what'd be wrong with that then?

Markets get twitchy apparently.
Germany seems to have done Ok for the last 50 years, but its political system is probably designed to cope a bit better

Have the Lib Dems got enough seats to be able to participate in a hung parliament even if they got voted in first or second?

My money is on a narrow Tory victory, perhaps not by a majority, with the Lib Dems a close second but not being able to take part as not enough seats… Though they will become the oppposition and Labour relegated to third… I hope!

If the tories get in would it be a well hung parliament given that they are led by an enormous cock?

No chance of the lib dems coming second. cameron will be short of a majority. The country is safe

ok ok, thanks for the comments, but if we go off at a tangent we'll argue 'til the cows come home. it's a serious question.

hung parliament… what'd be wrong with that then?

It's harder to get things done.

if it's harder for dave and gideon to get their things done, that'll do nicely

Markets get twitchy apparently.

Well they been telling the UK worker to be "flexible" over the last thirty years or so, about time they practiced what they preached and adapt to the current climate.

Nothing at all. There has been no majorities in Holyrood since it started. First two parliaments were labour / liberal coalitions, now a minority SNP administration.

A lot depends on the arithmetic. If Cameron is only a few seats short he could try to run a minority administration

Or if more than a few seats short he could enter a formal coalition with someone or he could seek a common programme with other parties.

it tends to lead to either medicrity or moderate government depending on your viewpoint – but not always. It could be the Ulster Unioniists supporting cameron

Some of the most stupid things of the last ten years have not happened in Scotland as a result of the hung parliament – no foundation hospitals or city academies for example.

Stu McGroo – Member

hung parliament… what'd be wrong with that then?

Nothing in particular. We'd either have one party as the Goverment, legislating on a case-by-case basis with support from some of the other parties, or a coalition of parties creating a ruling majority government. If the latter, and assuming the LibDems are involved, reform of the electoral system is almost guaranteed and we'll probably never have a single party government ever again.

No chance of the lib dems coming second

Why, is there a law that forbids it ?

This shows that the Lib Dems won't come 2nd in terms of seat numbers even if they do get the 2nd highest number of votes. Interestingly, if you put 33.3% to each main party Labour gets more seats than the other two put together!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

I would like to see a chung parliament.

yes any party that picks yellow as its colour is not allowed to rule the country fact

Is it not gold rather than yella?

yes any party that picks yellow as its colour is not allowed to rule the country fact

That seems fair.

…….are they allowed to come second though ?

ernie_lynch – Member

No chance of the lib dems coming second

Why, is there a law that forbids it ?

Just the way their support is spread they would have to do massively better than the polls suggest. On the same share of the vote as labour they will get half the seats of labour ( or something similar)

I'd like

Tories to get the most seats, just, but no majority – to get labour out (too long in power is a bad thing)

Lib dems to go into coalition with them – to keep the bad'uns in control and maybe get PR in place.

let them run for a bit. If it goes well, great. If not then hopefully some time will bring labour back under control and make them a reasonable choice next time round.

A hung parliament is going to confuse the lobbyists.

They won't know who to bribe.

We might actually get some democracy out of it.

Even if LibDems won a 1/3rd of the votes, they'd get only 1/6 of the seats because FPP a cr@p electoral system when you have more than 2 big parties.

So Labour would still be the opposition if the Conservatives get a slim majority. In terms of passing legislation, a slim majority is not much different from a slightly hung parliament really so don't get "hung up" on it.

But a hung parliament resulting in a lib/lab government is very likely to have Nick Clegg as PM, more moderated slashing of public services and urgent electoral reform, all of which I'm all in favour of. IMO.

epicyclo, thanks for getting it back on track… i was just about to chuck my dummy!

a lib/lab government is very likely to have Nick Clegg as PM

really? Suprised on that one. Source?

Nick Clegg as PM? But he's almost foreign they say.

I doubt the Clegg for PM – he would have the smaller party – likely to be a labor Pm but not Brown with clegg either foreign office or tresury

Its likely to be Tories as the largest party. gonna be a difficult decision for Clegg in that case – but to support a queens speech to get PR for councils and Westminster might be worth it

Just the way their support is spread they would have to do massively better than the polls suggest. On the same share of the vote as labour they will get half the seats of labour ( or something similar)

But you're reckoning on the Labour vote not collapsing. If the Labour vote dips to below 25% (well within the margin of error of the opinion polls) even if the LibDems don't do better than predicted, Labour will be going down like nine-pins across the country losing seats to the Tories – and possibly be left with less MPs than the LibDems. Not likely I accept, but perfectly possible – Labour only managed to get 23% of the vote in the local elections last year.

