So did they do the same thing in 2005? That's when the mock-up appears to date back to.

I wondered about that, too.

This is the first time, I think.

I'm pretty jittery about this election. Normally it's fairly obvious from the polls that one side's going to win, but it's all very uncertain now. Plus there's all this crazed market stuff going on.

Because I live in an area which has a huge Tory majority, my vote counts only as a protest against the Tories. But the LibDem candidate is the councillor who was so very helpful to me and fellow residents in siding with us against a developer on a planning issue (the developer won in the end), so she has my vote.

I have no idea which way this one's going to go. Bigotgate has done Brown no favours, letting the electorate see his true colours. Cameron is so oleaginous he makes my skin crawl, and Clegg I wouldn't recognise if he walked in this room right now.

That's interesting. I obviously read very biased stuff about UK politics because I had the impression that even with the rise of the Lib Dems after the first debate that the Torys would still hang on.

Obviously not the case. Good.

The Tories may still gain power.

Most of the polls point to them being the largest party in a Hung Parliament (where no one party has an overall majority).

If the polls are a few points out, then they could get in with a majority.

If the polls where they're strongest are correct, they'd be too big to build a coalition against. They could then form a minority government, or the Lib Dems would be pressured into a coalition with them.

Even if the polls where they're weakest are correct, the Lib Dems might choose them as a coalition partner: if they offer the Lib Dems a better deal, or the Lib Dems think Labour are too discredited to deal with, or the Lib Dem leader just likes their leader better.

This looks a bit like something out of V for Vendetta.

In the US, this would mean a win for the more conservative candidate: If a left, and a center-leftish candidate are both in the race, it would dilute the vote. . .see 2000 in the US.

With the parliamentary system, would this be different? I am quite ignorant of British politics, and culture in general.

Bonus question: What the bloody hell is a *quid*?

danf- you're right, it's more complicated than that. The Prime Minister is invited to take up the role by the Queen, and is generally the leader of the biggest party in terms of number of parliamentary seats held (which is very much not necessarily the same thing as the biggest party in terms of popular vote). In recent decades the situation has generally been fairly clear-cut, with either Labour or the Conservatives having a clear majority of seats. But if the parties are more evenly split, it becomes really tough to work the whole thing out.

Last time we had a hung parliament, in 1974, they ended up having a second election in the autumn in order to attempt to consolidate the biggest party's mandate. That government ended up having a very tough time and limped through the next 5 years, after which the Tories (Conservatives) gained a majority and Thatcher became PM.

And now for your easier question: 1 quid = £1 (one pound sterling). :-)

Wow.