak checks on voter registration have now allowed a situation where the counts in a number of constituencies will be suspect. These are matched by a pathetically weak Electoral Commission which is reduced to bleating that newly introduced checks are "working".

However, it is perhaps unfair to complain that this should be the case. Since our economy is rapidly being reduced to third-world status, and whole areas of the country are being turned into third-world ghettos, it is somewhat appropriate that we should have the voting system that goes with the more general mess. "Uniting the East End", proclaims one candidate. But uniting it for what purpose?

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

Split down the middle

The Times and The Daily Telegraph have done it and The Sun came out ages ago, rooting for the Tories. Amazingly, the Economist did it as well, followed in short order by The Financial Times. Unkind souls have suggested that support from the latter two indicate quite how far the Tories have departed from the Conservative Path.

For all the effort expended on it by Mr Cameron's Conservatives, The Guardian put up two metaphorical fingers and plumped for Cleggy and his Lib-Dims. The Independent did likewise – I think – leaving only The Mirror forlornly backing New Labour, old Labour or whatever it is Mr Brown represents. The BBC, studiously neutral, backs the Greens, the Lib-Dims and even tips its cap very occasionally in the direction of The Boy. Brown, it has decided, is toast.

In fact, barring the odd throwback like The Mirror, the entire press corps seems to have decided that Brown is history, while the polls increasingly put Cameron in the lead. The only uncertainty seems to be whether he will pull ahead sufficiently to command an absolute majority or whether we get a hung parliament – and if so, by many seats his party will fall short.

Tory-leaning papers, of course, are counselling against a hung parliament, arguing that it would lead to a weak government, while the Tories assert that this would mean another five years of Brown. According to the YouGov poll in The Sun, however, the voters are split down the middle.

Interestingly, 11 percent would be "delighted" and 32 percent would "not mind" if there is a hung parliament, which is exactly matched by the 43 percent who would be "dismayed" by that eventuality. As to a Conservative government formed under Cameron, 23 percent would be delighted and 23 percent wouldn't mind – again exactly matched by the 46 percent who would be "dismayed".

Against this, the voting intentions seem almost and irrelevance, with 35 percent for the Conservatives (no change), Labour on 30 percent (up 2) and the Lib-Dims trailing on 24 percent, (down 4). The "others" are on 11 percent (up 2%).

So, could it all change within 25 hours? Or could it be that the polls have it completely wrong, and the Tories are going to creep in with a working majority? Or even could it be that the polls have underestimated the impact of postal voting and the so-called "UKIP effect”, and the Conservatives could actually do worse than predicted?

Any of those scenarios is possible, especially as The Independent has 40 percent of voters as yet undecided. That will make watching the results through Thursday night into Friday the most interesting thing of this whole election – in fact, the only really interesting thing, although a hanged parliament would be more so.

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

Three out of three

"In the past three elections I voted for Tony Blair. I thought that Labour offered the country a better future. Now I have been forced to conclude I was wrong, so I want you to vote for David Cameron," writes Michael Grade.

And having got it wrong three times out of three, we should trust your judgement now, Mr Grade?

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

The beat goes on

Irish and British airspace has been re-opened after the earlier shut-down in response to further volcano ash incursions, thus demonstrating that the newly refined system is working tolerably well.

This great feat has been achieved without the intervention of the EU and Eurocontrol yet, despite this, the EU's Transport Council (pictured) has today agreed a proposal from the EU commission which is says will help prevent further disruption to air travel as a result of volcanic ash.

This includes speeding up current plans to integrate Europe's air space, creating a "single European regulator for a single European sky" but, since the national air authorities of the UK and Ireland have now proved capable of dealing with the issues arising from volcanic ash, have a non-solution chasing a non-problem.

However, as pointed out earlier, the volcanic ash shut-down was just another of those familiar "beneficial crises" which the EU is exploiting to further its plans for integration.

Yet this has been agreed by a British minister, Lord Adonis, two days before a general election, thus effectively committing the incoming government to following this path. But what is particularly depressing is that neither the media nor the politicians seem remotely concerned, which makes you wonder why we are having a general election in the first place.

The drumbeat of integration goes on, irrespective of elections and governments. All we are doing is electing the "pretty boys" to front up the system.

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

A surge of fraud?

The recent rush of new voter registrations may have sinister implications. Along with others, The Daily Mail is reporting significant instances of postal vote rigging (see panel above - click to enlarge).

Voter fraud, says the paper, could determine the outcome of the general election. Police have launched 50 criminal inquiries nationwide amid widespread cases of electoral rolls being packed with "bogus" voters. And, with the outcome of the closest election in a generation hanging in the balance, a few thousand stolen votes in key marginals – where there has been a late surge in registrations - could determine who wins.

The infuriating thing about this is that there is nothing new about reports of voter fraud, and the postal vote system has long been prone to abuse. Yet very little has been done to curb that abuse, which puts the credibility of the entire system in doubt. We have little enough trust in politicians without a rigged election to contend with as well.

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD