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

[Heathcliffscathy]

according to the bbc

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Unwritten constitution I believe.

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.

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?

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

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

here

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.

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.

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.

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

(Until he does a deal with Clegg, then their combined seats/share of the vote adds up to a majority.)

'Senior Whitehall sources were keen to stress that it would be Brown's duty to remain in place until it were clear that a successor exists who was capable of securing a majority for their own speech.

The Queen will not intervene in any discussions between the political parties, the sources made clear, although she can expect to be kept informed of developments.

It is for the political parties to agree on a prime minister who can win support for the speech.

Although conventions remain unclear, it will be open for the Queen to reject a call for a dissolution of parliament if it is not in the national interest. But this was unlikely, the sources said.'

Comments made by Labour ministers, in particular Ed bloody Balls, over single mothers. Very unhelpful and stigmatised every last one of us.

Not that I'm saying the Tories are any better, but Labour, for what they are meant to be, are a joke. Perhaps with Alistair Darling in the top job, or someone less strident as Balls, Mandy, Brown or Harperson.

How is it fair that GB gets to stay in if he gets the support from NC? DC got more votes so why shouldn't he get that choice first? Is it just my logic that doesn't see how that is fair?