« Tactical voting: myths and reality | Main | Meanwhile... »
September 18, 2006
The problems of a hung parliament
An interesting and insightful piece from Martin Kettle. Choice quotes below for those too lazy to read it all.
And the pro-Labour bias in the electoral system still means that, on some calculations, David Cameron will need an 11-point lead in votes to secure an overall majority of one. So those seven-, eight- and nine-point Tory leads that most polls have been showing recently point to a hung parliament rather than a Tory majority.
There is an intellectually lazy and culturally smug assumption in parts of liberal-left Britain that a hung parliament would be all it takes to shock post-Blair Labour into making a deal on electoral reform with the Liberal Democrats, and that the two parties would then live happily together ever after - just as God and Herbert Gladstone intended in 1906. Guardian-reader heaven, maybe. But dream on. Because it ain't going to be like that.
Most Labour MPs oppose electoral reform on the turkeys-not-voting-for-Christmas principle, while a hard core of diehard opponents would do everything they could to prevent it. Much the same goes for the Tories, with the added factor that Cameron pledged, during last year's leadership contest, to maintain the current electoral system against all challenges. Even the Liberal Democrats, though they have most to gain, cannot deliver either. One half of the party would oppose a deal with Labour. The other half would fight against one with the Tories. In any case, a deal would not be on offer but, even if it were, it would split the party.
The reality of a hung parliament would be very different from the fantasy version. The reality is that a hung parliament would produce a minority government, not a coalition. Only four questions about this are worth speculating on. The first is whether the minority government will be a Labour or a Tory one. The second is how long it will last. The third is whether its leader will be able to call a second general election when he is defeated, or even when he chooses.
The fourth, however, is whether such a government will be able to do anything decisive. Here, all precedent - and there is more of it in our 20th-century history than some suppose - is that it will not. Maybe that will appeal to those who have had their fill of strong governments for a while. But it will be a new twilight not a new dawn. The deals, whipping and late-night parliamentary dramas that go with minority governments will not restore trust in politics. I started by wondering how Clare Short intends to campaign for a hung parliament. I end by wondering why.
Posted by pauldavies on September 18, 2006
Comments
Whilst I agree with the basic thrust of this analysis, I do not share the rather gloomy forecast concerning the (un)likelihood of a hung parliament advancing the electoral reform bandwagon.
Martin Kettle is absolutely correct to point out the seminal impact flowing from the identity of the party winning the largest number of seats in a hung parliament scenario.
If it's the Tories, I am sure that Cameron will try to tough it out and go back to the electorate with a "back me or sack me" style of campaign platform.
If Labour still manage to prevail and come out as the largest single bloc of seats, then the attitude will be much more about "doing a deal". Here of course Ming Campbell's leadership credentials and ability to sell the deal personally to the Lib-Dem membership will be under scrutiny.
Cabinet seats and some semblance of power/influence at the top table of British Politics is unlikely to "cut it" for the majority of Lib Dem voters; they will (like me) require an unequivocal timetable/commitment toward a referendum on electoral reform to acquiesce in any power sharing arrangement with Labour.
However, even if the scenario forecast by Martin Kettle proves to be more accurate with both Labour and the Conservatives both "playing hardball", one thing is certain.
The period of political/constitutional uncertainty resulting from a hung parliament will provide a once in a lifetime window of opportunity for all electoral reform/democratic renewal campaigners to expose the visceral obduracy of our mainstream political masters and their apparent addiction to the daily "fix of power".
As many before have more eloquently espoused "Democracy is far too precious a commodity to be left in the hands of elected politicians" - a hung parliament will clearly demonstrate why the electorate needs to get off its collective a**e and demand tangible and irrevocable reform if they are to force the mainstream political parties to accept this eventuality.
Posted by: Peter Davidson at September 18, 2006 03:13 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
