PDA

View Full Version : Is proportional representation and coalition governments really better?



SwordoftheVistula
05-15-2010, 06:43 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/7713512/Coalition-Government-can-they-make-it-work.html

Shortly after 4pm yesterday, a holdall could be seen at the rear of 10 Downing Street, prompting a flurry of speculation that the brutal transfer of power that epitomises the British electoral system was under way at last. It turned out to belong to a police officer; but in the frenetic, round-the-clock news coverage of the most turbulent period in recent British politics, anything and everything was seen as significant.

As the comings and goings continued around Westminster, one thing was clear: five days after losing the general election last Thursday, Gordon Brown's desperate rearguard effort to stay in power was drawing to a close. By 7.30pm, he was gone – and Britain was heading for its first peacetime coalition government since the 1930s.

The big question now is: how long can it last? There were plenty of reassuring noises from Tory and Lib Dem leaders last night that this was a pact for a parliament, and not just a patched-up piece of political jerry-building necessitated by an unsatisfactory election outcome. But it gets off to the worst possible start. More than anything, such a coalition needs to be built on trust; yet after the shenanigans of the past few days and the serial infidelity of the Liberal Democrats, the new government will be riven with mutual suspicion.

Had the deal been signed and sealed at the weekend, or by Monday at the latest, its credibility would have been assured. But it became clear that Nick Clegg could not deliver his party without first playing footsie with the discredited and defeated Labour leader still brooding inside Number 10. That might have been a political imperative for Mr Clegg – but it has infuriated many Tories, made David Cameron's position difficult and will confirm a widely held view among many Conservative backbenchers that the Liberal Democrats are just too flaky and too tribal to be reliable partners. And there is always the prospect that some Lib Dems will refuse to take part and will sit in Parliament as independent Liberals.

There had been speculation that the deal would involve a so-called confidence and supply arrangement, whereby the support for the Queen's Speech and a Budget are guaranteed but all bets are off where other legislation is concerned. In the end, the two parties have gone for a formal coalition, the likes of which have not been seen in peacetime since the formation of the National Government 80 years ago. The nearest equivalent is the Lib-Lab pact of 1977-1978. This was engineered by James Callaghan, then prime minister, and the Liberal leader David Steel when Labour lost its overall majority after having scraped a win at the previous general election by three seats. Steel agreed to keep the Labour show on the road in exchange for what turned out to be not very much at all.

The Liberals, then as now, wanted to get some voting reform out of the deal and the Government agreed to try to get PR introduced for European elections, but the legislation was defeated. Gradually, it became apparent to the Liberals that they were getting nothing from the arrangement and Steel ended the pact in 1978 because it had "achieved its main objective of providing political stability". It caused a deep split in the Liberal Party that has never healed to this day.

However, the pact also gave the Liberals a taste of what it is like to be in government. They wanted to show that a bi-party coalition, or something like it, could work in Britain. After all, this is now the big prize for the Lib Dems: if they really want to demonstrate that they are more than just a protest movement and can sell electoral reform to a sceptical nation – which might eventually be asked in a referendum whether it wants it or not – then they must show that a coalition does not produce instability and drift. If we did have proportional representation, then the horse-trading we have seen (or not seen, since it was successfully kept away from prying eyes) over the past five days will become the norm after every election. Instead of a clear cut result, followed by a government introducing the manifesto on which it was elected, deals would be done in corners; cherished policies would be jettisoned and those that were relentlessly denounced during the campaign adopted.

Lord Norton, one of the country's foremost constitutional experts, said: "A hung parliament is not a 'people's parliament', it is the opposite: it is a politician's parliament. Policy is the result of post-election bargaining. The people do not get a look in. Compromises are reached which may bear no relationship to what electors want, which were never placed before them, and which they may have no opportunity to pass judgment on at the next election if parties stand as independent entities: there is no one body to call to account."

The first hurdle for the new government to overcome is the Queen's Speech. The deal with the Lib Dems will ensure this is passed, though it will be a minimalist programme shorn of anything that would frighten the horses on either side of the divide.

