British election uncertainty
In the US, the direct election of the president usually leads to certainty as to the winner. It’s not perfect, however, as we learned in 2000, when it took months to make the decision and required the assistance of the Supreme Court. There are many people who still don’t accept the results.
But the Brits have a system that’s even more confusing—at least to me. The majority party in Parliament gets to choose the prime minister to match, and although this often works just fine, this year we’ve got what everyone is calling a hung Parliament—the first since 1974.
The Tories (otherwise known as Conservatives—Britain’s more conservative major party; however, the entire system is skewed somewhat more to the left as compared with ours, as best I can tell) gained 92 seats, which would seem to be a strong statement of voter intent. So when Timesonline writer Peter Riddell notes that “As politician after politician said overnight, the public has spoken, but it is not clear what they have said” I disagree. I think it’s very clear what they have said, and they said it fairly loudly: a change towards a more conservative government. They just didn’t shout it at the absolute top of their lungs.
The result, as Riddell writes, is that:
Any government formed in the next few days will not be able to command a stable or overall majority in the Commons. So the new Parliament is unlikely to last more than a year or so. A second general election is probable either later this year or in the spring of 2011.
Till then, what? There’s jockeying for position as various leaders try to form workable coalitions. In the meantime, Clegg concedes that:
I have said that whichever party gets the most votes and the most seats has the first right to seek to govern, either on its own or by reaching out to other parties and I stick to that view.
That would be Cameron and the Tories. But then there’s this:
Asked if Labour would do a deal to stay in power, Lord Mandelson said: “The constitutional conventions are very clear. The rules are that if it’s a hung parliament, it’s not the party with the largest number of seats that has first go – it’s the sitting government.”
I assume Cameron will win out in the end, at least for a while, as Ian Martin indicates. But I am hardly certain, and I make no firm predictions whatsoever. How about you?
I hope Clegg becomes a kingmaker. From what I heard he is a left-wing anti-Israel anti-US nut job. With a little luck he could thoroughly discredit his views, a British Obama.
In Canada we do “hung Parliament”, which we call minority government, all the time.
A lot of the commentary on the British election assumes that a party leader who represents a minority of seats becomes Prime Minister by making an arrangement with another party leader who together with him represents a majority of seats.
Things can resolve that way, but they don’t have to, because the thing that makes or keeps someone Prime Minister isn’t a majority. The crucial qualification is having sufficent support in the Commons to enact the legislation the Prime Minister proposes. (If important legislation, particularly legislation involving expenditure of money fails, the PM is out of a job.)
While the Queen will as a matter of course ask a party leader with majority support to form a government after an election, a party leader who has neither a majority (nor even a plurality) might be asked to form a government without any pledge of support from other parties. He or she can continue in office for years if, when it comes time to vote on legislation put forward by the government, enough members of other parties absent themselves or vote to pass the legislation (and if no one in opposition puts forward a motion of non-confidence in the government that passes the House.)
Cameron doesn’t need a committment of support from Clegg to become Prime Minister. Labour will replace their leader, and Brown’s successor may be unwilling to go to the polls for some time, while he or she establishes an image in the public mind and looks for an auspiscious time for an election. Clegg may not soon feel his party can win more seats in a general election than it has now.
The idea that Cameron now has to give Clegg something big to formally secure his support just isn’t right. He has to put forward legislation that the opposition members will tolerate rather than cause a general election.
The German media pundits are being snarky because the Brits don’t have coalition governments like the continent. They haven’t criticized the Belgians’ failed coalitions in the same tones. All the people who think that multi-party proportional representation is some sort of utopia don’t know what they are talking about.
With regard to the outcome, I tend to share the opinion of the person who said about the Iraq Iran war, “I hope they both lose.” If this post from Gateway Pundit is accurate, nothing will change with regard to the special relationship.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/that-was-quick-obama-already-insulted-pro-american-uk-conservative-cameron-called-him-a-lightweight/
I guess i have to lump British politics in with British comedy. I just don’t get it.
Two thirds of their legislation comes from Brussels anyway so it doesn’t matter very much.None of the two and a half parties addressed the elephant in the room-the EU.They now have effectively a one party(with two and a half branches)state.