HUNG PARLIAMENT

A hung parliament is looking more and more likely.

Is this a good thing, or, a nightmare scenario?

Is it right that the Tories could get the largest popular vote - yet be kept out of government by an unholy alliance of the two losing parties?

Comments
davidwinch's picture

A regional party in a UK parliament

davidwinch | | Permalink

The difficulty that the Tories have is that they are, in terms of seats, a regional party in a UK parliament.

If, on a map, you go to the point at the northern end of the border between Wales and England and from there draw two lines, one running due East and the other due South, you define a quadrant which includes the constituencies of the vast majority of Conservative MPs.

Very few Tory MPs have constituencies in Scotland, Northern England, Wales or South West England.

Amassing yet more votes within that 'blue quadrant' is not going to win the Tories the UK election (unless they can win a lot more London seats).  But can Eton and Oxford educated David Cameron appeal to the wider electorate?

Expect to see him wearing a flat cap and a kilt, and sporting a leek pinned to his lapel in an attempt to do just that.

Mr Cameron, just be careful with that ferret!

johnjenkins's picture

Hung???????

johnjenkins | | Permalink

Hey WD. I don't know if you remember but some weeks ago I did say that Labour could well get in with a hung Parliament.

The answer to your question has varied answers around the country, but I think what we should  take note of what the electorate want. To me that is clearly a coalition, however that is because people aren't too confident about Cleggy although that could change.

It will be a good thing if all parties work together to deliver what the peolpe want and not what their party wants but it will be a nightmare scenario if party politics takes centre stage.

Lib/Dems have been advocating proportional representation for years so Labour and Tories have only got themselves to blame for a hung Parliament.

  

cymraeg_draig's picture

PR ?

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

The problem I have is that according to pols it could possibly end up with something like -

  • Conservatives - 38%
  • Liberals           - 30%
  • Labour            - 28%

And yet, we could then find Gordon Brown camped out in number 10, supported by Clegg - and the party that got the most votes still out in the cold. 

Where is the democrasy in that ?

 

As for PR - that simply leads to a permanent weak government. 

What we should do, in my opinion, is merge constituencies together to give half the current number.  Then each constituency should elect TWO MPs - the first by the "first past the post" system as at present, and the second by a proportional representation system.

Perhaps that would give us strong but more representative government?

 

 

 

 

 

 

johnjenkins's picture

Will Cleggy do a deal???????

johnjenkins | | Permalink

He has already said that he wont do a deal with GB. Mind you if crunch came to crunch he could soon change his mind.

Of course it's not right that the party with the least votes could be in power.

Let's reverse the process. Why not elect a person to run the country. They would state what they would like to do and how it should be done. When that person is voted in they then pick a government to suit what that person stands for, basically eliminating party politics or perhaps bringing party politics in line with what the electorate want.

Yes Simon Cowell or Richard Branson, perhaps even Carol Thatcher might be elected. Who is to say that they would do a worse job than John Major or Gordon Brown. Ronald Reagan didn't do too bad and Arnie likes a dabble.

Now for the big one. I feel it is time that Politics and Religion, throughout the world, took a long hard look at itself and asked the question. What sort of life are we creating for the future?????????

 

davidwinch's picture

A deal?

davidwinch | | Permalink

I don't think Nick Clegg has ruled out a deal with Gordon Brown.

This is what the BBC report says:

"Mr Clegg said he would not support Gordon Brown as PM, if Labour came third in terms of number of votes but still won the most seats under the first-past-the-post system.

But he repeated his belief that if a party won the most seats and the most votes but was short of an overall majority, it had the "moral right" to seek to govern first."

David

johnjenkins's picture

Labour Victory

johnjenkins | | Permalink

If indeed labour did come third in voting yet won the most seats and no one did a deal with them, effectively saying they didn't want GB as PM, then either Labour would have to change their leader or we would have another general election. In which case GB would go anyway.

So if the other parties genuinly feel that GB is bad for the country then, even if he wins, they can now get rid of him; in fact they could probably dictate who replaces him.

Paul Scholes's picture

It's been said before but....

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Looking in from the outside (when I have nothing else to do) it seems that you (the big you) are obsessing over 3 people. 

I agree that GB has had his day (before he became PM) but who would replace him?  Even more so with DC.  The parties' PR machines, as well as the weekly game shows, have failed to promote 3 teams.

I think they deserve a hung parliament and only time will tell whether they are more grown up about it than in 74.

johnjenkins's picture

PR

johnjenkins | | Permalink

I think the opposite is true. The 3 have been promoted so well that there isn't a lot of difference. This is backed up by the polls.

If you are a good debater and get prime time TV what can go wrong???????????

Add comment
Log in or register to post comments
Group: Election & politics discussion group
A place for AccountingWEB to air their political views during the election campaign