Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What are the ramifications of a hung Parliament?
bushinoki
Veteran
My British friends, I need your help understanding this. What does it mean for Great Britain if you have a "Hung Parliament"? How will this affect the political scene across the pond? How will it affect you?
0
Comments
It will affect me as a citizen of the UK because as the economy struggles it becomes harder to plan for the future due to job losses, the fall in the pound, all sorts of decisions such as those relating to investment in the NHS, education, welfare and the defence budget are put on hold or are only provisional so progress grinds to a holt. It will affect the US in terms of tourism, business and NATO.
However, it should mean that extremes are avoided, so we may escape the fate of austerity measures such as those affecting Greece.
it is to be hoped that the people who missed out on voting last time (if it goes ahead) will have opportunity to cast their votes and at least give one party a reasonable majority.
it's between the 'Big Two' as Nick Clegg is about as effective as an ice cube trying to light a firework.
Damp sqiubb doesn't cover it.....
Also, their Prime Minister is elected by Parliament, not separately like our President, so it effects nearly their entire government rather than just 1 branch.
Nick Clegg holds absolutely no independent power, and I think he would much rather 'do a deal' and side with the conservatives, than with the Labour party, because let's face it:
When Labour last came into power, they inherited one of the most buoyant and successful economies in the western world. Now that we have a hung parliament, basically, the economy is one of the worst ever, in the history of the united kingdom.
Gordon Brown (leader of the Labour party) as Chancellor of the Exchequer, sold our Gold reserves (a long held and historic fund of gold) for a miserable amount, and made the worst financial decision he could ever have made, given that gold was at an all-time low... he then compounded his idiocy by almost single-handedly plunging this country head-first into the worst recession in living memory, and caused the first run on a bank in 186 years.
His pre-election speeches kept banging on about the recession in the 1930's, neatly avoiding the fact that this recession - caused largely by his own complete ineptitude - was really his responsibility. As I watched him, not only did I NOT believe a single word he was saying, I am completely sure he didn't either.
Furthermore, if Clegg does a deal with the Labour party, he'll be siding with the losers.
I think he'd far rather be seen to be rubbing shoulders with those who seemed to have gained the majority....
I know I would.
But then, I'm not a politician, because I have a brain.
The ability to vote is a right that people have fought and died for. If you don't want it that's one thing, but to then complain about the results of an election is quite another!
It was a scandal that many missed their vote because of the queues and the legal requirement for polls to close at 10pm; but I doubt that they were enough to create a majority for any party.
Fede, please vote. even if the election is between a turd sandwich and a bucket of puke, surely you can find one of the two that is less of a problem. It is the involvement more than anything that makes the democratic principle work.
I fear that we may see a reorganisation of our voting system without the radical transformation needed to return genuine power to Parliament for which our ancestors bled and died. I admit, as I said on our local radio interview, that I also believe that political parties and their multi-million pound war funds (interesting phrase they use) are real obstacles to democracy. In my own constituency, we had a hard-working, dedicated and effective MP. Over and over again, I have urged him to stand as an Independent but he maintained his loyalty to a Labour Party which no longer exists (thanks to Lord Blair of Abu Ghraib). He lost.
Fear not, however, dear ex-colonial friends: the work of government goes on as before. We have a Civil Service which would have been the envy of the Byzantine Empire - although some, I believe, are not even eunuchs.
I've giben you my reason. But why should it exclude me from commenting if I feel like it?
Simply because I haven't voted, doesn't mean I can't have, or should be without an opinion
Oh spare me.
we've had a vote in this country long since before wars were fought, so I don't undersatand your point there. And fortunately, because we live in a democracy, I'm permitted not only to have an opinion, but I can also air it.
And because I don't have my name on the electoral register, than that's why I couldn't vote.
but even if I had been on it, I still wouldn't have voted for any of them.
Why should I give people I have no faith in, and I believe are liars, cheats and fraudsters, my support?
I don't agree with them, and I don't agree with their policies.
I think they're all as bad as each other, and if I could vote, it would be with a vote of no confidence - !
you vote if you want to. It's my right to abstain. And I have exercised that right.
And in giving my opinions (which I have a right to do) I have explained why.
Simon, what about the House of Lords and the Reigning Monarch, do they not have some sort of influence or power when it comes to having a system of Checks and Balances?
Like....?
read here.
The Monarchy is by and large a decorative convention with few truly powerful roles to play in Government.
The House of Lords is... (From here)
Whilst there is no government, they can't actually 'scrutinise' anything.
One of the main topics of contention for Nick Clegg and the Lib. dem's, will be to seek reform of the electoral system.
Something Labour might consider.
Something the Conservatives may not be too keen on.
