Hung Parliament means Hung Parliament - the Hung Parliament thread

[Ben@Forest]

The media seem to consider a hung parliament to be a recipe for disaster, with weak and unstable government likely. But if we had PR that is how it would always be, with small parties like the DUP wielding a disproportionate amount of power. The tail wagging the dog, as they say.

Much depends on which form of PR is used. What we have now is a relatively small number of voters in a few constituencies deciding it for everybody.

I would like to see PR, l don't consider the FPTP system fair. But just the tribalism on here makes me wonder if we can make it work here.

I thought Nick Clegg did absolutely the right thing in 2010 but he and his party were slaughtered for it in 2015. It seems there are a lot of ideological fanatics out there who treat politics like supporting a football team, only one result will do.

[pwa]

One feature of a hung parliament, and therefore of PR, is that a manifesto is even less of a guide as to what will happen than is the case at present.

The Lib Dems suffered for 2010 because a lot of Lib Dem voters were anti-Tory and never dreamed that their votes could put a Tory into Number 10.

[Ben@Forest]

One feature of a hung parliament, and therefore of PR, is that a manifesto is even less of a guide as to what will happen than is the case at present.

The Lib Dems suffered for 2010 because a lot of Lib Dem voters were anti-Tory and never dreamed that their votes could put a Tory into Number 10.

And that's what l mean. In Germany between 2005 and 09 because neither of the biggest parties the CDU (Conservatives) and SPD (Labour) could form a government they were in coalition together. Would the diehard supporters of either party allow that here?

[thirdcrank]

One feature of a hung parliament, and therefore of PR, is that a manifesto is even less of a guide as to what will happen than is the case at present.

The Lib Dems suffered for 2010 because a lot of Lib Dem voters were anti-Tory and never dreamed that their votes could put a Tory into Number 10.(My emphasis)

I think that the bit I've highlighted needs explanation because I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest.

While any form of coalition involves compromise, one of the reasons often argued against PR is that there's a tendency to spawn numerous small parties with only slight differences separating them. The "strong" government case for FPTP is traditionally that voters get a clear choice, but in the UK at least that's often no longer the case as everybody competes for the centre ground.
===========================================================================
PS I think the comparison between the Con/LibDem Coalition and the situation in Germany illustrates what I'm saying in that in the latter case, the electorate anticipates and accepts the consequences of their system. The LibDems were punished for supporting a Tory govt., especially when some individuals seemed opportunist, but it's worth remembering that in the 2015 campaign, the Tories ruthlessly targeted their erstwhile partners.

[pwa]

One feature of a hung parliament, and therefore of PR, is that a manifesto is even less of a guide as to what will happen than is the case at present.

The Lib Dems suffered for 2010 because a lot of Lib Dem voters were anti-Tory and never dreamed that their votes could put a Tory into Number 10.(My emphasis)

I think that the bit I've highlighted needs explanation because I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest.

While any form of coalition involves compromise, one of the reasons often argued against PR is that there's a tendency to spawn numerous small parties with only slight differences separating them. The "strong" government case for FPTP is traditionally that voters get a clear choice, but in the UK at least that's often no longer the case as everybody competes for the centre ground.

PR leads to hung parliaments, for better or for worse. Unless one party gets 50% of the vote. With PR you would get this sort of bartering after every election. And the small parties would have a disproportionate leverage. If you like the bargaining going on at the moment, PR may be for you. If you feel the DUP are getting more power than their share of the vote deserves, that would happen more often with PR.

[mjr]

OK, what countries with PR have governments where you feel a small party wields disproportionate power?

[thirdcrank]

I edited my last post in the forlorn hope of getting it done quickly.

PR only produces unstable govt if the system in use allows for general elections at any time: one of the tactics at everybody's disposal is engineering an election in the hope of acheiving a better result. Fixed-term systems enforce compromise. Even when FPTP "works" the tendency is for a new govt to be elected, try to undo everything the last lot did, then grind on becoming increasingly unpopular till they get the boot.

[Ben@Forest]

OK, what countries with PR have governments where you feel a small party wields disproportionate power?

My knowledge of German politics prior to the 1990s is not good but l think the FDP(Liberals) has been the junior coalition partner to either of the big parties for about 40 of the past 70 years. I certainly met Germans who felt they had too much influence. On the other hand it seems to be a system that works for the Germans.

[pete75]

I edited my last post in the forlorn hope of getting it done quickly.

PR only produces unstable govt if the system in use allows for general elections at any time: one of the tactics at everybody's disposal is engineering an election in the hope of acheiving a better result. Fixed-term systems enforce compromise. Even when FPTP "works" the tendency is for a new govt to be elected, try to undo everything the last lot did, then grind on becoming increasingly unpopular till they get the boot.

