Hung Parliament - Good, Bad or Immaterial?

[Marmora Man]

There are several "Election" threads but none deliberately addressing this issue.

My thoughts:

1. Yes coalition parliaments have worked well elsewhere abroad but not everywhere. Italy's history, until the Berliosconi regime, where they have had, almost, more governing coalitions than there have been years since WWII is not encouraging.

2. Coalition and "pact" parliaments in Scotland, N. Ireland and (Assembly) in Wales are not relevant examples as they do not exercise real tax raising powers - merely deciding how to spend their allocation from Westminster. Indeed the SNP and Plaid Cymru manifestos are explicitly planning to act as a lobby, to hold Westminster hostage, if they have any hold over a balance of power.

3. None of the major parties have given real thought to such an event - and their individual manifestos are deliberately and explicitly different with major fault lines between them. To join a coalition, parties would have to give up on manifesto pledges - which are the basis on which we, presumably, voted for them.

4. We cannot vote for a hung parliament - and cannot therefore predict the outcome.

5. Britain isn't used to such parliaments - a hung parliament is likely to arrive at the lowest common denominator in terms of policy and clarity, rather a radical shift from this current administration's obsession with cracking down on civil liberties, spending more than the country can afford and growing the state sector.

6. In the current economic situation a single clear majority will be far better than a coalition - not necessarily because the IMF will walk in (a la Ken Clarke's warning) but because it will be easier, simpler and clearer to have one single sense of direction than a compromise position. I would, marginally, prefer a new Labour government with a working majority to a hung parliament.

I am still predicting a Conservative government will be elected with a working majority.

[Huguenot]

I tend to agree with you MM: a hung parliament is likely to be unproductive.

However, the responsibility for this doesn't lie with the voters, but with the political elite. Electoral boundaries have been persistently and cynically redrawn with the aim of supporting a two party state.

Both of these parties have comprehensively failed the British people, probably because this entrenched position has proved to be no incentive for competence or quality.

We now have a situation where a party (the Lib Dems) could take the highest share of the national vote, and yet be relegated to having a tenth of the seats in parliament. An absolute outrage. A coup d'etat.

I believe that a hung parliament for a couple of years will create the atmosphere for comprehensive change in the political system, and a healthy long term future for the UK. No pain, no gain.

Go Lib Dems, get the votes they deserve, and if the government is stolen from them I hope the citizens revolt!

[Brendan]

Why should a government represent what the people want? What would be best for us all is for our new lords and masters to receive their birthright of power. The do know what?s best for the people after all.

Think about what you?re arguing. It?s not very far away from saying we may as well get rid of democracy because a dictatorship is more expedient. It is, but it?s not how we do things and if politicians are more interested in attaining absolute power rather than representing and working for the benefit of the people they have no place in a democracy.

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot - you seem to agree that a hung parliament is likely to be unproductive and you see a need for change - what would that change be?

At present, you'll be aware, there is an inbuilt Labour bias in the seats and constituencies. It takes roughly (from memory) 24,000 votes to elect a Labour MP, 30,000 to elect a Tory MP and about 38,000 to elect a Lib Dem. If constituencies could be equalised that might create a fairer distribution of seats but would still lead to coalitions, particularly in a close 3 horse race.

The alternative vote (AV) option might work - I'm not fully au fait with the intricacies of its working. Would it lead to a single party in charge or, again, a coalition gov't? Are there any voting geeks out there to comment?

[Huguenot]

I'd like to see a change to Single Transferable Vote.

The last candidate is eliminated in each round of counting, and their votes handed over at full value to whoever was the second favourite on their voters' cards.

The rounds continue until one candidate has over 50% of the vote, and they are elected.

You're most likely to get elected if you not only prove popular as a first place selection, but have also offered such a compromise that you attract a lot of second place votes also.

It leads to more acceptable, centrist and meritocratic policies - first past the post rarely delivers a candidate with over 50% of the vote, meaning the winning candidate has actually been rejected (not elected) by a majority of their constituency.

Whilst it doesn't eliminate hung parliaments it does create convergence on effective representation rather than ideology. This means that the dangers of a hung parliament are much less significant, and the government itself has a greater mandate to govern.

It is less likely to deliver hung parliaments than proportional representation, and also ensures the population can elect a representative rather than have a party central office choose the representative for them. I believe STV incentivises quality performance, and PR does the opposite.

It also eliminates the need for tactical voting, a strategy which puts a large number of people in the uncomfortable position of lying on their ballot card.

[????]

There's going to have to be massive, MASSIVE cuts in public spending after the election or we'll go broke (see Greece)

If the tories win they'll be massacred by the unions and left with the 'same old tories' stuff and will be out in the wilderness for years again in 5 years time. Plus massive unrest - workplace and on the streets.

If Labour win, they'll bottle the tough decisions (they're romantic unwordly lefties for whom the whole world shpould get a free lunch for ever and ever) and we'll end up begging bowl in hand to the IMF or wimpering into the Euro on crappy terms in 3 years

A hung parliament and an alliance of whover ,(I'm hoping Liberals and Tories), will at least give us a chance of making these huge and painful cuts with some degree of 'consensus' which may stop the worse of the carnage we're going to see in terms of strikes and disorder over the next few years.