First of all, there is no 'crisis' of any sort at the moment. Government continues. The Prime Minister and the ministers continue in office, the Civil Service continue to do their jobs. The agreed rules state that negotiations are carried out by the party leaders and their advisors to see if an arrangement can be reached which will result in a government with a majority. If no majority is achieved, it is most likely that David Cameron will be invited by the Palace (see below) to form a minority administration. He will then assume the office of Prime Minister and remain in office until either he loses a vote of confidence on the Queen's Speech or on the Budget, or he decides to call an election.
The role of the Palace is, for once, of some importance because this is one of the few privileges that remain. It is not the Queen as an individual who invites someone to form a government: it is a whole slew of advisors, men in suits and top civil servants. This is one of the times when we are reminded that we (as Brits) are 'subjects', not citizens. We may not like it but it is the fact and we have done nothing to change it. Indeed, unlike in the US, the Royal Prerogative to declare war does not need the permission of Parliament: it is devolved to the Prime Minister of the day.
A minority administration is not unknown here, although it is unusual and does not usually last very long. There have been five minority administrations and three coalition governments in the Twentieth Century.
My opinion is that, if we have a minority Conservative government, it might last longer than expected because it will have to take extremely unpopular measures to avoid a 'Greek' collapse of the economy. The other parties would do well to sit back and wait until the Conservatives lose all their gains in popularity. I have no doubt that the general mood is for change in both the voting system and the organisation of Parliament itself. The Conservatives are unlikely to deliver either.
Thus with Parliament. If the Prime Minister were elected directly by the population, it would provide that there is a Prime minister, and the rest of Parliament could focus on reaching a consensus on national matters. As it is, now your government is tied up in some areas trying to form a coalition government or reach a consensus on a minority government.
Bushi,
You need to understand that we, in the UK, have a different approach to democracy from the US. We have refused a system of presidential executive and prefer a sovereign Parliament. Whilst some Prime Ministers (Thatcher and Blair, for example) have behaved in a semi-presidential manner, they failed to install it as the norm. We do not elect a first minister separately from the legislature, nor does there appear to be any will to do so.
There seems to me to be a general mood of approval for a Parliament which does not have an overwhelming majority of one group or other. The level of personal dishonesty whereby elected representatives enriched themselves at the taxpayers' expense horrified those who had closed their eyes to it for too long. I have no idea if your Representatives and Senators are models of financial probity - I seriously doubt it in any system where they are free to set their own pay and expenses. Over here, we have decided, as a nation, to teach Parliament that we will not put up with it any more.
A few days of discussion and uncertainty may reduce some of the arrogance and remind the 600-odd that their careers may go down as well as up. We are, and will remain, opposed to the presidential power model, particularly when we see how seriously it can go wrong. We appear to prefer our own way of going wrong LOL.
Palzang
I so agree, Palzang - and look at the 'chickens' now in power. they strut and boast about the size of the "man-dates"!
So when las pollas grandes gather in el parlemento, do they ask each other "Como te cuelga el martillo?" (How's your hammer hanging?) And what are they doing when they "bang the gavel"?
But to get back to Palzang's comment, for some of us Americans the phrase "hung Parliament" brings up images of George Clinton and the rest of P-Funk in full regalia.
I have to stop. I'm having too much fun.
Some say that cannot believe Clegg would come to an agreement with The Conservatives, because they are more left than centre, to The Tories' position to the right.... it would seem more logical that they would veer further left to form an alliance with the Labour party, which has hitherto been seen as a Left party...
But let us not lose sight of the fact that the Labour we know today, is not the Labour of yesteryear.... they are "New Labour" and as such, far nearer centre than left, so perhaps it is no surprise that not only did Clegg swing to the right.... Labour did too.
So the question actually is:
Is there actually any discernible difference between the parties, at all?:crazy:
(I've just re-read the above. It sounds like a cricket rule commentary. And I don't understand cricket rules, so maybe I'm getting the hang of both politics and cricket, now. Thy're both unfathomable!)
Palzang
It's all swings and roundabouts to me.
Which ever government got into power there would be some who benefited, and there would be some who didn't. For those who benefit from one particular government I'm sure they'd fight hammer and nail to get that party elected. But for me (as in personal opinion, as in not universal, as in please don't get defencive) it's swings and roundabouts because which ever government got into power some would benefit and some not and my life wouldn't change.
I'm not saying that this goes for everyone. I'm saying this goes for me. PLease understand that. I do understand that for some it's important. I NEVER said anything otherwise. Please calm down.
Nios.
With metta.
Western Australia (state) has a minority Liberal government supported by the Nationals.
Tasmania (state) has a minority Labor government supported by the Greens.
The Australian capital territory (territory) also has a minority Labor government supported by the Greens.
In Aussie politics The Liberal party is actually conservative :screwy: