h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Do we want a hung parliament?

I agree with Posh Boy that we can't actively vote for one. On the other hand - voting for the party of our choice doesn't guarantee that we won't get one: it all depends on what happens across the constituencies.

But would it be a good idea? Would it be disadvantageous not to have a strong government able to enact its program?

Do we want PR, with the possibility of permanent coalition?


My feeling is that PR and coalitions *could* be attractive. They have a long history in many countries. But here we'd need a change in political mindset. Our system is currently too adversarial to make consensus politics work.

Plus there's the danger of governments being held to ransom by minority parties - as per Israel.

Yes we do want a hung parliament because if it doesn't work it will show them up for the self-centred power hungry narcissistic morons that they are. (To the mods I'm being balanced in that statement!).

In previous hung parliaments the public still had some weird respect for MPs we now have no automatic respect for them. In the economic climate they need to pull together and sort things out and put party politics and power out of the equation - let's see what happens.

I'd be happy with a "hung" parliament if they were forced to work together for the next five years. Unfortunately, it's more likely we'll see another General Election inside 18 months so the self-serving shower of shits will spend the next year or so grandstanding for votes.

<>

I bluddy well hope not..I'll be a gibbering wreck.

It's a good point that coalition government forces parties to grow up. To some extent, this has happened in Holyrood.

In some cases, minority parties have also been able to carry through legislation (eg LibDem and Scottish Socialist Party support for abolition of tuition fees)

Ed - "Plus there's the danger of governments being held to ransom by minority parties - as per Israel."

And that's so much worse than MPs from Northern Ireland and Scotland under the present system?

"I agree with Posh Boy that we can't actively vote for one."

Tony Blair been opening his mouth again? Or do you calculate poshness on a logarithmic scale whereby someone who has a PH (poshness) of 8.2 is 30% posher than someone with a PH of 8.1?

"Would it be disadvantageous not to have a strong government able to enact its program?"
That only happens in the landslides artificially generated by FPTP. Slim majorities result in back bencher revolts and back room deals with the Scots and Irish.

Parties use the overall majorities that get to claim a mandate to deliver unpopular manifesto promises in the good times. How much harder in this economic period for a party that wins on seats and comes 3rd in the popular vote?

A workable majority in the commons with so little popular consent doesn't sound like recipe for a strong government.


"Do we want PR, with the possibility of permanent coalition?"

With STV in place and fewer MPs, there's the end of 400 safe seats. and 250 marginals with all the tactical voting and distorted application of resources and policy on a minority of floating votes.

Who can what the likelihood of permanent coalition would really be where everyone's vote counted the same?
For all we know power would alternate between the liberal parties and the "Labservatives".

"But here we'd need a change in political mindset. Our system is currently too adversarial to make consensus politics work."

I think that's overstating it.

A hung parliament could be a huge opportunity to bring serious and lasting change.

Welfare and the public sector need to be drastically cut back. Tens of thousands of public sector jobs will go - if not hundreds of thousands. Taxes need to rise drastically. We are all going to be a lot poorer over the next few years. Thousands of people are going to have to get jobs - some for the first time in their lives. Any single party taking the necessary steps will be hounded out at the next election as sure as eggs are eggs.

But, in a hung parliament, no one party takes the blame for difficult decisions. Each can be seen to argue for small concessions and so appeal to their core vote but the meat of the measures themselves will be passed.

<>

but it means leaving po faced gordy the cyclopse in charge????

No if Gordo had any morals or love of this country he would resign otherwise he would appear to be just after power and Labour would sink...hence he would be pushed out by his own party.

<>

like calling an election 6 months after he became the un elected PM, you mean?????

no

wait

he didn't

this time round he would claim he had a mandate from the electoret and hang on in there at no 10

Psalm 109:8

???????????????????

>>but it means leaving po faced gordy the cyclopse in charge????<<

It doesn't have to.

Cameron can seek give ground to the LD's on democratic/constitutional reform and social liberalism in exchange for support on economic liberalism and deficit reduction.

'Let his days be few; and let others take his office'

in a hung parliment dosen't the queen ask the encumbent PM to form the Govt.????

Yes but as Brown would be defeated in the commons in the face of a lib/con coalition he would have to resign and DC would be invited.

I think though the lib dems might be angling for a lib/lab coalition with NC as PM. I really can't see Brown lasting long unless Labour poll ~33%

polls are all well and good but it is only the one on election day that counts

people say all sorts of things to pollsters, then make entirely different choises when that curtain is drawn.

there will not be a hung parliment

hmm. I just had a look at wikithingy because I wasn't clear on the term 'hung Parliament' and I found this:

'The current Parliament of Canada (the 40th) is a hung parliament, as were the 39th and the 38th Parliaments; however, the term is not used in Canada. Instead, the term minority government or minority parliament is used.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_parliament

That doesn't tell the whole Canadian story, of course: Minority Governments (hung parliaments) are very common here, especially when you take into account the ten Provincial and three Territorial Legislatures. Coalitions, however, have been very rare. It may sound odd to some of you, but minority governments manage to get quite a lot of good work done, better work by many standards than do majority governments who are able to ram through whatever they want. In my province a single party has formed successive majority governments for almost four decades and it is truly an awful situation: virtually all of the opposition members have never known a time when someone else governed and virtually the entire electorate can't bring themselves to vote for parties that have not governed in living memory.

Meanwhile, our Federal Parliament has had a minority government for years and they've always had to make sure that their legislation actually has support from a broad cross-section of the country or it doesn't get passed. And each bill that is passed is passed because one or another of the opposition parties feels it can support the thing. No formal coalition, just judging the legislation on its merits (with some consideration given of course, to longer-term political advantage).


If I were you, I'd be hoping for a hung parliament.

"in a hung parliment dosen't the queen ask the encumbent PM to form the Govt"

Yes and no.
He remains in government after election until the new government is formed.

Brown and his cabinet, whether or not they lost their seats in the election will probably continue in government until he resigns and a new Labour leader or Cameron convince the LDs to support them at the Queen's Speech.
Then Queeny will ask whichever party has offered the LDs the most in the next Queen's Speech to try to form government, so as to keep her out of it as much possible. One of the benefits of an unwritten constitution is that we can make it up as we go along within certain parameters.

If Brown doesn't get working majority he'll be "advised" to resign (again) by his own party.
If he ignores them and loses the vote at the Queens Speech he'll have committed seppuku.
Clegg has made noises that couldn't work with him.
That could be rhetoric, but... But trying to go into coalition with a Lab leader that has no 'mandate' from the election would look bad, be Brown or replacement.

And the Cons will probably have majority of the popular vote.

So in a sense it's the Cons that are king-makers as it's up to them to decide whether they'll make the LD a good offer or force the LD to work with Labour.

However it plays out. I will be disappointed and surprised if Brown survives the knives of all 3 sides.

'One of the benefits of an unwritten constitution is that we can make it up as we go along within certain parameters. '


One of those parameters is precedent in other Westminster system parliaments, and the convention is that the party which has the most seats -- not necessarily a majority -- has first crack at forming a government. What I think is missed by many here is that it is not usually to anyone's advantage to have another election right after the one that brought in a hung parliament -- the results of a second election so quickly will not likely give any party an outright majority. What real-world experience of these things (Canada's for example) shows is that the parties with smaller numbers of seats quickly see the advantage in making a minority government work for a period of time, giving them rope that they might be truly hung by a blunder followed by defeat at the polls. The opposition parties most often come out of a period of minority government looking far better than they did going in, and the governing party inevitably cocks something up enough to be chucked out of power before long.