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.

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.

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)