Nope.

They probably will though. Lesser of two evils thing. Despite the Digital Economy Act and illegal wars and that, the Tories are still more evil than Labour. Marginally.

It's fucked in so many ways though - there's fuck all real ideological separation between the parties (there's fuck all ideology at all, really). So I dunno, if the Tories come close to a majority but don't quite get it (even with unionist support etc.) then the Libs, particularly if they take a higher share of the vote than expected, may feel a moral obligation to support the party with the most credible scraps of a mandate.

Ideally (in dream land) the Libs will win outright and push things to the left by... a couple of millimetres.

It's just that proper coalitions (where members of both parties are appointed to cabinet positions) are extremely rare in westminister parliamentary systems. It's more common to have a formal agreement or accord between 2 or more parties, but where only one party actually forms the government (i.e. Labour would govern, but the LDP agrees to support them for a certain period of time - say 2 years, and Labour agrees to implement certain policies favoured by the LDP). However, even in that instance, normally, if the Cons actually won more seats overall, they should still be asked to have the first crack at governing. Then, if defeated on a confidence motion, the other two can go to the Queen and say they're willing to try governing rather than have an election.

 

Sadly, a proper coalition will never happen in Canada. Our opposition parties tried that back in 2008 and the governing Cons went on a PR campaign painting the move as "treasonous" and illegal, and against the will of the Canadian public, etc. And since way too many people have no fucking clue how parliamentary systems actually work (i.e. we don't actually vote in governments, we vote in MPs who then decide who will form the government), the Cons managed to rally a majority of Canadians against the idea of a coalition. They still use the term as a threat when they start to sag in the polls.

Even if the Tories end up with more seats than Labour, unless they get an absolute majority (i.e. >= 362 seats) then Gordon Brown is still PM:

Weird. That's not how things work here. The only way the incumbent would stay in power is if the two main parties were tied in number of seats - the incumbent would get the first shot at trying to govern. But otherwise, whichever party wins the most seats, even if they're shy of a majority, gets to form the government.

Ah, you're making the fatal assumption that our democracy even pretends to be properly democratic - or even to make sense.

It's a natural assumption since our system is pretty much a carbon copy of yours.

I'm still fairly apathetic about all the parties - Clegg is coming off pretty well but it's all still mostly political bull. However, the Libs seem most interested in Parliamentary reform, which gets my vote.

Incidentally, just seen this on t'Guardian.

Direct Digital Democracy

So the hung parliament means that the incumbent PM gets to build a government made from the most suitable people from each party? Why does that not already happen?

 

Assuming for a moment that none of the major parties are perfect (just go with me on this one), is it not better to have the one person who is most competent in their position in charge of each department? As opposed to being forced to choose one party which could have some members that you feel are weaker and would prefer someone from another party, even if you didn't agree with that parties policies in general.

 

Smash the establishment, etc.

Suitability has nothing to do with it. Parties go into huddles in closed rooms, attempting to negotiate a working majority against promises of senior cabinet posts to people not fit to hold them, or extreme legislation as a honey trap for single interest groups. If you thought this government stank, wait till you see two minority parties vying against one another to seduce the Lib Dems and the Irish Unionists.

I'm pretty sure that can happen anyway. Ministers (including cabinet) can be appointed from any party (and either house, I think). Didn't Labour talk about offering cabinet positions to Lib Dems in 1997? (though I can't remember what came of it).

Ok so according to the first poll, the Libs got an 8% bump from the debates. Which is a hell of a bump, more than anyone was really expecting I think. Sure, that will erode a bit but... I think that'll be a short-term erosion overlaid on a longer term (over the next few weeks) steady growth. Possibly with further bumps from the subsequent debates.

 

And of course the stupid bit is that if the election was today and people voted as that poll indicates (30% libs, 33% tory and 28% lab) then Labour would come out of the election with the most seats with 274ish, Tories second with about 245 and Liberals last with 100. Fucking democracy (fail)

Fail indeed, but at least that outcome would result in proper electoral reform. A hundred lib dems moderating labour's suthoritarian streak can't be a bad thing either.

Trouble with election reform is...

I want a PR system for the commons which maintains local representation (which is doable, so ok). But I do not want an elected Lords. And I feel quite strongly about that so the more they push for it the less chance they'll get my vote.

I can't be arsed trying to understand Wikipedia's explanation - how do new Lords come along, and how/why do you want it to be?

Well it used to work that you had to be a Lord (or a Lady). Then they added "life peers" i.e. Lords where the title is not hereditary. These are given out by the government (technically by the monarch but always on behalf of the PM) for... stuff, y'know, like doing good stuff or buying a peerage.

 

Then the Labour government 'reformed' the Lords by reducing the number of hereditary peers and replacing them with life peers. Which, of course, means that the peers are now chosen by the ruling party in the commons. Which is a great idea of course.

 

I want it to be how it used to be. I want the House of Lords to be full of hereditary peers. We have a resource in this country in that we have (or used to) a class of people who are financially independent, well educated and with a lot of spare time on their hands. So we have a second chamber full of people with the time and education to come to a considered opinion on a particular subject and then vote their conscience. I am of course idealising the situation massively but I think it's good to state the ideal and then aim for it.

 

I would be in favour of some form of independent oversight to make sure Lord are putting the hours in and not taking bribes and that sort of thing. In fact I would only let genuinely financially independent Lords sit. I also don't care if the Lords are hereditary or not - that's not the point. I would not object to, say, taking 500 kids from social services every 30-or-whatever years, giving them the best education the country can offer then putting a few hundred million pounds in their bank account and making their job to be a member of the Lords from 18 to retirement. But, y'know, given that we have the remnants of a mechanism which used to do that, we might as well just start that up again. With oversight.

 

The alternative (and I probably won't idealise this) is another chamber full of career politicians who're more interested in maintaining their own positions with populist fluff and servicing the interests of big business than in actual public service.

I agree with all of that,
another thing I liked about the old system is that most were brought up with a sense of 'duty', of 'doing the right thing' and could be the basis of the trust we used to have in government

(I'm kinda in favour of a re-empowered monarchy for the same reasons. That old "democracy is the worst form of government... apart from all the others we've tried" doesn't really hold any more. This shit right now is worse than monarchy)

The 'right thing' generally being to apose any progressive legislation on the grounds that we jolly well got by just fine without it in the past.

Yeah cos so many progressive-as-fuck ideas come out of the commons.

(I think a conservative (in a particular sense) second chamber is a good thing, overall. Legislation which is neither necessary nor in the public interest (the DEA for example or anti-terror stuff) should not get through, and probably wouldn't've. I think the sort of Lords we're talking about would see the value of something genuinely progressive (I can't really think of anything particularly progressive or radical since the creation of the welfare state and NHS, and they both got through the old-style Lords so, y'know.))