Who are the popular options for PM in a hung parliament?

Con/Lib -> Camarooon, no question about it. I just don't think there is a tent big enough for John Redwood and Simon Hughes.

Lib/Lab -> Anyone but Brown. If you were Nick, what would be your entry criteria? If you were Labour, you'd be desperate for a popular shiny "change" guy like Nick.

I'd give a Lib/Lab government 2 years before splitting. In that time they have to avoid a double dip, make a start on public debt and change to PR.

Ernie – I don't believe there is any chance of labour getting less seats that the Lib Dems – I bet they have more than double. You can quote me on that. 🙂

More to the point, how many SNP MPs will we have?

This link really helps you see why TJ is right:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

SNP – polls are not looking good for them – probably a couple more but not the 30+ they hoped for

Lib/Lab -> Anyone but Brown. If you were Nick, what would be your entry criteria? If you were Labour, you'd be desperate for a popular shiny "change" guy like Nick.

Everyone appears to be under the impression that Clegg will be calling all the shots. Labour could quite easily tell Clegg to go and p*ss off, forcing him into a coalition/pact with the Tories. That would lead to LibDem support haemorrhaging and, as you suggest, serious internal strife.

Of course Clegg could refuse to do a deal with the Tories, and no one would govern – no skin off Labour's nose – another election will have to be called.

Agree Ernie – Clegg would find it very difficult to take his party with him into supporting the tories and Cameron has said that he is not interested in doing a deal – he would form a minority government.

Lots of permutations are possible but I thinK tory / ulster unionist alliance is most plausile if Cameron is only a few seats short.

According to that BBC link todays polls would have Tory and Labour neck and neck about 50 – 60 seats short and Libs on about 80. In which case I would expect a Lib / Lab alliance

However I think that calculator underestimates how well Tories will do in marginals. If I was a betting man I would have them 10 -20 short of a majority and thus able to either try a minority government or bribe the unionists to support them

IMO, assuming a significant shortfall in seats for the Conservatives, Clegg will be calling some of the shots.

"another election will have to be called"

And the Conservatives would win a clear majority in a second election so Labour will not dismiss the LibDems and fall into that trap.

If Labour wants to keep power (and it does) a neo-socialist Lib/Lab government with Nick as front man is the way to do it. Aside from PR, forget all the other LibDem policies, people aren't that interested in them. But they are interested in Nick and also Vince.

This is a very interesting general election for a change!

Why would the tories win a clear majority if a second election was called – that really does not follow at all.

Clegg would never be acceptable as PM to a Labour party. He will be bring 80 ish mps while labour brings 270 ish. It would have to be a labour PM – nothing else would be acceptable to the PLP

hangings too good for em'

Why would the tories win a clear majority if a second election was called – that really does not follow at all.

I'd not suggest it was a certainty, but at least more likely, as a second election would pretty much prove the Tories' point about the problem with a hung parliament (you have to assume as they're making it that wanting something other than a hung parliament is likely to make people vote Tory).

aracer + 1

Why would the tories win a clear majority if a second election was called – that really does not follow at all.

Yep, I don't see the logic behind that. There is no evidence that Tory support would increase. In fact, Tory support has been falling steadily in the last 12 months.

"If Labour wants to keep power (and it does)"

I'm not that convinced by that either. Everyone agrees that this general election isn't a bad one to lose. Whoever forms the next government, is very likely to be become very unpopular very quickly – specially with all the cuts they all plan to make. Sitting this one out wouldn't be a bad thing at all. So if you're going to lose an election, and all government parties eventually do, then it might as well be this one. I don't think the Labour leadership wants to come third though – doing so would destroy them imo.

I don't think the Labour leadership wants to come third though – doing so would destroy them imo.

But they're not going to are they? Popular vote maybe, but they're certain to bounce back from that low when they're no longer in power and to blame for all the ills of the country – I can't see how that would be a big problem for them when it would still result in sufficient seats to at least be a very strong opposition. If they came 3rd in terms of seats yes that would be a problem, but it's simply not going to happen.

The problem if they have one will be if they form a coalition government – they won't be able to do what they want but will still be to blame. Of course that will also result in either electoral reform, thus resulting in an upheaval which could be a death knell for either of the big two parties, or another election after having to start on the painful stuff, which could in itself result in electoral disaster.

From a purely selfish POV, I suspect I might be best off with such a Labour led coalition – am currently still undecided how I'm voting.