In a stable coalition, legislation will often pass through parliament relatively easily because the deal will deliver majorities in both Houses of Parliament – reducing the prospect for delays through late-night voting or, especially, in the Lords. Sooner or later, however, the Tories will want to press ahead with major reforms promised in their manifesto, which the Lib Dems may not want to back. If the coalition falls, David Cameron can either limp on as a minority or, more likely, ask the Queen for a dissolution and call another election at which the Conservatives would hope to secure an outright majority.

If the last few days have been unsettling – though mercifully rare – this situation would occur after every election under proportional representation, as party brokers took up their positions around the bargaining table. Coalition politics have consequences, too, for the balance of power between the executive and the legislature. The Cabinet, for instance, could become less dominant because key decisions tend to get made in small meetings of the party leaders.

Parliament becomes stronger, certainly than it has been over the past 13 years, though this does not necessarily mean that it can force the government to do anything it does not want to do. Discipline and whipping become far more prominent. Party loyalty and party unity are paramount in such circumstances. The sort of large-scale revolts that occurred under Tony Blair, without much impact on his three-figure Commons majority, cannot be tolerated. Then again, with so many inexperienced MPs (233 are new, the biggest influx since 1945) the party managers and whips are in a strong position to keep discipline.

But coalition is rarely stable because of the inherent tensions among the different factions. Tim Montgomerie, a former Tory party staffer, said yesterday: "The country needs stability but I fear that any arrangement will be vulnerable to the smallest of trigger events. This all sets up Labour quite nicely to be the only party of opposition to a weak government, responsible for taking very difficult decisions."

One of the reasons why stability is needed is because serious and brutal decisions will have to be taken about public spending and the provision of services. For the Tories, a coalition is a chance to share the political blame – the Lib Dems will have to dip their hands in the blood as well. But there will be many Lib Dems who don't have the stomach for this and who might even decide to decline the government whip or just cause trouble.

Even countries that supposedly are paragons of coalition politics, like Germany, find it hard going. At the weekend, Angela Merkel abandoned plans for radical tax cuts after heavy election losses meant her government could not be guaranteed a majority. The talk now is of a "grand coalition" – which is shorthand for a government that can do nothing. The Left is promising to support Chancellor Merkel "if the state parliament stops paring back in social welfare". Watch out for similar battles here among the partners in government.

Coalitions are about horse-trading. In Scotland, where Labour and the Lib Dems were in coalition after devolution in 1999, the junior partner managed to get bridge tolls abolished and university tuition fees postponed. A new railway line is also being built, at a cost of £300 million, between Edinburgh and Tweedbank in the Scottish Borders, the heartland of the Liberals.

They call it the Line to Nowhere.

Al Croise
05-16-2010, 10:21 AM
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages.

In winners takes all system the winners decide what is acceptable (like more immigration, antiracism, homofhilia) and what is off the public discussion (opposing immigration, racism, homophobia).
End of discussion. End of change.

In proportional representation fringe parties may enter parliament.
Jorg Haider's or Geert Wilders' parties could enter parliaments and change the political debate and landscape.
Although they had gathered 5-10% of votes (at beginning) they were able to broaden the discussion and touch the issues like immigration, immigrant criminality, islamisation of Europe etc.
And they have to be taken seriously, they may block crucial voting or enter the government as coalition partner.
Their concerns become public and legitimate topics.

Liberal left may blame them for being racist and other usuall stuff.
But people see that respected MP, politicians hold views called rasist and fascist and see that right wing politicians call liberal left communist, genocidal and fascist.
The people have option and may decide which fascists they back.

Equinox
05-16-2010, 01:53 PM
Is it important to maintain an acute understanding of how the media portrays politics:

Unity and joint consensus is praised, whilst division is ridiculed. The result of this is the depoliticization of traditional party-based politics, the politicization of traditionally apolitical aspects of life (Habermas's Lebenswelt, etc.) and the masses losing faith in their traditional institutions, as they are forced into ever-streamlined ideological camps.

It makes no difference.