Jury's out on a hung Parliament, by Colin Copus

29 Apr 10
With the polls continuing to show a three-horse race in the election, it’s worth considering whether a hung Parliament would be a good or a bad thing. The result of most concern is that the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, either collectively or singularly, hold the balance of power.

With the polls continuing to show a three-horse race in the election, it’s worth considering whether a hung Parliament would be a good or a bad thing.

The answer to this question depends on exactly how Parliament is hung and what the final composition of the House of Commons ends up being on 7 May. Too much of the debate so far has focused on the three main parties and missed other factors. The result of most concern – or at least the result that should be of most concern to the English – is that the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, either collectively or singularly, hold the balance of power.

The three main British parties would then fall over themselves, in the rush to No 10, to offer these two regional parties any political or resource-based concessions, all at England’s expense; there would be no-one to fight and defend England’s corner.

Then there is the prospect that independents may increase the two seats they hold (excluding the last lot of party defectors to the independent benches) and provide a small bloc of MPs. The likelihood here is that the prime-ministerial hopefuls would have to hold individual negotiations with each independent to secure support for the formation of a government and, depending on the size of that bloc, may need some or all of the independents to sign up; the independents may of course wish to support different parties anyway.

The Northern Ireland parties provide a similar dimension to the discussion about forming a government, and their numbers, the party composition of the group and their preferences for one party or another would determine the outcome of any deal.

And what if Ukip, the Greens or the BNP with one or two seats, or one or two seats between them, hold the balance? Then government formation gets very interesting and entertaining – for the spectators. Indeed, playing fantasy government is an enjoyable pass-time at the moment.

Then, of course, we come back to the Liberal Democrats. Let’s assume they are the smallest of the three parties (they might not be); then there are key ways in which an agreement between the parties could work. First there could be a formal coalition, where a party leader presents the Queen with a bloc of MPs – forming a majority – from two parties, that are pledged to support the Prime Minister and a legislative programme (would Labour and Conservatives come together to keep out the LibDems? It’s happened in local government).

That agreement could include cabinet seats for the smaller party, which would cement them into the agreement and of course bind their ministers by collective cabinet responsibility – unless some dispensations were agreed.

Second, a minority government could be formed, with the agreement and support of a smaller party but without cabinet posts. The second party would pledge to support a legislative programme but reserve the right to demur on certain key policy or ideological matters.

Third, a minority government formed with the backing of the smaller party, but which would then support the government on a policy-by-policy, legislation-by-legislation basis. A government could always seek to make any matter a ‘vote of confidence’ to play brinkmanship with a smaller party and challenge them to bring down the government and force a new election – or a new agreement between parties.

But, is a hung Parliament necessarily bad: well yes if it’s hung by the Scottish or Welsh nationalists. But the way the leaders and their parties refer to a hung Parliament, one could be forgiven for thinking it would be the portent of biblical-style Armageddon: planes would fall out of the sky, the worldwide web would crash, stock markets, tumble, the seas boil with blood, plagues of locust, boils etc – you get the picture.

What they don’t tell you is that almost every country across Europe has a voting system specifically designed and chosen to make sure that one party alone doesn’t hold an overall majority and that governments have to be formed through negotiation, compromise, agreement and discussion – grown-up politics rather than winner takes all.

But our two main parties are quite happy to have their 15 or 20 years in the wilderness because that means they will eventually get their 15-20 years of unrivalled and unhindered power when they don’t have to negotiate, win any debate, compromise, or care much about what any one else thinks.

Finally, they say a hung Parliament would make governing difficult: good. As government has power over every aspect of my life, what I can and can’t do when I walk out my front door, what I can and can’t say, and how I should behave, then, quite frankly, I want it to be hard for them to govern: quick legislation is rarely good legislation. But, whether you like these arguments or not, one thing is sure: if the electorate delivers a hung Parliament then it is beholden on politicians to make it work and that’s where the real problem lies.

Colin Copus is Professor of Local Politics in the Department of Public Policy at De Montfort University

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top