How convenient that this rumour emerged just before the Clegg/Cameron date match. First rule of a decent journalist: ask yourself who benefits from unattributed rumours, and why now? There will be lots more unsourced rumours and gossip circulating, which journalists will circulate without bothering to ask where they come from. Perfect scenario for Coulson, Murdoch and the usual fall guys in the media. Don't believe anything you hear is the only rational response.

Be patient with a confused Yank who does not understand your system. If your UK Constitution is "unwritten" then how does anyone know what it says with any certainty?

Patrick to give you a bit of background on how it works here, I've located you the following reference.

Prime Minister and Government
The Prime Minister is appointed by the Sovereign. When one party has an absolute majority in the House of Commons, the Sovereign appoints the leader of that party as Prime Minister. When there is a hung parliament, or the identity of the leader of the majority party is not clear (as was often the case for the Conservative Party up to the 1960s, and for all parties in the nineteenth century), the Sovereign has more flexibility in their choice. The Sovereign appoints and dismisses other ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister (and such appointments and dismissals occur quite frequently as part of cabinet reshuffles). The Prime Minister, together with other ministers, form the Government. The Government often includes ministers whose posts are sinecures (such as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) or ministers with no specific responsibilities (minister without portfolio): such positions may be used by the Prime Minister as a form of patronage, or to reward officials such as the Chairman of the ruling Party with a governmental salary.

If the Commons votes against the Government on a matter of confidence, the Prime Minister must either resign (along with the entire government) or ask the Sovereign to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections.The Government usually resigns immediately after defeat in a general election: however this is not required: for example Stanley Baldwin's government lost its majority in the general election of December 1923, but did not resign until defeated in a confidence vote in January 1924.[11] A request by the Prime Minister to dissolve parliament is usually granted by the Sovereign: however the Sovereign may refuse such a request immediately after a general election, and instead invite another leader to form a government.[12]

The Prime Minister and all other ministers take office immediately upon appointment by the Sovereign. In the United Kingdom, unlike many other countries, there is no requirement for a formal vote of approval by the legislature either of the Government as a whole or of its individual members before they may assume office.

The Prime Minister and all other Ministers must serve concurrently as members of the House of Commons or House of Lords, and are obliged by collective responsibility to cast their Parliamentary votes for the Government's position, regardless of their personal feelings or the interests of their constituents. The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of Commons. The last Prime Minister to be a member of the House of Lords was Alec Douglas-Home; however, he resigned from the Lords and became a member of the Commons shortly after his appointment as Prime Minister in 1963. The last Prime Minister to serve a full administration from the House of Lords was Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, who served until 1902.

Thus the executive ("Her Majesty's Government") is "fused" with Parliament. Because of a number of factors, including the decline of the Sovereign and the House of Lords as independent political actors, an electoral system that tends to produce absolute majorities for one party in the Commons, and the strength of party discipline in the Commons (including the built-in payroll vote in favour of the Government), the Prime Minister tends to have sweeping powers checked only by the need to retain the support of his or her own MPs. The phrase elective dictatorship was coined by former Lord Chancellor Quintin Hogg in 1976 to highlight the enormous potential power of government afforded by the constitution.[13]

The need of a Prime Minister to retain the support of his own MPs was illustrated by the case of Margaret Thatcher, who resigned in 1990 after being challenged for the leadership of the Conservative Party. The strength of party discipline within the Commons, enforced by the whip system, is shown by the fact that the two most recent votes in which a Government was defeated occurred in 1986 and 2005.

In short our legislation is complex but there will be a written law about the constitution, wrapped up in some ancient statute but in this country it'll be there in volumes!!

Hope this helps your understanding.

as days go by the chances of lablib become more and more difsstant. seems to me like this whole thing has been manufactured by toy and clegg and possibly libdem as a whole. before you scoff there are connections between cleggs wife and tory members its been one big dirty set up the whole time. newlabour is a 13 year beast why decapitate it ? gordon brown himself iis all that stands between tory and number 10. before you scoff labour have verry rarely won an election with a new face, that's what they were sayingg oon bbcs coverage of the election.

If this is true Brown has shown once again, and hopefully for the last time, that he is unfit to lead a political party let alone a government. I hope that whilst saying they are behind Brown his colleagues are actually making arrangements for his replacement. There is an opportunity for the left in politics which may not recurr for a generation. Labour leaders need to get it right and set aside their natural tribalism.

As Dave said, the true winner with 23%+29% of the vote is actually a left social reform party coalition.

