Andrew Hawkins on how the public's fears over a hung parliament have largely evaporated since the election.

One striking feature of post-coalition life has been the extent to which voters' fears, expressed in numerous polls pre-election, that Britain would be ungovernable under a hung Parliament, have simply not been realised.

Yet. In March, 69 per cent said a hung Parliament would be bad for the economy, yet in the month after the electionalmost the same proportion said that coalition government would be good for the UK.

The media understandably focuses on the novelty of a form of government which departs from the norm. But overall majorities are not the norm in most modern democracies. According to an analysis of 48 democracies from 1945 to 1998, published in 2000 by Woldendorp, Keman and Budge, just over one-quarter of governments over those years were led by single party majorities of the type that dominated post-war Westminster politics.

The excellent Institute for Government points out that, across the EU, only three countries have single-party majorities in government - France, Malta and Greece. Nineteen of the 27 member states have coalitiongovernments, while minority rule is also common in, for example, Spain, Portugal,Denmark and Hungary. Further afield, New Zealand and Canada have minority governments.

Since the election, one of the most common questions doing the rounds is how long people think the coalition will last. I think a more interesting and important question is how long British politics could be marked by coalitions (plural). Thereare several key reasons for thinking they might be here for longer than was first thought.

First, the two-party system has been quietly withering on the vine for decades. Go back to the 1951 election and, between them, Labour and the Conservatives dominated the political landscape, together accounting for almost 97 per cent of the vote. By 2010 this had slumped to around 65 per cent and, as the chart below shows, the decline has been impressively continuous over the intervening decades.

This decline in two-party politics is important because it has steadily increased the electoral bar requiredby a party to win an overall majority. Ironically, it has also coincided with a widening feeling among voters thatthe two main parties are offering too little choice. The scramble for the centre ground has forced some votersto look for smaller parties to support.

One such party which had notable success on 6 May was the Greens, whose leader Caroline Lucas won Brighton Pavilion with a majority over Labour of 1,252. Why should a single win be significant?

My ComRes colleague Dan Hamilton points out that in countries where green parties enter their principal legislature for the first time, they often enjoy a significant and sustained boost in subsequent elections.

The reason for this is clear. As the TV leaders' debates showed, where a candidate gets increased publicity, they pick up vote share. The Green Party polled a measly one per cent on 6 May, yet Caroline Lucas's presence in the House of Commons, with the platform it offers her and her party, could mean that their vote share is a lot higher next time.

A further reason why, in the short to medium term at least, we may not have seen the end of coalitions whenthe present one collapses, is the very uninspiring reaction by voters to the Conservatives' modest (very modest)electoral success.

Consider the post-election boost enjoyed by Tony Blair. The average increase in Labour's vote share in the first six polls after the 1997 election showed a whopping 21.5 per cent increase in that party's lead compared to the momentous win on election day. So, while the Conservatives' modest share on polling day in 1997 was just over 30 per cent, their average vote share immediately afterwards was down to 24 per cent. By contrast, Labour'saverage vote share shot up from 43 per cent achieved on the day up to 58 per cent. After the 2001 election,Labour's average poll lead increase was up 12 per cent while, after polling day in 2005, the same average was just over five per cent.

Conservative strategists must therefore be scratching their heads over why their vote share in the first polls after the 2010 election has actually fallen. Is this a reflection on a party forced reluctantly to form a coalition? Or are they simply feeling the pinch because Gordon Brown was so unpopular a leader that they enjoyed a resignation boost?

Without boundary changes or a reorganisation of House of Commons seats, the Conservatives will need to be around 11 percentage points ahead of Labour to win an overall majority. We think this is a tough target. The distinct absence of a Tory honeymoon, swingeing public sector cuts and tax increases will combine with a new Labour leader to place increasing pressure on the Tories' vote share over the coming months.

While that makes life less comfortable for the Conservatives, it will surely force a discipline on David Cameron to make certain the coalition stays together for longer than would otherwise be the case. Perhaps long enough forthe public to decide that coalitions are not so bad after all.

Andrew Hawkins is executive chairman of ComRes

This article was first published in Total Politics magazine