Was the UK ready for electoral reform?

So it’s now been a week and a half since AV failed on a miserable margin of 32.1% to 67.9%. It is fair to say that ‘yes’ was trounced. Inevitably, after such a referendum, there is need for a post-mortem, for why AV failed.

Different arguments are banded around, and there is truth in all of them. Perhaps the best and most honest analysis came from Andy May, the Yes campaign’s National Manager for Regional Staff. There is an abridged version of his report here. It’s rather excellent, give it a read.

On another note it is definitely true that the campaign itself was shocking and it was not restricted to either side. While the No side were perhaps guilty of the more blatant untruths (the £250 million price tag claim being revealed as ‘made-up’ by David Blunkett for instance) the reality is that Yes also pedalled some questionable statements of their own. It is hard to see how AV would ‘end safe seats’ for instance, and the connection of FPTP to the expenses scandal has always struck me as being rather spurious.

The truth is the referendum, too, followed a familiar pattern for those of us who have seen referendums on such changes before. Typically such a referendum starts out with quite strong numbers but as polling day closes there is a last minute run towards the status quo. Often voters report afterwards that they simply do not feel informed enough about the changes and so a ‘devil you know...’ mindset takes over. The reality is that the general public has, typically, a very low interest in electoral systems. It is therefore the Yes campaign’s job not just to persuade, but also, most importantly, to inform. From this POV the No campaign’s tactics seem clearer, by mudding the waters and spreading misinformation the No campaign hoped to engender this confusion and a desire for the status quo. The fact remains, however, that the Yes campaign failed to properly rebuke these claims.

Another problem is the nature of AV itself. The truth is it is not what I would call a particularly transformational electoral system. Against the claims of both campaigns I, and most people I know who have a deep knowledge of electoral systems, long ago came to the view that AV would really not change very much at all. Even in the most optimistic projections only 30 seats were shown as changing hands due to the system, my gut instinct is that, in reality, even less would. I think this is also part of the reason for the myth-making on both sides of the campaign. ‘It’s not that much different to First Past the Post’ is an argument that does not really engender much desire to vote either way. Clearly the two campaigns had to campaign on something so they primarily campaigned on untruths and exaggerations. The murkiness of the campaign only spread confusion further.

In general passing electoral reforms via referenda is very difficult anyway. I only know of two Western countries that have succeeded in such an endeavour – Italy and New Zealand. As one of those countries is Italy, which is perhaps best referred to as a ‘special case’, we’ll stick with New Zealand, which is, in any case, the most similar case, using a Westminster-style FPTP system until 1996 when it held its first election under the Additional Member System or Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP) as it usually known in New Zealand. This followed two separate referendums on the subject in 1992 and 1993.

Why did New Zealand come to change systems? Quite frankly, the reason is simple, New Zealanders saw FPTP at its worst. In 1978 and 1981 the centre-right National Party won a majority of seats though the New Zealand Labour Party won the most votes. The feeling of animosity towards FPTP was only increased because the third party, the Social Credit Party, was also left-leaning and received 1-2 seats for performances ranging in the teens to the low 20s. Labour set up a royal commission in 1984 which recommended AMS, they didn’t particular like it and nor did National, but both parties tried to outmanoeuvre the other by promising to hold a referendum on electoral reform. In 1992 a two question referendum was held. The first question asked if voters would like to change the electoral system or retain FPTP and the second asking whether voters preferred AMS, STV, AV or Parallel Voting. Huge majorities favoured changing the system on the former question and AMS on the second. There was then another referendum in 1993 which was simply between AMS and FPTP. This passed much more closely, 53.6% to 46.1%.

These two referendums demonstrate something quite important. Firstly the second referendum was much more passionately contested than the first, which may account for the thinner margin, but also the nature of the questions provides a clue to the differences as well. In the first the first question asked is purely about FPTP. Therefore FPTP must be evaluated purely on its own merits. Whatever you think of FPTP it must be obvious that FPTP is easily attacked from a range of directions. In the second referendum the only question is between a preference between FPTP and AMS, which allowed those against change to attack AMS rather than defend FPTP.

Coming back to Britain there is another important difference between this process and the one we saw in Britain – in New Zealand a very large amount of the political elite were in favour of, or were willing to accept change. In Britain the largest party was almost monolithically against AV, the largest opposition party was largely split and only the third party was consistently in favour, a third party that has become increasingly unpopular since the last election. For all the anti-politics of our times on subjects like these politicians still carry weight.

