Your essential hung parliament reader

What happens next?

Back in November 2009 we commissioned a special issue of New Statesman to look at the possible outcome of a hung parliament in 2010. Having noted a shift in public opinion away from an outright victory for the Conservative Party, this seemed a pressing question to address.

Using the image above, our cover line read: "Left hanging: What a hung parliament would mean for Britain".

Now that the talk of last November has become the reality of this May, what happens next? If you read only two things, I suggest you revisit Geoffrey Wheatcroft's essay and Vernon Bogdanor's constitutional overview. Here's an extract from both:

Doing deals in Downing Street

by Geoffrey Wheatcroft

"Who governs Britain?" Aspiring barristers are taught that you should never ask a question in court to which you don't know the answer. Edward Heath forgot that rule in February 1974 when, after months of industrial turmoil culminating in the three-day week, he called an election and, by way of challenging the unions, asked that question.

And the electorate replied: Not you, chum. Or at least, so far from being returned to power with a healthy majority, Heath found that he had no majority at all. On St David's Day, the day after the election, the fun and games began.

The story of Friday 1 March 1974 is riveting enough anyway, but might soon become acutely relevant. It is quite possible that on the morning of Friday 7 May 2010 - which will probably be the day after our next general election - David Cameron and the Tories will find themselves with a plurality, or more seats than any other party, but without an absolute majority over all others: in the modern jargon, a hung parliament.

Continue reading...

 

1974 and all that - the constitutional position

by Vernon Bogdanor

Were the 2010 general election to yield a hung parliament, Gordon Brown, like Heath, would be constitutionally entitled to seek coalition; or he could meet parliament as the head of a minority government and challenge the other parties to vote him down. But he might then seem a bad loser. Even if Labour were to win more seats than any other party, Brown would be thought to have "lost".

The imprint of first-past-the-post is so strong that voters see general elections as football matches in which a side has either "won" or "lost". Nuances such as which party has the most seats or which party has the most votes are hardly noticed in the post-election melee.

Continue reading...

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

 

Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. 

Dan Kitwood/Getty
Show Hide image

I believe only Yvette Cooper has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy Corbyn

All the recent polling suggests Andy Burnham is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy Corbyn, says Diana Johnson MP.

Tom Blenkinsop MP on the New Statesman website today says he is giving his second preference to Andy Burnham as he thinks that Andy has the best chance of beating Jeremy.

This is on the basis that if Yvette goes out first all her second preferences will swing behind Andy, whereas if Andy goes out first then his second preferences, due to the broad alliance he has created behind his campaign, will all or largely switch to the other male candidate, Jeremy.

Let's take a deep breath and try and think through what will be the effect of preferential voting in the Labour leadership.

First of all, it is very difficult to know how second preferences will switch. From my telephone canvassing there is some rather interesting voting going on, but I don't accept that Tom’s analysis is correct. I have certainly picked up growing support for Yvette in recent weeks.

In fact you can argue the reverse of Tom’s analysis is true – Andy has moved further away from the centre and, as a result, his pitch to those like Tom who are supporting Liz first is now narrower. As a result, Yvette is more likely to pick up those second preferences.

Stats from the Yvette For Labour team show Yvette picking up the majority of second preferences from all candidates – from the Progress wing supporting Liz to the softer left fans of Jeremy – and Andy's supporters too. Their figures show many undecideds opting for Yvette as their first preference, as well as others choosing to switch their first preference to Yvette from one of the other candidates. It's for this reason I still believe only Yvette has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy and then to go on to win in 2020.

It's interesting that Andy has not been willing to make it clear that second preferences should go to Yvette or Liz. Yvette has been very clear that she would encourage second preferences to be for Andy or Liz.

Having watched Andy on Sky's Murnaghan show this morning, he categorically states that Labour will not get beyond first base with the electorate at a general election if we are not economically credible and that fundamentally Jeremy's economic plans do not add up. So, I am unsure why Andy is so unwilling to be clear on second preferences.

All the recent polling suggests Andy is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy. He trails fourth in London – where a huge proportion of our electorate is based.

So I would urge Tom to reflect more widely on who is best placed to provide the strongest opposition to the Tories, appeal to the widest group of voters and reach out to the communities we need to win back. I believe that this has to be Yvette.

The Newsnight focus group a few days ago showed that Yvette is best placed to win back those former Labour voters we will need in 2020.

Labour will pay a massive price if we ignore this.

Diana Johnson is the Labour MP for Hull North.