Monday, February 05, 2007

The Price of a Coalition

Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting.com has written a fascinating WHAT IF style article on the result of the next election HERE on ConservativeHome this morning. Like me, he thinks a hung Parliament is the most likely result of the next election. He believes Gordon Brown would form a minority adminstration which would be voted down on the Queen's Speech. He further speculates that David Cameron would then form his own minority administration but offer the LibDems enough to keep them from voting down a Queen's Speech. He thinks a formal Con-Lib pact is unlikely.

I must say that all my conversations with LibDem friends in Parliament suggest that is true. They say they would not entertain a formal pact without a commitment to electoral reform. For most Conservatives it is inconceivable that they would support any move to elect the House of Commons by any form of PR - myself included. I can, however, see merit in a second chamber and local councils being elected under a different electoral system to first past the post. But in itself, even if that were to be on offer from the Conservatives I suspect the LibDems would indulge in a bit of cutting off of noses.

One thing is sure, as the election comes ever closer, these debates will gather momentum.

49 comments:

The Constituent said...

I'm beginning to see merit in a PR-style system. As much as I would hate to break the link between constituency and representative, the system we have now which gives large majorities to parties on less than 50% of the vote is not right either.

The current system gives little opportunity to protest if the two/three large parties offer similar policies. This is particularly obvious with the EU and UKIP - in your earlier post you show how voting Conservative doesn't always result in less regulation. But voting for UKIP in a general election results in exactly the opposite of the elector's intention.

Maybe it is time for a radical overhaul.

Anonymous said...

An overhaul has been on the books for years , every party who has mentioned it ,then have gotten into power , have just kicked it to oneside ,it will be the same next time.

Anonymous said...

One completely wild solution off the top of my head:

Keep the Commons as it is; make the Lords more than 50% elected through some form of PR - and then, increase the power of the Lords so they can block indefinitely?

Just a random thought... for crying out loud, we can't go on like this. Another thought is to reduce the power of government whips significantly.

Anonymous said...

The Lords has always had it's maverick's and sage's until tone put his friends in ,it was a good control for the nut's , now it's a nothing , I would love to see it returned to before tone.

Anonymous said...

There should be just one Chamber, with three quarters elected by first past the post. Th remaining one quarter should be set aside for those who bid the highest price for a seat. They would by their very nature be people who have been a success in business or at investing money. They would not be social do-gooders whose every solution to a problem is to throw someone else's money at it by employing massed ranks of consultants.

It is basically what we have had in the House of Lords under Tony Blair, so let's be open about it. The Rich Quarter would be primarily interested in less regulation and government - and especially less taxation. The only way to overcome their veto would be for more than two thirds of the first-past-the-post crowd to work for a consensus which overcame the Rich Quarter.

Alternatively, you have a number of votes equivalent to

(a) your current account balance - £1 = 1 vote so the wreckless and feckless who live on the never-never don't get to vote; or

(b) you get a number of votes equivalent to your IQ. It peeves me beyond belief that the Chav scums voice in democracy is equal to mine. It's a bloody disgrace.

Anonymous said...

Pompous Pete said...

What an arrogant Bas--rd.

Newmania said...

It peeves me beyond belief that the Chav scums voice in democracy is equal to mine. It's a bloody disgrace.

Not serious surely. It is simple to learn how to do IQ tests and the aquisition of further votes would .
On the other hand the system we have whereby political parties seek to gain power by offering the majority the chance to take the the minorities money from them is problematical.

I have feared that Gordon Brown will offer the Libs PR because when Scotland cedes he will have nothing to lose. It is a terrible thought and if he really does sacrifice our democracy because he cannot win it , direct action on the street will be justified.

I mean peaceful protest of course. PR is a dreadful systemn handing power entirely to a minority of the elite clustered around the centre. It dispenses with true democracy almost entirely . We know why the Liberal Party are in favour.

I do think myself that Local Coucils would benefit from having PR though.

( and I expect you can guess why I think that.. 14000 votes in the islignotn Locals and not a single Coucillor)

Scary Biscuits said...

When considering the PR argument it is worth remembering that a synonym of 'fair' is 'good'. But good for whom? The political class in general, who are protected from the wrath of the electorate by making it almost impossible to eject the elite? Or the Liberals and other even more minor parties, who would have powers, the casting vote, out of all proportion to their popular vote?