The truth is, too, that the UK has not yet had an equivalent of New Zealand 1978 and 1981. Criticise results detractors may but the reality is that the gut feeling of most Brits is that as long as the party with the largest number of votes has the largest number of seats things are fine. FPTP can produce results which violate this principle, but has not done so in the UK since 1951. Coalition politics is also very much a novelty, seen as a one-off to most Brits and views of future coalitions are clearly coloured by this one.

The good news for electoral reformers is that the majority of political scientists, psephologists and so on generally agree that as long as the last 50 years worth of trends continue then hung parliaments become more likely. Any system with constituencies also has inherent bias and therefore it can only be a matter of a time before FPTP throws up the ‘wrong’ winner as well, even with the coming boundary changes. The bad news is that probabilities are not certainties and no one has a crystal ball on this. Certainly, however, if there is a series of ‘dodgy’ results, frequent hung parliaments, second placed winners and the like then that will greatly weaken the case for FPTP in the public’s mind. If the trends in the system across the last 50 years continue then there will inevitably come a point where FPTP simply becomes untenable. The defeat of AV in this referendum may have also, ironically, fatally undermined it`

Of course, the thing is no one has a crystal ball, no one knows if this is certain or, if it does happen, when it will stop. In the short-term, at least, the next general election looks likely to produce a homogenisation of the vote around the largest two parties. It is my gut instinct that this will be temporary but if it isn’t than FPTP will engrain itself.

When all’s said and done, however, the AV referendum itself is, in a sense, a victory for electoral reformers. For the first time the government of this country has acceded to the viewpoint that there is enough questions about the functioning of the electoral system of this country to justify considering reform. The loss of the referendum will probably put off another referendum for 20-30 years at least but that is nonetheless an important statement. Lessons can also be learned from this process. The Yes campaign also managed to create an infrastructure of dedicated electoral reform activists some of whom will probably filter into organisations like the Electoral Reform Society.

To learn more about New Zealand’s electoral reform process this history from the New Zealand electoral commission is an excellent jumping off point.

The Britain-Votes Guide to the Alternative Vote

I've written a guide to AV, I've tried to be as impartial as possible and fair to both sides of the argument. It can be found here. As always comments are appreciated and it'll always be accessible at the top right of the screen.

In Response: More on the idea of a ‘conservative-led’ government and its contradictions

In a previous blog post, Chris has analysed the way in which we use different names for this coalition and argued that maybe we should stop skirting around the issue and just give it a proper name. and solve this issue once and for all. Yet, even though there is a lot in picking a name, my main concern here is Labour’s strategy in naming and interacting with the coalition and its actors, especially the junior partner, the Liberal Democrats. Some have argued that by using the ‘conservative-led’ name to define the government, Labour is not concerned with a party that barely has double digit approval rates, but the opposite may, in fact, be true. On the left side of the political spectrum there have been two different arguments. The first, radical, one argues clearly that the Lib Dems and their whole party are no more than political puppets of the Tories and that they will be easily absorbed within the larger party. In the mean time, the second view argues that the Lib Dems are essentially a split party and that in a short time their right wing (Clegg, Alexander, Laws, etc. – N.B. the leadership) will happily join the Tories, whereas what is constructed as the rest of the party will be integrated into Labour.

Both these arguments have the same effect. They delegitimize the very existence of the Liberal Democrat party - what do they stand for if their policies can be so easily implemented by one of the two main parties - and through this the Lib Dems become largely irrelevant on the political scene. More importantly, the division created between the leadership and the rest of the party portrays the former group as the failed leaders of a party that is essentially left-leaning, a party betrayed by its own representatives; in these circumstances the few can become Tories, no great loss, whereas the many, the grassroots of the party will have the revelation that their true home, on the left, is in the Labour party. There was though a moment of straying from this argument when in a speech Ed Miliband argued that Lib Dems can collaborate with Labour and input their ideas – and for this they wouldn’t even have to leave their own party. But isn’t that essentially showing them that the very ideals for which they became members of the Liberal Democrats are being implemented by another party, thus making their own party redundant? A lot more tame on the formal message level, but the same idea. So yes, it is an argument for two party system, but through a constant attack on the Liberal Democrats. And let’s not forget, this is the party for which some years ago ‘no news’ was ‘bad news’ so being ignored both formally, by not being taken into consideration, but also ideologically, by arguing that it doesn’t stand for anything different the others, especially in a ‘conservative-led’ government can easily become ‘bad news’.

