Will we be doomed to hung parliaments forever?
I'm beginning to get the feeling of a hung parliament next May and with the rise of UKIP, the Greens and resident associations I'm starting to think 2020, 2025 and 2030 could all see hung parliaments.
The Conservatives simply can't for whatever reason garner a majority even when Labour were at the Brownite depths of 2010, Labour are failing to regain British people's confidence after the 2008-2009 fiasco and third and fourth parties are on the rise. Add into this that the SNP will almost certainly be able to spin themselves as a social democratic party post-referendum the prospect of majorities in Westminster seem ever more unlikely.
Will we see more snap elections, more coalitional infighting etc?
The Conservatives simply can't for whatever reason garner a majority even when Labour were at the Brownite depths of 2010, Labour are failing to regain British people's confidence after the 2008-2009 fiasco and third and fourth parties are on the rise. Add into this that the SNP will almost certainly be able to spin themselves as a social democratic party post-referendum the prospect of majorities in Westminster seem ever more unlikely.
Will we see more snap elections, more coalitional infighting etc?
0
Comments
Well we might lose the Liberal MPs - or half of them. and we could lose the Scottish Labour vote and SNP which would all make a majority government more likely. A majority of one will do - though both major parties are split enough to make sustaining a small majority very difficult.
Its very unlikely UKIP will get more than one or two MPs. Do we vote for Nigel to get Ed may be the question locally here. They may just exacerbate the trend for a lot of votes to be wasted.
The problem for the UK is Labour's rotten boroughs, and the massive Tory seats in some areas - which allows Labour to build a majority on a lower share of the vote - we have the reverse of the US situation where Republican governors help keep a Republican House whatever - by controlling seat boundaries. That job ought to be done by a non political body - not be derailed because Clegg throws a tantrum because he hasn't got a majority for unrelated reform elsewhere. If the winning party in the vote has a majority of seats, and PR has been massively rejected, there's nothing to complain about who wins. At the moment, we could have a Labour leader with support in the low 30 %s , or Clegg continuing as deputy PM in a Labour administration - with a majority of his own 2010 voters, and the country not wanting him there. That might be better than Milliband in charge alone , but neither conclusion looks very democratic, or likely to succeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_October_1974
Until the revolution at least. Not likely though.
One party govt on 35 per cent of the vote is no nirvana.
Ironically, the Tories back the First Past the Post system because we get strong majority governments but right now we have an increasingly weak coalition while in Scotland PR has delivered a majority government of determined single-mindedness.
I personally favour PR, the Scots system being the one I'd opt for. I think it is shameful and undemocratic that in elections like Thursday's locals, for example UKIP got 20% of the vote which translated to under 200 seats and not over 800, as it should. I didn't vote UKIP, just pointing out how hopelessly unfair that is. No other EU country has anything like this distorted system.
No wonder most British people don't vote and there is huge cynicism and a disconnect between voter and politician. In national elections 90% of us might as well not vote as we increasingly live in rotten boroughs of permanently safe seats. Politicians make all their promises just to woo a few hundred thousand people in very specific places. On top of that we had in 2005 Tony Blair on a low turnout only getting just over a third of the vote, claiming victory for his wars and excessive borrowing with a decent 'majority'. Yet 2/3 of people actually wanted another government. This is why there is SO much dissatisfaction. There is just way too little democracy.
Consensus is the reason why Labour and Conservatives have become more or less the same party and lost a great deal of support as a result. As we saw last night the voters want leadership not dithering and compromise.
The trouble is that people hate coalitions.
Look at the hatred at the Lib Dems for going into coalition with the Conservatives.
It would have been just as bad if they had gone into coalition with Labour.
People talk about wanting the political parties to work together.
But when it happens they do not like it.
Blaming the voting system is a total cop-out. It worked fine up until four years ago. The parties need to change.
The problem that both Labour and the Conservatives have got is if they move to far to the extreme ends of their party they will not win a GE with an overall majority.
The Conservatives have a particular problem with UKIP taking a portion of their base support from them.
However Labour has a problem in that no one believes that Ed Miliband is up to the job of Prime Minister.
I suspect that if David Miliband had been leader of the Labour party at the moment. Labour would be well ahead in the polls and UKIP would not be getting a look in (apart from a small amount of extreme right wingers).
Many who feel that they are between a rock and a hard place with Labour and Conservatives, but feel uncomfortable with UKIP would go for NOTA, and therefore leave it as a straight fight between the two parties.
I do suspect that NOTA would poll a very high total.
Spot on
Could not have put it better myself.
labour will be decimated
The only chance of that happening would have been if the UK voters had of been given a vote in my opinion.
Cannot understand why we were not after all scots MPs (in westminster } can vote on legislation affecting us,but not vice versa.
I thought the referendum had proved voters preferred the current system.
People just aren't used to coalitions.
The Lib Dems should either have made it absolutely clear what policies or compromises they won for their support on certain things, or have made it clear to their Tory partners from the start that their support could not be guaranteed on all policies.
In the case of the bedroom tax mess there was plenty of evidence before that change went through that there wasn't sufficient housing with fewer bedrooms available for people to move into, and that wasn't the only problem with that particular policy. The Lib Dems should have become the voice of reason in the partnership and refused to support things that facts do not support. That would have helped them maintain at least some credibility.
They have that sort of leadership in Russia and North Korea. Germany also have a leader like that once.
Err the first past the post system doesn't even guarantee that...
The number of seats each party gets should be as close in proportion directly to their vote share as possible. A STV constituency vote with a d'Hont open list regional top-up would be the best system by far.
AV is not a proportional system; it's the election of the least-hated candidate which is frankly silly and does very little to address the vast swathes of safe seats, many supporters of PR didn't vote for it. A total stitch-up of an offer.
Do they form a minority government or go into coalition which is likely to be the Lib Dems. Even if they have 30 MP's that is reasonably comfortable.