It should be remembered that the failure of democracies and the rise of fascism in Europe was directly caused by the frustration of electorates unable to remove politicians or to reform their countries by democratic means. Do we really want to copy such a system? Or would we rather our system where a hated individual, e.g. Michael Portillo, or a hated candidate, e.g. that woman in Wales, can be directly rejected? Surely this is much better, even for the politicans, than more violent methods of the people asserting their sovereignty?

Just in case you think this is a remote possibility, remember what Nazi is short for: National Socialism. And what parties are growing the most strongly today? The Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists, the Greens (hard line Socialists) and the and the UKIP (English Nationalists) and the British Nationalist Party?

Finally, I find it really depressing that talented Tory party members such as Iain have such loser opinions about the future. The Tory party is half-way towards, the winning margin it needs to form a Government on its own. The focus needs to be getting that other half, not planning what to do if we fail.

Paul Evans said...

Just in case you think this is a remote possibility, remember what Nazi is short for: National Socialism. And what parties are growing the most strongly today? The Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists, the Greens (hard line Socialists) and the and the UKIP (English Nationalists) and the British Nationalist Party?

This bit is incredibly silly.

The Constituent said...

Scary Biscuits:

The problem with the current system is exactly that the electorate can't eject the elite.

If the main parties are seen to be broadly similar by the electorate, there is no-one to vote for if you are even slightly outside the mainstram of opinion. Even the avowedly eurosceptic DC can't appeal to the UKIPers.

Newmania said...

Dynamite..I was just thinking that , but this bit is rather inspiring...

"The Tory party is half-way towards, the winning margin it needs to form a Government on its own. The focus needs to be getting that other half, not planning what to do if we fail."


Well done scary biscuits and congratulations Pompous Pete on the best name I`ve seen in ages.

Anonymous said...

Hate the idea of PR systems, too much chance of post-polling stitch-ups between groups too willing to jettison manifesto 'promises' i.e. the policies that got them their votes in the first place, to hhave the dubious distinction of holding a Ministerial post or two. (BTW - have the Dutch sorted out their new government yet? It's only been, what? 4 months since the election?)

Bit disappointed that yyou didn't link this item to the You-Guv poll in the Torygraph this morning.

Anonymous said...

What a pleasure it has been ,secure in the knowledge that these PMs have been good for the country ,sailor,the pipe smoker, thatcher ,the man in grey ,teflon and non have been corrupt whilst in power.

Anonymous said...

80% of our laws are made in Belgium anyway.

Any combination of Lib/Lab/Con should be unproblematic as all are agreed on high taxation, micro-state control, public-private rip-off/fraud, and final submergence into "Europe".

Richard Patient said...

Iain

What merit can you see in electing local councils by PR. Surely the real benefit of councillors is that they are true representatives of their local area. Cutting off that link would effectively abolish any proper local representation - even MPs will have smaller electorates than councillors elected by PR.

Anonymous said...

Richard said...


Wash your mouth out sir ,what happens at the top, happens lower down, usual thing golf partners etc

Anonymous said...

The prospect of PM Gordon Brown just freezes the blood. Look at what the people he trusts the most, like 'Red Dawn' Primarolo are up to:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23384290-details/The%20faceless%20council%20tax%20snoopers/article.doT


'The faceless council tax snoopers'
"The officials have powers to enter every home in the country.
The astonishing decision to protect the identities of 4,300 staff working for the Valuation Office Agency was revealed after Treasury minister Dawn Primarolo agreed to place copies of their departmental magazine in the House of Commons library.
When the magazine, which is produced in the guise of an imitation of big-selling commercial magazines, appeared for MPs, it had been crudely doctored.
Faces and names of staff had been blanked out, apparently with type correction fluid."

Anonymous said...

Iain

typo - first paragraph - OFF should be OFFER.

BFB

Anonymous said...

It's not perfect but let's have PR for the Commons and prevent any more elected dictaorships like the one we've had for the past ten years.

Remember New Labour have been ransacking the country and mired us in an unwanted war with a 66 seat majority gained by just 22% of the votes of the total electorate.

What's democratic about that?

Anonymous said...

Although, as a card-carrying LibDem, I am in favour of PR for the Commons, I would settle for an at least 80% PR-elected "Lords" with more power to block the Commons, such as requiring a 2/3 super-majority to override the will of the lower house.

