Don’t panic — a hung parliament might be good

13 March 2010

/article_images/articledir_11663/5831838/1_listing.jpg

Ignore the alarmists, says Samuel Brittan, there is nothing to fear from minority government. Our political system might even benefit from it

Although I have been a reader of The Spectator almost since I have been in short trousers I have rarely been as irritated by an article as I was by last week’s cover story, ‘Britain must be saved from the financial abyss’. Its author, Allister Heath, is by no means a lone voice: he speaks for a considerable number of vocal, if unrepresentative people in the City who believe a hung parliament would mean weak government and fiscal peril. This view is profoundly mistaken.

The implication of this argument is that, even to Conservative voters, a Labour victory would be preferable to a House of Commons where neither of the two main parties has an overall majority. It would then follow that, in a constituency where the Lib Dems — or any other minor party — has a chance of prevailing over Labour, a Conservative voter should vote Labour to minimise the chances of a ‘hung parliament’. By symmetry of argument, a Labour voter in a constituency where the Lib Dems have a chance of prevailing over the Conservatives should vote Conservative to prevent that happening.

This is outrageous. It is contrary not only to democracy but to any principled method of selection. We are all entitled to our own opinion on the merits of a hung parliament and a more consensual style of government. We are entitled to our opinions on a move to a more proportional voting system which such a parliament might produce. What is not acceptable is that decisions on such matters should be decided by passing tides of City opinion or such opinion as interpreted by short-termist commentators.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page