This is my latest column on Forbes.com, published last night:
The UK goes to the polls on Thursday after one of the most fascinating election campaigns of recent times.
Opinion polls suggest that no party is likely to secure an overall majority in the next parliament. This has not happened in an election since the first general election of 1974 and we have not had a minority government since the late 1970s. For many voters this is, therefore, virtually unknown territory.
The opinion polls may be wrong of course, but they also reveal something potentially much more significant. There is a very strong possibility that no more than 60% of all votes cast today will be for our two main parties — the Conservatives and Labour. Between them, these two have formed every UK government since 1923.
The change in voting patterns is not new. Our third political party — the Liberal Democrats - have seen their share of the vote rise steadily over many years, from a low of less than 5% immediately after World War II to 22% in 2005, and are forecast to pick up more than 25% this time round. This is partly because of the totally unforeseen effectiveness of their leader, Nick Clegg in the televised leadership debates held for the first time ever in the UK during this year’s campaign.
For the curious that still leaves well over 10% of unaccounted votes. These are attributable to small parties, including nationalists in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, protestant Unionists, also in Northern Ireland and two other parties that might, just possibly gain their first-ever MPs this time. They are the Greens and the far right, and overtly racist, British National Party.
All of which presents two problems. The first is that we have almost no experience in the UK of the horse trading required to form a coalition government, but there is every likelihood that, if the pun can be excused, this will have to be learned on the hoof starting Friday morning.
No one is sure what will happen, except that if the opinion polls are anything like accurate and the vote is distributed as pollsters expect then it is possible that the Labour and Conservative parties might have remarkably similar numbers of seats on Friday but be some way short of a majority in the House of Commons, even though the Conservatives will almost certainly have won the largest share of the popular vote.
In contrast, the Liberal Democrats, despite their popularity, are predicted to pick up the largest proportion of second places, and that means they will hold the balance of power with many fewer seats than either other party — and be king makers even if they decline to become part of a coalition with the other parties. It's a scenario some think likely because the Liberal Democrats' MPs are very split between those who look broadly left and broadly right.
That leaves the UK facing a potentially new form of government, which opinion polls also show is exactly what the majority of the electorate want.
There is something else that the UK will face, and that is a demand for change. The Liberal Democrats, for the very obvious reason that it would suit them, have long demanded proportional representation for the UK. The Labour party are recent converts to the idea, partly because they risk of losing political office. All minority parties favour it.
One party stands out against the rest. That is the Conservatives. They are demanding a reduction in the number of elected Members of Parliament, supposedly to save cost. Actually, and with little apparent disguise, they would in the process seek to redraw all constituency boundaries to ensure that they had what they think will be a built-in and almost perpetual majority in Parliament thereafter, even on their current proportion of the poll.
The economy is important; dealing with the deficit is important; deciding who will be the next prime minister of the UK is important but no one should ignore this over-riding issue of the future direction of the UK’s electoral system and the nature of its democracy. If by some chance the Conservatives win a majority, however small tomorrow, they could undertake a revolution in the UK as big as any former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher achieved by delivering themselves a parliamentary majority for a generation to come on a share of the vote that will leave the vast majority in the UK disenfranchised in perpetuity.
And therein lies their risk. Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England has already said that whoever wins election will have to impose cuts in public services and put in place tax rises so draconian that they will not be re-elected for a generation. If the Conservatives seek to change the electoral system and King’s scenario comes to pass anyway then the retribution of the combined opposition parties on the Conservatives if they ever won power again would be very harsh.
So the UK could be hung after all — and not just at this election but for a long time to come.
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:
“Actually, and with little apparent disguise, they would in the process seek to redraw all constituency boundaries to ensure that they had what they think will be a built-in and almost perpetual majority in Parliament thereafter, even on their current proportion of the poll.”
Richard,
Labour had a huge majority in 2005 as a result of winning 35.3% of the vote. They have had 13 years of power, during which time they have massively rigged the system in their favour.
Would you not accept that boundaries need to redrawn to correct the massive undemocratice advatange that Labour currently enjoys?
It seems to me that if the Tories get a majority on a vote of more than 35.3% of the vote, those of you who have supported Labour and have taken funding from the unions have a moral duty to accept it.
Only the LibDems have any moral authority to complain about the electoral system. Labour have abused it terribly for their own narrow advantage.
MF
I think it wholly unreasonable that we maintain our existing electoral system
Labout should not have done so
The Tories should not
We can’t have 40% permanently disenfranchised and call it democracy
Remember, I am not a member of the Labour Party
And I have voted Lib Dem
Although I might regret it
“We can’t have 40% permanently disenfranchised and call it democracy”
If the Liberals and Labour form a permanent coalition then you would also have 40% of the electorate permanently disenfranchised.
There are numerous instances of parties with 5%-10% of the vote holding the balance of power in Parliaments around the world. That to me is far more undemocratic than a party which has received more votes than anyone else governing the country with a majority.
And that last point is the most important: FPTP, for all its demerits, does at least have one very good advantage – the party with the most votes is allowed to form a government.
@Peter
There is no reason why electoral reform would give that result
Indeed, I think all major political parties would split if there were such a system
Which may also be no bad thing