"Hung Parliment"

bearfraser

Should they be ? or is hanging too good for most of them??????? :twisted:

simonaspinall

I predict an initial 6-12 month stage of indecision while the system starts to phase in and critics fears may happen.

Long-term....more balanced legislation and hopefully foreign and domestic investment feels we are a more stable country to do business with.

No worrying about sporadic short-term government actions, 1 sided legislation etc.

Simplistic view, but if you're going to invest in a country it's easier to forecast with a moderate government which won't lurch from left to right to left etc.

Pross

I don't like the idea of a position where small parties could exert undue influence by getting their minority policies through in return the backing the majority party (e.g. Plaid Cymru blackmailing the Government to get Wales extra priveliges for helping push through legislation). A very small overall majority would be my preferred scenario.

beverick

Pross wrote:

I don't like the idea of a position where small parties could exert undue influence by getting their minority policies through in return the backing the majority party (e.g. Plaid Cymru blackmailing the Government to get Wales extra priveliges for helping push through legislation). A very small overall majority would be my preferred scenario.

Agreed. However, I think the phrase "working majority" is the one you're looking for - perhaps 10 or 15. Less than that and the power is vested in a small number of politicians from the majority party who have more interest in expounding their own policies than those of the government. Also, with a majority of less than 10 or 15 the government spends more time fending off votes of confidence than actually passing legislation. Basically you end up with a moribund executive incapable of governing.

simonaspinall wrote:

.....No worrying about sporadic short-term government actions, 1 sided legislation etc.....

[/quote

A hung parliament gives you exactly that; specific actions with a bias towards achieving a specific short term goal. One week the government would be making right wing concessions to get a handful of UKIP MPs on side for a vote on, immigration for example, and the next it would be left wing concessions to keep the Greens on side for a vote on the environment.

It would make the 'West Lothian" question look like an irrelevance.

Bob

simonaspinall

Would that not make it more democratic though? The policy of the parliament as a whole is more reflective of it's members and parties of all sides?

It would be somewhat disjointed but more reflective of what the public voted for....possibly?

Pross

I can't see how getting a vote through on the basis of 2 or 3 Plaid MPs in return for an increase in funding to Wales is making anything more democratic (and as say that as a Welshman living in Wales).

Maybe we should have referenda for every big decision therefore getting true democracy It seems some people demand a referendum on everything (along with a public inquiry whenever something goes wrong).

beverick

simonaspinall wrote:

Would that not make it more democratic though? The policy of the parliament as a whole is more reflective of it's members and parties of all sides?

It would be somewhat disjointed but more reflective of what the public voted for....possibly?

You're missing the point. In a hung parliament the largest party aligns itself with which ever other party it needs to in order to win a vote - there is no common consensus.

If Labour is the largest party Nick Clegg and David Cameron would take it in turns to support or hang a Labour prime minister (and given Wednesday's gaff it's not likley to be Gordon Brown). Alternatively, a Tory PM would be at the mercy of Nick Clegg and the leader of the Labour party.

Bob

simonaspinall

Hmmm....a tricky'un then

rick_chasey

Hung parliaments can't really function in the UK because there are no rules and regulations on how coalitions can be formed.

A well designed PR system (i.e. not the Dutch model, but more like the German model) should have the correct rules to prevent parties collapsing gov'ts, playing politics to force re-elections etc, as well as rules on how coalitions should be formed.

So scaremongering on a hung parliament spilling over onto PR, which the tories have been alluding to, is not really correct.

guilliano

Part of the problem is that as has been stated regularly...... if all the main parties got 30% of the vote then the seats would not be equally shared..... Labour would end up with a majority. I have no idea how that works as it makes no sense to me and that fact alone puts me off voting. A well thought out PR voting system would solve that problem and would mean that the voters views were better represented.

