Would a hung parliment be better than a small minorty win?

[original PM]

I am not a huge follower of politics however I was watching one of the political programmes on Sunday and this question was posed and no one gave a satisfactory answer.

So really would a hung parliment be better as it would increase co-operation between the parties and so more things would get done - or would there be too much burocracy (sp!) and so nothing would get done?

Conversely if a party got in with such a small majority would they struggle to also get things done?

Can anyone offer any sort of insightful commentary on this?

[Churchill]

I am not a huge follower of politics however I was watching one of the political programmes on Sunday and this question was posed and no one gave a satisfactory answer.

So really would a hung parliment be better as it would increase co-operation between the parties and so more things would get done - or would there be too much burocracy (sp!) and so nothing would get done?

Conversely if a party got in with such a small majority would they struggle to also get things done?

Can anyone offer any sort of insightful commentary on this?

Personally I'm hoping we can get all the powers that be on a single aircraft and then crash it into the ground...

Mind you, it would have to be a bloody big aircraft...

[moder8or]

sickly

A TU154 should do the trick

[d000hg]

As I understand it, a small minority is constantly under risk of a vote of no confidence. Which is difficult to work under.
On the other hand some sort of coalition (is that what we mean, I haven't heard the word being used) probably risks lots of intra-government arguments, things not getting done because the two parties can't agree.

Conclusion... both are bad. IMO the only way a government can get big changes made is with a big majority so they can ignore all other parties.

[VectraMan]

IMO the only way a government can get big changes made is with a big majority so they can ignore all other parties.

Which sounds a lot like a dictatorship. If "getting things done" is so important, why don't we just have a proper dictator?

You could say that we're electing the politicians to run the country for us, if they're not capable of putting aside their differences to work together then we need better people. But the problem is that MPs, and certainly ministers, aren't really allowed any independence and are always expected to follow the party line. And clearly a couple of Lib Dem ministers in a Tory government, for example, aren't going to do that.

So I think the only way it'd work if you can break the dominance of the party whips, and have MPs and ministers all able to work in a more individual way, and then it wouldn't matter too much about overall majorities. Which is perhaps how it ought to be.

[BlasterBates]

Not sure about not getting things done. The Germans just had a big coalition government and it was pretty good at getting things done, because they could ignore the party activists, with the "oh well I would like to do that ridiculous thing your pushing for, but unfortunately our coalition partners won't have it" leaves them free to focus on solving problems rather than pandering to party conferences.

[d000hg]

Which sounds a lot like a dictatorship

An elected dictatorship, where we vote for the party we want and then they are allowed to rule, would be OK with me.

The system where even the party in power has to win votes for major decisions seems a bit odd.

I don't think you can make bold moves without freedom to act (rule by committee, etc)... the problem is that this makes a party just as free to make bad decisions as good ones.

[VectraMan]

An elected dictatorship, where we vote for the party we want and then they are allowed to rule, would be OK with me.

Which is what we have. But even Tony Blair's massive majority of 1997 only got about 45% of the votes. As a principle, shouldn't somebody with absolute power have to have the support of the majority of the electorate?

P.S. 4000 posts! What do you think of them so far?