Hung Parliament: The Facts

Got a mailshot from you guys today talking about how 38 Degrees are fighting the media bias. Do you realise how hypocritical it is for you to blame others for a bias and then do what you can to stand against one party, align to one newspaper and presents the 'facts' about hung parliaments by comparing ours to countries like New Zealand, which, incidentally, is considering becoming an Australian state!

There's an interesting parallel between this site and the Liberal Democrats:

They are presenting themselves as a new voice in our political system, a change from all of the politicians we've had before.

You present yourself as a change from the biased media, giving us facts not opinion.

Both of you are just more of the same, with your own agenda and opinions that you try to affect on people. All of that is understandable so be honest, stop trying to pretend you're something different, it's just another insult to the people of this country.

Useful info.

I agree with what you said about being pro Lib Dem, But is it possible that 38deg supporters maybe Lib Dem supporters because they want change, and that if another party offered better/more changes that they would change the way they vote?
How many of the national newspapers have been pro Lib Dem consistantly over the years? Maybe the playing field is being leveled?

The site, it's member, the papers are all free to support whoever they like. It just leaves a bad taste when someone comes out campaigning against bias when they are quite obviously biased.

We should be looking at policy, not this fanciful idea that a vote for the Liberals will change the mechanics of a politicians mind.

I also agree. I found the fact sheet useful and informative but the bias is obvious.

There is certainly an important debate on this issue, but it seems 38 degrees is mischaracterising the views of others as bias. We all have a bias. There is no such thing as true objectivity. 38 degrees is biased too. Where is the balance in your article. Where was Israel or Italy mentioned in your example of states where 'balanced' parliaments are common?

Can one tell me where exactly the three party's stand on Israel/Palestine issue?
Thanks

Hi Andrew, thanks for your comment.

38 Degrees is independent of all political parties and we're not tied to one paper as you say. We sent that email to encourage people to vote and to give them a variety of resources to look at if they haven't decided how to vote yet. We did link to the Mirror because they have a guide on what to do if you don't want the tories to get in but we also linked to 3 other resources including Votematch an voteforchage, to help people decide how to vote. Some people have found the Mirror factsheet helpful.

About the “hung parliament factsheet” – 38 Degrees members from across the country came together to produce this blog post as a resource to counter some of the myths that some newspapers and interest groups are promoting about a hung parliament. It has lots of facts in it and counters lots of the myths that newspapers that support one political party are publishing. 38 Degrees members made it using a google doc, so thousands of people could collaborate at once.

Thanks for your questions about 38 Degrees. We are honest about what 38 Degrees is, it's a movement of people across the UK that helps people take action on issues they care about. Today, thousands of 38 Degrees member are encouraging their friends and neighbors to vote in the election tomorrow. 38 Degrees is driven by it's members, together we decide what we should campaign on, together You can find out more in the about section here: http://38degrees.org.uk/pages/about/

My flatmate (law graduate) feels the economic instability argument may hold weight in terms of foreign/worldwide investors lacking confidence in this instance:

'I'm actually in favour of coalition governments in general, but the problem is that the current UK system isn't designed for it. If we had true electoral reform, I'd wholeheartedly support a coalition government!
Where there hasn't been a hung Parliament in the UK since 1974 (and look how *that* turned out), my concern is that a lot of international bodies and investors would run scared until things had sorted themselves out, which could do a lot of damage to the economy.
I'm not saying this will definitely happen, but I think it's a risk, and I've been trying to decide if it's a risk worth taking!'

Thanks.

Thanks for letting us know jer!

In my view the LibDems offer the best hope for justice in Palestine, followed by Labour. Too many Conservative MPs belong to Conservative Friends of Israel.

Many thanks, that's what I thougt.

The hung parliaments of the '60's and '70's were characterised by deals behind closed doors – that is the real danger. But consider the Welsh assembly as a shining example of open government by agreement – the “one Wales” document is published stating clearly the policy points on whih Plaid Cymru and the Labour PArty agree, along with another public document stating how disputes between the parties would be resolved.

