Time for Change?

As the likelihood of a hung parliament increases, I wonder whether it is actually the best result for the UK.

After the dust settled on the final leaders debate this evening, the polls indicated that the Liberal Democrats had gained the most from the debates as a whole.

The unprecedented gains seen by the Lib Dems were groundbreaking, but in truth it has not changed what we knew before the first debate on the 15th of April: we are more than likely heading for a hung parliament.

The fear is that the economy will suffer as the government flounds around arguing with itself rather than taking action. I believe, however, that it will mean that on important issues the opinion of more voters will be represented in the commons.

Take for example the row over National Insurance. If, for example, Labour had a majority they would be able to vote through their proposals without taking into account the beliefs of everyone in constituencies who didn't vote for Labour.

In a majority led parliament, your views may not be represented in the commons if your constituency did not vote for the largest party.

In a hung parliament, everyone can pressurise their own MP on important issues and their views will have a much better chance of being represented in the commons.

Therefore, I believe, a hung parliament would be a better overall reflection of the opinions of the British public.

What is a hung parliament?

Generally speaking, the largest party in the commons has a working majority. This means that when that party wants to make new laws, it can vote them through with relative ease because it has more seats than the rest of the parties put together.

When the smaller parties have enough seats that they are collectively able to outvote the main party, that is a hung parliament - see this handy BBC guide.