It is this type of thinking that through its lack of importance given to the Lib Dems that not only legitimates the two party system, but also exactly the electoral system that stands at the basis of it, first-past-the-post (FPTP), especially in competition with something like AV that attaches meaning to a vote, by creating a preference system. Let’s take an example: if someone would have voted Conservative for all their life and suddenly for some reason or another they would be disenchanted with the Conservatives, they might vote for the Liberal Democrats. But, by the way of thinking promoted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats don’t have any value as a political party, hence the only other party to vote for would be Labour, which may be unacceptable for someone who has been voting for the right/centre-right for all their lives. And even as people may never have the opportunity to think in this way if the referendum fails, I trust quite a few have thought about this potential situation when deciding how to vote in the referendum.

It’s an argument that’s common knowledge, but it’s an argument that highlights the way in which acceptance of AV is essentially linked with the existence and credibility of the Liberal Democrats and, thus, to a certain extent influenced by Labours thinking on the matter. I’m not saying this is a very elaborate communication technique à la Alistair Campbell, I’m just trying to point out that the way in which we do politics, through the speeches our leaders – in this case pro-AV Ed Miliband - make, may just be more of an anti-AV campaign than the NO2AV group can ever hope for putting together. And it is true that the very framework (political culture, rules, truth regime, whatever you may want to call it) in which he works does influence his attitude to some extent (largely because political systems have this sort of resilience to change), but does he really not realise the contradictions within his own discourse. Or does he think that people will go out and vote for a political ideal whose finality they cannot grasp – what is the point of AV if there are only two parties anyway?

Electoral Reformers should shift their focus from Westminster to Local Councils.

Discussions on electoral reform always centre on Westminster, but it is my view that after the referendum on AV is over with electoral reformers should concentrate on electing councils by STV. Why?

STV is a system whereby constituencies are multi-member, with generally a maximum of around about six representatives. Voters then rank candidates according to preference, if a candidate reaches a quota of votes set at the number of votes divided by the number of seats +1 then they are elected. Votes ‘over’ the quota, and votes from eliminated candidates are transferred until all the seats are filled. This sounds complex but it has several big advantages:

• It is semi-proportional. Generally STV parliaments end up with a reasonable representation of parties.
• Voters vote for people rather than parties, therefore meaning that every candidate has gotten there on their own work. Indeed there is a certain level of competition foisted upon candidates from the same party.
• Politics tends to become quite local. Candidates have to represent their constituents well because a bad constituency representative may be replaced by someone from the same party. Sometimes this is used to criticise the system. In Ireland it is occasionally argued that MPs spend too much time thinking about their constituents and not enough time thinking about the national picture!

I feel that STV makes particular sense at a local level because most council wards are already multi-member. In most councils what already happens is that wards have three members, one member is elected each year with the ward lying ‘fallow’ for one year every four years. What this means is that there are yearly elections to councils meaning that an informed voter has to lock into local politics once a year. This means that turnouts tend to be low (usually about 30-35%) and local elections tend to be reflections on the national performance of parties rather than the local performance of parties, indeed these are the terms in which they are usually analysed. With STV the same constituency boundaries could be used but elections could take place once every four years. Local parties could dedicate more resources to fighting one big election leading to bigger, shinier, clearer local elections, with more accountability. What’s more constituencies are already multi-member, so the argument for single representative FPTP is invalid – this does not exist in most local councils.

Similarly the typical arguments against STV and other electoral systems don’t necessarily apply. A typical argument against proportional representation is that it leads to unstable coalition government, but councils tend to operate by consensus anyway, and in any case many councils across the country are under no overall control. My own council, Weymouth and Portland, has not enjoyed the wonders of majority control since 1979! All manner of governance type can be found in British councils, coalitions of several types, minority governments, and so on. On the other end of the spectrum there are councils in some areas with zero opposition to one party, for example Barking and Dagenham council now has no members from any party besides the Labour Party since the BNP group was wiped out. Yet at the same time STV biases against extremist parties like the BNP because supporters of mainstream parties are highly unlikely to second preference them. In other words it is likely that Conservative voters will preference Labour before the BNP. In FPTP there is the danger that a divided mainstream could ‘let in’ BNP councillors, this is less likely under STV. Similarly too councillors tend to vote more as individuals than as parties and so STV would allow voters to select individuals on their stances rather than simply allying to a party. Finally, it should be noted that since 2007 Scotland has had STV elected local councils and so far the world hasn’t ended North of the border.

