news just in...definitely hung parliament...no chance of conservative majority

Because DC didn't win. No-one did. DC is merely the leader of the biggest minority party.

I get that Edam but why as gaelicsheep put it so much simpler than I managed to - why does GB get first bite of the cherry when technically he lost to DC?

Because Gordon Brown is the sitting PM. He's the one already there. The constitution - and common sense - says we have to have a PM. And the old one stays put while everyone works out who the hell the next one is.

We don't really have a government at the moment, do we? There's the PM, the civil service, and the head of state but not actual government.

I can see that for stability we need to retain the PM until the new one is decided. But should GB actually get first bite at the cherry after losing? Hell no. Thank God NC has some integrity.

Someone earlier said basically Gordon Brown gets first refusal to try and form a government by winning the support of the Lib Dems. But what I don't understand is why he should get that opportunity first over David Cameron when he got more votes than Gordon Brown.

Edam, while STV with multi-member constituencies would mean bigger than current constituencies, they'd still be smaller than the regions MEPs cover. Plus you wouldn't have the problem of wanting to vote for a party nationally but not liking their candidate locally - you'd be able to choose the candidate you liked best within that constituency.

I keep posting this link but here it is again.

here

kafka9, we don't have a constitution do we?

This explains this www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/30/gordon-brown-hung-parliament-pm

But shouldn't the person with the most votes get the choice to try and set up a workable government first? And if they don't want to do it then GB can stay until a decision has been made?

It is the constitution. Otherwise these situations could potentially be chaotic, with people coming and going from no 10 and detracting from what the parties need to do which is to talk to each other. It is right that GB should be 'minding the shop' until a deal or other solution is being struck with the conservatives and the liberals.

Unwritten constitution I believe.

I'm a bit confused. How come Gordon Brown gets to stay in when David Cameron got more votes and seats than him?

Exactly! Look at what the tories did to Lone parents in the 80s...poverty and treated as societies scum. The rich got rich-services were cut, we had a recession- people have such short memories!

I want a coalition between labour, lib dems and other...I want electrol reform and this will ensure we get it. I do not want a tory coalition...they will not compromise on the issues that affect our family. Then in 7-9 mths time when electrol form is sorted then we can have a re election...and if a hung parliment is the outcome again then that will be the "will" of the peopl not due to an unfair electrol system

I worry about PR. I don't want to break the link between voters, constituencies and MPs - I want to know there is a person called whatever who is responsible to me and there to help me if I need it. I want to be able to write to my MP and be taken seriously - without constituencies, they won't give a toss. Look at the MEPs - great big regions, who the hell knows who their MEPs are?

And I don't want party lists, where all I get to do is choose between the biggest crawler wearing a red rosette and the biggest lickspittle wearing a blue one. The current selection process has its problems, but it is far better than Gordon or David or Nick simply drawing up a list of their 350 most loyal creeps.

Do youi think a coalition between Lib, Lab and others would be worth it to get PR. I know it's not pretty but PR is so important I think it would be worth it.

and of course Cameron's going to take money away from single parents in order to give tax breaks to married couples...

Very good questions. It was my own MP, when he was a Tory cabinet minister, who told the party conference that he 'had a little list' of undesirables, and named single mothers. The Tories were vicious - single parents like my own mother were regarded as Public Enemy No. 1.

Twoifbythesea...exactly what policies did labour introduce to make single mothers out to be the lowest of the low?

The only social policys I have witnessed ar about encouraging single parents on benefits back into work and ensuring that there are childcare, surestart, tax credits etc.

Twoifbysea, can you explain your comment about single mothers to me please- what did labour do exactly? (interested).

Hi everyone, at last my old politics degree comes in handy! We had a paper on British Politics and Government... So here goes:

When an election is held but no party has a clear majority (i.e. they can pass their legislation with all their own MPs votes even if all the other party's MPs vote against them) the (unwritten) constitution provides for it. As the BBC seem to be explaining quite well, the PM stays put (a country must have someone in power to keep things going pro tem) and they negotiate. Senior civil servants can assist and the PM will go to the Queen and tell her what they have decided. She will then formally invite the new PM person to form a government. If they cannot agree then she can call another election. But another election immediately will be the last resort for very practical reasons: a)they are bloody expensive! b)one called very soon is likely to result in another hung parliament and c)it annoys voters and hence is not good for democracy.

So they need to make do and work something out, make it work (or not) for at least 3 or 4 months and may be as long as 10, and things will have moved on and another election can be called in which we will be interested! (Also they may provide enough staff and ballot papers...).

I was a poll clerk yesterday in Lembit Opiks constituency and we had ballot papers for all 500 on our list if necessary. To be honest the current finincial difficulties make it ideal for the parties to cut a deal and work together for a while so that one of them isn't tarnished by association with the measures they will have to put in place (Churchill did something of this sort when he appointed his War Cabinet of course). but the Tory grandees are starting to rumble now and David Cameron may not be free to do what he thinks is best.... Interesting times.

works both ways twoifbysea, round here you could stick a blue rosette on a donkey's arse and it'd be elected. (In fact that's pretty close to what happened in the next door constituency - Tory woman who stole £££££s from us in the expenses scandal hung on to the seat.)

Brown makes for a very pathetic figure today - no doubt Mandelson is already plotting his demise (and Labour could do a lot for itself by booting the pair of them out.)

How depressing that up here Labour have continued their stranglehold. Still, as I said when they kept the Glasgow North seat (Michael Martin's seat, he didn't live in the area by the way, far too poor and down heel for his type) in some areas Labour could have a monkey as their candidate and would still win. All that "I've voted Labour all my life.." guff.

Yeah, don't forget, Labour stuck the boot in single mothers, made us out to be the lowest of the low. Really socially cohesive aren't they.

Minority governments are not all bad. the Scottish Parliament has been good at getting consensus decisions through, anything too extreme just doesn't get past the various poltical parties ( SNP does not work in coalition but has to convince the others that their budget and other proposals are workable on a case by case basis. A lot of grandstanding does still happen but on the whole it is less confrontational than Westminster. Maybe it is time for a change after all?