However I've long believed that the only way to get true reform and good government in this country will be to require that all votes *within* Parliament be conducted by secret ballot. It'll never happen of course - no party would ever allow its lobby fodder such freedom from the Whips!

Paul Linford said...

There are two pretty major flaws in the Con-Lib coalition scenario. 1. Unlike Cameron, Brown could offer the LDs electoral reform. 2. The LDs are basically a left-of-centre party and although Clegg, Laws and Co wouldn't like it, a coalition with Brown would be much more amenable to most of them. Not for nothing is Ming Campbell known in some quarters as "Gordon Brown's Defence Secretary."

Anonymous said...

What merit can you see in electing local councils by PR. Surely the real benefit of councillors is that they are true representatives of their local area

Cr@p. I told mine we should abolish the Councillors and elect the Officials.

Frankly paying £12.000 pa to these feeble excuses for Councillors who simply defer to Officials is getting to be a joke.

Anonymous said...

Observer said...


Nice idea , but what about the councillors jollies they would miss them

Scary Biscuits said...

Roy: As a card carrying LibDem I am in favour of PR. Of course you are; it would give your vote disproportionate power over the rest of the electorate. Also, if MPs vote in secret, how do we know they're representing our interests and whether to vote for them next time?

The constituents 11:13: the problem with the current system is that it is difficult to eject the incumberants. This is no argument for PR, which would make it even more difficult.

Similarly, Anonymous 12:08: PR wouldn't get rid of our elected dictatorship style of government as that is a function of the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. In fact, it would probably make it worse as it would put another layer of bureaucracy (i.e. the party lists) between the voters and the nexus of power.

On my point about Nazis and national socialists in this country, I'm not suggesting that the SNP is about to go genocidal. What I am saying is that nationalism (not to be confused with patriotism) is poison to democracy. This is because people start voting for their own blood rather than for political ideas that transcend race and where they were born. So, for example, many people in Scotland vote SNP because they think Scotland is neglected by London (which is true) or because they think voting SNP is an act of patriotism, not because they share the SNP's hard left socialist politics. The trouble is that this gives SNP politicians lattitude to be more extreme than the people they represent, which is how Nazism got going. Voting Nazi was equivalent to voting for Germany and the policies and even the very idea of democracy got forgotten by the voters.

neil craig said...

I don't think the Lib Dems would be wise to prop up anybody without PR. In factf they don't get PR then what possible carrot can be dangled.

If Gordon Brown then goes for it the Tories will have nobody but themselves to blame.

If it comes down to it if the Lib Dems have to vote them both down a second election would be fought on whether PR is better than FTPT - on which the Tories & Labour would correctly be seen as corrupt & self serving opponents of democracy.

The electorate would have the choice of swinging against the LDs as the other 2 would demand in the interests of stability or increasing the vote for them in the interests of reform. I would welcome that choice. Probably UKIP would be pushing their people to vote Lib Dem on a one off.

Scary said
"the rise of fascism in Europe was directly caused by the frustration of electorates unable to remove politicians or to reform their countries by democratic means"

Precisely & did Iain not recently report on a speech saying that voting UKIP would not remove the politicians they don't like but merely keep the allegedly greater of the 2 evils in power.

I suspect the Newmania's masses taking to the streets in favour of FTPT would be heavily outnumbered.

Anonymous said...

Instead of elected officials , how about contracted officials , then put the all people on the electoral roll in charge of hire and fire ,with no politician's legaly allowed to stick their noses in.

Scary Biscuits said...

One other point worth noting for the supporters of PR is that proportional representation was exactly what France, Germany and Italy had before WWII. Given, this, I don't think therefore that PR can be used by anybody as a solution for the moderate disenfranchisement that we have in the UK at the moment.

Anonymous said...

I think all parties will have problems with the electorate over the EU , most people I speak to want us to bail out now.

Anonymous said...

In local elections, the benefits of PR and first past the post can be combined and retained. In local government, the standard currently is 3 seat wards elected by FTP. Why not keep this ward structure, ask people to vote for one candidate and one party. You then return one councillor per ward by FTP. ALL of the remaining HALF seats are allocated proportionate to the total number of votes cast for the candidates of each party. This would involve reducing the total number of councillors by one third. The money saved can either be given back to the taxpayer or used to provide decent admin support to enable to elected members to function more efficiently. Smaller numbers of elected members will mean there is less of a tendency to create committees and sub-committees for people to sit on just to keep them busy/ out of trouble _ this comes with attendant savings too. A smaller council and committes should also make it easier for each individual to participate meaningfully in debate _ it also addresses the fact that, in most areas, there just aren't enough interested people of the right calibre to fill the chamber.....

