According to the Guardian tonight:
Britain [is] set to face weeks of political paralysis after election
The article is subtitled:
Rebel Tories could block new Conservative-Liberal Democrat pact, while Nick Clegg faces revolt over possible Tory deal
And in summary says:
Britain faces “weeks not days” without an effective government following Thursday's general election if David Cameron wins the most seats and tries to renew his coalition vows with Nick Clegg, according to senior Tories and Liberal Democrats.
A Tory-Lib Dem coalition Mark Two is seen as one of the most likely results of an extremely close election. But senior MPs from both parties revealed they have deep reservations about such an outcome, and are privately planning to force their leaders into gruelling and protracted negotiations that could last well into the summer.
Three thoughts follow. The first is that maybe Ed Miliband is wise to eschew deals and work on a vote by vote basis, which looks to be an option unavailable to the Tories.
The second is that if this paralysis is permitted by the Fixed Term Parliament Act then it has to be swept from the statute book, along with our current electoral system.
And third, regrettably, Labour might need to let this play out as such a period would end with both the LibDems and Tories fractured and unlikely to form a government, having in the meantime written their own political obituaries.
Chaos may appear to be undesirable, but sometimes it is the necessary precursor of fundamental change. Maybe, just maybe, that's what we will get.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
under what system of governance would the the general public be best served? its clear that no party will secure an overall majority, so none of the electorate will be rewarded with the manifesto of their choice. This nailed on outcome is a resultant of the smaller parties having policies that position them to the left or right of the two main parties. Elections in the future will likely have a similar scenario. The instability that will follow the election should ‘re awaken those who desire electoral reform. I’m not sure any reform will be a panacea, modern Britain needs something that’s tangible. The time for a written constitution Is here, the pros outweigh the written constitutional cons. The system that has governed for centuries no longer works, in my opinion it never has, an example of this is the power both the governments of Magaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had which left disastrous legacies i.e mass immigration under Labour and deregulation of the stock market, systematic destruction of the unions, sell off of our nationalised utilities( which I believe time will regard as a disgraceful act) the extinction of our mining industry and the devastation that brought on mining towns, all at the hands of the Tories. All these would not have happened if we had a wriiten constitution.
@James S. Not sure I entirely agree with the relative weight you have given to the elements of electoral reform on the one hand, and a written constitution on the other.
First, I am VERY unsure that a written constitution WOULD have protected this country from the ravages of Thatcherism, and it would be a strange constitution if it addressed the operational issue of immigration, which surely was NOT the most toxic part, or even a truly toxic part, of Blair’s legacy, which must surely be his adventurism, especially in Iraq, something which COULD have been the matter of a constitutional provision and decision, ridding the country of the ludicrous “Royal prerogative” to wage war and conclude treaties, leaving all such power in the hands of the Executive.
Crucially, then, it really matters what goes into a written constitution, and how it is managed and mediated, which brings us to the key point that the existence of an American style Supreme Court removes part of the workings of politics from democratic oversight, since members of that Court should NOT be capable of manipulation by raw politics. Alas, however, they ARE in the USA, with dead or former Presidents continuing to have massive influence via the partisan politics of their Supreme Court appointees.
Consequently, I would want OUR Supreme Court judges to be elected by popular mandate, which brings me to electoral reform, the corrupted nature of our current FPTP system being the major obstacle to political and constitutional well-being. True proportionality would go a LONG way to healing the brokenness of our constitutional arrangements. If I had to choose between PR and a written constitution, I’d unhesitatingly opt for PR, with a written Constitution, if not merely as the icing on the cake, certainly as a second order necessity.
The neo-liberal world that we have been subjected to over the last thirty years has been aided by our electoral system. The large majorities that both conservatives and labour enjoyed previous to the last election, gave them the power to change a socialist big government Britain to an extreme capitalist one. Their belief in the market is akin to a religion. The market is all knowing and will if left alone in relative terms deliver prosperity to all. We know this is a fallacy, the market cannot understand the human element that exists in everyday life, it does not have within its DNA all the elements that is required to serve society as a whole. The facts are that we as humans are all born different, and this is as essential to society, the economy and indeed our existence. Understanding this fact is fundamental to why we need government to seek to shape the market to incorporate all within society. Just imagine this scenario, if we all had the ability to be brain surgeons, top sportsmen/women, scientists, lawyers, someone would still have to do the everyday mundane jobs. Given this fact don’t people and I am one of them, deserve to have the very basics in life( I mean this relative to the wealth of the UK) a home to live in and a family to grow in that home. The state should endeavour to provide these essential core human needs. We should value all work whether it’s a bin man or a doctor, I’m no fundamental socialist I value the abilities and skills of the gifTed few, I believe their should be a system that recognises these individuals and provides the framework for them to fully realise their potential, Society benefits from this. But these gifted few should also have a responsibility to society. We cannot keep going down the road where the individual over society rules. I believe these fundamental human needs would be the root of a UK written constitution thus ending the neo-liberal dynasty.
I think the item most worthy of inclusion on this blog on this pre-election Sunday could have gone something like this:
“Furore as letter stating that Governments running out of money is ‘simply not true’ appears in the Observer letters page”.
Yes – it’s on page 38 this morning. I couldn’t believe when I saw it. At last!
The Observer comment however seems so uncertain about this but just bangs on about anti-austerity and makes no links to the above idea.
With regard to a new ConDemn coalition I just hope the Lib Dems get thrashed in the election and enter a new era of political wilderness because they are the most capricious bunch of so and so’s. They are too liberal to be in government and too Tory to be progressive. Yes, I hope they get hammered.
We could [easily] have a minority conservative government still:
¨Under our Parliamentary system, the test for whether a Prime Minister can govern or not is whether he (or she) commands a majority in the House of Commons. Once it’s clear to the Prime Minister that he no longer does so, by convention he should resign. It used to be the case that he had the option of asking the Queen for a general election if he lost the confidence of the House mid-term: that option is now removed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011¨
http://www.headoflegal.com/2015/04/19/ed-can-enter-no-10-without-nicolas-keys/
I think you miss the point
Cameron has to resign if he has not got a majority
Miliband can be appointed if he has not
If neither labour or conservative have a majority, then call-me-Dave can stay in power and try to run a minority government. The first test of that would be the Queens speech, if he loses that then he would be EXPECTED to resign.
But would he lose it?
Can Cameron get enough support from minority parties?
Not snp….but then labour cannot count on them either.
I reckon that if the labour/conservative seats are equal, Cameron will have a go at staying.
We have already had 23 years of political paralysis, so what changes?
It is interesting that David Cameron keeps on telling the media and the great UK public that the Tories have reduced the deficit but the figures tell a different story. When they came to power, England was £800 million in the red now it is one trillion four hundred and eighty million in the red. Can anyone explain how this is a better financial position because I cannot work it out.
It very obviously is not!
There is a difference between deficit and debt.
You appear to be quoting the debt figure (although not sure where the £800 million comes from), rather than the deficit figure.
Debt is the total amount owed (the total amount borrowed over all years and not paid back).
Deficit is the amount by which your spending exceeds your income (the annual amount you borrow).
He is trying to say that the amount that will be borrowed this year is less, but obviously the total amount owed continues to increase and has increased a lot over the past 5 years.