Yet why should electoral reformers particularly concentrate on this reform? Well firstly like it or not we have a referendum on AV in May. Once it is over the question of electoral reform will be sealed for some time. Win or lose it would be ludicrous to have another debate on Westminster electoral reform, whatever the system, within the next ten to twenty years. The question will have basically been decided upon for the time being, and so Westminster electoral reform should take a backseat for a little while. Yes, it should be a long-term objective, but it will be out of the public mind. Secondly, for the reasons I outlined above I believe it would improve local democracy, which can only be a good thing. Finally, however, if people get used to voting using STV at local level and dealing with it at a local level they will become more open to it at Westminster, and in the long-term this may be the best way of securing electoral reform at a national level.

Once Upon a Time in Canada – When FPTP goes Wrong

Canada has remarkably similar politics to our own, with a House of Commons elected by first past the post, a PM, an un-elected Senate appointed by the PM, some Queen called Elizabeth, a weekly 'Question Period' and so on. Historically Canadian politics had three major parties, the socialist New Democratic Party (NDP), the eternal third party in the Canadian system, the Progressive Conservatives (or 'Tories'), and the usually dominant centrist Liberal Party. The Liberals were the dominant party, but in 1984 the Tories won a whopping landslide, partially on the back of promises of constitutional reform that would give autonomy to the French-speaking nationalist-minded province of Quebec. That constitutional reform failed (twice) and as a result a new party called the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) was formed. In its first election in 1993 the BQ received 13.5% of the vote in its first election but this was enough to gain 54 seats as that vote was concentrated just in the 75 Quebec seats. A divided opposition meant that the Liberals were able to hold onto government but the merger of the major right-wing parties into the Conservative Party led to a hung parliament in 2004, and a Liberal minority government. Canada went to the polls again in 2006 and were left with a hung parliament yet again, which caused the Tories to form a minority government, a fresh election in 2008 left yet another Tory minority in power. In fact, for the foreseeable future it is almost impossible to see Canada governed by anything but minorities as the BQ hovers around the 10% mark in popularity, but as it campaigns in only one province this is enough to guarantee it around 1/6^th of the seats. No one wants to be seen to work with the BQ too closely, as the party is separatist, and therefore wants to see the end of Canada – a position that is seen as close to treasonous by many Canadians. The NDP would like to form a coalition with the Liberals, but so far they have not gained enough seats to do this, a further problem for the NDP and Liberals lies in the Green Party, which doesn't hold any seats but which got almost 7% of the vote at the 2008 election. In order for the Liberals or the PCs to form a majority government they do not just need to beat each other, but the combined weight of the NDP and BQ as well, and in the Liberals case, stop votes draining to the Greens. As the NDP usually gets around 20-30 seats, the Liberals or Conservatives need to beat each other by around 80 seats (Parliament currently has 308 seats), an extremely difficult task. Canadian minority government is unstable and usually relies on opposition parties not wanting to force an election, yet fresh elections are almost constantly being threatened, and the fact that between 2004 and 2008 Canada had three elections should demonstrate something. The BC is also uniquely powerful, often able to hold the government to ransom, despite achieving the smallest vote percentage of four parliamentary parties.

There are parallels here to the UK. While the nationalist movements in the UK do not perform well enough to provide a bloc as powerful as the BQ does, there is an increasing bloc of MPs not affiliated to either the Conservative or Labour Party. At the recent election 85 MPs were elected for the Lib Dems or other parties. This makes hung parliaments increasingly likely. While I personally would make an educated guess that the next election will result in a majority for one party or the other, the amount of votes and seats for the main two parties has been declining for fifty years now, and is unlikely to end permanently. In the long-term it is likely that we will see our own election results increasingly mirror Canada's. Our problem is however a different one – Canada's parliament has four parties and two independents, and there is a fifth party that looks likely to pick up seats at some stage. The UK parliament has 10 parties, and 1 independent, or six parties if one ignores Northern Ireland. Most of these, however, are tiny, for example the Green Party has just 1 MP. Plaid Cymru has 3. This means that if hung parliaments do become more common, as is likely, we may one day get a government dependent upon micro-parties, who would hold disproportionate influence on microscopic vote percentages. This is not a route to stable government. Therefore the Lib Dems become all the more important.

