We're in election year, and the lack of excitement is already telling. If neither Labour or the Conservatives up their game the sense of relief when we reach May will be real. Except, that is, for the fact that we may not got a stable government as a result.
There has been talk of Grand Coalitions between Labour and Conservatives to keep out UKIP, or other minority parties.
The idea that there will be a second election is often mooted, although the Fixed Term Parliament Act appears to make the prospect of that remote.
Minority government is a possibility - and happened, of course, in the late 70s, which some of us recall.
Coalition prospects are the subject of all sorts of speculation.
And yet what is not discussed is the possibility that this might give rise to change in the electoral system. I have yet to see anyone say that the Commons might just vote to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Or that serious proposals for electoral reform might emerge if first past the post finally reveals all its inherent weaknesses. And it is widely assumed that the country will accept, without any form of protest or consequence the failure of the political class to deliver government in a form that reflects the will of the people.
For reasons that baffle me it seems to be simply assumed that this is a game that will only be played out at Westminster. And that baffles me. History makes clear that people want democracy and they like leadership and they want government - even when they are not that keen on who is in it. The chance that people will be happy with perpetual coalition from a voting system not designed to support it and so delivering unrepresentative membership of such alliances seems to me to be remote.
The possibility that a failure to deliver a recognisably representative government in 2015 that seeks to exist within a constitutional bodge of fixed term parliaments that is wholly unsuited to the needs of this country will be accepted without enormous demand for change that will have serious ramifications for politics in this country that may well involve rejection of the two main political parties for having failed to meet public need seems very high to me.
I'm not sure that 2015 will just produce a period of uncertain government in this country. I think 2015 may be the last gasp of a system that is failing and could herald major change. Whether I will like the outcome or not is not the issue: the vacuum the existing system may create will demand change and if that happens the unpredictability of whether or not we're in the EU may seem like small change for a while. We may (and I stress the may) be in for a period of very radical political change in the UK, and the assumption that this could not happen, which appears widespread and is based on the idea of a supine populace, appears to me to be misplaced. If Scotland proved anything it suggested people can, when the need arises, still be motivated by the political process, but only when change is in the offing,
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
FPTP worked pretty well in the two party system that existed in the past.
Now with 4 significant parties competing in England, 5 in Scotland, the possibility of serious distrortions arises. A party can win a seat in England with less than 25% of the vote. A party that managed that in half the constituencies could have a majority in the house – crazy, especially if that party were nutters.
Agreed
Richard, it is ever more apparent that New Labour’s historic 1997 victory – at 176, larger even than Atlee’s in 1945 – did not, as it so easily could have, turn itself to truly radical reform, u like the 1945 Labour Government, but, being in thrall to Thatcherism, satisfied itself with installing “Thatcherism with a human face” – essentially an impossibility.
With a majority of 176, Tony Blair could EASILY have won referendums to bring in real PR, and real reform of that feudal excrescence, the House of Lords, which, despite the undoubted quality of many of its members, and despite the useful expertise and detachment that, at its best, it is able to bring to the task of legiation, has declined under Cameron – who has stuffed it with countless Tory donors and lobbyists of VERY dubious worth.
TB flunked this ESSENTIAL task; Ed M has already opted for an elected Senate of no morecthan 300. I believe he will also bring in PR, if Labour wins the General Election, so encompassing reforms even Clem Atlee baulked at, though considered, because in 1945 they were premature, or at least hard to accomplish. Now people chave seen just how appallingly our “unwritten Constitution” actually operates, I believe they will now willingly opt for change.
I hope you are right Andrew
Well, on this occasion I will try to share you optimism Richard.
Although I disagree with you about many things I agree completely with this. I would add to your account the way that our main political parties have lost contact with both any kind of coherent ideology and the interests and views of substantial blocks of voters. Instead they are now organised career vehicles for professional political office seekers who share two beliefs – really smart people should be in charge and we are really smart people. This professional managerialist approach is all but universal now among the political class. The Labour party hasn’t been a social democratic working class party since about 1990 and the Conservative party hasn’t been a proper conservative party since about 1980 (as opposed to one that supports private sector managerialism as opposed to public sector managerialism). I think we are probably about to enter a decade of political upheaval and realignment. This has happened before of course, in the 1920s, 1880s, 1840s, 1800s, 1755-65 and 1723-29. Happened in 1974 to 1983 as well but that time the party structure survived so the realignment took place within the parties, producing the situation we now have.
I think your point that we have done this before is important: we have indeed
Renewal is needed every now and again
The essential problem that underlies this is that we vote not for a government but for a member of the legislature.
It’s time we moved to a system where the Executive was separated from the Legislature. This would strengthen the House of Commons because all members would, in effect, be backbenchers and able to rebel without necessarily bringing down the government.
We could get rid of the House of Lords at the same time and have an elected upper house. Easy peasy.
That requires an elected head of state, of course
Which I would support
Couldn’t agree more.
What is the point of two elected houses? A revising chamber requires experts and these cannot be elected in the ordinary way. Elections would be largely beauty contests. What about drawing experts from all fields for fixed terms? These could be appointed from their official bodies, or possibly elected internally. The elected chamber should have absolutely no say in this but they would have the right to reject what the ‘experts’ have to say.
The radical political change you describe has been well under way in Scotland and for, broadly, the reasons of lack of representation which you describe. The Tories were removed years ago and Labour is likely to follow in 4 months, creating a totally changed political landscape. The unionist parties line is that people want the Scottish Government to deal with bread and butter issues and stop wasting time on the constitution, but the public have made it pretty clear that, whether independence or devolution, they think the constitution and the electoral system are priorities and they want change. The UK is incapable even of accommodating a representative Leaders TV debate, when the rest of Europe manage to fill 8 or 9 chairs at their election debates. The assumption that similar change to Scotland will not play out in the rest of the UK is, as you say, baffling. It will be too late to save the Union though.
What form of PR do you favour, Richard?
If it does come in, I suspect that minority parties will benefit not only from the explicit effect of votes transferring into seats but also the implicit effect that it is no longer possible to call a vote a ‘wasted’ vote just becase it goes to a minority party.
I also suspect that coalitions will become the norm. There hasn’t been an election where one party got 50%+ of the vote since 1929.
STV
Single or multiple candidate constituencies?
Multiple or does not work, in my opinion
Just read this on KPMG’s “Global Healthcare” web page:
“Healthcare systems around world are facing unprecedented change. While healthcare is primarily organized within national geographies, the issues are truly global. Demographics, fiscal restraint, new technologies and consumer expectations are creating significant challenges and opportunities.
In these unprecedented times, healthcare leaders require insight and guidance from an adviser you can trust. That is why leading organizations turn to KPMG.”
Why do i feel frightened!?
Oops! Put the above on the wrong blog! Sorry!
Because you should be