David Cameron’s thoughts about constitutional reform published in the Guardian this morning are a mixture. Some of them are good, such as giving MPs themselves more power over the composition of Select Committees. Some are good, but not exactly fresh, such as having local authorities take over public facilities like Post Offices in the public interest. A Conservative council, Essex, is already doing this, with the support of Labour ministers. Most ideas (as with the Constitutional Renewal Bill that Labour came up with) are inconsequential or gimmicky. It is ridiculous to talk of SMS text alerts on the progress of Bills, or parliamentary committees on YouTube, as being radical constitutional reform.
Cameron is most disappointing when he makes it clear that he intends to do nothing about the most basic method of making parliament accountable – the voting system. He trots out a number of tired clichés about ‘the man and woman in the street’ having power under the current system, and (yawn) ‘secret backroom deals’ under PR.
Whether ‘the man and woman in the street’ has power under the present system depends entirely on what street they live in. Two thirds of the country is effectively cut out of the national debate because they live in safe seats. Even people who are nominally candidates for these seats are encouraged – ordered, even, in the Conservative party – to work in neighbouring marginal seats. If the street you walk down is in Swindon, you have power, and – provided that the sophisticated marketing software the parties have tells them that you might be persuadable – Cameron and Brown are interested in you. If your street is in Sheffield, or rural Suffolk, forget it. One can easily guess where most of the burden of ‘austerity’ is going to fall, and it’s not going to be on those with political or economic power.
Safe seats make for a cosy life for the political elite. The current electoral system produces a lack of choice for voters; they have to accept the candidate their party provides them locally, or vote for a party they do not support. Barriers to entry in the political market place are kept high, and that is the way Cameron likes it – no challenges from cheeky upstarts like UKIP or the Greens to the big boys. Cameron seems to believe in monopoly provision not choice in this public service.
Cameron also fails to mention reforming the House of Lords. Many Conservatives, such as Ken Clarke and William Hague, have favoured an elected second chamber with no single party in control, making it an effective check on the government. Now Cameron seems to be saying nothing. Perhaps he is getting increasingly comfortable with the idea of a second chamber as a retirement home for members of the political classes, and less interested in challenges to executive power.
Cameron’s ‘reforms’ are clearly designed to do just enough to satisfy the current mood for change, while preserving the essentials of the current system so that they can enjoy the excessive power that can be bestowed by as few as 36% of those voting under this system. He promises only the most superficial re-spray of our dangerously decrepit political machine before he installs himself at the controls.
You don’t address Cameron’s claim that PR leads to backroom deals to form coalition governments. What are the counter-arguments to this? Is it a concern?
Ed, thanks for the question. I felt Cameron’s use of language in this was very lazy. There are some examples of ‘back room deals’ under every electoral system, including FPTP. But voters tend to punish parties that abandon previously strongly argued positions (as with Labour in 1992-97 in Ireland, and the NZ First party in 1996-99).
What tends to happen in real life PR experience is one of the following cases. In Scandinavia, you usually have two competing blocs of parties, which – it is clear before the election – intend to govern together. Voters can alter the complexion of a government: if, say, the Green vote goes up that will influence a Social Democrat government to be a bit more Green in its policies. Ireland seems to be moving to this sort of model.
In other cases, one or other main party (or alliance of parties) may have to negotiate for support with smaller parties. But these processes are often, as with the Lib-Lab deal in Scotland, fairly transparent – both parties have some firm commitments and some lower priorities, and the outcome is a written programme for government which implements most of the larger party’s manifesto, with some key policies drawn from the smaller party. Spanish politics has worked perfectly well on this model for years, without diluting what is a clear choice between two main governing parties.
Another option is, as is currently the case in Scotland, minority government, with a large party depending on support from different small parties on different issues.
There are sometimes smash-ups, as in Israel for instance. But there is a vast range of good practice out there. I prefer a kind of politics that does not seek to artificially heighten divisions, and allows new ideas to come through from smaller parties. Is the current system, where a party can get such huge power (and the arrogance that goes with it) on a small basis of popular support.
Some PR systems can even be engineered to give opportunities for single party rule. If FPTP supporters really believe that the largest party has a mandate, they should favour the Greek variant of PR instead, which gives a bonus to the winning party (the Italian system is somewhat similar). Alan Johnson’s favoured option of AV+ gives governments a majority when they really do have substantial public backing (like Labour in 1997 and 2001, and Conservatives in 1979, 1983, 1987) but not in more borderline cases (Labour 2005, Conservatives 1992).
I hope this is sufficient to rebut arguments like those made by Cameron et al.