7 ms·

British Election Results in Hung Parliament

29 points by Chirono 16y ago

SandB0x 16y ago
Where did the Lib Dem vote go? They're going to end up with fewer seats than before. Really disappointing. Either the opinion polls are bullshit (how and/or where are they held?) or people are just extremely fickle. What kind of person still hasn't made up their mind the day before an election? The only way Labour and the Lib Dems can form a majority government is to try and bring in a host of minority parties. It's unlikely and nobody knows how this is going to pan out.
- NickPollard 16y ago
  I hadn't made up my mind the day before the election because none of the parties strongly represented my views on a wide range of policy areas. In some cases I agreed with one party, in other cases with another. Therefore I have to weigh up the difference, try to work out what means more to me and what I think will be best for the country in the long run, take into account how the vote is likely to go nationally and in my constituency, and then cast the vote I think is best. There's nothing wrong with spending more time thinking before making a decision; it seems to me preferable to just following a gut instinct of whichever party you identify with.
  - maw 16y ago
    Well said. The question you responded to, "What kind of person still hasn't made up their mind the day before an election?", is absurd, and that absurdity stems from unclear thinking. It's as though people think of politics as a one dimensional thing, where we could even assign numbers to different viewpoints. 0 for the hard left, 100 for the hard right; major party A is 38 and major party B is 64, and if I'm a 42 kind of guy, well, 38 is closer, so I'll vote for party A. Ridiculous, I know, but it's the only way I've managed to explain to myself why people think and say some of the things they do.
    - SandB0x 16y ago
      It's not absurd. Of course there's a continuum of views, I didn't suggest otherwise, but the parties each publish a manifesto outlining their policies well in advance and it seems bizarre to only make up your mind at the last minute. People keep "waiting to hear" what the leaders have to say on crime or the economy or whatever. It's in their manifestoes and it's fairly consistent with what they've been saying for the last few years. Policies are not decided on the fly during debates or news shows.
      - maw 16y ago
        If we pretend that there are two parties, equal in all respects, except that party A eats baby boys and party B eats baby girls, that would be a tough choice to make. I can't decide which is worse. I'd be wrestling with the choice up to the very moment of voting. Afterward, too. That's a contrived example, of course. But for many people, no party will be satisfying, and the choices to be made will not be obvious. If your opinions happen to align almost entirely, or even mostly, with a party, good for you, but for the rest of us, the choices are difficult and vexing, even if you have a long time to think them over. And, indeed, even after several elections (I've seen them while living in three countries), I'm still not sure whom I would have preferred to see win, and not for a lack of paying attention, but because each of the choices, realistic and un-, came with a complex set of tradeoffs.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  My theory is that the turnout, generally, was still low; and those not turning out have a high proportion liberal voters ("whats the point" etc.). That and the libs didn't really capitalize on their initial success the other week. My take? Labour will offer the Lib Dems voting reform and form a coalition with them and the SDLP - that should be enough to hold it, just. I have to admit I was hoping for a bigger share for the Lib Dems - which would have given a more balanced coalition (whichever way they went). Now their position is weaker.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    Labour and the LibDems will join together to form a government and change the rules ("electoral reform") so that with their combined 52% and a form of proportional representation the Tories will have real problems getting into power again. Although it looks like Nick Clegg lost he will actually end up with more power and influence than anyone from his party has had for an awfully long time. I did find the views of the SNP rather alarming - that if the Tories got in it would probably create the right conditions for them mounting a realistic campaign for independence. I have no desire to be stuck in a wee country, oil running out, with a bunch of insane socialists and RBS.
    - axod 16y ago
      It's unclear that libdem+labour will even be larger than conservative seats. All money is on Cameron being our next PM. I'm not sure Clegg actually has that much power, his party has lost 13 seats so far.
      - robin_reala 16y ago
        And gained 8. That’s still not good, but it’s not as bad as you’re painting it. At current standings a Conservative minority govt would have 294 seats, and a Lib/Lab coalition would have 304.
        tome 16y ago
        304 is still nowhere near a majority (326), and it's doubtful whether it's enough to govern.
- ivenkys 16y ago
