The prospect of a hung parliament is being bandied around as consecutive opinion polls suggest it could be the most likely outcome of the general election. But what is a hung parliament, and what would it mean?
A hung parliament occurs when no party wins an outright majority of seats. It is very common in countries like Germany or Italy, which operate under the proportional representation system, but far less common in the UK, because of the constituency link and the relative weakness of fringe parties.
2010 could be different. With the Tories seeing their lead over Labour gradually deteriorate, it is quite possible no party ends up with a majority, leaving Britain, one of the oldest democracies in the world, with a nearly unprecedented situation.
What would happen in the short term? When parliament is dissolved for the general election, the prime minister retains his role in a caretaker capacity. In the event of a hung parliament, that situation would continue. Gordon Brown would remain caretaker prime minister while the situation is resolved. He is under no obligation to resign and gets first dibs on forming an administration. He will try to do this by making a deal with another party – presumably the Liberal Democrats.
On one hand Nick Clegg should accept. The Lib Dem policy agenda is far closer to Labour than it is to the Conservatives. But the Tories may have won more seats, or secured more of the popular vote. That could create a popular sentiment opposed to a Lib-Lab coalition.
The Lib Dems do not have to form a government with Labour. The party could decide to remain outside government but support Labour's policy agenda, but this would require that Brown makes significant policy concessions to Clegg, including, in all probability, radical electoral reform. If Brown fails to secure a deal with another party he can still try to govern from a minority position. This will be very difficult, if not impossible.
If Brown goes to parliament with a Queen's Speech and he loses any of the votes which follow it, the right to form an administration goes to the leader of the opposition – David Cameron. If Brown just ignored the opposition and made no attempt at a deal, this is precisely what would happen.
There is, by the way, no statutory time limit on how long this process can take. The historical precedent is 1974 when Tory incumbent Edward Heath stayed on as caretaker and tried to secure a deal with the Liberals. He failed, and Harold Wilson took over as prime minister for Labour. But the historical comparison is, in some ways, weak. Technology has changed the political face of Britain since the seventies, and the pressure from 24-hour news channels and the internet will massively impact on how this process takes place.
With so few constitutional precedents, the public mood will be the dominant factor in party leaders' minds as they negotiate. The markets will also play a role. If previous behaviour is anything to go by, they will plummet horribly in the event of a hung parliament, and that will contribute to media and public pressure for a quick, politically convincing resolution. A run on sterling, a loss of the UK's AAA credit rating or a collapse in the share market could force a quick decision.
This is not an entirely welcome factor. It would be better for the government to be formed wisely and sustainably than quickly. There is no constitutional reason for this process to be rushed - it is all well within the remit of Britain's constitutional arrangements.
( source: Yahoo news)
http://www.politics.co.uk/
