What is a Hung Parliament? [Take 2]

So its hung parliament time. The Newstatesman in ‘Your essential hung parliament reader’ which looks at constiutionally what happens next. It has references to earlier articles, both excellent, which had predicted a hung parliament by Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s ‘Doing Deals in Downing Street’ and Vernon Bogdanor’s 1974 and all that - the constiutional position.

A previous blog post - ‘What is a Hung Parliament’? - has a link to the BBC’s Q&A on ‘What is a hung Parliament’ and a light hearted but precise video clip from the Daily Politics ‘Guide to a Hung Parliament’

Here are extracts from Bogdanor and Wheatcroft….

Doing deals in Downing Street
by Geoffrey Wheatcroft

“Who governs Britain?” Aspiring barristers are taught that you should never ask a question in court to which you don’t know the answer. Edward Heath forgot that rule in February 1974 when, after months of industrial turmoil culminating in the three-day week, he called an election and, by way of challenging the unions, asked that question.

And the electorate replied: Not you, chum. Or at least, so far from being returned to power with a healthy majority, Heath found that he had no majority at all. On St David’s Day, the day after the election, the fun and games began.

The story of Friday 1 March 1974 is riveting enough anyway, but might soon become acutely relevant. It is quite possible that on the morning of Friday 7 May 2010 - which will probably be the day after our next general election - David Cameron and the Tories will find themselves with a plurality, or more seats than any other party, but without an absolute majority over all others: in the modern jargon, a hung parliament.

1974 and all that - the constitutional position
by Vernon Bogdanor

Were the 2010 general election to yield a hung parliament, Gordon Brown, like Heath, would be constitutionally entitled to seek coalition; or he could meet parliament as the head of a minority government and challenge the other parties to vote him down. But he might then seem a bad loser. Even if Labour were to win more seats than any other party, Brown would be thought to have “lost”.

The imprint of first-past-the-post is so strong that voters see general elections as football matches in which a side has either “won” or “lost”. Nuances such as which party has the most seats or which party has the most votes are hardly noticed in the post-election melee.