The Canadian example is fascinating because if proportional representation was introduced the seats for the BQ would be reduced as it gains disproportionate seats because its vote is extraordinarily regionalised. Yet the NDP wins 15-20% of the vote and wins half the seats. Were PR to be introduced, the NDP would form a much larger bloc, capable of providing a worthy ally to the Liberals. In the UK, a hung parliament advantages one party – the Lib Dems. In a sense the Lib Dems would be better advantaged by constant hung parliaments under FPTP than by PR. As the only third party with a reasonably sized bloc of MPs they are the only one who can provide a large enough majority to guarantee stable government. Therefore both Labour and Conservatives are dependent on them, in a hung parliament, to reach government. Like the BQ, they have the capability to make or break governments and we can see this from the negotiations process in May. If hung parliaments come to be a regular occurrence in British political life it would perversely weaken the Liberal Democrats to introduce PR by meaning that new parties would have the chance to enter parliament and form blocs large enough to act as potential partners to Labour and the Conservatives. In so doing PR would remove the potential for governments dependent upon micro-parties and for the Lib Dems to find themselves in permanent government, switching coalition partners as they see fit, both of which I believe are undesirable. For precisely these reasons I expect that if hung parliaments do become a norm in British political life it will not be long before all parties agree with the need for PR. The Canadian example is important because it demonstrates that one of the key arguments for FPTP – stable, single party governance – is a myth and contingent upon political conditions. Given the right conditions FPTP can also provide instability, and were PR introduced into Canada the result would likely be a more stable form of politics. This may be the situation that Britain eventually ends up with too; indeed it is the likely one if trends continue to unravel as they have.

Of course, I may yet be proved wrong in my analysis of the wider trends, and who knows what the future will bring, but my feeling is that Canada provides a warning to us all on the dangers of how first past the post may one day go wrong.

Political Reform Part 2: Electoral Reform in the Commons

Perhaps the most notable reform in the coalition agreement is the AV referendum. AV is not a proportional electoral system but electoral reformers see it as an improvement on the current electoral system. The referendum is also important because it sets a precedent that the electoral system is an important area of debate and because if it passes it is likely to encourage supporters of other electoral systems. AV is not substantially different from First Past The Post. We would still all live in single seat constituencies, as we do now, but we would rank candidates on the ballot paper rather than simply putting a cross next to those we like. If a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote then he or she is elected, quite simply. This would be the fate of a MP like Steve Rotherham of Liverpool Walton, who got 72% of the vote this year. If no candidate achieves 50%+ of the vote, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their second preferences are redistributed, candidates continue to be eliminated until one candidate gets 50%+ of the vote. In theory this should eliminate tactical voting (if I vote for, say, the Green Party, I have no fear of this letting in the Conservatives if I second and third preference the Liberal Democrats and Labour as if the Green Party candidate is eliminated my vote will flow to one or the other). The traditional view has been that the primary beneficiaries of AV would be the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats. For example the Electoral Reform Society used ComRes polls of people's second preferences to calculate the 2010 election under AV and concluded that the Conservatives would have won 281 seats (-26 compared to the actual result), Labour would have won 262 (+4) and the Lib Dems would have won 79 (+22). This result is not too different, but would have given a Lib-Lab coalition a majority, which may well have changed the nature of post-election coalition negotiations more than a fair amount). It is worth remembering however that if the electoral system IS changed it will inevitably change the way people vote. AV would allow the British people to vote in a much more sophisticated fashion and it is likely that they will exercise this right.

Labour has officially supported the system for the last year or, this has been viewed in two ways by commentators, firstly as desiring to change the system in a way which benefits them, and secondly as an olive branch to the Liberal Democrats in case of a hung parliament. Ironically the only party which officially supports the system is now in the opposition. Labour, will, I suspect, be forced to campaign in favour of the change, despite what I suspect will be internal division about it – several backbench MPs will probably oppose it, but the Labour leadership will have to campaign in favour. This will I suspect lead to the odd spectacle of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (whoever that will be) campaigning alongside, against the position of the Prime Minister. Yet, against the perceived wisdom, the person with potentially the most to gain from AV is David Cameron.

