If there is a hung parliament, do you think it would last?

[LSdemocrat]

I know in 1974 after a hung parliament result, there was another election 8 months later.

Is there any reason to think Labour and the Lib Dems would form some sort of coalition?

Does anyone have any idea if it would last for any significant amount of time before a new election was called?

[davidinalameda]

1. depends on how well hung it was

sorry--couldn't resist!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. If Charles Kennedy got some concessions he wanted

then it could last a couple of years; perhaps even longer with Brown as PM.

[Wat_Tyler]

3. They are very rare in the UK - only one since the War.

In Canada, they've ranged from 9 months (Clark's abortive PC administration in 1979) to 2-and-a-half years (Nov 1965-Jun 1968)

[tjwmason]

5. One reason that they're rare is they're not needed

With an essentially 2 party system and first past the post a working majority in the House of Commons is delivered by most elections (even 1992 - though it fell away with by-elections &c.).

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. 2 - as well as the 1974 one, Callaghan had one after 1977

when the tiny majority he inherited from Wilson (the Oct 74 election) was got rid of by losing by-elections. The Lib-Lab pact kept it going for 15 months.

[Wat_Tyler]

10. Right - I had totally forgotten that.

How far had Major's majority dwindled by the spring of 1997? I know they got down to about 1 or 2, hence the deal with the Unionists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. I'd forgotten about that

Staffordshire South East

David Lightbown died on 12 December 1995. Labour candidate Brian Jenkins won the by-election on 16 April 1996. Majority reduced to 3.

Bolton North East

Peter Thurnham defects to the Lib Dems (13 October 1996). Majority reduced to 1.

Wirral South

Barry Porter died on 3 November 1996. Labour's Ben Chapman won the seat on 27 February 1997. The government was now in a minority with 322 seats compared to 323 for the combined opposition parties.

Meriden

Iain Mills found dead on 16 January 1997. By-election pending. Minority of one, Con 322-Others 323.

Note: On 20 January 1997, Labour MP Martin Redmond died, ending that period of minority government and putting the Conservatives back on the same number of MPs as all other parties put together - 322:322.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/majorit.htm

So the Tories were either exactly half of the parliament, or one below, from 13th October 1996 onwards.

[tjwmason]

4. Could do - with strong moves towards P.R.

Kennedy has said he won't work with Labour, but the same was said about the Scottish Parliament and I don't trust LibDems as far as I can spit them. Though I cannot imagine Kennedy joining with Howard - thus with Blair is his only option.

They would want to hang on to get proportional representation - knowing that this would keep them in power permanently.

Then we'd move towards the fractured party system, with back-room dealings common in continental Europe.

[LSdemocrat]

7. Could the Tories block PR in the Lords?

[tjwmason]

8. They could try - but with enough time it would get through

The Tories don't have a majority in the Lords, they are the largest party but haven't had over 50% for years.

The Lords only have power to delay legislation, and it's not even certain that they would try. The Lords is a 'revising chamber' and very rarely does it try to change the basic purpose of legislation.

Party power in the Lords is far less than the Commons.

[aneerkoinos]

17. PR and party system

Why would you think "back-room dealings" between parties are any worse than "back-room dealings" inside one party in a two-party system.

From where I look, the continental multi-party system are not only more representative, but also generally more transparent than the UK system.

[tjwmason]

6. Another thought. Tory-Unionist

If the Tories were very close to a majority, they might be able to work with the Ulster Unionists (and perhaps D.U.P.?), David Trimble gave a guarantee that the last Tory government would not fall which allowed Major to soldier on until May '97.

On most individual votes Michael Howard would probably be able to pick up a couple of wavering Labour/LibDem/Unionist votes (along with the whips flogging the Tory M.P.s to death - which they'd probably enjoy). It would not be stable, but it might work in the short(ish) run, potentially allowing a 1964-1965 situation with the parties reversed.

[non sociopath skin]

11. Howard would, I think, find the DUP very congenial bedfellows ...

.. and would have no compunction about pursuing a Paisleyite agenda to get his fangs on power.

The Skin

[non sociopath skin]

12. Instinct tells me the LibberDemmers would go with the Tories ...

.. in a hung parliament.

The rationale would be:
1) That they wanted to be part of the "agenda for change" for which the electorate had so obviously voted.
2) That both they and the Tories had, in their different ways, opposed "Blair's War" in Iraq, and the duplicity with which he'd misled the electorate about it.

There'd be a couple of Mickey-Mouse cabinet seats for the coalition "partners". Vince Cable, in particular, would get some sort of footstool-carrier-to-the-Chancellor post in order to advance the "Orange Book" "Libertarian" agenda within LibberDemmerdom and bring the two financial agendas more into line. At the next election, the LibberDemmers would then be able to sell themselves as the Cuddly Face of Conservatism.

Shirley Williams and one or two other aging hippies would probably resign but I'm sure Bonnie Prince Charlie would see that as a price worth paying.

As the old adage bids us, beware of the Honourable Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness West bearing gifts.

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. But wouldn't the change that the electorate wanted be the end of Blair?

The big difference between the Lib Dems and the Labour leadership is Iraq - and everyone is saying the fundamental problem with Blair is trust - largely because of Iraq (did you see Newsnight? Where they showed film of Blair with Bush, and the voters' reaction went to "we hate him" before Blair had even started speaking, just because he was next to Bush?). After that, there's also disagreements on some of the civil liberties issues (ID cards, house arrests). If Brown replaced Blair, and appointed a more liberal Home Secretary, Labour would be an almost ideal fit for the Lib Dems - Brown has widely kept as quiet as possible about Iraq, and so is not as tainted as Blair.

I think in the unlikely event of a hung parliament, Blair would resign (I can't see anyone else getting the blame for losing that many seats), and Brown would be able to deal with the Lib Dems - they'd be able to say they'd got rid of Blair. Maybe a sop of looking at PR (which he'd then try to stop any real change for - he's no idiot), and a cabinet post that didn't have too much power. Either that, or no pact - just forcing Labour to try to get each bill through on its merits, and eventually either Labour gets fed up and calls an election when it thinks it's got the upper hand, or a vote of no confidence if it fails to get something important through.

You're also assuming that the hung parliament would be distributed so that the Tories and Lib Dems would be a majority anyway. The numbers might be such that Unionists would be needed too - or maybe even SDLP and Welsh and Scottish nationalists. And how many non-voting (because they don't take the oath/affirmation of allegiance) Sinn Fein MPs will there be?

[Mr Creosote]

15. Do you think the Lib Dems are interested in PR?

I don't. Not if they see first past the post giving them power. When they introduced PR for the euro-elections Teverson lost his seat here (to UKIP really). Cue much bleating about the system from Teverson and Ashdown.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. I think they would benefit from it for a long time

So yes, I think they will continue to support it. Under pure PR, Labour and the Tories would have to form a government together, or with the Lib Dems. They'll just get that kind of opportunity occasionally under first past the post. PR would also encourage the breakup of Labour and the Tories into moderate and extremist parties. A centrist party like the Lib Dems would benefit again, being a possibility in most combinations of coalition.

[aneerkoinos]

18. PR

There are now three national parties in UK, all of them right of the centre.

PR would also bring Greens and Socialists in the play and force Labour to compete for the votes on the left

Naturally UKIP and Fascists too would get representation, making Tory's weaker. The more the merrier!

[Vladimir]

19. The problem with a hung parliament

is that it would only suit the Lib Dems well - both the Tories and Labour need solid and dependable majorities to implement their "programmes". So I don't think it would last long, no.