Since the result of last Thursday’s election became clear, the leaderships of all three major parties have acted diplomatically to reach a workable outcome.
Our guest writer is Andy White, research analyst at the Electoral Reform Society
Here we find ourselves, trapped in the dreaded hung parliament scenario, and despite some nightmarish predictions from our tabloid fortune tellers – economic collapse, societal breakdown, nuclear apocalypse – things seem to be ticking along okay. Since the result of last Thursday’s election became clear, the leaderships of all three major parties have acted in uncommonly diplomatic fashion to reach a workable outcome.
It is testament to the strength of our constitution that while David Cameron and Nick Clegg were busy hammering out a coalition arrangement, outgoing Chancellor Alistair Darling was meeting with European counterparts to agree a swift response to the Greek debt crisis. It was hardly the politics of inertia.
By the time Gordon Brown had handed over to his successor on Tuesday night, the public and press were already warming to the new politics of compromise and cooperation. The Tories are spinning the coalition as a “government in the national interest”, which seems a curiously empty boast until you consider that it is the first government since the Second World War that can claim in good conscience to represent a majority of British voters. Nearly sixty per cent of votes were cast for Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidates on 6th May. It is right that we have a government that broadly reflects this. But this was an unusual result under our “First Past the Post” system of elections.
But this was a freak result. Under our “First Past the Post” system of elections, hung parliaments are rare. Had the Labour Party polled as many votes as the Conservatives, they would easily have won another clear majority of seats in the Commons. We can safely ignore Tory claims that reducing the size of parliament or re-jigging constituency boundaries will somehow restore fairness to our elections. They are wrong, and this standpoint has been repeatedly disproved by academics across the political spectrum. First Past the Post will always deliver freakish results.
If we want “big tent” government in the national interest, election after election, we need to fundamentally reform the voting system. We need a voting system which affords each party the number of seats it deserves. The Liberal Democrats polled 23% of votes at this election, but won only 8.7% of seats. Under their proposed system, the Single Transferable Vote, they would have won roughly 25% of seats.
Unlike the oft-criticised system of pure proportionality we use to elect MEPs, the Single Transferable Vote retains a link between MPs and constituencies, and allows voters to choose favoured candidates from each party. It has been used in Ireland for the past eighty years and is popular with Irish voters.
Over the years, many arguments have been put forward for the preservation of Westminster’s Victorian voting system. Some of them have been absurd, such asDaniel Kawczynski MP’s claim that we don’t need it because his constituents don’t care (a ComRes poll suggests 62% of Britons would support a proportional voting system). But others, such as those tendered by the respected Conservative academic Lord Norton of Louth bear closer inspection.
Lord Norton argues that a hung parliament is a politician’s parliament, where policy is the result of post-election bargaining. He argues also that smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats get to “call the tune”. And he contends that far from enjoying a majority mandate, the present coalition actually commands the definitive support of not one single voter (there being no Con-Lib option on the ballot paper).
In light of recent developments, we can put Lord Norton’s argument under the microscope. Does it stand up to scrutiny? Let’s start with the post-election bargaining that is a feature of any coalition system. Aside from the rushed decision to introduce a 55 per cent dissolution resolution, the coalition agreement thrashed out by the two parties clearly takes as its basis the two party manifestos pitched to the British public before the election. All the policies announced so far have either been Conservative or Lib Dem manifesto commitments, or compromises lying somewhere between the two. They have not been conjured out of thin air.
As for the accusation that the Liberal Democrats have called the tune, we only have to look at the make-up of the new coalition to see that the Conservative Party is the senior partner. Indeed, the proportion of Lib Dem cabinet positions roughly reflects the ratio of Lib Dem to Conservative votes. This is how coalition governments are formed across Europe—in places like Germany, where Angela Merkel heads a similar blue-yellow cabinet, as well as in the Low Countries and Scandinavia.
The only one of Norton’s arguments to have some merit is his contention that First Past the Post makes it easier to kick out an unpopular government. It is certainly harder to vote multiple parties out of government than a single-party regime. But the implication that this expression of disapproval is impossible under other voting systems doesn’t concur with the evidence. Regime change in Germany, where a very proportional system is in place, happens just as frequently as it does in the UK.
Thanks to their foresight and equanimity, David Cameron and Nick Clegg look set to dispel many of the myths surrounding the issue of proportional representation. We might see that coalition governments can get things done. We might find that consensual politics can be decisive politics. And, after an era of presidential “sofa governments”, stage managed by the spin doctors, we can hope for a return to the collegiate parliamentarism of yesteryear. But without a reformed voting system this will remain the exception that proves the rule.
20 Responses to “The new politics of coalitions”
I agree with Mr Sensible
First of all we do not have a hung parliament. We have a coalition government which came as the result of a hung parliament but the coalition is remedy. Financial instability did set in during the uncertain hung parliament days but this coalition came
about to ease the situation – which it has managed to do, despite having no money left In the coffers (for some reason the Labour Party finds hilarious).
But I do agree with Mr Sensible, despite myself being inclined more to the right, I do recognise the need for reform in the places that it is necessary, I.e recall of Mps and open primaries but electoral reform is crazy.
PR claims to make every vote count, but it does not. The voters no longer have a say in who should form the goverment, that power is taken from them entirely. We know who was almighty in our hung parliament and it wasn’t the electorate! It was mr clegg who had the power to form a government at his discretion despite his party coming 3rd and doing worse than at the previous election!
Also PR destroys policies. Many who voted LibDem did so because of their views on top-up fees, trident or the Euro, and I voted Conservative because I wanted the big society, little constitutional reform and protection from being engulfed by Europe, unfortunately thanks to the freak of fptp and the lovechild of PR none of us got what we wanted! We have a deal which only suits the politicians!
People really need to look closer at the implications of PR before branding it as an entirely fair system’
Kurt
The new politics of coalitions | Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/9JWRm5
Modicum
Mr. Sensible wrote:
“The fact is, if you get this sort of coalition politics and backroom deals going on all the time, you may not get what you voted for.”
The fact is that under “first past the post” the people do not get what they voted for. The last time that a majority of voters got the government they voted for was 1931. In every single election since then the prime minister who has assumed office has been opposed by a majority of voters.
So, for example, the people did not vote for Thatcher and her radical policies, but that’s what they got.
The fact of the matter is that voters are diverse in their opinions, so there is usually not one single manifesto that a majority of voters support. In that scenario it is impossible to give a majority of voters precisely what they voted for. So a solution is needed.
The very crude method currently used to give carte blanche to whichever party has the largest minority of seats in parliament. That party does not have the support of a majority of voters. It may not even have come first in the election (because FPTP occasionally produces completely freakish results).
Yet that “winning” party is allowed to govern as it wishes no matter how radical its policies or how strongly opposed they may be by the majority of voters.
A saner system is that when there is no majority for any one party manifesto then the representatives of the majority get together and negotiate a compromise. No-one will be entirely happy with the package that emerges, but this is the only way of coming up with a compromise that roughly reflects the sentiments of the majority. Under the current system we get the preferred policies of 30%-40% of electorate.
I also don’t think there’s any real evidence that smaller parties have undue influence in coalitions. In every coalition I’ve ever seen the smaller party is the junior partner; it gets fewer and more junior cabinet positions, and it accepts a legislative programme that mostly reflects the preferences of the senior partner.
Marcel Duda
The new <b>politics</b> of coalitions | Left Foot Forward http://goo.gl/fb/J3SC8
james kirk
The new politics of coalitions | Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/c6J8UK