Just what's so bad about a hung parliament?

[Anbrig]

There might be a thread for this already, but I haven't seen it. My apologies if it was already there.
Anyway, everyone in the UK seems afraid of a hung parliament for some reason. Those that actually cite one say it's because it'll damage the economy or because there's no strong government in a hung parliament.
I see a couple of problems with this. How exactly does it damage the economy, for a start? And why is everyone's idea of strong government an outright majority? In America, for example, hasn't there been quite a lot of partisanship slowing down government despite (well, probably because of) the "strong government" of an outright majority? Having not lived through a hung parliament myself, I can't really say I have any experience, but during the TV debates the parties seemed more intent on blaming each other for the past and future messes than making pitches (especially after the initial pitches were made), and Labour and the Lib Dems' election broadcasts both blamed other parties. Wouldn't a hung parliament encourage the parties to finally agree on something instead of letting the country fall apart while they quibble?
Discuss, rebut, argue, debate, explain, whatever.

[Kulverint]

There might be a thread for this already, but I haven't seen it. My apologies if it was already there.
Anyway, everyone in the UK seems afraid of a hung parliament for some reason. Those that actually cite one say it's because it'll damage the economy or because there's no strong government in a hung parliament.
I see a couple of problems with this. How exactly does it damage the economy, for a start? And why is everyone's idea of strong government an outright majority? In America, for example, hasn't there been quite a lot of partisanship slowing down government despite (well, probably because of) the "strong government" of an outright majority? Having not lived through a hung parliament myself, I can't really say I have any experience, but during the TV debates the parties seemed more intent on blaming each other for the past and future messes than making pitches (especially after the initial pitches were made), and Labour and the Lib Dems' election broadcasts both blamed other parties. Wouldn't a hung parliament encourage the parties to finally agree on something instead of letting the country fall apart while they quibble?
Discuss, rebut, argue, debate, explain, whatever.

It doesn't damage the economy, but it slows the recovery that we've just entered and may cause a double dip recession, as government is slow to pass legislation.

[Anbrig]

There might be a thread for this already, but I haven't seen it. My apologies if it was already there.
Anyway, everyone in the UK seems afraid of a hung parliament for some reason. Those that actually cite one say it's because it'll damage the economy or because there's no strong government in a hung parliament.
I see a couple of problems with this. How exactly does it damage the economy, for a start? And why is everyone's idea of strong government an outright majority? In America, for example, hasn't there been quite a lot of partisanship slowing down government despite (well, probably because of) the "strong government" of an outright majority? Having not lived through a hung parliament myself, I can't really say I have any experience, but during the TV debates the parties seemed more intent on blaming each other for the past and future messes than making pitches (especially after the initial pitches were made), and Labour and the Lib Dems' election broadcasts both blamed other parties. Wouldn't a hung parliament encourage the parties to finally agree on something instead of letting the country fall apart while they quibble?
Discuss, rebut, argue, debate, explain, whatever.

It doesn't damage the economy, but it slows the recovery that we've just entered and may cause a double dip recession, as government is slow to pass legislation.

Ah, that makes more sense now.

[Fnarr-fnarr]

There might be a thread for this already, but I haven't seen it. My apologies if it was already there.
Anyway, everyone in the UK seems afraid of a hung parliament for some reason. Those that actually cite one say it's because it'll damage the economy or because there's no strong government in a hung parliament.
I see a couple of problems with this. How exactly does it damage the economy, for a start? And why is everyone's idea of strong government an outright majority? In America, for example, hasn't there been quite a lot of partisanship slowing down government despite (well, probably because of) the "strong government" of an outright majority? Having not lived through a hung parliament myself, I can't really say I have any experience, but during the TV debates the parties seemed more intent on blaming each other for the past and future messes than making pitches (especially after the initial pitches were made), and Labour and the Lib Dems' election broadcasts both blamed other parties. Wouldn't a hung parliament encourage the parties to finally agree on something instead of letting the country fall apart while they quibble?
Discuss, rebut, argue, debate, explain, whatever.