There is a 'natural' cycle of support for a government across a parliamentary term. Just after the election the government is popular as people are filled with hope and optimism, generally even opposition voters are willing to give the new government a modicum of support. By the mid-term the government is usually at a particularly low ebb, as the shine comes off when the government fails to fulfil all the expectations of its supporters. As the election nears however the government usually rises again as the opposition comes in for more criticism as it comes closer to forming an alternative government, and as the effects of government policies become more apparent with time, most of the time however the government loses votes from the previous election. There are occasions where this is not the case, (usually when the opposition is seen as particularly incompetent or out of touch), but this is the 'norm'. Therefore it is likely that whenever the next election is that both coalition parties will lose votes to the Labour Party, and they are also in danger of splitting pro-government voters between themselves. Therefore the most likely outcome of the next election is Labour Party victory (this is by no means written in stone, and there are a tremendous number of variables, but this remains my view). Yet if there is AV Cameron could attempt to create a relationship not dissimilar between the two parties of the centre-right in Australia who form a permanent Coalition. In Australia, they originally had FPTP but adopted AV. The reason was that Australia had one centre-left party (The Australian Labor Party) and two centre-right parties (now known as the Liberals and Nationals, but then operating under different names). AV allowed these two parties to, at one of the same time, compete and cooperate without introducing proportional representation, and allowed them to keep the ALP out of power. 'The Coalition' as this deal is known, often puts up two candidates in each constituency but recommends that voters second preference their partner party. If there is AV Cameron and Clegg, can, however, argue for the re-election of the governing coalition. It is likely that AV would make the coalition's re-election more likely as it is. In Lib-Lab marginal seats like Brent Central Conservative voters will be more likely to second preference the Lib Dems and aid their election, if both parties explicitly campaign for its re-election it will be a big help. The result of this may be a haemorrhaging of voters from the Lib Dem left but the spoils of government despite this may attract their support nonetheless. If Clegg and Cameron can succeed in convincing their voters to second preference each other, they have a much better chance of convincing their voters of stopping their government from being a one-term affair. AV would make it so that the next election is not just a battle for votes, but for second preferences, who wins those second preferences may define the next election result.

And so it is done. What next?

Well, with the exception of 1 seat, which is having its election on the 27th of May, its done. The election is over. The seat in question is a Tory safe seat so I think we can safely project a final result of:

Con: 307 Lab: 258 LD: 57 Others: 29.

A fascinating result, and a hung parliament. I'll leave Tom to discuss our prediction, but first some discussion of what next. Firstly what happened to the Lib Dem bounce? We have little data at the moment, but my educated guess is that the opinion polls reflected a lot of people who don't normally vote saying that they were supporting the Lib Dems, who then didn't vote...

Firstly Brown. Brown is attempting to patch together a deal with the Lib Dems. This will inevitably fail. Firstly a Labour-Lib Dem alliance does not have a majority. Labour are talking to the SNP and Plaid, and with the SDLP (a Northern Irish party that takes the Labour whip) and the Alliance Party (a Northern Irish party whose first MP I expect will do the same with the Lib Dems) and the Green (who prefer Labour by default) we get 328 seats, where 326 is a majority... This is laughable. Such a government cannot last. It will also not be able to pass proportional representation (certain to be a Lib Dem demand) because Labour MP's like Tom Harris will not accept proportional representation and will definitely rebel against it and defeat the bill. Clegg knows this. Brown is done. All talks of Labour heading any sort of government are not going to happen. This is WITHOUT noting that the Tories swept England, and it is impossible to imagine a government forming policy on English matters on the basis of winning OUTSIDE England. Its just not morally legitimate, and will be unacceptable to the English.

