Who's Afraid of a Hung Parliament?

ganeshprojoy

The Conservatives are making a big tactical error! http://hungparliamentparty.org.uk

Fergus Pickering

Judging by the popularity of tall, sexy Cleggie, it is impossible to imsult the intelligence of a good slice of the people.

Peter Davidson

This doesn't mean that there aren't decent arguments in favour of FPTP. Custom being not the least of them while one may also think it imprudent to embark on major constitutional reform on the back of a single, unusual, election result

I'm trying hard to think of a really good argument in favour of FPTP - it's simple, I'll give it that but whether that's a good thing or not is open to debate.

Custom? Just because something has been in place for some period of time doesn't necessarily recommend its continuity. We adapt to changed circumstances - Britain is no longer the same place it was back in the 1950s. It's more diverse and our voting system should reflect that transformation.

Who said anything about embarking on major constitutional reform on the back of a single election result? Any change in the voting system to elect Westminster MPs will require a referendum, replete with comprehensive public information campaign and period for reflection before the plebiscite takes place - all of which will take at least six months, maybe even a year - not exactly a headlong rush is it?

Richard Moorhead

Great piece. One of the things I don't get is why, if Cameron et al are right, the markets appear so calm at the minute.

Richard Thomas

The argument against the status quo is surely simple. The present government has a majority of 60 or so elected on 35.2% of the votes cast on a 61% turnout. With this it has absolute power, subject to its whips keeping the MPs in line, to do as it wishes.

Ben G

"I'd like David Cameron to be the next Prime Minister but I'd prefer it if he became so without insulting everyone's intelligence along the way."

Which, sadly, he seems to be doing all the time; "Big Society", "efficiency savings", "Broken Britain", "the Great Ignored" etc etc.

David Bouvier

Interesting that you admit that TOO MUCH proportionality is a bad thing, vide Israel. I think people agree that TOO LITTLE proportionality can also be a bad thing, vide the possiblity of Brown hanging on as PM while in 3rd place electorally.

So I assume the LibDems want a system that guarantees them lots of seats while excluding parties much smaller than themselves that they don't like.

But what makes it fair to exclude a handful of greens/respect/BNP/UKIP/nutter candidates from Parliament when they have a few percent of the vote.

Of course, the likely response is for a stronger showing for the far right and far left, Labour and Conservative to split into New/Old Labour and Modern/Paleo Conservative Parties who will cover most peoples preferences but generally cooperative in coalitions, and the LibDems will actually have to find a distinctive voice rather than just play holier-than-thou policy games for political virgins.

David Bouvier

Richard Thomas - the argument for the status quo is also simple: more people in each constituency wanted that person to be their MP than any other candidate, so they are their MP.

While I loath the power of the whips to prevent parliament holding the executive to account, virtually all of those MPs were very clear about the party whip they would take when elected, and people still voted for them.

A coalition has the same absolute power as a party if they can whip their MPs. The issue is reducing the power of parties to whip and to exercise patronage, whether in a coalition or not.

Silent Hunter

Brilliant!

That's the most balanced piece of journalism I have yet read about PR.

No, it's not the panacea to all evil, but, (& it's a BIG but) it is miles ahead of FPTP if 'democracy' is what you're after.

It's also miles ahead if you want to enfranchise the majority of our people rather than just 25% of them as currently happens under FPTP.

There is also the added bonus that it does away with "safe seats" so; no more corrupt MP's in unassailable positions for life.

And currently, (but that may change if Dave comes to his senses) there is only one party offering this - The Liberal Democrats.

There's a clue in their name.

Silent Hunter

David Bouvier:

I see you too are accusing the Lib Dems of a 'holier than thou' attitude; that's interesting.

Remind me again . . . how many Tory and Labour MP's "flipped" their homes - the biggest 'con' perpetrated in the whole expenses scandal?

Compare and contrast that figure to how many Lib Dem MP's did this.

In case you're wondering the figure for the Lib Dem MP's was . . . ZERO, NONE, NADDA, NOT ONE!

They don't need to pretend to be "holier than thou" . . . they already are; and that hasn't been lost on the electorate, as the polls show.

Mr Bubusch

David Bouvier

You say that people in a constituency voted for their MP - then why are we being told 'Vote Clegg - Get (x)*'? In no way could that be described as voting for the local representative. Hence the current system is inherently undemocratic as we are not encouraged to vote for the person or party with whom we agree.

*where (x) represents the bogey man candidate of each side

Naomi Muse

A splendidly reasoned piece. Thank you.

Particularly your last sentence. Tories note, the electorate are not stupid!

