Blog:Why You Need A Hung Parliament
From Bolton Interweb
del.icio.usMyles Aweigh, Election Correspondent, 3rd May 2010
With only 3 days to go the opinion polls still show a 3 horse race and that should mean a hung Parliament where no one party has enough seats to govern on its own. That is a good thing, a very good thing.
Each party has some good policies, and each has some bad, even appalling, ones. They all have a secret agenda on spending cuts and they all have people likely to be prominent in their prospective governments that the electorate wouldn't appreciate, hence them being kept out of the limelight. That said, Labour's main problem is the man at the front of their campaign, the discredited and desperate ego maniac Brown. Had Labour changed its leadership to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, the only man to take that job in recent years not to have fallen foul of some scandal or failure, then they could be leading the polls. But the arrogant egotist that he is, Gordon Brown puts personal power before party and country. For the Tories, the inexperienced George Osbourne, would be Chancellor, will be in charge of the UK economy at the worst possible time plus right-wingers such as John Redwood are still in the background ready to scupper Cameron's plans for a One Nation Tory government, and he couldn't govern without their support given how close the race is. For the Lib Dems, their main problem is the unknown. Do they have enough experienced people to man a government? Probably not.
The solution to the problem, which seems to be reflected in the opinion polls, is that no one party can form a government on its own. This means that only laws and policies that have consensus and support of the representatives of 60%+ of the electorate stand a chance of progressing. These will be the good laws and policies. The bad laws and policies won't get an airing. When it comes to spending cuts in particular, it means that there will need to be agreement on where those cuts will fall.
Cameron is being incredibly arrogant if he thinks he can run a minority government with only 35% popular support. It is a direct contradiction of the will of the people. He is even more arrogant to think the people will put up with that for long. Brown would have to go, along with Mandelson, and maybe the Lib Dems could then form a coalition with Labour. The electorate, not to say the Labour Party would not tolerate the failed Brown clinging onto power and someone like Johnson at the helm would doubtless recognise Cable as the best man to lead the economic recovery. But a Lib Dem / Tory Coalition could also work. The main obstacle to that is the Tory opposition to proportional representation, but if the agreement was for a free vote on the matter this might solve that problem.
Is a strong government possible in a hung Parliament? Ask the Germans, they do OK. Absolutely it is possible but it means, as above, that the best laws and policies rule. Does it mean a minority party picking the PM? Well, in the sense that the Lib Dems would be kingmakers they would effectively say whether Brown or Cameron is PM. But whoever they choose, the coalition would have the support of 60% or so of the electorate and so be totally legitimate. Is it democratic? You bet, a government with the sanction of 60% or more of the electorate would be the most democratic government in history. It is patently undemocratic to vest the full and unfettered power of government in the elected representatives of only 35% of the electorate with the result that we have a one-party state - dictatorship of the minority - for 5 years.
Vote for a hung Parliament. You know it makes sense.
© Evrose, 2011