I'd hate to win this election.

[V511]

Hi Marmora Man. Good question for a thread.

1) Italy is always a bad example of coalition governance. The majority are effective and stable though - think of Germany and Switzerland for example (the swiss have had 4 party coalitions since the 50s or 60s I think). The issue of effectiveness seems to be about the political culture of the particular nation - for most it works, for some it doesn't.

2) I understand your point about the devolved parliaments and assemblies of the UK, but my take on it is that the key principle to assess is whether there is an ability to work together. If Martin Mcguinness and Ian Paisley can sit in a cabinet together and get things done, then frankly shame on others that can't or won't make it work.

3)You're assuming that a formal coalition is what will happen. I doubt that the Tories seek a coalition if they were the largest party but short of an overall majority. Rather they would seek to form a minority government and try their luck. They are simply scared to give in to any demand by the Lib Dems to change the electoral system.

On a wider point, nobody expected a hung parliament like this. If the voting system were changed to something which generally return coalition governments then the parties policies and behaviour would I think alter to suit the demands of cooperative government. In this system, having clear distinct choices between parties (not that i think there is that much) is more effective at producing big overall majorities - so they accentuate the difference.

4. Not sure I follow your point here - an individuals vote has no guaranteed outcome already, unless in a safe seat, so what is different?

5. True, Britain isn't used to hung parliaments but as they say 'past performance is no guarantee of future results'.

There is no reason to assume what type of policies will be enacted because we don't know what the setup will be on May 7th. I think you're projecting your own political preferences and wishs onto the question.

6. The idea that the economic situation would be handled better by there being one clear policy for me doesn't stack up. If the one clear policy is the wrong policy then we're even more screwed. Odds are that by having a jointly worked out policy its more likely to have been considered and critiqued rather than one based on a single parties ideology. (Personally I take the Keynesian policy to the current economic situation. Cutting spending now would be the wrong policy)

[katie1997]

I don't think a hung Parliament = jointly worked out policy by any means. Considered and critiqued even less.

I have a feeling that Labour may get in again, with LibDem votes pushing out the Tories in any event of a hung Parliament. I don't consider this to be a good thing, whatever happens. Expect there will be a lot of tactical voting on all sides.

[Brendan]

We do have to keep in mind that this is a time of electioneering and therefore this ?Fear the hung parliament? spin should be treated with the bucket of salt that anything any of the major parties spew forth at the moment warrants.

In reality it could be a problem if there is a lack of good will amongst MPs to work toward the common public good. This is a genuine possibility but not a valid reason to vote against your conscience. And hopefully if MPs realise that their votes aren?t so guaranteed they may be forced to represent their people rather than their party.

[Loz]

I believe that parties shouldn't govern for more than 10 years. They run out of ideas and start doing some wildly stupid things, and that is being proved by the current government. But, I'm not convinced that the Tories are quite ready to take over and the LibDems would need another massive surge to get a full majority.

A hung parliament may be the best we can hope for, even with its inherent dangers. But, a hung parliament would only work (and indeed useful in the longer term), providing the coalition is two parties only (i.e. LibDem/Labour or LibDem/Tory). If the coalition is made up of LibDem+(Tory/Labour)+SNP+Plaid Cymru then it will be an unmitigated disaster.

[katie1997]

I'm not convinced the Tories are ready to take over either. Agree that a two-party coalition would be best, preferably one that did not include Labour. I am afraid that voting against my conscience is the only way for this election. Another five years of Labour? No thanks.

True that all this 'hung Parliament' talk is purely speculative and we are in the midst of electioneering. Who was it that said a day is a long time in politics? Well I agree with them.

[Huguenot]

Except that voting against your conscience is the best way of ensuring that you'll have to continue voting against your conscience for a very long time... Tories have no intention of addressing inconsistencies in the voting system.

[BigOne]

What's the real difference ? They all smile in deceitful ways ....

[matthew123]

There are not enough good people in each party imo to form a good government - surely it would be better to have a coalition that serves their country first before their own particular old boys network.

[ratty]

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are not enough good people in each party imo

> to form a good government - surely it would be

> better to have a coalition that serves their

> country first before their own particular old boys

> network.

I agree. And, if the country democratically votes for a hung parliament then the smug politicians on all sides will just have to get on with it. How dare they treat the electorate as deluded fools. If we vote for a hung parliament then we will get one and it will be up to the politicians to make it work.

Party politics is quickly becoming far to similar to the X Factor!

[silverfox]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd like to see a change to Single Transferable

> Vote.

>

> The last candidate is eliminated in each round of

> counting, and their votes handed over at full

> value to whoever was the second favourite on their

> voters' cards.

>

> The rounds continue until one candidate has over

> 50% of the vote, and they are elected.

