[Closed] hung parliament!

Difference here is that in fact the "minority" party is liley to have 1/3rd of the vote approx.

Personally I think it is a given that the majority of people in the UK are moderate, unfortunately, our political system is a throwback to the roundheads and cavaliers and is entirely unrepresentative of the majority, so bring on the change I say.

In Isreal its true that it is extremist parties that hold the balance of power - here it is moderate parties ( unless the tories and ulster unionists can cobble a majority together)

In the case of no party having an overall majority

I think the incumbent PM [Brown] will be given the 1st opportunity to form a government even if the Tories have substantially more seats than Labour

can anyone confirm that?

Whether he could do that & stay PM is another issue entirely

unless the tories and ulster unionists can cobble a majority together

I think that's a given assuming the numbers add up - In NI the unionist posters state "Unionists and Conservatives"

In the case of no party having an overall majority

I think the incumbent PM [Brown] will be given the 1st opportunity to form a government even if the Tories have substantially more seats than Labour

can anyone confirm that?

According to the news last night, it's viewed that it'll be a case of who claims it earliest and loudest irrespective of the fact that technically you're right and that GB would get the first chance. Great system 🙄

I think the incumbent PM [Brown] will be given the 1st opportunity to form a government even if the Tories have substantially more seats than Labour

That does indeed seem to be the case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/23/what-is-a-hung-parliament

uplink - yep, according to [url= http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04951.pdf ]this[/url]... "if no party commands a majority, the previous government might remain in position and there might be a period of negotiation whilst they try to build a coalition, or else decide to try to govern with a minority of Members of Parliament."

The monarch is the one who ultimately decides who forms a government, but I doubt Lizzie would get stuck in to sort out a fight between CMD, Prudent Gordy and Honest Nick.

Before anyone is invited to form a gvernment the civil servants who advise the queen will try to sot out who is most likely to be able to form a government. People claiming Brown will automatically get the first chance are scaremongering. If the tories are only a few short then it would be them, or it would be the largest party if they have the support of minor parties.

I think that's a given assuming the numbers add up - In NI the unionist posters state "Unionists and Conservatives"

Yup - I believe the Tories 'Sunday best' name is still the 'Conservative & Unionist Party' too

TandemJeremy - Member
Before anyone is invited to form a gvernment the civil servants who advise the queen will try to sot out who is most likely to be able to form a government. People claiming Brown will automatically get the first chance are scaremongering. If the tories are only a few short then it would be them, or it would be the largest party if they have the support of minor parties.

It is also clear that the government is not directly elected by the electorate and the incumbent Prime Minister does not have to resign until the confidence of the House of Commons has been explicitly withheld, for example by losing a vote on the Queen's Speech.[30] It is now inconceivable that a Prime Minister would not resign as soon as it became apparent that an opposition party had gained an overall majority in the House

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/39604.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/30/gordon-brown-hung-parliament-pm

Junkyard +1. We have historical precedent here. In the first '74 election Heath won less seats than Wilson, yet stayed in place trying to put together a coalition for several days.

The point is that the PM is appointed by Liz and remains the PM until proven otherwise (by losing a vote on the Queens speech or a no confidence vote). The only reason incumbent PMs go earlier is because there's no point in staying if they know they're going to lose as they won't achieve anything (apart from looking silly). If no other party has a majority - even if they have more seats than you - it's not a given that you'll lose such a vote.

TJ - you knowledge of the Ulster Unionists is somewhat out of date. I fail to see how they could help the tories govern given they don't currently have any MPs!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Unionist_Party

Good post Junkyard.

"is very likely to be become very unpopular very quickly"

True. From a Labour PoV, would it not make sense to set Nick up as alliance party leader aka. "as the fall guy"

DUP then stu?

True. From a Labour PoV, would it not make sense to set Nick up as alliance party leader aka. "as the fall guy"

Too transparent. Needs to be a lot more Machavellian than that to work.

I honestly reckon that nulab expected to manage two terms and governed accordingly, expecting problems in what would be a third term (when the Tories would be back in) neatly allowing them to pick up the next election.

Probably something similar here - lose, blame GB, sweep out the old and replace with all the younger, ambitious ones - Balls, Milliband, etc.

Agree with Clubber. Brown is dead in the water whatever way he looks. Lose election and he'll be gone, Lib-Lab pact will not want him as PM, though may accept Milliband etc. as a replacement, maybe with Vincey-boy as treasurer, Clegg as Foreign Secretary or something.

The young bloods will not want the severe cuts in spending on their 'patch' so they may be quite relaxed about being in opposition to a Cons/Lib coalition.

Though a dangerous game if Libs force through PR as their price for being Kingmakers....

No one has started speculating yet about what will happen to Cameron if he fails to win a majority/form a government. My guess is that the right of the party will tear into him for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The party will then lurch back into UKIP territory and...

Yep, that's definitely the risk for the Tories but I don't reckon it's that likely at the moment with a lot of polls suggesting that unfortunately a lot of the LD's support gained through Clegg's performances is now fading as people find out more about their policies and the scaremongering about immigration/amnesties/etc.

Clegg is apparently by far the most popular of the three leaders while the LD's headline policies are apparently by far the least popular.

Wasn't there some strange stat last week that half of poeple polled would vote for Lib Dems if they though they would actually win!

Yes, gonna be interesting what people actually vote for when they've got the ballot paper in their hand in private rather than in front of a researcher. Do you vote for Labour to make sure Cons don't get in, or vice versa. Could be a few shocks if the 'tactical' type vote kicks in.

Must be a few Labour MPs (Ed Balls possibly?) that are a little nervous if the Cons switch to voting Lib Dem.

It is definitely the most intriguing of the elections in recent years and clearly too close to call for now. If Labour fail to gain an overall majority I agree that it doesn't look good for GB - although he could then be a bit honest in trying to big himself up a bit by saying that according to the polls over the past few years he should have been hammered in the election but look, I only just lost out. Therefore the people like me and so I should stay. However, he would almost certainly need to do a deal with someone and Lib Dems seem quite clear that as long as GB is leader of the Labour party they are not interested. Now, if GB is forced to stand down as leader of the Labour Party how would that affect any proposal to form a government? With GB removed he is no longer the incumbant - unless it is viewed as a party thing and thus allow Labour to hold a party leadership contest with the winner getting the proize of PM. Can't see that being especially popular with anyone.
Even if Labour came 3rd (unlikely, but you never know) I can't see them being as far out in the cold as they were in the 80s. During much of that time Labour were completely unelectable under the leadership of Foot and Kinnock. Whatever criticsms there are of Tony Blair and the NuLab project, they have to be credited with the move to a more central political stance, making them a much more appealing party to the electorate - one of the reasons why this election is so hard to call. The reality is, on the face of it, that there is not that much between all of the parties. If we do end up with a hung parliament, I'm not sure I can see it being that successful as England does not really seem set up for that style of goernment. It possibly works in Wales and Scotland better because most of the protagonists are more desperate to be self governing than bickering amongst themselves.

It possibly works in Wales and Scotland better because most of the protagonists are more desperate to be self governing than bickering amongst themselves.

Not really - slamond with the SNP is not a long way short of a majority. Labour have taken to opposing everything the SNP do even if it was Labour policy and as a result have frozen themselves out. SNP get by with help from tories and liberals.

Tories have taken their opportunity to have influence far above their representation and Labour have ended up looking small-minded, petty and foolish.

I could see teh same happening if Cameron is only just short - getting his queens speech passed with help from other parties and run a minority administration