Why we don't want a hung parliament
Friday, April 23, 2010 On an earlier post Rose Whiteley asked what would happen if the Tories get the most seats, followed by the Lib Dems, with Labour third. "Are you saying the Conservatives and Lib Dems would refuse to work together [allowing Labour to remain in power]? Doesn't seem very logical to me."
I was going to add a short comment but it ended up being longer than intended so I'm posting it here instead.
To answer Rose's question, my understanding is that even if the Lib Dems get a higher percentage of the vote than Labour (ie come second to the Conservatives in the popular vote), it is probable that they will still be the third largest party in terms of seats. This is because the Lib Dems are likely to come second rather than first in many constituencies.
Along with most people I'm not entirely sure what will happen in the event of a hung parliament, but if we take 1974 as a model (see THIS article in the Daily Mail), Gordon Brown does not have to resign as PM without first attempting to put together a coalition government with the Lib Dems or other parties.
My suspicion is that the Lib Dems would take this option in preference to a deal with the Tories because Labour are more likely to give them what they want - proportional representation. That is more important to the Lib Dems that anything else because it will guarantee them scores more seats in future elections and the opportunity, even as the third party, to regularly hold the balance of power.
A lot depends, I imagine, on how close Labour are to the Tories in terms of seats. In 1974, although they had four seats fewer than Labour, the Conservatives had a larger number of votes which gave Edward Heath some moral authority to try and forge an alliance with the Liberals. If Labour are far short of the Conservatives in terms of seats and votes, it would take an incredibly thick-skinned, bloody-minded politician (like Gordon Brown!) to remain in No 10.
If Brown was to resign without reaching agreement with the Lib Dems (or even bothering to speak to them), I would expect the Queen to invite David Cameron (as the leader of the party with the most seats) to form the next government.
Again, based on 1974, I would expect Cameron to run a minority government for 6-12 months before calling another election. It is unlikely that the opposition parties would have a vote of no confidence in the government during that period (unless they took exception to an emergency Budget - see below) because the electorate wouldn't take kindly to another election in so short a period and it would play into the government's hands.
(To an extent, this is how the minority SNP government has remained in charge in Scotland, initially at least. There was no public demand for another election in Scotland so Alex Salmond was able to remain as first minister.)
The problem a minority government would create is this: most people anticipate an emergency Budget soon after the elections. The Tories, it is widely felt, want to tackle the budget deficit sooner than either Labour or the Lib Dems. In a hung parliament with a minority government, it will be difficult for the Tories to get such a Budget through for fear of defeat or a vote of no confidence.
And so, instead of governing as they would like, many policies will be diluted in order to appease their opponents and maintain power. Effectively, it will be government by committee and this will have a huge impact on other areas of government too. (There is an argument that says it will also delay lots of unnecessary legislation but I'm not so sure. All three leading parties, it seems to me, are addicted to regulation and this is an area they still have a lot in common.)
The prospect of a neutered government is one reason why, for all its alleged "unfairness", a great many people (including me) still support the first past the post system that has repeatedly given the UK strong majority governments.
Anyway, I'm no expert on this subject so feel free to challenge my observations.
Reader Comments (19)
Allow me to help. If we have a hung Parliament we are in the brown stuff. In 1998 at the Liberal Party Conference in Southport the party adopted the principle in the event of hung Parliament that the Lib Dems would only form a pact with either of the main parties with the consent of 75% of MPs and 75% of the National Executive.
This means they will never reach consensus, or possibly the Lib Dems will split. The Liberals to the Tories and the nanny statists to Labour.
Whatever it is a recipe for disaster and a fresh election within a year may well be on the cards.
Their is a joker in the pack as well.
The minority parties as they are sometimes labelled.
I think we may see a few seats go that way in light of the expenses scandal.
That would mean the opinons of those parties would be more likely to be aired to the sheeple by the MSM.
The ones that might pull it off are obviously UKIP BNP Green.
I see most polls put "others" at 10%
What portion of that 10% are the aforementioned respectively ?
I doubt Specky if the parties you mention will get many seats but I agree that smaller parties may hold the balance. For example N Ireland has 18 MPs and while some are aligned to the 'Big 2' they may be able to call a few shots. Sinn Fein do not take their seats as they refuse to swear an oath of allegiance to the queen yet they have 5 MPs and may even add to this total.
If it was that close I wonder if the Labour party would remove the requirement to swear the oath in return for the Shinners taking the party whip? 5 or 6 MPs in a tight race could be worth any flak they might get.
If they're not going to offer the British people a genuine choice, then they should expect a hung parliament.
Smokers like me have no-one to vote for except UKIP. Climate sceptics like me also have no-one to vote for.
I wrote to my Tory candidate and asked him if he would be doing anything for smokers. He didn't reply. So he won't be getting my vote.
That's very helpful, Simon, thanks very much.
A hung Parliament would solve absolutely nothing, and merely postpone the taking of those drastic measures required to drag us back from the brink of national bankruptcy.
And, sooner or latter, such measures will be forced upon whichever party is offered the poisoned chalice.
One thing, however, I WILL say (or that could be said) in favour of Cameron's apparent decision to ban any discussion of an amendment to the Ban.
If, by chance, he fails to secure the majority that looked such a dead cert only a few weeks ago, then at least the Antis will not be able to point to THAT as 'the reason that David lost'.
A pathetically small crumb of comfort to some, I know.
But, half a crumb..............
