The Election

[prinnysquad]

Labour has a following in only three parts of england and most of Scotland,

Those '3 parts of England' are massive urban centres. As is the Welsh vote. Proportionally, the 'followings' are far closer together.

[egparadigm]

So how long this time do we have to put up with a prime minister that wasn't elected? Any hint of doubt in my mind about whether voting in a general election is meaningless or not has now evaporated.

Constitutionally speaking this is quite proper. All that a Prime Minister needs to be such is the "confidence of the Commons" – which means the ability to win votes on key legislation or budgets, the Queen's speech, and motions of no confidence.

The term 'Prime Minister' was originally one of abuse, implying that the man was getting above his station. He was meant to be the 'first among equals', but thanks to the increasing centralisation under the Thatcher and Blair governments, the system has been twisted into a presidency with all of the power and none of the checks and balances.

I fully agree, weirdly, with Charlie Wolf, who was recommending that we separate the executive from the legislature. That is, we should have a 'President' or similar executor who is directly elected and not given the powers of the royal prerogative – the single constitutional arrangement responsible for the disastrous Iraq war.

The first step on the road to a better politics is proportional representation.

[Adrock]

May I add a Prime Minister is a 'first amongst equals', in other words you dont vote for him. He isnt a President. We vote for our representative locally and the largest party or alliance form a Government, thats how its always been.

Its a pet hate of mine when people whinge about unelected Prime Ministers. You could only levy that at a Lord taking the seat, which hasn't happened for a very long time.

Also, a Lab Lib pact would hold more seats and more of the popular vote than the Conservatives alone. So they'd be perfectly legitimate. They'd also be more likely to give electoral reform, which could stop 'unelected prime ministers' eventually.

[teenagewasteland]

I'm still confused as to how the party which finished third in this election seems to be the party which currently has all the power.

[Adrock]

I'm still confused as to how the party which finished third in this election seems to be the party which currently has all the power.

Welcome to the future This is exactly what will happen if we get full blown proportional representation.

Also, it makes sense to me that a party who holds the key to get legislation through has a very powerful bargaining tool. It also means we end up with more widely debated and considered legislation because different view points have to be taken into account to get the votes required. As opposed to a strong Government who bulldoze things through.

We've seen in recent history how that has impinged on our freedoms (anti terror law for example)

[egparadigm]

@teenagewasteland

They don't hold "all the power", but they are the only smaller party with enough seats to guarantee a majority. If a coalition of some sort is forged, it is the major party's platform that will form the backbone of the legislative program and the Lib Dems will get a deal proportionate to their number of seats.

It is wrongly thought that under PR small parties wield undue influence. One party tried that in Germany in the nineties – they lost seats at the next election and have not been in government since.

In truth Labour and the Conservatives have more in common with each other than either does with the Liberal Democrats. But for reasons best known to themselves, this is not a realistic coalition option.

[abigsmurf]

This whole thing is depressing. It's made me lose a whole lot of faith in politics really. Nick Clegg's giving off the appearance of being a bit too fond of his 'kingmaker' status and is bypassing the electorate in exactly the way he complained about Labour doing.

If Labour form the government, we could end up with Harriot Harmon which is a pretty ****ing worrying prospect. She's one of worst of the current breed of Labour MPs who feel the need to pass draconian laws to 'protect' society.

[Number45]

It also means we end up with more widely debated and considered legislation because different view points have to be taken into account to get the votes required. As opposed to a strong Government who bulldoze things through.

If we need decisive action on a particular issue though, let's say the economy for example, how can an extended period of discussion be considered a good thing? Particularly if there's a fundamental disagreement on how to tackle the problem (Which there seems to be based on my limited exposure to the issue)?

I don't have an answer to who people think should be Prime Minister though. Whether the current state of affairs is proper or not, I think the underlying result from this election is going to be a massive lack of trust in whoever gains power and a population the majority of which will not feel they have been able to have their say.

As I mentioned, for my part I feel the whole thing is an absolute shambles.

[egparadigm]

Number45,

Internationally, coalition or minority governments have a much better track record of deficit reduction. It is precisely the necessary compromise and consensus that guarantees good government. A case in point: Greece uses FPTP and has a history of majoritarian government!

abigsmurf,

I don't see how this is bypassing the electorate. There has not been a single government in at least 30 years that held more than 50% popular support. Ours is an elected dictatorship, and these negotiations could yield a government with genuine popular support for the first time in my life.

[Skull Commander]

I'm not a person to speak much of politics, and often I feel out of my depth. However this whole affair has told me that the system is a shambles. No matter what happens, as long as there is a coalition in power no one will get who they voted for, and it looks like all the power is ultimately with that smug Clegg character

[prinnysquad]

it looks like all the power is ultimately with that smug Clegg character

????

[Mayhem]

Because Sinn Fein will never take their four seats in parliament, they only need 322. They will need to get confidence and supply at the least from the nats and perhaps Caroline Lucas.

324 actually. 650 - 4 = 646, so a coalition would need 324 (646/2 + 1) to have a majority.

[Brats]

If we need decisive action on a particular issue though, let's say the economy for example, how can an extended period of discussion be considered a good thing? Particularly if there's a fundamental disagreement on how to tackle the problem (Which there seems to be based on my limited exposure to the issue)?

The economy is one area where cross-party discussion makes a lot of sense. There is no 'right' answer. The Tories have a lot of business support, but a lot of economists support Labour. This is an area where it is definitely worth taking time over.

As opposed to the recent Digital Rights bill which is a terrible piece of legislation that was simply bulldozed through. With a coalition it would have got the proper review it deserved.

There aren't many things government does that require an immediate response. The most common is a sudden natural disaster or a terrorist attack, but usually the parties tend to agree on these issues.

[Skull Commander]

????

Would be a better choice

[Brats]

324 actually. 650 - 4 = 646, so a coalition would need 324 (646/2 + 1) to have a majority.

323 actually. Sinn Fein won another seat so there are five of them now.