egafd.com

max_tranmere wrote:

> I was not under the impression that a hung parliament/coalition would involve
> one PM, like in a single party situation, and then them having
> to buddy-up with the second largest party to form a Government.

Exactly what is it you're trying to say? You're NOT under the impression that a hung parliament/coalition would involve ONE PM... !confused!

Any chance you could construct your sentences in a grammatical and logical manner?

Yep. Everyone has to suffer.

No, I was NOT under the impression that a coalition/ hung parliament would involved one PM. The term 'coalition' and 'hung parliament' kind of suggests in its terminology there would be two working together side by side.

max_tranmere wrote:

> No, I was NOT under the impression that a coalition/ hung
> parliament would involved one PM. The term 'coalition' and
> 'hung parliament' kind of suggests in its terminology there
> would be two working together side by side.


You've not read a word I've written have you?

Hung Parliament means no party has an overall majority... it does NOT mean two party leaders sharing the job of Prime Minister

Coalition means a formal agreement between two or more parties to form a Government. Whoever is the leader of the largest party will be Prime Minister

In no way, shape or form can two or more people be joint Prime Minister. The sooner you get that notion into your thick head the better!

Your original sentence "I was not under the impression that a hung parliament/coalition would involve one PM, like in a single party situation, and then them having to buddy-up with the second largest party to form a Government" makes no grammatical sense whatsoever, so please pardon me if I don't always understand what the fuck you're going on about. What I DO know is that you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a ballot paper!

I haven't read all these replies so I apologise if I'm repeating what anyone else has said or 'stating the obvious'. A hung parliament means no single party has an overall majority ie more seats than all the other party's combined. It is possible to govern as a minority government - the largest single party who can be outvoted on any issue - if a system of proportional representation was in place it is likely that this would be a common occurence. The favoured option in the recent past has been a pact between two partys eg labour/lib (dems) during the 1970's and it is likely that this would happen again. The prime minister would I suspect depend on which party labour or tories would give the liberals the following cabinet positions: chancellor, home or foreign secretary, and environment. I suspect that brown would find it easier to dump on darling than cameron would on osborne. hence a labour government.

m100, thanks for that, I am clearer on the issue now. You also explained it politely - something which can not be said of everyone who has posted on here.

You're welcome as you will see from:

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm

no party since the war has actually got 50% of the vote (a couple have come close but not recently).