Anonymous said...

Scary:
The rise of fascism had nothing to do with PR.

The oldest Fascist states in Europe, if this were the result of PR, would be Denmark and Switzerland.

The Weimar Republic, by which Hitler was able to come to power legally, did not employ PR, but a FPTP system just like the UK has today.

Fascism arose as an 'answer' to the perceived failure of capitalism to deliver full employment and at the same time as a bulwark against the newly Communist Soviet Union. It was also driven by the existence of huge armies of former soldiers (the FreiKorps) who considered themselves betrayed by the politicians, and rampant inflation.

That's why a PR form of electoral system was chosen for the post WWII Bundesrepublk and has been mightly successful too. If the Germans can make it work, why can't we?

Anonymous said...

1:34 PM
There are lots of nice ideas flitting around but wont get anywhere ,its like pi--ing in the wind ,instead of helping to get these ideas on the go ,they would rather be in the trough

The Constituent said...

If the Germans can make it work, why can't we?

Especially as "we" wrote the German constitution after WW2. In fact the German consitution is a great work, shame we can't make similar improvements to ours!

andrewfalloon said...

I'm sure Iain will be quite aware of the electoral system in New Zealand but for those of you who aren't- we have a 120 MP Parliament elected by a Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP). For all its imperfections it still allows for local constituency MPs but also has a number of List MPs to ensure proportionality.

It came about largely because of some rather perverse election results in the late eighties, parties picking up 18 or 19% of the popular vote but only one or two seats nationwide.

Each voter has two votes, one for a party, and one for a person (ie the person they want as their local MP).

An example might be, a party wins two electorate seats (of the 69- these are FPTP) but takes 10% of the party vote. Those electoral seats are taken off their list allocation, and so they get 10 list seats and two electorate seats, totalling 12 (their proportional allocation of seats- 10% of 120).

In the 4 elections this system has been in place we have only had one "overhang" with the Maori Party taking more seats than their party vote provided for, meaning NZ currently has a 121 member Parliament.

Governments are formed by coalition, 96-99 was a collection of centre-right parties, and since then we have had a Labour-led Government, calling on the support of both left-wing parties and centrist parties for specific pieces of legislation. Labour has agreements with enough parties to ensure they survive a motion of no-confidence.

Wikipedia has a good summary of the 2005 election results-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_General_Election%2C_2005%2C_Full_Results

Apologies for the long post!!

David Lindsay said...

No wonder the Eurofanatical, anti-family, pro-crime, pro-drugs Lib Dems are so keen on a coalition led by the Eurofanatical, anti-family, pro-crime, pro-drugs David Cameron.

Anonymous said...

First past the post is a wonderful system; you can choose to vote for who you want in or, if you like, who you want to keep out; you can do constituency politicking and make your views felt on candidate selection ; you get a representative of the whole constituency as no matter which party wins you still have 'your' consituency MP. And even severely whipped MPs need to take notice of their constituency voters.

The Labour Party doesn't subscribe to any of this of course; it mandates it's representatives, serves only the interests of special groups, viciously controls constituency parties from the central politbureau and, when it gets into power, fiddles about with the institutions themselves to disadvantage other parties for when next a vote has to be faced.

But Labour are not a mass party like the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats; they are the political wing of the Trades Unions, Co-operative movement, and various rag, tag and bobtail leftish 20th century remnants like the Fabian Society.

So they warp and thwart a clear, simple, democratic system to the disadvantage of all.

Them all over.

Mr Osato said...

It's remarkable to see Conservatives casually prop up an electoral system that puts Labour on the cusp of power with barely a third of the votes. OK so the system used for European elections is a shambles and the proposal for the elected upper house are no better, but if you look at the Irish system you can surely see how proper PR actually strengthens the link between MP and constituency?

Anonymous said...

If PR was on offer, the Lib Dems would bite the Tory rosettes off wear them (and swallow them whole) to get it.

This is one of the policies I still strongly agree with them about.

UKIP - or should they be called the Independent party now? - are streets ahead of Conservatives and Lib Dems in this area with their proposal for the public be given the power to initiate Referendums in order to control our power mad political classes abuse of power.