Germany has had many Coalitions (Hung Parliaments) since 1949 and they've done VERY well thank you!

[Hydrographica]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but was a hung parliament not what contributed strongly to the downfall of the Weimar?
That plus the 'Leader makes his own emergency laws' thing.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Just what's so bad about a hung parliament?

The expense of copious amounts of rope?

[Cameroi]

moles eating cottage cheese

[Georgism]

Nothing. In fact, we should just hang them all.

[Anbrig]

Just what's so bad about a hung parliament?

The expense of copious amounts of rope?

That's true, I guess.

[Poorisolation]

A hung Parliament is bad because it upsets the cosy duopoly of the Conservative and Labour Party. What they are really afraid of is that if the Lib Dems win enough seats to influence who gets to form a government this time then they might actually get enough seats to form a government next time.

The Labour and Conservative Parliamentary ranks are filled with folk who think they are there as of divine right and were disgusted when people thought to question them on things such as fiddling their expenses and asking if they are actually doing their job as MPs? Should the hoi polloi actually get it in their heads they can vote for who they think might actually do a better job in government and not who their granny and granddad voted for then a political machine based on the reliance on tribalism and cosy cross party pacts will be in jeopardy.

[NERVUN]

The Brits are afraid that the Queen might actually have to do something?

I can understand the fear of a frozen government though. Until the last election, Japan had to deal with a divided Diet and the normal glacial speed of the Diet slowed to something approaching the drift rates of the continents.

[Jaunty tunes]

The worst thing is that a party cant move legislation through quickly. It will actually need to be looked at and debated

[Astralsideria]

The worst thing is that a party cant move legislation through quickly. It will actually need to be looked at and debated

As I understand it, as well as this, it's mostly bad because the unpopular things that the country needs (higher taxes, welfare cuts, things like this), no one party wants to take responsibility for, so they don't happen. Last time we had a hung parliament, it lasted about six months. If Gordon Brown manages to cling on to power, he'll probably try and eche it out for as close to five years as he can.

[Cameroi]

i don't understand this concept of political parties "forming" a government. isn't that what constitutions do?

[Anbrig]

A hung Parliament is bad because it upsets the cosy duopoly of the Conservative and Labour Party. What they are really afraid of is that if the Lib Dems win enough seats to influence who gets to form a government this time then they might actually get enough seats to form a government next time.

The Labour and Conservative Parliamentary ranks are filled with folk who think they are there as of divine right and were disgusted when people thought to question them on things such as fiddling their expenses and asking if they are actually doing their job as MPs? Should the hoi polloi actually get it in their heads they can vote for who they think might actually do a better job in government and not who their granny and granddad voted for then a political machine based on the reliance on tribalism and cosy cross party pacts will be in jeopardy.

It's not based on tribalism so much these days and probably won't be in the years to come: people are getting more apathetic, and aren't the younger voters that the parties want to woo less tribal?

[Crabulonia]

There might be a thread for this already, but I haven't seen it. My apologies if it was already there.
Anyway, everyone in the UK seems afraid of a hung parliament for some reason. Those that actually cite one say it's because it'll damage the economy or because there's no strong government in a hung parliament.
I see a couple of problems with this. How exactly does it damage the economy, for a start? And why is everyone's idea of strong government an outright majority? In America, for example, hasn't there been quite a lot of partisanship slowing down government despite (well, probably because of) the "strong government" of an outright majority? Having not lived through a hung parliament myself, I can't really say I have any experience, but during the TV debates the parties seemed more intent on blaming each other for the past and future messes than making pitches (especially after the initial pitches were made), and Labour and the Lib Dems' election broadcasts both blamed other parties. Wouldn't a hung parliament encourage the parties to finally agree on something instead of letting the country fall apart while they quibble?
Discuss, rebut, argue, debate, explain, whatever.

It doesn't damage the economy, but it slows the recovery that we've just entered and may cause a double dip recession, as government is slow to pass legislation.

