In politics, ‘England does not love coalitions.’
So said Benjamin Disraeli, who represents the sentiments of the contemporary Conservative party to indications that the upcoming general election will result in a hung Parliament—a neologism for a minority government.
Yet what was true when uttered in the mid-nineteenth century may not be true in the early decades of the twenty-first. Various opinion surveys reveal that coalition government is just what the people want, even if they aren’t entirely certain what lurks behind the appealing packaging.
Coalition governments—apart from the unity Ministries that coalesce around a single issue in periods of great national distress, such as world war or economic collapse—are the by-products when no one party in the House of Commons can command a majority of MPs. Yet formal coalitions are not the inexorable outcome.
It is equally possible that, to use a potential scenario, the Conservative party will enjoy the greatest plurality of seats without the necessary majority to form an undisputed Government. In this instance, the Liberal Democrats may choose to support David Cameron, without necessarily joining his Cabinet and assuming a share in office.
Co-operation between the two parties can be readily predicted in addressing the budgetary deficit and in decentralising power and returning this autonomy to the people—although the exact prescription for action will doubtless differ.
Yet, in other important national affairs—be it defence, immigration, electoral reform, or the question of integration within the European Union and membership in the euro—the objectives of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are implacably opposed, and it is likely that any agreement, were it possible, would adhere to the principles of neither party nor coincide with the wishes of their respective constituencies.
In his own time, Disraeli observed that ‘these are the vast questions of permanent interest which will occupy at intervals the mind of the nation, and on which they will receive no solution or guidance from a Cabinet consisting of members who are diametrically at variance on all these important heads.’
In our time, George Osborne has called it ‘a vote for politics behind closed doors; indecision and weak government; a paralysed economy; yet another election; and very possibly, waking up on the 7th of May to find out that Gordon Brown is still in Downing Street.’ A briefing sheet and a humorous ‘Hung Parliament Party’ video buttress the Conservative criticism.
It is well to remember, too, that the crux of the argument against a coalition government echoes the argument against proportional representation. A coalition—either in fact or in spirit—that effaced adherence to political principle and electoral mandate, is an excuse for and example of proportional representation. PR undermines fairness and accountability, as Conservative peer and political scientist Lord Philip Norton outlined for Lords of the Blog and argued in a Speakers’ Corner Trust debate. First-past-the-post may have its flaws (principally with respect to pluralities), but as Lord Norton summed up, ‘A new electoral system is not so much a solution as a dangerous distraction.’
Were a Conservative government to be concocted by coalition with the Liberal Democrats along fudged lines and naked opportunism, then the Tory case against PR is severely weakened—‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ Fortunately, Cameron has been firm:
…there is one group of people who would love a hung Parliament. And that’s the politicians. They could sit in Westminster, they can haggle, I’ll have this job, you have that office, bit of pet spending on my project over here, bit of pet spending on your policy over there. The politicians would adore it…
Now would a hung Parliament be progress here? A bunch of politicians sitting around working out how they can change the electoral system so you the people will never have the chance to decisively throw a Government out of office again. That’s not change. The change we need is to put people in charge.
And, according to Monday’s Daily Telegraph, ‘Even if he fails to secure an outright majority, it is understood Mr Cameron is preparing to “go it alone” and form a minority government.’
If there be slight probability of ever establishing in this country a more democratic government that the English constitution [wrote Disraeli], it will be as well, I conceive, for those who love their rights to maintain that constitution; and if the recent measures … however plausible their first aspect, have, in fact, been a departure from the democratic character of that constitution, it will be as well for the English nation to oppose, with all their heart, and all their soul, and all their strength, the machinations…
So, while a hung Parliament is the creature of chance and circumstance at the ballot-box, coalition government is the offspring of conscious choice in the corridors of power. Whether this choice is conducive to the public welfare, is ultimately decided at the subsequent election unless, through proportional representation, coalition governments become the norm.
Then will the seat of power shift, from the people to the politicians.
Stephen MacLean’s research website is focused on Organic Toryism
Related posts:
Proportional representation does not shift power from people to politicians. On the contrary, pr gives voters the power to hold politicians and political parties accountable, by giving every voter a vote that actually makes a difference.
We recognize that monopoly is a bad thing in business. Why would we think it is a good thing in politics? A “hung” parliament is simply one in which the Government is accountable to Parliament. As it should be.
Proportional voting and minority/coalition government are the normal way of doing things in most developed countries, and have been for most of the last century.