However, having MP's representing their constituents and not their parties would be an even better way to go

rick_chasey

guilliano wrote:

Part of the problem is that as has been stated regularly...... if all the main parties got 30% of the vote then the seats would not be equally shared..... Labour would end up with a majority. I have no idea how that works as it makes no sense to me and that fact alone puts me off voting. A well thought out PR voting system would solve that problem and would mean that the voters views were better represented.

However, having MP's representing their constituents and not their parties would be an even better way to go

First past the post is pretty straight forward, surely?

hopper1

The voting system with 'seats' and percentages is a crock of sh!t!
To my mind it should be a simple operation of counting all the votes, and awarding 1st prize to the party with the most votes. Bugger all to do with who had what at the last election...

Or have I missed something more fundamental here?...

rick_chasey

hopper1 wrote:

The voting system with 'seats' and percentages is a crock of sh!t!
To my mind it should be a simple operation of counting all the votes, and awarding 1st prize to the party with the most votes. Bugger all to do with who had what at the last election...

Or have I missed something more fundamental here?...

If you want that, that's what the Lib Dems are promising.

Proportional Representation.

The Tories and Labour party will fight tooth and nail to stop that electoral reform occuring.

It's about the only thing the Lib Dems really really really care about.*

*(though they would want that, since it helps them a lot)

hopper1

Rick Chasey wrote:

[If you want that, that's what the Lib Dems are promising.

Proportional Representation.

The Tories and Labour party will fight tooth and nail to stop that electoral reform occuring.

It's about the only thing the Lib Dems really really really care about.*

*(though they would want that, since it helps them a lot)

True, the Lib Dems would be a lot stronger, with Proportional Representation, and it's probably the only way for them to avoid being involved in a hung parliament.
The Tories & Labour will fight against reform, because that is their only saving grace, right now!
It really is a sad state of affairs... :roll:

rick_chasey

hopper1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

[If you want that, that's what the Lib Dems are promising.

Proportional Representation.

The Tories and Labour party will fight tooth and nail to stop that electoral reform occuring.

It's about the only thing the Lib Dems really really really care about.*

*(though they would want that, since it helps them a lot)

True, the Lib Dems would be a lot stronger, with Proportional Representation, and it's probably the only way for them to avoid being involved in a hung parliament.
The Tories & Labour will fight against reform, because that is their only saving grace, right now!
It really is a sad state of affairs... :roll:

I would suggest, that in the event that the allocation of seats does not reflect the national vote (say, the Lib Dems come 2nd in the national vote, but 3rd in terms of seats), there would be some mandate, depending on how significant the difference is, to suggest electoral reform.

So, if that is an issue for you, you should certainly not vote tactically, and vote for who you actually want.

However, there is an argument to suggest that given the tricky issues nationally and internationally, that a big effort for electoral reform would keep eyes off the important prize - the economic situation.


Then again, who am I to tell you what to do!

guilliano

Surely a system where parties have representation based on number of votes is the fairest way? First past the post is not straight forward at all as has been said..... a 30% share of the popular vote for Lib Dem will lead to a roughly 15% share of the seats, whilst the same number of votes for Labour leads to just over 50%. I don't see how this works or how it allows the voters to be heard

rick_chasey

guilliano wrote:

Surely a system where parties have representation based on number of votes is the fairest way? First past the post is not straight forward at all as has been said..... a 30% share of the popular vote for Lib Dem will lead to a roughly 15% share of the seats, whilst the same number of votes for Labour leads to just over 50%. I don't see how this works or how it allows the voters to be heard

Easy way to explain how it works:

Pretend there is a country which only has 3 seats, and two parties.

Each seat has 20 voters

Seat 1 result: Party A: 9 votes, Party B:11 votes < Party B wins.

Seat 2: Party A: 19 votes, Party B: 1Vote. < Party A wins.

Seat 3: Party A: 9 votes, Party B: 11 Votes < Party B wins.

So, party B wins, with 2 seats, with Party A only with one seat.

Total votes cast: Party A: 37
Party B: 23.

Edit: You probably know this already, and I'm probably coming across as a condescending idiot. Worth explaining though.

