Parliament: Hung, drawn and quartered
by Max Wind-Cowie
The news that the nationalist parties of Scotland and Wales have agreed on four areas of joint negotiation in the event of a hung Parliament should send a shiver down the electorate’s collective spine. It’s not that we can blame Plaid Cymru or the SNP for hoping to make the most of potential political disarray – it’s their job to promote their causes – but rather that we should be concerned about the political horse-trading that will ensue if none of the parties has a stable majority. We don’t need to look too far into the past to see what a damaging state of affairs a hung Parliament could lead to.
It was an exceptional situation when, in June 2008, the Government found itself dependent on the votes of the Democratic Unionist Party in order to secure its legislation on 42 day detention. The scale of the Labour rebellion that led to a party with just 9 seats holding the balance of power was incredibly unusual in British politics. But that controversial vote is a worrying premonition of the kind of dirty politics we can expect, day-in-day-out, if none of the parties secure overall victory. The DUP supported a Bill that was opposed by both opposition parties and a considerable number of Government MPs. They then boasted about how their support for the Bill had brought new Government investment to Northern Ireland while Lib Dems and Conservatives cried fowl. The legislative process was tarnished by the impression that smaller parties were able, effectively, to sell safe passage through the Commons for highly unpopular laws, all in exchange for spending on pet issues.
In a Parliament without a majority Government we can expect much more of these backroom deals. Of course, we all know that the Lib Dems will have a bigger role in a hung Parliament – and many believe that to be no bad thing. But we also need to remember that the smaller parties – from the DUP and Sin Fein to Plaid Cymru and Respect – would enjoy newfound power as the bigger parties scramble for every precious vote. The price that they attempt to extract in exchange for their support could be anything - from disproportionate investment in their power-bases (as the DUP was accused of) or the devolution of even more power to legislatures where they hold greater sway – either way, it will be hammered out away from public scrutiny in the negotiating offices of Westminster rather than the debating chamber of Parliament.
Some people, especially those on the progressive left (such as Anthony Barnett in last week’s New Statesman) seem to believe that a hung Parliament could be the answer to the ‘dirty Parliament’ of expenses and hubris that we’ve endured for the last five years. I admire their optimism but I’m worried that the reverse would be the case – a hung Parliament could well result in a politics that is even less transparent, and more reliant on discrete negotiation and vested interests. We’d all be the poorer for that but, in the end, it is the credibility of our much-beleaguered democratic process that has the most to lose. Parliament could end up not simply hung, but drawn and quartered too.
Aaron Peters
The reality is that in those countries that have witnessed the most prodigous rates of economic growth while retaining comparatively small levels of income inequality in the second half of the twentieth century consensus and coalition government has been an incredibly fluid and practicable means of government.
Japanese industrial strategy, one of the great success stories of twentieth century political economy, which tends to have a medium to long term horizon of 15-25 years is beyond the realms of bickering idealogues and is instead subject to a broad consensus that puts a coherent Japanese agenda in emerging technologies before the desire to engage in partisan one-upmanship.
The only comparable European country which has sought export-oriented dynamism and which has enjoyed pronounced growth in the second of the twentieth century allied with a comparatively small level of income inequality is Germany, a country which by the standards held by Mr. Wind-Cowie should be a disastrous exemplar of the political degeneracy of coalition governments and their underhand misdeeds. It holds however, as is empirically observable from the history books that the opposite is true.
While Britain with its penchant for 'strongly mandated' governments has ebbed to either statist or free-market zealotry in the course of plotting industrial strategy and seeking to create the better society since the early 1950's, Germany like Denmark, that other high-growth, low-inequality northern European state has embraced proportional representation (ironically it was the occupying British who demanded that post-war germany adopt an electoral system of AMS, which is a hybrid PR system) and are it seems as both body-politics and societies all the better for it.
The results speak for themselves. Those countries with FPTP and 'strong mandates', such as the UK and the US lack coherent long-term thinking on how to facilitate the growth of emerging technologies - exactly what we need right now within the context of climate change and the recession and the evident need to get an economy geared to manufacture and export of those things the world will want and need over the coming decades; renewable energy, hydrponic farming technology, nanotechnology, indeed in these areas the 'Anglo-Saxons' possess industrial strategies that are positively second-rate compared to Denmark, Germany, South Korea, all countries with semi-proportional electoral systems and all countries that have historically thrived under coalition government.
The evidence would seem that such coherent, logical thinking is only possible beyond partisanry and 'mandates for change' and is in fact greatly facilited by cooperation as opposed to competition between the major parties.
Hung, drawn and quartered? When it comes to our elected representatives government I disincline from partisanry and an ideologically driven approach to future economic growth. Trust the wisdom of crowds Mr.Wind-Cowie.
Max Wind-Cowie
Penelope and Aaron, thank you for your comments. I think my point may have been a little misinterpreted here - I do not have a problem with coalition government as a rule but I do have concerns about minority government. Considering that the Lib Dems have effectively ruled themselves out of coalition the prospect of a hung Parliament brings with it the prospect of minority government and the associated Bill-by-Bill wrangling that leads to deals being done behind closed doors. The example I gave (of the detention order legislation) highlights the potential problems - for transparency and fairness - that such a situation may create.
Penelope Young
I lived in New Zealand for many years and was there when it moved from 'first past the post' voting system to PR. Similar fears to those of Mr Wind-Cowie were expressed at the time but I think, overall, a number of parties being able to influence policy is a benefit.
PR or a 'hung' parliament will slow down new policy decisions and that can be a good thing. In NZ, the added influence from the Maori and Green parties has meant that consensus legislation has been considered from a more long-term perspective, rather than rushed through on a majority vote because the party of the day wants to placate its party voters in the short term before the next election.
It's also more logical to me to have a more representative policy decision agreed. The majority party inevitably only owns a minority of the sum total of all votes. Therefore how can the party which creeps in with the majority of votes on the day truly represent all the people who have taken the trouble to vote?
Of course the success of a hung parliament will depend on good leadership. If it's David Cameron, will he have the mettle, and at the same time the ability to listen to another viewpoint, to lead good consensual policy making?
Penelope Young (www.magnificentageing.com)