Yep but as we've just seen even where there is a fixed term parliament act, as in the UK, a PM can still get around it to call an election when she thinks she's going to win a three figure majority.

[Vorpal]

PR leads to hung parliaments, for better or for worse. Unless one party gets 50% of the vote. With PR you would get this sort of bartering after every election. And the small parties would have a disproportionate leverage. If you like the bargaining going on at the moment, PR may be for you. If you feel the DUP are getting more power than their share of the vote deserves, that would happen more often with PR.

While it's true that this sort of bartering occurs after every election in countries that use PR, there are also usually several small parties to balance the demands of each other. The exception to that is one-issue parties which do arise from time to time, but their effect tends to be limited in time, as well as scope.

Yep but as we've just seen even where there is a fixed term parliament act, as in the UK, a PM can still get around it to call an election when she thinks she's going to win a three figure majority.

Well, the fixed term act in the UK isn't really. If you want fixed terms, it requires no, or only very limited circumstances in which an election can be called. Or an election cycle, established by law. The term for the executive leader (president, prime minister, chancellor, etc.) is established by the constitution in many countries. In France, it was established by constitutional referendum. The ability to call elections outside of this often requires special circumstances, a ruling of the courts, or an act of parliament. Few countries allow elections to be called as easily as the UK. Maybe Australia.

[blackbike]

PR leads to hung parliaments, for better or for worse. Unless one party gets 50% of the vote. With PR you would get this sort of bartering after every election. And the small parties would have a disproportionate leverage. If you like the bargaining going on at the moment, PR may be for you. If you feel the DUP are getting more power than their share of the vote deserves, that would happen more often with PR.

While it's true that this sort of bartering occurs after every election in countries that use PR, there are also usually several small parties to balance the demands of each other. The exception to that is one-issue parties which do arise from time to time, but their effect tends to be limited in time, as well as scope.

Yep but as we've just seen even where there is a fixed term parliament act, as in the UK, a PM can still get around it to call an election when she thinks she's going to win a three figure majority.

Well, the fixed term act in the UK isn't really. If you want fixed terms, it requires no, or only very limited circumstances in which an election can be called. Or an election cycle, established by law. The term for the executive leader (president, prime minister, chancellor, etc.) is established by the constitution in many countries. In France, it was established by constitutional referendum. The ability to call elections outside of this often requires special circumstances, a ruling of the courts, or an act of parliament. Few countries allow elections to be called as easily as the UK. Maybe Australia.

All democracies essentially have the same approach to calling elections.

The elected representatives make laws about it and everyone obeys them.

[thirdcrank]

Most modern democracies have some sort of constitution which has been written in an attempt to protect the system from abuses by the legislature. Some seem to work better than others. France is on its fifth since the Revolution.

We just make it up as we go along. Things have never been the same at the BBC without Norman St John Stevas to pontificate on constitutional niceties.

[pwa]

OK, what countries with PR have governments where you feel a small party wields disproportionate power?

All counties with PR. It is intrinsic to that system. Not necessarily a problem, but certainly a feature. If we moved over to PR for the next General Election you could look forward to Arlene spending more time passing through the door of Number 10. Or leaders of any of the minor parties. And their effect on government policy would exceed the proportion of the votes they got. They don't hold all the cards, just they aces.

[thirdcrank]

In any system of representative democracy, there will be a tendency for the representatives to group into factions to try to get the best out of the inevitable compromises. When those factions develop into formal parties, they may be large, each taking in various factions or small, single issue groupings. The wheeler-dealing may go on within the parties or between them.

IMO the real issue is whether the system reflects the rather vague "will of the people." PR must ensure that every vote counts towards that, rather than our system where most votes count for nothing, except material for pundits to analyse.

[pwa]

In any system of representative democracy, there will be a tendency for the representatives to group into factions to try to get the best out of the inevitable compromises. When those factions develop into formal parties, they may be large, each taking in various factions or small, single issue groupings. The wheeler-dealing may go on within the parties or between them.

IMO the real issue is whether the system reflects the rather vague "will of the people." PR must ensure that every vote counts towards that, rather than our system where most votes count for nothing, except material for pundits to analyse.

I think FPTP brings distortion at the constituency, for the reason you state. I think PR brings distortion later on, when the parties start looking at how they can combine to rule. Both systems end up with some voters having more influence on policy than others. If you want to see how government will look with PR, watch how the DUP and the Tories do things over the next few months.