What's the big deal about a "hung" / balanced parliament?

It's a big deal to the tories because it would mean there was more chance for the lib dems to bring in proportional representation.

It's a big deal to the labour party because it means giving up some or all of their power (vs being in sole government).

As for whether it's a big deal for the country, well it would take some getting used to, but Norway, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand all have coalition government. Are they impoverished nations?

Parties have been making deals with other ones to get bills passed in this country for ages

For instance, if a party had enough of their own backbench turn against them so they couldn't get enough support from their own people to get a bill passed the government then has talks with other minor parties i.e. vote for this and we'll see one of your bills get passed type of thing

But it's better to have a majority government so they can form a stable government over the period of that parliament rather than keep breaking up because they can't agree on what should be done

All said, the system we have as it is is just plain wrong because as you've pointed out it means that the party with the majority of seats and thus overall power wasn't actually elected by the majority of voters and so doesn't really have the mandate of the country

The last thing Britain needs is a hung Parliament. Many countries in continental Europe have them all the time, and as a results are always run by coalitions, but all the signs so far are that none of the parties want to co-operate with each other. Yes, we had a coalition government during the World Wars but that was precisely because Britain was involved in total war at the time and nothing else mattered. As soon as WWII ended, business as usual resumed and Britain showed its gratitude to Churchill by electing Attlee.

The last time we had a hung Parliament was in 1974. No agreement could be reached on any voting pact or coalition, Harold Wilson's government couldn't get anything remotely controversial done, and another election followed eight months later.

Brown has plenty of upper-crusties around him as well. But what does it matter what the background of the Cabinet is if they are actually competent? Conservative governments have always been best at managing the economy - the last one, painful though the medicine was, succeeded in pulling us out of the hole that Wilson and Callaghan in the 1970s left us in. The increasing prosperity of the 1950s was presided over by a Conservative government of the "one-nation Tory" kind, and a government led by David Cameron will be a return to that.

There's nothing wrong with a hung parliament. But the British are too confrontational to appreciate that civilised discussion can achieve miracles. Let's get rid of the 'yah-boo' politics and grow up. The Labour party and the Tories have, in turn, governed with a minority of the popular vote and this can't be democratic.

Other than a totalitarian dictatorship, a hung parliament is probably your worst political nightmare.

Britain has three main parties, Labor, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. All three of them have a very different approach to just about every key economical and social issue facing Britain today.

In a hung parliament you would have to get sufficient members of all three parities to agree on something before it could be passed into law.

This means that every big decision must be negotiated and agreed upon by people who don't see eye to eye. A hung parliament will be slow to make decisions, and any decisions that it does make will be so watered down that it risks being meaningless.

Can you imagine the anti immigration Conservatives and the pro immigration Labor party agreeing? What about the pro tax labor and the anti tax Liberals?

You may also wish to think again about the so called "upper-crusties". Tony Blair attended Fettes College, a prestigious Scottish private school before attending Oxford University. That's pretty upper crustie, if you ask me. Peter Mandelson, David Miliband, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband were also all educated at Oxford. Labor has just as many nobs in it as the Conservatives.

1. It means politicians base policies on short term political point scoring.

2. Gordon Brown would likely become a puppet for the lib dems just to stay in power.

3. Their conflicting views would mean less legislation would get passed.

At this delicate point in politics these effects could have devastating effect to the economy. There are beneficial things are hung parliament can achieve but nothing substantial.

Hung Parliament means Coalition Government which is undemocratic. Yes, we had a coalition government during World War 2, but it was led by our greatest ever leader Winston Churchill whom no politician in the world today can compare to, and as soon as the goal of the coalition government - winning the war, was fulfilled we had an election. A coalition government with no obvious goal is undemocratic.

If we have a coalition government then we won't have a strong leader who can stand up for the country, so a hung parliament will open the way for the European Empire to completely destroy the British state.

With a hung parliament more deals get passed because people go "If you vote for this, i'll vote for that"

Then you get the nation which becomes the domain of an elected unaccountable oligarchy.

look at the BNP's manifesto and read their webpage!