No British general election has returned a hung parliament in over three decades. But recent polls have served as a reminder that a House of Commons under "no overall control" is very much a possibility after next year's election. The polls have triggered a wave of speculation about whether the result will be political instability, market collapses or even "the death of government".
There's no need to panic. Virtually all other advanced democracies cope perfectly well with minority and coalition governments, as has Westminster in the past. As a new report from the Constitution Unit and the Institute for Government argues, a hung parliament is very unlikely to be "one of the biggest disasters we could suffer".
One specific concern about hung parliaments is that governments emerge out of secret negotiations rather than directly on the basis of the election result. In this way, democratic accountability can be weakened. Some also fear the monarch being drawn into this process, having to adjudicate between two leaders who both have a claim to the keys of No 10.
But these concerns could be avoided by a relatively simple reform that would let the Commons itself decide on who should lead the country. This is what happens in many other countries. As in Scotland, parliament would vote on a recommendation to the Queen on who to appoint as prime minister, so no formal constitutional change would be required. The motion would be debated at the start of the parliamentary session, straight after the election, with the candidates for PM stating their case, and smaller parties explaining their reasons for backing either side. This would be more transparent, more comprehensible and less likely to politicise the monarchy than the current opaque conventions and processes. There is no reason why all parties could not agree to this change now, before the election potentially forces their hands.
To prevent a lengthy government formation process the political parties should start preparing early for potential negotiations after an election. In particular, they should think hard about their "red lines" and map key areas of agreement and disagreement with all other parties, as well as agreeing processes for securing the backing of the party at large for any deal made.
Parties should consider the full range of options in terms of types of partnership as well as potential partners. Formal coalition is just one possibility. Its main advantage for the government is that it can guarantee control of parliament, but the price paid is a loss of flexibility, and the potential embarrassment of having to negotiate away manifesto pledges to secure the deal. Scotland's experience suggests that junior partners like the Liberal Democrats may also suffer from erosion of their distinctive identity as they become increasingly associated with the lead party.
By contrast, minority government offers greater flexibility and reduces the likelihood of splits or inconsistencies between ministers. Without a parliamentary majority, ministers must strike ad hoc issue-by-issue deals to push through legislation. This may sound difficult, but it can work reasonably well so long as government adopts a more open, consultative approach and a willingness to compromise, as the minority SNP government in Scotland has generally opted to do.
There are also options that offer greater stability than minority rule but fewer constraints than formal coalition. In New Zealand, over recent years, the largest party has typically formed a minority government loosely supported by a number of smaller parties. This guarantees stability in exchange for concessions or consultation rights in specific areas. An even more innovative arrangement is the appointment of "ministers outside cabinet" who are bound to the government line only in the area of their portfolio, but can speak their mind on other policy issues.
If they are feeling particularly bold, the parties might also commit to Gordon Brown's 2007 pledge to let parliament have the final say on when it is dissolved or suspended.
A hung parliament next year remains the outside bet. But it may happen and it need not be a disaster. It might even turn out to be an improvement on single party dominance, but only if the political parties and the civil service are ready for it.