³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The only reason we have a hung parliament is because of the effect of the votes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Tories have a majority of 62 in England.

Therefore I don't think it's unreasonable that the views of those three countries should be represented in government. Perhaps a "Lib-Lab-SNP-Plaid-NI parties" coalition could be worked out. As a Lib Dem voter (living in southern England), I wouldn't be closed to the idea.

It's all very well saying that the Tories have a "moral" right to form a government, since they are the largest party, but how do we define "democratic morality" or "democratic legitimacy"? These are philosophical issues. It could be argued that the Tories do not have legitimacy from the point of view of the union of the United Kingdom (as I have explained above).

A Banksy-esque on a hung parliament.

This is why there should be a greater separation between legislature and executive - you can have a balanced legislature, even using PR - but something else for the executive. I like the idea of a second run off. If Cameron, Clegg and Brown had run in presidential style vote you'd know who came last (clearly Clegg) and then you could have a run off vote between Brown and Cameron.

It seems to me that the way in which the votes have been distributed clearly indicates the lack of confidence throughout the country in a single party. I just hope that whichever form of government we have moving forward takes heed of this and learns the lessons from the mistakes that have been made in the past.

LSV:

Agreed. The tories are essentially an English party which, on the basis of the results, cannot claim to represent the people of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In NI their link-up with the Unionists failed to win a single seat.

Nor can it claim to represent a majority of the voters: 53% of them voted for Labour or Lib Dems and only 36% for the Tories. 36% of 65% is barely 28% of the electorate.

A party that is supported by only 28% of the electorate has no proper moral legitimacy.

It does seem to be a possible defining moment, but only if there is a Labour-Liberal coalition and some form of PR. These are two progressive left of centre parties and it makes sense for them to ally with each other. There is NO sense in a Conservative-Liberal coalition, not at any rate if it fails to deliver PR and fairer taxation. Of course, some Conservatives will do anything short of murdering their granny to get a hold on power, and they might just pull a surprise by defying the reactionary old fogies in their party and agree to a referendum, though probably campaigning against it.

It is a once and a lifetime opportunity to see a fairer voting system introduced in the UK. Labour have offered the LDs a referendum, and if the LDs don't get this from the Tories, their support will evaporate. Millions of LD supporters will feel betrayed that the prize was within their grasp and they rejected it in favour of a few crumbs from the Tory Cabinet table and a vague commitment they have no intention of keeping.

Although I'm a fervent supporter of STV PR, our antiquated system gave us the demise of the BNP, UKIP, TUV and Peter Robinson so it's not all bad!

Allybalder:

Let us hope that, unlike Jesus, they are not resurrected.

One of the big difficulties in the UK is that politics at the 'national' level has been organised for centuries on the basis of conflict theories of power, in which there are always winners ands losers ("who loses and who wins; who's in, who's out", as the author King Lear puts it). We see it every day in the adversarial parliamentary system and the adversarial court system).

Yet consensual theories have been applied here in NI, not yet with much real success admittedly, and in Scotland and Wales, where there has been greater success.

Power doesn't just exist; it has to be created. It may be as much a variable-sum concept and it may be something that society possesses as a whole rather than just sections of it. It may be viewed as a social resource which can be mobilised to achieve certain goals.

There is no doubt that the power of millions - women, workers, children etc - has been enhanced as a result
of collective action.

In short, 'power over' is overstressed in British politics at the expense of power with and power to.

Re #5 Brian, I am always amazed by claims that the Labour party is a 'progressive' party. How can any government that has produced a stream of intrusive security legislation, advocated 42 day detention, and spent most of the last parliament attempting to introduce the most sweeping identity database ever seen in a modern democratic country possibly be considered progressive?

Re #8. The reason it works better in Scotland and Wales, and will work better in the UK as a whole, is because in these cases it is consensual and the parties to the agreement have to take responsibility for the whole agreement. In NI it is imposed and the political parties can deny responsibility for those policies imposed by other parties they don't like.

I assume the term "hung" is an abreviation of "hanging in the balance" ?

I had always imagined a hung parliament was a Mandelsonian fantasy and, speaking of fantasies, the old semi-Trotskyist-anarchist me which has never completely gone away has enjoyed a few moments salivating at the possibilty a combination of circumstances could have arisen where the markets and speculators might finally self-destruct and bring the whole rotten edifice of European capitalism crashing down. I am afraid nothing short of complete financial meltdown is capable of galvanising a proletariat made complacent by bread and circuses into action at their oppression and marginalisation by a non-productive finance-led economic elite.

Read a comment in a newspaper last week which tickled me.

"When Mrs Thatcher was closing pits and factories and attacking communities, David Cameron was looking at them and thought, "These are my kind of people!" When all the talking and debating is done, thats really all I need to know."

I keep humming the Grateful Deads "Samson and Delilah". Google it and read the chorus if you're confused...

Olli:

You have a point about New Labour. It has been illiberal in recent years. However, I still regard it as a 'progressive' party, closer to the LDs in politicia, social and economic issues than to the Conservatives. Opinion polls indicate that at least two thirds of LD supporters regard themselves as left-of-centre.

If the LDs do go into a formal alliance with the Conservatives, it will be the largest suicide pact in history.

Just heard the latest. Maybe there is a god, after all (only joking).

Just heard the very latest Tory offer of a referendum on AV. Maybe God is dead.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

God speaks: "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. Let there be a rainbow coalition, with every colour except Brown, headed by Prime Minister... Nick Clegg".

Another twist: Labour cannot deliver a coalition to its own party. So the LDs may finally embrace the Tories. Tory divisions on a coalition, electoral reform, cuts etc, are well concealed by the smell of power, as are their intentions of gobbling up the LDs. There is probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy the government of whatever hue falling apart.

The Latter Day Saints are taking over?

Mitt Romney makes a comeback! We heard it here first!

Theism doesn't come naturally to you Brian does it? Faith to doubt in three posts....that's a record! And now I assume that skepticism reigns?

I don't think that any force on earth could have kept Cameron's smirk out of No 10. There just seems to be a natural fit.

If it makes you feel better, you came closer to seeing your hopes realised than I did. I want John Smith back!

Maybe H will perfect his cloning machine. In the meantime I will content myself with the thought that for a brief time ALL the parties lost.

GV

This is a letter on the subject in Saturday's Irish Times:

Madam, – I see the British parliament is likely to be hung.

Seems a bit harsh.

I wonder could we just tie ours up in stocks and throw fruit at them? – Yours, etc,

BRIAN WHELAN,

Clonskeagh, Dublin 14.