  "Where did the Lib Dem vote go?" Two things : (A) Lib Dem lost a lot of ground after the third debate, especially on Immigration - the amnesty issue. (B) The Lib Dems almost shutout the Labour party in the final days of polling, thereby influencing the tactical voters to favour the Tories to get away from a hung parliament, obviously not enough of it.
jules 16y ago
Isn't this a little bit ridiculous: Labour. Seats: 251, Votes: 29.3% Lib.Dem. Seats: 52, Votes: 22.9%
- simonw 16y ago
  Yes. That's a big issue every election, but is likely to be an even bigger pain point this time round. Both Labour and the Lib Dems are now calling for electoral reform (some kind of proportional representation instead of first past the post).
  - buro9 16y ago
    I suspect Labour are only calling for this to woo the Libs into supporting a wide coalition Lib-Lab government so that Labour can stay in power. People will say anything you want to keep power/money, etc.
    - demallien 16y ago
      Yes, which is actually a good example of the system working - even if they weren't able to win many actual seats, the LibDems have managed to put themselves in a position where they can at least influence policy quite strongly.
    - tome 16y ago
      But Labour and LibDem together only have just over 300 seats, i.e. not enough to govern.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Won't there be fear that proportional representation = BNP gets a seat?
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      That's democracy. It represents the people. If you fear opposing views then you should avoid democracy. I'm not a BNP supporter by a long stretch but, if they get a significant proportion of the vote then IMO they should get representation in parliament. I actually considered not voting, our ward is a pretty much foregone conclusion, proportional representation (in preference to first-past-the-post) makes all votes count and would encourage people to vote with their conscience rather than tactically.
iaskwhy 16y ago
I find it ironic that the result of democracy (in the abstract sense: the diversity of opinion) is a non governable country. It kind of shows what type of people we have in politics: stubborn opiniative people who don't even know how to listen to other peoples' point of view. Elections in a democracy only seem to work when there's not a democratic parliament. Or maybe we are just not used to this and need some time to get used to the idea of different point of views other than the two main parties.
- thingie 16y ago
  Which result would mean a governable country? There are possible coalition governments or even a minority government. Possibly, they won't be as strong as a single party majority government would be, but they are definitely workable. I'd rather see this as a strength of democracy where you can have some kind of government even if there are many different opinions without single prevailing political force (without having to kill all opponents).
  - iaskwhy 16y ago
    Maybe you didn't understand what I said or I didn't explain myself properly but it's very rare for a government without a majority to not fall after some months/few years. I'm blaming it on the politicians who can't form a strong government from coalitions. In a perfect world (utopia), there would be no need for coalitions, they would just vote accordingly to the interests of the people they represent. In a not so perfect world but still a pretty good one, a coalition should be enough for a strong government and majority governments would be rare for our own good. In our world, this still doesn't happen.
easyfrag 16y ago
Depending on your view on the role of government this is not necessarily a bad thing. Canada has had a series of minority governments over the past few years, and that has not been a factor in the recent economic crises.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- ivenkys 16y ago
  Its not necessarily a bad thing , the issue here is none of the other smaller parties have anything in common with the Tories,who look unlikely to form a govt. on their own. Of course, a rag-tag coalition ideologically opposite of each other might still work but not very well, i suspect.
  - kmfrk 16y ago
    That is representative democracy in action. I don't mind that more than 35% of the British people are represented in government.
    - ivenkys 16y ago
      I don't mind a rag-tag coalition , my problem is with the stability of it. Its probably better for parties with at least a common minimum program to work together than two parties that have nothing in common trying to stick together and run a government for 5 years.
      - kmfrk 16y ago
        I guess the problem with Great Britain is that there are no recent historical accounts of it working combined with the fact that the economic crisis requires immediate, resolute action. Having the Lib-Dems be the king-makers at every election might be a weird case---assuming that no other popular parties begin emerging.
  - wmoxam 16y ago

29 points by Chirono 16y ago

Where did the Lib Dem vote go? They're going to end up with fewer seats than before. Really disappointing. Either the opinion polls are bullshit (how and/or where are they held?) or people are just extremely fickle. What kind of person still hasn't made up their mind the day before an election? The only way Labour and the Lib Dems can form a majority government is to try and bring in a host of minority parties. It's unlikely and nobody knows how this is going to pan out.