Splottboy

Hung...by the foreskin.

Frank the tank

First past the post system

If the soup party get the most seats we all get soup.

If the porridge party get the most seats we all get porridge.

If the triffle party get the most seats we all get triffle.

In a hung parliament you get a dodgy recipie that nobody wants.

guilliano

But in a hung parliament you also get parties more able to fight on behalf of their voters. Although this shouldn't matter as the MPs are meant to be there to represent their constituencies, not their party

rick_chasey

guilliano wrote:

But in a hung parliament you also get parties more able to fight on behalf of their voters. Although this shouldn't matter as the MPs are meant to be there to represent their constituencies, not their party

Possibly, but do you chose who to vote for on national issues or local constituency issues?

I'd imagine most people vote on the national issues, so it's only natural for the MP to consider the national issues first, the local issues second.

guilliano

This is the other problem with a general election. We are meant to vote for a local representative, but essentially we are voting in a Prime Minister, not someone who will represent us on a local level

rick_chasey

guilliano wrote:

This is the other problem with a general election. We are meant to vote for a local representative, but essentially we are voting in a Prime Minister, not someone who will represent us on a local level

All the more reason to vote for a party who fundamentally desires electoral reform!


(The Lib Dems!)

guilliano

But if 30% of voters want Lib Dems in they won't get 30% of seats...... they will need something like 70% of the popular vote to get in and as such are not worth voting for so I may as well spoil my vote (if I ever get my polling card) and admit that there is not a single party I actually agree with instead of voting for a "least bad" option

rick_chasey

guilliano wrote:

But if 30% of voters want Lib Dems in they won't get 30% of seats...... they will need something like 70% of the popular vote to get in and as such are not worth voting for so I may as well spoil my vote (if I ever get my polling card) and admit that there is not a single party I actually agree with instead of voting for a "least bad" option

Fair enough.

I would say though, that if the Lib Dems were to get a big proportion of the vote, and still very few seats, as you suggest, then there would undoubtedly be a mandate for electoral reform.

Then in future, you would be able to cast your vote to whoever you want, and know it means something.

Then again, you may not want to vote lib dem for other reasons!

guilliano

I actually want to cast a spoilt paper as to be honest I just don't feel MPs represent the people they are meant to anymore. They all represent their party rather than their community and yet they all come begging for your vote saying they will fight for you at election time

ean

guilliano wrote:

I actually want to cast a spoilt paper as to be honest I just don't feel MPs represent the people they are meant to anymore. They all represent their party rather than their community and yet they all come begging for your vote saying they will fight for you at election time

+1

The people are only listened to once in a parliament. After that media and lobbyist are all that get heard.

Cressers

A sign spotted yesterday attached to a Chichester litter bin (New Park Road)

"A hung parliament- now there's a thought!"

I don't know if it's still there or has been removed by the jobsworths.

rick_chasey

Cressers wrote:

A sign spotted yesterday attached to a Chichester litter bin (New Park Road)

"A hung parliament- now there's a thought!"

I don't know if it's still there or has been removed by the jobsworths.

Hanged, not hung...

http://www.englishrules.com/writing/200 ... r-hung.php

Hung means they're all well endowed, which I don't think many people mean.

Pross

guilliano wrote:

I actually want to cast a spoilt paper as to be honest I just don't feel MPs represent the people they are meant to anymore. They all represent their party rather than their community and yet they all come begging for your vote saying they will fight for you at election time

That may be my tactic - can you imagine the message it would send if there were more spoiled papers in a constituency than valid votes?

domhnall_dearg

guilliano wrote:
I actually want to cast a spoilt paper as to be honest I just don't feel MPs represent the people they are meant to anymore. They all represent their party rather than their community and yet they all come begging for your vote saying they will fight for you at election time

That may be my tactic - can you imagine the message it would send if there were more spoiled papers in a constituency than valid votes?

Sending a message to the politcal clique is why there should be a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper. I suspect that it would win practically every seat.