A deal with Labour, which is certain to be branded as a coalition of losers by the rightwing press, would need the support of smaller parties to command a Commons majority, as well as of Labour MPs on the left of the party, who are opposed to big spending cuts to bring the country's £168bn deficit down.
With these, you can shirk conventional methods, military or Party ties to command wealth and power.
The party needs to command the confidence of British people of all races and creeds.
7.56pm: Here is Brown's resignation speech: As you know, the general election left no party able to command a majority in the House of Commons.
The more conventionally minded of us might think that, in a parliamentary democracy, it is quite important for a party leader to command the confidence of his MPs.
As you know, the general election left no party able to command a majority in the House of Commons.
As I said on Friday, with no party able to command a parliamentary majority arising from the general election, my constitutional duty as prime minister is to ensure government continues while parties explore options for forming a new administration with majority support in the House of Commons.
Traditionally in many European countries, notably Italy and France, several parties competed for power and no one party proved able to command stable majorities in the parliament.
Still, at a time of prosperity, and in a Congress where neither party is likely to command a big majority, Mr Bush's deal-making skills would seem more effective than Mr McCain's solitary style of leadership unless he gets an overwhelming mandate for change at the polls.
Even in these circumstances, however, the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru, Wales's nationalist party, were unable to command anything near a majority of votes (the SNP's reached 22% of the vote in 1997 and Plaid Cymru a mere 10%).