NickPollard 16y ago
I hadn't made up my mind the day before the election because none of the parties strongly represented my views on a wide range of policy areas. In some cases I agreed with one party, in other cases with another. Therefore I have to weigh up the difference, try to work out what means more to me and what I think will be best for the country in the long run, take into account how the vote is likely to go nationally and in my constituency, and then cast the vote I think is best. There's nothing wrong with spending more time thinking before making a decision; it seems to me preferable to just following a gut instinct of whichever party you identify with.
- maw 16y ago
  Well said. The question you responded to, "What kind of person still hasn't made up their mind the day before an election?", is absurd, and that absurdity stems from unclear thinking. It's as though people think of politics as a one dimensional thing, where we could even assign numbers to different viewpoints. 0 for the hard left, 100 for the hard right; major party A is 38 and major party B is 64, and if I'm a 42 kind of guy, well, 38 is closer, so I'll vote for party A. Ridiculous, I know, but it's the only way I've managed to explain to myself why people think and say some of the things they do.
  - SandB0x 16y ago
    It's not absurd. Of course there's a continuum of views, I didn't suggest otherwise, but the parties each publish a manifesto outlining their policies well in advance and it seems bizarre to only make up your mind at the last minute. People keep "waiting to hear" what the leaders have to say on crime or the economy or whatever. It's in their manifestoes and it's fairly consistent with what they've been saying for the last few years. Policies are not decided on the fly during debates or news shows.
    - maw 16y ago
      If we pretend that there are two parties, equal in all respects, except that party A eats baby boys and party B eats baby girls, that would be a tough choice to make. I can't decide which is worse. I'd be wrestling with the choice up to the very moment of voting. Afterward, too. That's a contrived example, of course. But for many people, no party will be satisfying, and the choices to be made will not be obvious. If your opinions happen to align almost entirely, or even mostly, with a party, good for you, but for the rest of us, the choices are difficult and vexing, even if you have a long time to think them over. And, indeed, even after several elections (I've seen them while living in three countries), I'm still not sure whom I would have preferred to see win, and not for a lack of paying attention, but because each of the choices, realistic and un-, came with a complex set of tradeoffs.
ErrantX 16y ago
My theory is that the turnout, generally, was still low; and those not turning out have a high proportion liberal voters ("whats the point" etc.). That and the libs didn't really capitalize on their initial success the other week. My take? Labour will offer the Lib Dems voting reform and form a coalition with them and the SDLP - that should be enough to hold it, just. I have to admit I was hoping for a bigger share for the Lib Dems - which would have given a more balanced coalition (whichever way they went). Now their position is weaker.
- arethuza 16y ago
  Labour and the LibDems will join together to form a government and change the rules ("electoral reform") so that with their combined 52% and a form of proportional representation the Tories will have real problems getting into power again. Although it looks like Nick Clegg lost he will actually end up with more power and influence than anyone from his party has had for an awfully long time. I did find the views of the SNP rather alarming - that if the Tories got in it would probably create the right conditions for them mounting a realistic campaign for independence. I have no desire to be stuck in a wee country, oil running out, with a bunch of insane socialists and RBS.
  - axod 16y ago
    It's unclear that libdem+labour will even be larger than conservative seats. All money is on Cameron being our next PM. I'm not sure Clegg actually has that much power, his party has lost 13 seats so far.
    - robin_reala 16y ago
      And gained 8. That’s still not good, but it’s not as bad as you’re painting it. At current standings a Conservative minority govt would have 294 seats, and a Lib/Lab coalition would have 304.
      - tome 16y ago
        304 is still nowhere near a majority (326), and it's doubtful whether it's enough to govern.
ivenkys 16y ago
"Where did the Lib Dem vote go?" Two things : (A) Lib Dem lost a lot of ground after the third debate, especially on Immigration - the amnesty issue. (B) The Lib Dems almost shutout the Labour party in the final days of polling, thereby influencing the tactical voters to favour the Tories to get away from a hung parliament, obviously not enough of it.

