Last Update 11:17
Monday, 18 November 2019

The British elections: A minority government

The British parliamentary elections that will be held on 7 May could lead to a minority government. No party is confident to receive the majority, which is 326 seats out of 650

Said Shehata , Wednesday 6 May 2015
Share/Bookmark
Views: 1690
Share/Bookmark
Views: 1690

The Conservative party denied the Liberal Democrats’ claim that David Cameron admitted in a private conversation that he would not win the majority. However, polls and debates in the last few days before the elections confirm speculations of the inability of any party to win a majority. Therefore, there will be two scenarios, either a coalition (a hung parliament), as what happened in 2010 between the conservative and Liberal Democrats parties, or a minority government.

It is difficult to think of a repeat of what happened in 2010 between the two parties, but if there is a coalition, it will be between those two parties. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats leader, recently said he would initially talk exclusively to the party leader with the biggest mandate. There are many reasons why this scenario may take place. First, the Liberal Democrats might change their mind regarding the referendum on the EU if reforms are achieved and the results of this referendum are in favor of remaining in the union. However, Nick Clegg may not want to risk his credibility once again after breaking his promise on university tuition fees. Second, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is not going to get the required seats to form a coalition with the Conservative party.

While the issues of immigration and migration are one of the main reasons for the rising star of UKIP, the party has not achieved momentum lately before the elections. UKIP will get more seats but not enough to replace the Liberal Democrats as a potential partner with the Conservative party. UKIP is only known for its stand on immigration and its views on public services, but has no other policies to attract a wider circle of voters.

Third, the Labour party excluded the possibility of forming any coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP). Ed Miliband, the Labour Party leader, in the BBC Question Time programme on 30 April, pledged not to do any deal with the SNP and said he would rather be in opposition than to form a coalition with them. It should be noted that the UK has witnessed five coalition governments in the twentieth century.

A minority government is the likely outcome of this election. David Cameron faced difficulties during his first five years as a prime minister dealing with Nick Clegg. He expressed the need for a sole majority to implement his programme without having to compromise with any party. He said during the 30th April Question Time programme that “I'm going to spend the next seven days flat out for victory... rather than have the manifesto bartered away in a dark room with Nick Clegg or someone".

David Cameron might benefit from history if he looks at what happened when Harold Wilson of Labour composed a minority government in 1974 for 10 months. After, Wilson called for an election and Labour won the majority. It is not a long-term solution because of the difficulties involved in passing bills through the House of Commons. It takes time and effort to pass any bill if a government has no majority in the parliament. Therefore, Cameron might do the same, hoping that elections in a years time could secure a majority for him. Many things could happen during the year to help him to win majority, such as a reformed EU or an improvement in the National Health Service (NHS). This scenario applies to Ed Miliband, since the race is neck and neck between the Labour and Conservative parties.

Finally, here are some final remarks about this election:

The Conservative party will win more seats than Labour because the economy improved under Cameron compared to under the last Labour government. In addition, Ed Miliband seems to concede under pressure. For example, when he was asked about any deal between the SNP, he categorically excluded it. However, he could have left the door open by saying any deal with the SNP would not come at the expense of the country's unity.

On the contrary, Cameron seems more experienced when giving answers and polls were in his favour after the Question Time Programme. In addition, Cameron repeatedly mentioned his pledge for a referendum on the EU. He said, “I will not lead a government that doesn’t have that referendum in law and carried out.” This is an important issue for voters in the UK and could help Cameron win some more seats.

Moreover, an increase in voter turnout in this election will be seen, because of the issues at stake, such as the NHS, tax, employment and immigration. Ordinary people will be motivated to have their say to protect their interests. The heat about migrants- especially from Eastern Europe- and pressure on schools, hospitals and housing will be an added factor to vote this time.

Furthermore, it should be noted the absence of any debate about Arabs in the lead up to this election as there has been in the past.

The writer is a political analyst.