Ah, that makes more sense now.

Alternatively it will mean that people actually take time to think about what legislation needs passed. The recession isn't a problem that can be handled by one party, also judging by the current polls, it might be the wrong party. George Osbourne is not somebody I would trust with complete control of the economy, a hung parliament might lead to more economic spokespeople working together.

On an alternative, potentially threadjacking, note, does anybody think that austerity measures will be so bad as to keep out a party for a generation?

[Blouman Empire]

A hung Parliament is bad because it upsets the cosy duopoly of the Conservative and Labour Party. What they are really afraid of is that if the Lib Dems win enough seats to influence who gets to form a government this time then they might actually get enough seats to form a government next time.

The Labour and Conservative Parliamentary ranks are filled with folk who think they are there as of divine right and were disgusted when people thought to question them on things such as fiddling their expenses and asking if they are actually doing their job as MPs? Should the hoi polloi actually get it in their heads they can vote for who they think might actually do a better job in government and not who their granny and granddad voted for then a political machine based on the reliance on tribalism and cosy cross party pacts will be in jeopardy.

This is pretty much it, all it means is that government will be kept more in check as the people who give one of the major parties a vote may just vote against their legislation and it affects them from ramming through legislation. It also means that in order to get in power the government will have to make concessions.

Part of whipping up fear for a hung parliament is to make people vote for one of the major parties instead of the third choice.

It does slow it down to when government can form and start governing again and as I stated can slow down legislation. But there isn't anything majorly wrong with one.

[Lackadaisical2]

Bitches get sore.

[Anbrig]

The worst thing is that a party cant move legislation through quickly. It will actually need to be looked at and debated

As I understand it, as well as this, it's mostly bad because the unpopular things that the country needs (higher taxes, welfare cuts, things like this), no one party wants to take responsibility for, so they don't happen. Last time we had a hung parliament, it lasted about six months. If Gordon Brown manages to cling on to power, he'll probably try and eche it out for as close to five years as he can.

The main parties are taking a "let's be honest" tack and spreading the doom and gloom, so whoever ends up in power we're having higher taxes and spending cuts. Then again, none of them tried to bridge the gap over economic policy, but at the same time once they're in a hung parliament they can't afford to quibble. They probably will, though.

[Georgism]

The worst thing is that a party cant move legislation through quickly. It will actually need to be looked at and debated

This is obviously a sign of the apocalypse.

[Self--Esteem]

The necks do not break properly, sometimes.

It is not common but it can happen.

[South Lorenya]

There might be a thread for this already, but I haven't seen it. My apologies if it was already there.
Anyway, everyone in the UK seems afraid of a hung parliament for some reason. Those that actually cite one say it's because it'll damage the economy or because there's no strong government in a hung parliament.
I see a couple of problems with this. How exactly does it damage the economy, for a start? And why is everyone's idea of strong government an outright majority? In America, for example, hasn't there been quite a lot of partisanship slowing down government despite (well, probably because of) the "strong government" of an outright majority? Having not lived through a hung parliament myself, I can't really say I have any experience, but during the TV debates the parties seemed more intent on blaming each other for the past and future messes than making pitches (especially after the initial pitches were made), and Labour and the Lib Dems' election broadcasts both blamed other parties. Wouldn't a hung parliament encourage the parties to finally agree on something instead of letting the country fall apart while they quibble?
Discuss, rebut, argue, debate, explain, whatever.

But... but if it's a hung [parliament then they need to bury hundreds of dead politicians!

...seriously, though, in a hung parliament, they'll have to account for the policies of multiple parties, diluting any progress. It'll also increase the odds of 2592500920597-month delays similar to what we had over here for the health care bill.

[Chemaki]

a

[Great Britainnica]

A hung parliament would mean behind closed doors politics.

Political wrangling would dominate.


Vote for change. Vote Conservatives.

[Blouman Empire]

Apparantly Tories are going to introduce nation service. >.<

Is there anything to back this up?