jules 16y ago

Isn't this a little bit ridiculous: Labour. Seats: 251, Votes: 29.3% Lib.Dem. Seats: 52, Votes: 22.9%

simonw 16y ago
Yes. That's a big issue every election, but is likely to be an even bigger pain point this time round. Both Labour and the Lib Dems are now calling for electoral reform (some kind of proportional representation instead of first past the post).
- buro9 16y ago
  I suspect Labour are only calling for this to woo the Libs into supporting a wide coalition Lib-Lab government so that Labour can stay in power. People will say anything you want to keep power/money, etc.
  - demallien 16y ago
    Yes, which is actually a good example of the system working - even if they weren't able to win many actual seats, the LibDems have managed to put themselves in a position where they can at least influence policy quite strongly.
  - tome 16y ago
    But Labour and LibDem together only have just over 300 seats, i.e. not enough to govern.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Won't there be fear that proportional representation = BNP gets a seat?
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    That's democracy. It represents the people. If you fear opposing views then you should avoid democracy. I'm not a BNP supporter by a long stretch but, if they get a significant proportion of the vote then IMO they should get representation in parliament. I actually considered not voting, our ward is a pretty much foregone conclusion, proportional representation (in preference to first-past-the-post) makes all votes count and would encourage people to vote with their conscience rather than tactically.

iaskwhy 16y ago

I find it ironic that the result of democracy (in the abstract sense: the diversity of opinion) is a non governable country. It kind of shows what type of people we have in politics: stubborn opiniative people who don't even know how to listen to other peoples' point of view. Elections in a democracy only seem to work when there's not a democratic parliament. Or maybe we are just not used to this and need some time to get used to the idea of different point of views other than the two main parties.

thingie 16y ago
Which result would mean a governable country? There are possible coalition governments or even a minority government. Possibly, they won't be as strong as a single party majority government would be, but they are definitely workable. I'd rather see this as a strength of democracy where you can have some kind of government even if there are many different opinions without single prevailing political force (without having to kill all opponents).
- iaskwhy 16y ago
  Maybe you didn't understand what I said or I didn't explain myself properly but it's very rare for a government without a majority to not fall after some months/few years. I'm blaming it on the politicians who can't form a strong government from coalitions. In a perfect world (utopia), there would be no need for coalitions, they would just vote accordingly to the interests of the people they represent. In a not so perfect world but still a pretty good one, a coalition should be enough for a strong government and majority governments would be rare for our own good. In our world, this still doesn't happen.

easyfrag 16y ago

Depending on your view on the role of government this is not necessarily a bad thing. Canada has had a series of minority governments over the past few years, and that has not been a factor in the recent economic crises.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ivenkys 16y ago
Its not necessarily a bad thing , the issue here is none of the other smaller parties have anything in common with the Tories,who look unlikely to form a govt. on their own. Of course, a rag-tag coalition ideologically opposite of each other might still work but not very well, i suspect.
- kmfrk 16y ago
  That is representative democracy in action. I don't mind that more than 35% of the British people are represented in government.
  - ivenkys 16y ago
    I don't mind a rag-tag coalition , my problem is with the stability of it. Its probably better for parties with at least a common minimum program to work together than two parties that have nothing in common trying to stick together and run a government for 5 years.
    - kmfrk 16y ago
      I guess the problem with Great Britain is that there are no recent historical accounts of it working combined with the fact that the economic crisis requires immediate, resolute action. Having the Lib-Dems be the king-makers at every election might be a weird case---assuming that no other popular parties begin emerging.
- wmoxam 16y ago