This has given Walesa stable, and very succesful administration for three years – and will continue to do so until the (fixed term) elections in 2011.

That's how to make it work!

Nice article, some good information. But as others have said, it is biased. For example, where is the Negative Case regarding a hung parliament? This would have provided a more well rounded article – allowing us to make a decision for ourselves, instead of coming across as a persuasive piece about voting LibDem.

A good point. I had not noticed the bias until this post though.
I think it would be nice to have a 'go compare' style site where you could see the The parties policies next to each other in colums. But maybe thats just me being lazy.

You didn't answer the question, you gave an opinion. The main parties haven't made mention of the issue because the UK has little if any influence on the conflict. We are moving away from an alliance with the US, the only nation that can genuinely affect Israeli opinion.

Try the BBC's compare policies site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election…

And check out my own blog for all the main manifestos:
http://waddell.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/a-cruci…

You can compare all party policies side by side on this page of the BBC website – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election…

How do you address the most important criticism of the idea of a coalition – “You could well have a … coalition govt where we were governed by people – by a govt – that nobody had voted for because they didn’t know the basis of the coalition on polling day, (Tony Benn HC debate on the Jenkins Report)“?

Very interesting article. I am in favour of a 'balance parliament'. But you appear to have missed the point that under the constitution in the event of a hung Parliament, Gordon Brown automatically returns as Prime Minister and has the first choice in trying to form a Government irrespective on which party has the most seats or the most votes.

you're all clearly pro LibDem, but I'm afraid – having almost been about to vote for them – Dulwich & West Norwood constituency – i've been shocked to find that they're putting out lies in their leaflets. they're claiming it's a 2 horse race between them and Labour, so don't vote Tory, whereas in fact, the clear leader is Labour with 40+% of vote, and the 2nd place goes to the Tories after the boundary changes, and 3rd place LibDem (both on 20-odd%). I hate these lies that Labour and LibDems are putting out. I'm not staunch Tory at all, but I back honesty.

Here is one thing to consider but nobody does. How much actual support do you need to win an election. First past the post you only need one more vote than your nearest rival. So based on this one extra vote for each seat that the winning party gets how much actual support did they need to win the election. Remember we are only counting the one extra vote needed not the total support they had. When you put it in percentages what they actually won with to what they get in seats it really shows up the system and how screwed it is.

[...] tells you who you should be voting for if you want a “balanced Parliament”. 38 Degrees discusses hung parliaments in an FAQ format. Charter 2010 weighs [...]

Perhaps you could add that all our political parties are themselves de-facto coalitions, and which of the promises they have made in their manifestos would actually be fulfilled, and to what extent, would also be a matter of dealing behind closed doors. For example, Labour won the 1997 election on a manifesto that promised a referendum on electoral reform, but that promise was never kept – and we were never told why. The truth seems to be that some factions within the parliamentary Labour party blocked it. Likewise, the Tories now are running on a manifesto that promises action to prevent climate change – but many people suspect that if they got a majority in Parliament there would be heavy pressure from many of their MPs (again, “behind closed doors”) to abandon that promise. It is simply dishonest for the right-wing media to pretend that horse-trading happens only in a “hung” parliament.

The idea that the party with the most votes has necessarily “won” the election is, to my mind, rather spurious. Imagine a situation where two left-of-centre parties attract c8 million votes each and a right-of-centre party attracts 13 million – how true would it be to say that a right-wing government would represent “the will of the people”? Sadly, that is what happened in Britain in 1983, when FPTP gave Margaret Thatcher the most decisive victory since Clement Attlee's in 1945. That was when Thatcherism really took hold, as her 144-seat majority encouraged her to govern this country as if the electorate really had expressed a preference for her policies. Clearly, most of the voters did *not* want even the mild form of Thatcherism they had experienced in 1979-1983, and a more representative electoral system would have spared us any more of it.