 

Short link:

 

Email
 
Name
 
Comment's
Title
 
Comment
Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.
4



Sam Enslow
10-05-2015 02:06pm
0-
1+
No known winner
The thing about the British election is that no one knew the results before they were announced. The results were a surprise. There were no secret meetings before the results were announced. The issues discussed concerned life in Great British and issues affecting Britons.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Simon
10-05-2015 02:58pm
0-
1+
No media zoo either
No 24 months media frenzy or 24 hour election night zoo either. The most civilized election in the world, regardless of the winner.
3



Abu Elezz
10-05-2015 10:07am
4-
155+
Conservative parties !
Further more it should be noted that the Majority of British Jews voted Tory and they gave Prime Minister David Cameron their vote .60.5 percent of British Jews thought that Tories offered the best policies on Israel and "best attitude towards British Jewry " No hope for the future peace process in middle east and the Israeli Palestinians crisis !
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Simon
10-05-2015 02:52pm
1-
3+
Far fetched…
If you did the research, or lived there, you’d know that there are only 300,000 Jews in a country of 65 million people. While there are over 3 million Muslims! Perhaps the Muslims, not the Jews who handed Cameron the win!! Either way, irrelevant and petty.
2



neil
09-05-2015 02:33pm
2-
0+
unfair results
This UK election is a perfect illustration of the problems with the single-seat feudal origin electoral system currently used by Egypt. While Conservative gained enough seats for a majority of seats, and Labour suffered a 'crushing' defeat, and UKIP won 'only' one seat, causing Labour, UKIP and LDP leaders to resign, there was actually no change in their votes from last election! In fact, UKIP gained 10% votes, Labour 2%, while Conservative gained nothing! Meanwhile regional separatist party Scottish, gained a measly 3% more votes, yet went from 6 to 56 seats out of 60. Green party, got the same vote % and gain in votes as Scottish but gained no seats. LD Party were the willing victims of the mechanical and psychological effects of the single--seat system, where LDP support for the Conservatives made them a complete 'wasted voted' and hastened their 'squeezing out' of what should be a three-party system.seat system, where LDP support for the Conservatives made them a 'wasted vote'
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Simon
11-05-2015 03:46pm
0-
2+
Real Democracy & Governing
Neil, you maybe right about the “Mechanics” and “modelling” of the systems, however what matters to the rest of us are Real Democracy and Governing . (1) Real Democracy: as no system is perfect; the UK is a real democracy where people like the Khok Brothers and George Soros don’t over-ride 300 million Americans, or no tiny state like WY or VT over-ride CA or TX. (2) Governing: amongst the US, mainland Europe, and the UK; there is no argument who governs better. If you state that the UK and US are “bad” systems; what do you suggest for Egypt then? Italy? France? China? Russia? Or the 90-party souk?
neil
09-05-2015 10:49pm
0-
0+
non sequitur
Cicciol, did you read the comment before defending the indefensible with a strawman? The U.S. and Egypt also use this system - so you've added two more faults with this system!
Cicciolina
09-05-2015 08:01pm
0-
2+
Better than most!
For sure, better than the US super-packs system, the European multi-party coalition zoo, and the Egyptian 90-party souk!
1



neil
09-05-2015 02:21pm
1-
0+
unstable voting system
The UK feudal-origin single-seat electoral system – currently used by Egypt - skews the party seats totals out of all proportion to voter intention. On the surface, it looks like it rewards large parties, but is also rewards established and regional parties, and punishes new and national-wide parties. Overall, the cube-root rule determines party seats: 20% votes = 2x2x2 = 8% seats, 40% = 4x4x4 = 64%; 64/8, a party with twice as many votes gets 8 times as many seats!, and a 'landslide' victory. The most unfair system. And the manufactured 'majority' government does not bring 'stability', not just illegitimate and unresponsive to the true majority, but: this skewing occurs more on the regional level than the national, encouraging secessionist parties like Scottish. It also leads to wild fluctuations in four-year periods: a party that loses 10% votes loses 64- 27 = 37 over half its seats, while a party that gains 10% votes gains 27-8 = 19 twice as many seats. is this a stab;e system?
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Latest

© 2010 Ahram Online.