The Tories did not win. With only 3% more of the vote than Michael Howard how can Cameron claim to have public support! Again showing that FPTP delivers undemocratic nonsense.

Clearly, George has not read Chris McLaughlin's expose in Tribune of Mandelson/Milliband/Clegg machinations (prior to the start of the election campaign) to stitch Brown up - hence the 'dark lord's' inability to organise anything approaching a LP platform... think about whether the country would be facing a Tory government if it had.... This is the ultimate Blairite coup! Is New Statesman supporting the new SDP envisaged by Mandleson (new Foreign Sec), and David Milliband (PM?)and Vince Cable Chancellor?)? ... or is this 1997 all over again?... Trick the population and the left-wingers into voting for the destruction of the LP. This headline is more of what McLaughlin calls 'A very British Coup'... Read him!
'How they undermined Gordon to get into bed with Clegg'

MikeSC: Rather. Can't help feeling a LibCon coalition would help Labour. They're still the most left-wing of the main parties*, and this would most likely destroy the left image of the Liberals.

*This is a depressing thought.

Graeme - I am open to being wrong - however, you offer no explanation as to why you dismiss this rumour, whereas Tribune offers facts and figures.
Daniel R - I agree completely with your analysis, which is why I no longer want a Lib-Lab government... a strong Labour opposition may be the least worst option!

The more you think about it, the more you realise that the Tories and Libs just work it out, it'll never be a formal coalition; just a dodgy set up reliant on motion by motion support. May be it's best to let Cam 'squat' in no 10 whilst Lab and Lib get on with some constructive progression with Milliband as a more dynamic force, it'll turn the press against Cameron, they can work out electoral reform and hey presto at the next election (which surely isn't that far away) the public can put their vote for a more believable and credible government who are right on the economy. The public just don't go for Cameron on cost cutting, that's why he got nowhere!

The economy's so badly wrecked by Labour's 13 spendthrift years that the choice is now between short-term economic pain or long-term economic pain. Doesn't matter which colour of the political spectrum you like.

This is a once in a lifetime chance to change the face of British politics forever and marginalise the Tories for good.A lib/Lab coalition government must emerge from the hung parliament situation, Lib dems must see this as the chance to introduce PR within the first term of the new administration and Labour have to seize the chance to remain in power and to marginalise the Tories for good. Ego's must not be allowed to get in the way of this historic opportunity and both parties must be ruthless in their approach to achieving genuine consensus politics and goverments that actually reflect the views not only of the actists but of the British people.

The only reason for a Lib-Con coalition is to get 'the [desperate] squatter' out of Number 10!

The spectrum of political parties have got wider. In other words, the voters had more choice of small independent parties or individuals (otherwise known as 'Others' at General Elections). Therefore the Labour party making desperate claims that there was more 'anti-Conservatives votes' is total nonsense, when the Convservatives received over 2 million more votes than the Labour party.

David Cameron's Conservatives has won nearly 100 constituencies. Jolly Good Show!

Lib-Lab coalition limited to a two-year life. Brown agrees to step down within six months. Referendum on PR. Election in two years (or less) under new voting system (assuming it passes).

Should this happen, it would be the first government since 1935 to come into office backed by over 50% of those who voted in the election. That must be democratic, mustn't it?

Incidentally, Brown is not a 'desperate squatter' refusing to budge. He's a caretaker PM, under very strict limitations as to what he can do. Clegg chose to negotiate with Cameron first, which is hardly Brown's fault. Someone has to be PM while this goes on.

You know I'm pretty sick and tired of all the Brown bashers, yes it's time to go but only because the vast majority of the electorate is so ignorant that it judges parties on personalities. Brown was a good chancellor, not many said he wasn't any I certainly didn't hear much of any contstructive value being proferred by any effective opposition at the time. He has handled the recession in a way that has made it far less painful for many than it was in the 1990's and don't kid yourself this wasn't a global recesssion. The banks were to blame for creaming huge commission based bonus payments for sub prime lending that should never have been given and for selling credit to people who couldn't afford it, that's not Brown's fault, it's down to the banks and you can be absolutely sure that Cameron would never upset the banking baron's because they prop up his party! For christ sakes let's hope and pray that Labour and Liberal come together and talk sense on economic recovery not the barmy Tory plans to make the rich richer whilst everyone else faces a hard time. Cameron is talking rubbish on welfare reform and the idea that you can maintain public services by making cost efficiency savings just don't bear out. The tories will just put more and more people on the dole and none of us want that!