Why The Talk Of A Hung Parliament?

It would appear that the politicos, the media and the blogosphere are enthralled by the prospect of a hung parliament. Conservative Home has a 'thread' running, the comments of which are illuminating to say the least. At the time of writing this post not one of the commenters queries why a hung parliament is likely to happen - which does to a certain extent demonstrate the paucity of the thought process of that party - but I digress. Commenter Nigel Harte comes closest to why a hung parliament is likely with "I see no difference between the three main parties, so offering me choices of mixtures of the three parties is no more appetising. Which coalition will result in a referendum on the EU? Or major caps on immigration? Or the repeal of the Digital Economy Bill? Answer: Neither."

Surely it must be obvious that the reason Nigel Harte sees no difference between the three main parties is that there is no difference! All three parties policies are, to a certain extent, constrained by their need to observe and comply with directives imposed - or about to be imposed - on this country by the European Union. The fact that the electorate seem unaware is due to none of the Lib/Lab/Con admitting this 'subservience' - and if they did, they might all find their support draining away quicker than it is already.

Campaigning during a general election in this country has become boring - a turn-off for the electorate, as all it involves is claim and counter-claim. The three main, old, parties are slavishly followed by the MSM who obediently repeat that which they are told and as a result true democracy and electioneering are not best served. Instead of party political broadcasts, covering the countryside with billboards and posters and 'election addresses' - most of which are not worth the paper on which they are printed - the time has come, I would like to think, for a different approach.

Why not provide every household with a copy of each party's manifesto? Why not adopt the situation whereby any political party who is fielding candidates has their leader and intended holders of the main ministerial offices questioned by a panel of voters, one from each party, or a panel comprising  journalists, with all parties receiving equal treatment and airtime. Such questioning should be limited to their policies and the politicians should be banned from criticising those of other parties - after all, parties put forward policies and should expect detailed questioning on them and them alone. If parties wish to indulge in the present form of electioneering; of claim and counter-claim, of bickering and resorting to 'spin', then let them use their morning briefings to the press, hustings etc as surely the electorate deserve better than that. Oh, and can we stop these endless opinion polls being issued night after bloody night, please?

The criticism may well be made that voters would become bored with endless political programming, however at least voters would be better informed and therefore able to make a choice and decision at the ballot box. It might just provide answers to questions such as 'Why should our nation be governed by Brussels; What does 'cut' mean and where, exactly, does the axe fall; Why can immigration not be cut 'across the board', only from outside the EU; How is the country best served by the unproductive sector being larger than the productive sector; Why cannot that which has been devolved to Scotland not be devolved to every local authority; Why has no cost/benefit analysis been provided on the country's membership of the EU - and similar questions to which the electorate has so far not received an answer.

You may wish to comment?