A hung parliament might, just might provide us with the only opportunity we may have for generations to sweep away the old, discredited, first past the post system, and give this country genuine democracy for the first time.

cheers for the link. i used http://www.votematch.org.uk/

Here in Switzerland there is always a hung parliament. The system is arranged that way. So is the “magic formula” which decides which parties can be represented in the Bundesrat (cabinet). A rotating presidency, 2 equal influence houses of parliament and direct democracy. I don't see anyone arguing Switzerland is not economically sound.

Although i'd prefer a Labour majority government, a hung parliament would be good for change and reform

[...] A factsheet from campaigning group 38 Degrees supporting a hung parliament [...]

Thanks be to 38 degrees and all they do to make UK politic transparent and make lads in charge acocuntable to the public when there are so many vested interests who want to subjugate masses and thwart thier aspirations for peace,justice,freedoms and equity at home and abroad.

A hung Parliament is reflective of a general lack of interest in the political process, which, in its present state, is not reflective of a truly democratic system anyway. If you really want to transform the political process in this country, do as Australia does, and make it a legally enforceable duty of citizenship for people to vote in national elections. The other area that needs greater scrutiny is the potential for false registration of postal votes.

Thanks for this, it is a very helpful guide which I have retweeted to my followers.

The most important thing for me is reform of the voting system.

http://www.miscellani.org/blog/2010/05/im-votin…

Hi Johnny,

I can't see what Andy's written (with respect “hung parliament factsheet”) to but I suspect it had a lot in common with what I was thinking when I finished reading the Factsheet.

This is what the Factsheet does:
1. Present a view (the “myth”)
2. Present a counter-argument (“38 degrees members said”). There is a fact or two used to back it up.
Etc…

That's more of an 'Argumentsheet” really, isn't it? Now there's nothing wrong with having one of those. But I'm left feeling unaswaged after reading the title. It clearly comes across that there are some pre-assumed views behind the information presented, like PR being better than the FPTP electoral system. Now don't get me wrong, it seems that those values are mostly ones that I share and I'm not particularly decided on the PR issue. But it kind of defeats the point of a 'factsheet' doesn't it?
The most important reason I bring this up is that I've seen the same thing in far-right literature, where facts are blended with opinion (albeit with much, much more of the latter) under the guise of 'All fact'. I'm not saying this is quite as bad as that, but it deserves to be above that game.

Do you see what I'm saying? The Factsheet above is still a good effort overall and safe to you for being part of it.

Hi Tulum, thanks for this. Not sure what happened to andews comments. I think that's a really good point and maybe we should have called it “Mythbusting” instead.

Hi Kathryn, sign the “voting reform now” petition at http://labs.38degrees.org.uk/wall/reform

Hi Johnny,

I can't see what Andy's written (with respect “hung parliament factsheet”) to but I suspect it had a lot in common with what I was thinking when I finished reading the Factsheet.

This is what the Factsheet does:
1. Present a view (the “myth”)
2. Present a counter-argument (“38 degrees members said”). There is a fact or two used to back it up.
Etc…

That's more of an 'Argumentsheet” really, isn't it? Now there's nothing wrong with having one of those. But I'm left feeling unaswaged after reading the title. It clearly comes across that there are some pre-assumed views behind the information presented, like PR being better than the FPTP electoral system. Now don't get me wrong, it seems that those values are mostly ones that I share and I'm not particularly decided on the PR issue. But it kind of defeats the point of a 'factsheet' doesn't it?
The most important reason I bring this up is that I've seen the same thing in far-right literature, where facts are blended with opinion (albeit with much, much more of the latter) under the guise of 'All fact'. I'm not saying this is quite as bad as that, but it deserves to be above that game.

Do you see what I'm saying? The Factsheet above is still a good effort overall and safe to you for being part of it.

Hi Tulum, thanks for this. Not sure what happened to andews comments. I think that's a really good point and maybe we should have called it “Mythbusting” instead.

Hi Kathryn, sign the “voting reform now” petition at http://labs.38degrees.org.uk/wall/reform