Something I have heard frequently is that if we were to end up with a hung parliament after the general election with David Cameron's party having the largest number of seats then he would quickly go to the country again to try and get a majority.
Firstly, I am nowhere near convinced that this would be the case. If the result was so close as to deliver a hung parliament then there would be no guarantee that Cameron would end up in a better position after a second election. Indeed he could end up in a worse position and perhaps not even have the largest number of seats.
But secondly, let's assume that he does decide to dissolve parliament after a few months, say in the Autumn. Wouldn't this go against everything that the Tories normally say about our electoral system? They say that it gives the public the opportunity to express their clear view which should then be respected. Even though I disagree with our electoral system, to be fair to the Tories they are usually consistent on this and when they have lost in the past they have accepted the "will of the people". They have also of course accepted this will when they have won.
So why would they not accept that the will of the people is to give no one party overall control? There is nothing in our constitution that says one party must have an overall majority. By the Tories usual logic, there is in fact a very strong argument for saying that if there is a hung parliament then that is the will of the people and Cameron should respect that and try to govern as part of a minority or coalition government.
I do not see why Cameron should pick and choose which "clear message" from the electorate he should listen to.