Peter McK

Alex, Australia (and remember we are 22m people blessed with one federal, six state and two territory legislatures) most of which have two chambers) has a variety of voting systems. The lower House of the national parliament (where the largest party or coalition forms the government) is NOT elected by proportional representation. It is elected from single member constituencies by system of what we call "preferential" and which I think you would call alternative voting. Thus if the votes are A:10, B:15 and C:20, C would win in the UK. In Australia, each voter must mark the ballot paper in order of his preference - , 1, 2 and 3. In my example, candidate A (having obtained the least number of first preference votes) is eliminated and his second preference votes are then distributed between B and C until one of B or C achieves (in the example) 23 votes and an absolute majority. For much of the second half of the 20th century this system favoured the conservative parties who were favoured by "preferences" from a right wing breakaway party from the Australian Labor Party. The Australian upper house (Senate) IS elected by a system of proportional representation which has made it very difficult for any party to obtain a majority. This seems to be how Australians like it - they don't like unbridled single party power and like upper houses to exercise some restraint on the Executive (unlike your House of Commons, Australian lower houses are dominated by the ministerial bench and few backbenchers survive if they take awkward positions or oppose their party's whip). A salutary example of how difficult is for political parties to eliminate a minority party when it is supported by the electorate is Tasmania. Its lower house is elected by PR and in an attempt to eliminate the number of Green MPs, both the major parties reduced the size of the House thereby increasing the number of votes needed to be elected. This worked for a couple of elections but just last month, Tasmanians elected a lower house with 10 Labor, 10 Liberal (conservative) and 5 Greens - a hung Parliament! The incumbent Labor leader purported to hand power to his Liberal opponent before Parliament resumed. He was abruptly pulled into line by the Governor (the Queen's rep in Hobart) and told that he had a duty not to surrender his commission until he had tested the will of the House. The Governor noted that:"In view of certain public statements made by some candidates in the lead up to the election I express my view that the commissioning of a person to form a government is entirely the Governor’s prerogative and it is not within the gift of any political leader to hand over, or cede to another political leader the right to form a government, whatever the result of the election. For the same reason it is also appropriate to express my view that the total number of votes received by the elected members of a political party is constitutionally irrelevant to the issue of who should be commissioned to form a government" More details and a full copy of the Governor's statement can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_state_election,_2010#cite_note-18

Peter McK

Here is the Governor's statement referred to in my earlier posting:

The reasons of the Governor of Tasmania, the Honourable Peter Underwood AC, for the commissioning of the Honourable David Bartlett to form a government following the 2010 House of Assembly election.

The Principles

As the Queen’s representative in Tasmania, the Governor’s primary duty is to protect and maintain the Constitution and the State’s representative parliamentary democracy. It is the Governor’s duty to see that elections are conducted in accordance with the law and that there is an orderly transition of government that reflects the will of the people of the State of Tasmania as expressed at the ballot box. This duty has to be discharged after every House of Assembly election, after the passage in the House of a vote of no confidence in the Premier and after the passing of a motion that blocks supply. The duty obliges the Governor to find the person who can form a stable government; that is, a person who is able to advise the Governor of the names of persons, elected to the Assembly or the Legislative Council, who, if appointed as Ministers, will have the confidence of the House of Assembly. This is a straight forward task in the event of one party having more seats in the Assembly than any other party, or parties that have agreed to form a coalition.

The person who can satisfy the Governor that he or she can form a government that will have the confidence of the House is almost invariably the leader of a party. He or she will receive a commission from the Governor to form that Government. It is established practice that the person commissioned to form a government is also sworn in as Premier or the Governor’s Chief Minister. The commission to form a government continues until it is relinquished or withdrawn by the Governor. The appointment as Premier continues until it is relinquished or until more than seven days after the return of the electoral writs to the Governor.

In the exercise of the duty to commission a person who can form a stable government the Governor will take formal advice from the current holder of that commission but is not bound to act on that advice. The Governor may also consult such academics, legal practitioners and the like as he or she thinks fit.

The duty arising from the 2010 election.

The electoral writs were returned to me on 7th April 2010. In the 25-Member House 10 seats were won by Labor, 10 seats were won by the Liberal Party and the remaining 5 seats were won by members of the Greens Party. In those circumstances it was my duty to act in accordance with constitutional conventions that have been built up over the years in the same way as the common law has been built up over the years through the cases that have been decided in the Courts, and choose and commission a person whom I was satisfied could form a stable government.

Irrelevant matters.

In view of certain public statements made by some candidates in the lead up to the election I express my view that the commissioning of a person to form a government is entirely the Governor’s prerogative and it is not within the gift of any political leader to hand over, or cede to another political leader the right to form a government, whatever the result of the election. For the same reason it is also appropriate to express my view that the total number of votes received by the elected members of a political party is constitutionally irrelevant to the issue of who should be commissioned to form a government.

The relevant events.

On 7th April after the return of the writs, I asked Mr Bartlett, as the holder of the commission to form a government and my Chief Minister, to call and see me. I asked him if he would exercise his commission and form a government. He gave me written advice to the effect that he did not think it was appropriate for him to advise me “at this time” that he should retain his commission and that I should approach Mr Hodgman, the Leader of the Opposition, to see if “he is willing and able to accept a commission to form a government.” A copy of this letter of advice is appended to these reasons.

In accordance with constitutional convention, had Mr Bartlett, as the holder of a commission to form a government, advised me that he could form a stable government, I would have invited him to do so in order to test his claim in the House of Assembly which is the ultimate body to determine who should form government.