Never previously been tempted by UKIP, but I am now.

Anonymous said...

As the election gets closer (will that be well after the arrests, or before the next arrests?) the electorate will become more polarised, as this happens Cameron being an astute opportunists will take a slight lurch to the right.
The hung parliament scenario can then be conveniently forgotten!

David Lindsay said...

"But Labour are not a mass party like the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats; they are the political wing of the Trades Unions, Co-operative movement, and various rag, tag and bobtail leftish 20th century remnants like the Fabian Society." So writes P2.

Well, there have never been that many people in the Fabian Society, and it is true that there are now very few indeed. But the rest (the unions, in particular) strike me as a great deal more "mass" than the Tories, who only have 450 active Associations, half of which now admit publicly to having fewer than one hundred members each.

Constituency Labour Parties are in much the same position, and such members as they still have also vary overwhelmingly from the old to the very old, just like the Tories. But the mass union, co-operative and municipal bases are still there in order to replace Labour when the time comes, i.e., in the very near future. Who or what will replace the Tories, and how? I just can't see the answer to that.

Cicero said...

Iain,

Next time we meet, I really would like you to explain why you oppose a free market in politics.

Just a thought, but maybe people are no longer participating in politics because it doesn't make a difference! The electoral system is not responding, and if the price of greater dynamism is that some people we dislike get elected, well- "the people have spoken... the bas*ards".

The Constituent said...

Single Transferable Vote looks thoroughly sensible - an element of PR and strong constituency links.

Might satisfy Conservatives and Liberals, not to mention the New Old Labour Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Anonymous said...

MMP sounds like a good compromise, what do you have against it Iain?
Is it the same in NZ as in Germany?

Anonymous said...

Dear Scary Biscuits

i think that make some very interesting points, and is that a Hob Nob in the picture?

Anonymous said...

Constituent: STV is pretty horrible. Its single merit is that it's easy to explain. Ranked Pairs is far superior (Google is your friend).

neil craig said...

As regards PR & fascism - when Mussolini came to power he did not make other parties illegal but went for a slightly more complicated idea. The largest party, no matter what size its vote, got 2/3rds of the seats. Thus satisfying the intrinsic fascist philosophical idea that strong government was better than the disunited & somewhat messy exchange of views under democracy.

The parallel with the de facto situation in Britain where, as anonymous pointed out, we have a government with a clear majority & the votes of 22% of the electorate, is clear.

Peter from Putney said...

The Great British Public has, to its credit, an uncanny knack of avoiding hung parliaments and I strongly suspect it will do so again in 2009 or 2010.
In effect this means thateither the Dour One will make a half decent fist of it and will consequently be returned or, more probably in my view, the economy will be reeling under this Government's continuing tax and waste policies and it will be thrown out big time.
Ignore what the polls are currently suggesting - the chances of these not changing marerially over the next 2 or 3 years are nil.
Neither Labour nor the Tories will concede a PR system to Ming & Co. - this would effectively give them a guaranteed handle on power for ever.

Anonymous said...

"It peeves me beyond belief that the Chav scums voice in democracy is equal to mine."

Indeed, Newmania. What kind of weighting do you think should be given to the votes of your particular type of scum compared to the chavs?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8.46

I thought chav was a style - I didn't realise it involved an IQ these days, let alone that my IQ was on the line. Pompous Pete " you get a number of votes equivalent to your IQ. It peeves me beyond belief that the Chav scums [sic] voice in democracy is equal to mine... ' must be some kind of throwback to Eysenck.

He'll be wanting £10 householders next.

Many, including 10.58, just want us all to vote Conservative, even us knuckle draggers; which is a very reasonable view to take if we don't want another umpteen years of gordo-statism.

David Lindsay said...

IQ is drivel, and I write as someone who has never sat an IQ test in his life. An IQ test doesn't measure knowledge, it just measures the wholly non-transferrable skill of sitting IQ tests, which of course increases the more such tests one sits. Give a child a book of them and watch this happen.

The whole concept of IQ depends on the highly questionable theory of "mental age", and the real intellectual capacity of those whose self-esteem is based on "having a high IQ" may be deduced from the publications of Mensa, which include such statements as "more people than you might think have higher than average IQ" (I'm guessing it's about half the population; am I warm?) and "one in 20 people is in the top five per cent" (you dont say!).