So, basically, Klegg says he will prop up the Cameron and continue to "argue for" fairness.

Can he really be saying that he'll anoint the Blue Party -- who won't promise any kind of constitutional reform, and keep out the Red Party -- who will have a referendum on voting reform?

And I voted for this guy, when I could have voted for the identity card anti-civil libertarian nutters who lied about a war...er...or the homophobic old etonian nutters who like national service and discipline...or...er....there was a very good "Legalize Drugs" independent. If I'd voted for him, his score might have reached double figures.

Sure, most of what's wrong with England today can be blamed on Rupert Murdoch, and sure, the Sun is an odious little rag, and everything. But you can't deny that "UKIP brought down by right wing" is a bloody good headline.

How democracy works. 64% of those who bothered to vote didn't vote for the Blue Party. This is an overwhelming mandate for the Blue Party. (71% of those who bothered to vote didn't vote for the Red Party. This amounts to complete annihilation of the Red Party.) 52% if those who bothered to vote voted for either the Red Party or the Yellow Party. A joint Red-Yellow government would therefore be an affront to democracy.

Man in the Nasty Express comments section goes to the heart of the issue: "Brown should not have been allowed to stand as prospective Prime Minister on the basis of election in Scotland."

John says it is now impossible for their not to be a hung parliament.

The Nasty Mail says that Cameron has earned the right to "rule" Britain. Does this qualify as treason against the crown, d'you think?

Cameron: "I don't 'old with all this constitutional stuff. I'm unilaterally declaring that this is an electoral college and I'm president, so there."

I wish I was a member of the Lib Dems so I could resign if Klegg hands power to the Tories.