Mr Hodgman called on me about 2:45 pm on the 7th April. He told me that he could form a government that would enjoy the confidence of the House of Assembly and handed me his written advice. It referred to statements said to have been made by Mr Bartlett on divers occasions in the past to the effect that “his party would not vote against legislation appropriating supply, nor would they (sic) wantonly move or support a no-confidence motion in the government.” This document is also appended to these reasons. Mr Hodgman contended that those statements made by Mr Bartlett should persuade me that he, as the Leader of the Liberal Party, could form a stable government and accordingly, he should be commissioned to do so. I advised Mr Hodgman that Mr Bartlett would have to make any commitment to me before I could place any weight on it. We parted on the basis that Mr Hodgman would ask Mr Bartlett to give me the commitments that Mr Hodgman said Mr Bartlett had given prior to the election.

Later the same afternoon I received from Mr Hodgman a copy of a letter he had written to Mr Bartlett in which Mr Bartlett was asked to give me the assurances that Mr Bartlett had made prior to the election. A little later that day Mr Bartlett responded in a letter to me. This letter joined issue with Mr Hodgman’s claims that Mr Bartlett had made the claimed pre-election commitments. The material part of the letter provided:

“My commitment to the Tasmanian people was, in the light of Labor failing to win a plurality of seats or a plurality of votes [which I understood to mean an overall majority] to advise your Excellency that Mr Hodgman should have the opportunity to form a Government in the first instance.
I have honoured this commitment in full in the advice I have provided to Your Excellency today.
I offer Mr Hodgman no more support than that and have never done so.”

Mr Hodgman received a copy of that letter and called on me again in the afternoon of the 8th April. He handed me a letter dated that day together with a CD & transcript of a Press conference that Mr Bartlett held on 1 April 2010. Mr Hodgman contended that from that material I should draw the inference that Mr Bartlett had made promises not to block supply and not to move a vote of no confidence in a Liberal government except in extreme circumstances.

I considered the material and the contention and concluded that even if I was able to determine from the material given to me that Mr Bartlett had made the commitments Mr Hodgman said he made, his present intention is clearly expressed in the letter set out above.

The conclusion

In these circumstances I came to the conclusion that Mr Hodgman was not in a position to form a stable government. Consequently, I was obliged to send for Mr Bartlett. I told Mr Bartlett that I had come to the conclusion that in the light of his letter to me, Mr Hodgman was not able to form a stable government. I also told him that as he was the still the holder of my commission to form a government and the Premier of the State he had a constitutional obligation to form a government so that the Parliament could be called together and the strength of that government tested on the floor of the House of Assembly. Mr Bartlett accepted that he had this obligation and said that he would advise me of the names of his Ministers as soon as he could.

I wish to add that I did not send for Mr McKim, the leader of the Greens Party, as it was clear to me that his Party could not form a stable government without the support of either the Liberal or the Labor party. Mr Hodgman advised me on 8th April that he did not seek the support of the Greens Party. My failure to be satisfied that Mr Hodgman had the support of the Labor party not to block supply and not to move a vote of no confidence except in extreme circumstances gave rise to a constitutional obligation on the part of the holder of the commission to form government. This obligation arose regardless of whether Mr Bartlett had the support of the Greens party or not, for it was the only way to move the issue into the Parliament to enable the members of the House of Assembly to make the ultimate decision of who should govern.

9th April 2010
Government House
Hobart - Tasmania

PJSA

Very interesting article. Further to Richard Moorhead's point, the percentage chance of a hung parliament according to the betting markets is around 63%. Therefore, very simply, 63% of the markets' reaction to hung parliament should surely already have happened in expectation of that result.

Rollo Reid

I bet most of these respondents are represented by 10 or so MEPs voted for by PR. And I bet they do not know their names, or what they do, or where they live, and any point in them at all.

brent

Britian needs a hung parliment urgently, curb the arrogent power of the elite party bosses of Conservative/Labour and force these politicians to do two things: really talk/negotiate with the other parties and very important LISTEN to the voters who are sick of politicians doing what ever they want.

Brent

Stuart Kemp, Selkirk

Surely one of the biggest problems we have with the current system is the ability of the party in power to manipulate the constituency boundaries in their favour.

I can't think of a word that better describes this than plain and simple cheating. We are not being well served!

The setting of boundaries should be the responsibility of an independant apolitical body.

Then at least the FPTP playing field would be level!

Stuart

David Bouvier

Stuart Kemp - the setting of boundaries IS the responsibility of an independent body. It takes various factors about size, community cohesion, etc into account.

Which means that each of the main parties local organisations undertake huge black propaganda exercises where local activists pretend to want electorally advantageous change for 'proper' local reasons without a hint of party affiliation.

I believe the current mess comes from a screw up by CCHQ a decade or more ago when the model materials sent out to constituency activists mentioned their party affiliation (doh!) so that all the Conservative propaganda was ruled out and Labour's dodgy claims had a clean sweep.

Given it is done a decade long cycle, and the changes will tend to be incremental, we are still clawing our way back from that mistake. (Funnily CCHQ don't like to mention that version).