I'm afraid that I intend to vote for a party that addresses what I want, rather than voting tactically. If that results in a hung parliament then so be it. I'm tired of hearing that a vote for a minority party is a wasted vote. If everyone who wanted to so vote just did it, each vote wouldn't be a wasted vote. I think there comes a point when, if there's nothing to choose between the main candidates, you just have to stand up and be counted.
It's rather relaxing - I've made up my mind and don't need to waste time trying to analyse and evaluate the policies and integrity of Lib/Lab/Con.
"candidate" should have been "parties" - sorry.
"I'm tired of hearing that a vote for a minority party is a wasted vote."
Me, too.
After all, in certain constituencies, EACH of the Big Three is a 'minority party'.
I've identified three principal issues which I consider to be of huge significance to the future direction of our nation and our society.
That makes my decision a relatively straightforward one................
For me, the biggest problem with the 3 main parties is that I do not believe you can trust any of them or what they say in the run up to an election. They have proven in the past that their manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on, so why should anyone believe them this time?
I am not saying that the minority parties will, necessarily be any different, but at least they deserve a chance as they do not yet have a track record to damn them.
On the subject of hung Parliaments, secret deals etc , I wonder whether we may STILL expect to hear the phrase 'SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS' pop up in the usual speculative chatter among the talking heads.
Or would that, too, fall foul of Project Denormalise ?
'Hung Parliament' is a term which goes with the idea of having to have a 'ruling party'. My own opinion is that when you can have a ruling party even though they may have the lowest score in the National vote, this is undemocratic. Is it really fair that a party with the lowest public support can rule the Country and impose new laws. I want to see a Parliament that represents all the people in a proportion which the electorate asked for. I don't want to see a Government pimping themselves as being representatives of the whole country.
“For me, the biggest problem with the 3 main parties is that I do not believe you can trust any of them or what they say in the run up to an election. They have proven in the past that their manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on, so why should anyone believe them this time?”
That’s exactly how I look at things these days. I’ve lived through enough Labour Governments and enough Tory ones to know that, ultimately, neither of them make the blindest bit of difference to “the man in the street” apart from a few lucky individuals within their own favoured social groups. And although there are signs that within the “bigger picture” some parties do a bit better in some areas than others, none of them ever seem to have picked up the knack of doing everything reasonably well! The much-loved Tory “trickle down” effect, or the equally-beloved Labour “trickle up” effect never seems to trickle quickly or strongly enough to make anything more than the most minute difference, at most, to the majority of us stuck somewhere in the middle!
Like Martin, I’ve narrowed my sights down to just a couple of areas which would, I think, really make a difference to me and to people like me – none of which any of the major parties are even addressing – and I’m simply not listening to the major parties any more about anything else. I just don’t – can’t – believe a single word any of them say. The slogan for all of them should be: “singing from the same songsheet, just in different keys.” A vote for one is a vote for all and anyone who wants this Government out of power, and wants the "change" that they all keep wittering on about, but then votes for either the Tories or the Lib-Dems to get it, quite frankly, needs their head examined!
I also found this explanation - sorry it's such a ridiculously long URL!
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/What-Is-A-Hung-Parliament-Polls-Expert-Professor-Michael-Thrasher-Explains/Article/201004415616025?lpos=Politics_Second_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15616025_What_Is_A_Hung_Parliament%3A_Polls_Expert_Professor_Michael_Thrasher_Explains
So true Misty.
I have to chuckle (well I would cry if I didn't) when Gordon Brown says that novices cannot run the economy in these times. Who got us here in the first place? Now he wants to be trusted to further dessimate the economy? Not if any sane person has their way, I hope!
As you say, the other 2 are no better, voting for any of the big 3 is not opting for choice at all! We will just get more of the same old, same old, just possibly with a slightly different spin on it.
Time indeed for a new broom, although sadly I do not think we will actually get that this time. The newer parties really must come through and surge up the ratings between this and the next election and hopefully the country can just about hang on that long.
I predict a hung parliament with a big surge to the fringe parties and the main parties will be so shocked they will form a national party, with the excuse of the recession!
For anyone who is still not sure what exactly a hung Parliament entails, Nick Wood, Managing Director, Media Intelligence Partners, has written a very good article on the subject.
Nick says,
Most of the country have little idea what a hung or (God forbid) balanced Parliament means. It sounds quite nice: politicians of all parties putting aside petty differences to govern in the interests of the nation. All that cheap point-scoring and name-calling would evaporate in the spirit of national reconciliation.
Of course, that is nonsense. A hung Parliament would mean paralysis at best, chaos at worst.
You can read Nick's article here
Very true Peter T - a very good article.
I think, however, Ann (above) has a point and heard someone saying something very similar recently. Whatever happens,it will be interesting and the beginning of some form of change. However, the pubs, clubs, cafés etc. and other businesses will still continue to close.
You are right Jenny. But do you know what? I was talking to a guy yesterday, in a Spanish bar where my wife and I sometimes go to in London.
The conversation got dragged into politics, as I overheard a lot of other people doing exactly the same. This guy was Irish but lives in London, and said this his business is pubs. He owns about 8 (I think he said).
This then was my perfect opportunity to ask him the question that is on most of our tongues on here; "With so many pubs closing now, has the smoking ban effected your trade at all?" I asked, and I was so surprised to hear his answer, which was an emphatic "No"
"Then why do you think so many are closing?" I asked him. He blamed the whole thing onto the big PubCos and the prices they are charging on rents and their beer.
I do not think this guy was lying in any way, as he was a smoker himself, and joined us on the terrace outside for another drink and a smoke.
I must admit, it left me feeling a bit down, with one of our main arguments shot down in flames.