>

I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the current system. People will have voted for the disqualified candidate, not for whoever is reallocated their votes. Surely in theory the BNP could win on this basis?

[Loz]

The Australian system works reasonably well:

- AV (or Preferential Voting) for the lower house

- PR (or STV) for the upper house (though via a rather iffy party-preference version).

This gives (generally) stable one-party government in the lower house, where policy and laws are usually enacted, but a wider cross section in the upper house where the laws are reviewed. Back in the 80's and 90's, when the Australian Democrats held the balance of power in the upper house, this tended to be a very good arrangement.

AV works as an improved version of FPTP. There is less tactical voting as your preferences are taken into account, so that vote for, say, the Greens is not necessarily a wasted vote. Critics say it means 'some people have more than one vote', but I don't see how following preferences does that.

Surely in theory the BNP could win on this basis?

I hate the BNP as much as anyone, but I recognise that, in a democracy, they have a right to exist. You should not discard a perfectly legitimate voting method just because it may cause a BNP candidate to be elected, if that is the will of the electorate. (And actually, the BNP has a far, far lower chance of winning under AV than PR, anyway.)

AV essentially reduces all contests down to a two horse race. For example, the voting on who wins the Olympics starts with every candidate city being voted upon. The city with the least number of votes is eliminated and everyone votes again on the remainder. And so on and so on until one city attracts at least 50% of the votes. That way, everyone is seen to be in agreement as to who won. Many, many times the leader at the end of the first round of votes (which would, under FPTP, be declared the winner) does not go on to attract the necessary 50% in the later rounds.

AV does the same, except you can't change your vote between rounds. It means that any MP can legitimately say (s)he has the mandate from a majority of his/her electorate - something that most MPs currently in parliament cannot currently say.

It also means that smaller parties have a much better idea of their support. I suspect that the current surge of LibDem support has actually always existed in the UK, but people did not vote for them because they were seen to not be able to win and therefore seen as a wasted vote under FPTP. What Nick Clegg did in the first debate was put the LibDems up as legitimate contenders and released this dormant voting support. Under AV, this dormant vote would have come out much earlier - years ago.

Also, 'tactical voting' becomes unnecessary, which can only be a positive thing for democracy. It is a lot easier on the soul to number the Tory candidate as number "5" and Hattie The Harpie as number "6" than put an X in the Tory box (just to make sure the evil cow gets turfed out) even though, if it came down to it, it would have the same effect.

Of course, the Australian system also has the democratic advantage of the 'compulsory voting' law (which is actually just a compulsory attendance law - you are not compelled to actually vote). But that has a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming into law in the UK.

[silverfox]

Fair enough Loz. I realise it is a perfectly valid voting procedure although it is not actually one system. There are many variations of how STV is used across the world and how votes, and even fracrtions of votes in some cases, are transferred.

I would question though whether in most cases the winner can claim to have a mandate given that their cumulative votes are made up of 2nd, 3rd or 4th preferences.

Ironically, our imperfect system at the moment is quite clear on who really has the mandate in terms of votes cast (see Mamora Man's percentages required above) but the first past the post system means they don't necessarily win a seat.

[Loz]

Apologies, Silverfox, I have my terminology mixed. What I referred to as STV is actually what is being proposed for the Alternative Vote system (but not the AV+ idea). AV seems to be a UK term. Preferential voting is the Austrlian term. STV is actually more of a PR system as you said.

I will edit my post as it is erroneous at the moment.

[James Barber]

In 1999 the House of Lords was partially reformed. Most of the hereditary peers were removed. Since then its no overal control for any party. Without democratic legitamacy its been restrianed but it has repeatedly challenged new laws and negotiations have taken place. Wasn't 90 day detention without trial originally proposed but endded up 30 days?

Effectively HoL with NOC has been hung and the sky has not fallen in.

The scandals of the last two years have shocked and hugely angered people. Fundamentally no real change has happened since then. A hung or balanced parliament with the Lib Dems will have table stakes of ensuring real reform so that no MP can feel so safe they can treat voters with such contempt. Flipping, moats, houses for parents, porn films, etc. A non hung or balanced parliament will see a quiet return to the old ways. 80% of seats never changing hands, jobs for life with mega pensions for MP and nice retirement plans to the House of Lords or jobs in Europe.

We all have a clear choice this election. But then I would say that. We've been saying this for decades.

[expat]

why would having mored lib-dem in parliment ease the expense scandal?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/liberal-democrat-mps-expenses/

Also I thought the expense system had been changed already?

[Brendan]

Oh fuck off! Compared to Labour and the especially the Tories they look practically saintly.

[silverfox]

Only because there's a lot fewer of them

[Brendan]

Yeah I know. I don?t for a minute believe that given a free reign on power they wouldn?t end up just as bad. (Or more accurately would attract the sort of member who will be dishonest)

But they don?t for now which is part of the attraction.

[silverfox]

Nick Clegg made ?300,000 from house in Brussels after getting ?140,000 from taxpayers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269343/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-300-000-house-Brussels-getting-140-000-taxpayers.html