There will be no winner in this year's general election. We all know that. Every political party barring the Labour and Conservative parties know, of course, that they will not. And in truth neither of those parties think they can win either, but just won't admit it. That, though, is their problem and not ours. In that case we are entitled to imagine what will happen come May 8th.
The Guardian provides some insight into how the likely arithmetic of this works:
If anything like this forecast happens then it's not just that no party will win; it's the case that no two parties can win. And that really does take us into territory where we have never been before.
So I want to out forward an idea that's just a little counter cultural to those used to two or three party politics and the ‘Westminster system' of whipping MPs to toe lines so that rarely, if ever, does an MP ever have much influence with their vote. And of the outcomes the Guardian notes possible fundamentally changes that and I want to suggest the possibility that it is possible (I stress possible, but definitely not certain) that this might be quite a good thing. The reason for saying so is the potentially contentious possibility that in such a situation democracy might flourish.
Suddenly what different parties and MPs think on an issue will matter.
So too will debate. People will be open to persuasion. That might be especially true if there is no formal coalition and who governs will be the party with the best chance of delivering a Queen's Speech, which based on the arithmetic on offer cannot be guaranteed to be the Conservatives even though if they have the most seats they have the first chance of trying, which is an option which might also be open to a Conservative / Liberal coalition as incumbents (but not, as far as I can see, to the Conservatives alone in that situation).
But suppose they cannot win support for a Queen's Speech?
And suppose Labour can?
First, a party which is not the largest in parliament could govern. And it would do so only because it could win the argument for its policies not just with those who supported it, but those who did not.
The point is, that this does at least look possible and takes us into territory the Coalition never went, and that would be a good thing. Because the Conservatives and Lib Dems agreed a programme that was after two years very obviously bankrupt or time expired and has since then wasted a massive opportunity to do good by doing, at best, nothing at all and at worst some harm. That, as a process, was a failure. No one can agree a legislative programme for five years in a few days.
In that case so called confidence and supply agreements that keep one or more parties in continual negotiation with a minority government might just be what we need. Debate will remain fresh. Options will remain open. Negotiation on best outcomes will have to take place across parliament. And, hopefully, best arguments for best policies might win.
You might accuse me of being hopelessly optimistic, and I would have to agree that such a possibility exists. But then, look at where we are and candidly look at where we have been. Something has to be better than what we have had for some time past. It's just possible that against all the odds this election might deliver what we need right now. That might sound bizarre, but it has, at least to be possible. I will live in hope.
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:
In any situation, as now, that neither of the large parties can/will win, increases the risk of a con/lab “coalition” government. That would spell the end of democracy. Even if many members, of both parties, deserted in disgust. We already know that it is being discussed.
This would be a disaster, as I have already discussed on this blog
And one with massive potential ramifications
Thank you Richard for this.
You have put succinctly why voting for the candidate who most mirrors your values is so so important, and why voting for Independent candidates is not a waste of time. I’ll be sharing this.
I’ll predict here and now that there will be a handful of Independents who win on 7th May. There are some making serious inroads up and down the country. The polls may not register them but the bookmakers do. Sometimes the bookmakers are the ones worth paying attention to!
Good luck!
What are your odds?
As Thatcherism has brought the major parties more closely together, I think that this was inevitable. Basically I feel that although there are plenty of people out there who think traditionally about political issues, an enormous amount of people are wanting to see change. Politics as it is now does not really work for everyone which is a shame.
For example, the way in which certain voter groups are openly courted by politicians (think of the elderly) has made many younger people ( who have yet to build their lives) feel alienated.
I hope to see a Labour party working hand in hand with other more progressive parties winnning the next election.
My odds are 100/1, the same as Greens and Labour in a supposed two horse race between ConDems.
BUT, I know of Independents in East Devon, Taunton Deane and Richmond Yorks whose odds have tumbled in recent months to 6/1, 25/1 and 16/1. Not enough to win tomorrow but the direction of travel is startling. Two of those are now in second place.
What some are finding is that in Tory/Lib Dem contests there is now a massive floating vote looking for a home.
Peston’s documentary on France was the usual mishmash of interesting anecdotes and quotes presented without any sort of structure. But towards the end, Marine Le Pen made the interesting point that the major political distinction is no longer between left or right, there are those in favour of globalisation and those against it. It certainly seemed that as far as worker’s rights were concerned she was closer to the unions than she was to either of the major parties in France. It was also striking to hear people using the word “protectionism” in a positive way, and indeed indicating a duty exists to protect national workers against global forces.
Good point- the anti globalisation/free trade camp unites aspects of right and left-historically, I imagine the last 35 years will be seen as a successful project to undermine Labour in favour of capital by using the smoke-screen of bogus internationalism and the ‘wealth sreading’ myth. Le Penn (for whom I have little sympathy) has expressed support for Syriza who, in turn, have a rightist group as partners of their coalition-I see this as symptom of the left’s abject failure in the face of globalisation.
Given that one of the outcomes of globalisation is the creation of jobs in poorer countries at the expense of those very same jobs in richer countries I’d heartily agree with protectionism at this moment in time.
Hear hear.
We are also going to have to re-think out attitude to the EU, which can increasingly be viewed as another neo-liberal tool.
Yes of course we on the left must be internationally-minded and open to all peoples and cultures. But this must not come at the expense of our own workers,
The jobs that have moved to poorer countries have enriched the 1% for sure, and provided us with cheaper material goods. But at what cost to our souls? People have too many things, which is a threat to Gaia, and too much choice, choice that can be intimidating and stressful for ordinary people (which is why the NHS must remain as it is).
I’ve been inspired by the SNP: the time is right for a mix of nationalism and socialism, promoting the needs of all under a benign government working for all our people.
I’m sure Mr Murply can organise the Treasury as well as presenting Top Gear (lol)
What is very likely is that a record number of people will not be voting for the Government or main opposition party. No Govts. this side of WW2 have ever had a majority of votes but they have usually produced a result on a swing to the party which gained most seats. So many look like they will vote Green or UKIP or Lib Dem, (possibly in greater numbers than will vote SNP who are forecast a lot of seats). The number of people voting for parties which get little or no representation could as high as 30%. This undermines the mandate of whichever party emerges as the government. The present system of voting is not fit for purpose any more, even though many will vote to keep out a party, rather than for one they believe in.
I agree we need a new voting system
STV for me, please
Been living in Finland for eight years. Coalition is a fact of life. Proportional representation. Has led to serious impasse recently due to failure to agree a clear way forward. Politics does feel more civil, argued, debated and the multi party ecosystem does even out extremes, as does being 1/12th the size of the UK! MPs are referred to as law makers and as Finland as a sovereign nation will only be 100 years old in 2017 they are still writing the constitution. I would agree that the UK should benefit from the end of the left or right landslide victory but atomisation and fragmentation are here to stay. Clear principled policies from a courageous state of whatever spectrum of colours are the only ways to tackle the many challenges ahead. They may be seen more as ‘green’ or ‘protectionist’ than ‘left’ or ‘right’……
Interesting
Thanks