Cameron has stated that he wishes to form a coalition with the Lib Dems (Lib Dems would be in cabinet. Policy made jointly). The ideal situation for a new government is a solid majority, so that rebels have less effect and less negotiation is necessary. Once a coalition is formed the process of creating new legislation and passing budgets should theoretically not be that dissimilar from a normal government (negotiation between politicians still happens in British politics, it just happens within parties). This would be the stablest option, and provide a solid majority. There are some areas of agreement between Lib Dems and Tories. Nonetheless there is a fair amount of disagreement between Lib Dems and Conservatives. Particular areas are defense, crime, immigration, Europe and the electoral system. Europe I don't think is a huge issue. We are not going to enter the Euro anytime soon (the LDs are pro-Euro but as a 'long-term aspiration', it can be ruled out in this parliament), there are no treaties on the horizon, and the Tory plan to renegotiate Britain's place in the EU is largely unfeasible anyway. Defense... my feeling is that the Lib Dems would be willing to give in on Trident. Crime and immigration is tricky territory but doable, but electoral reform is a dealbreaker. Cameron has offered an all-party committee on electoral reform. Its not enough at all, however it may be a start and Cameron has not ruled out a referendum on electoral reform. However the Conservative Party is solidly against electoral reform and the Lib Dems will need to give up a lot and the Tories would no doubt campaign against it, if they did manage to get it, I suspect it is a bridge too far for the Tories (a new electoral system may mean the end of the very concept of a majority Conservative government). A coalition also risks alienating centre-left voters, and angering a large section of the Lib Dem membership, or even MPs. Coalition is unlikely.

It is possible that the Lib Dems could support a minority Conservative government on budgets and confidence votes (Queen speeches) in exchange for some key demands. This would keep a Conservative government going, and then their legislation would have to be passed on a bill by bill basis. An alternative would be to not vote on rather than actively vote for Conservative confidence and budget bills, but in this case its much the same effect.

The Lib Dems could refuse to work with the Conservatives altogether. The Conservatives could potentially still have a minority government by getting support from the nationalists, and from the Unionists in Northern Ireland. The problem with this is that those MPs will want extra money for their regions, which is the OPPOSITE of what Cameron wants, and will mean he has to cut deeper in England, which would exceedingly dangerous for his position.

Another thing the Tories could do is govern as if they have a majority anyway, and bank on at least one or two opposition parties being nervous enough about the consequences to pass confidence bills. This has been the norm in Canada for some time and they have a system that shockingly resembles our own. This, however, runs the risk of unstable governance, and the other parties have to be aware that if the Conservatives poll well they may well be convinced they can secure a majority and take the country into a fresh election at will. It also runs the risk that if the Tories poll terribly the opposition will take them down to secure victory.

The Lib Dems however must attempt to make a multi-party government work, for two reasons. Firstly, if this parliament collapses and there is a new election then Cameron can legitimately say 'Hung parliaments are unstable. Look at the last one. Vote for me and a solid Conservative majority to actually get things done. Not a mess.' This line will work a lot more effectively than in this campaign, as the immediate evidence will be there. The Lib Dems also need to prove to the British public that multi-party government CAN work in 21st century Britain. This may well be vital if the general public are to accept the central Lib Dem policy - proportional representation. If a new election is called then it will feed into the conception that political parties cannot work together and that only single-party governance can provide stability. Unfortunately for the Lib Dems Cameron is not stupid. He is aware of this, and may be able to stop the Lib Dems short of PR. However giving up PR will wrack the party to its bones. It would be giving up its holy grail, and its best shot at that holy grail in 90 years. That said, there is nothing to stop the Lib Dems supporting the Conservatives AND attempting to pass a bill forcing a referendum on AV (which Labour has in its manifesto) with Labour. AV is NOT proportional, but it would help the Lib Dems, and some see it as a first step to a proportional system. That said, it is unclear whether Labour would still accede to this, manifesto or no manifesto, or whether the necessary other seats will be found and cutting deals with both parties at the same time will not go down well.

Whatever happens, the next few days are going to be fascinating, and event-filled. The various permutations are incredible, and what happens next will be truly historical.

The final third party breakthrough?

This year could well be a fantastic year for third parties in Britain. The Lib Dems are surging the SNP are targeting twenty seats, the Greens could get their first seats and even UKIP may pick up a seat! Yet, in a sense, this may really be bringing to a head a process that begun long ago, and has really been in the ascendancy since 1974.

1945. A vitally important year in British history. Of course, it marks the end of the Second World War It also marks the 1945 election which swept in the Labour government of Clement Attlee. Attlee's government is famed for its introducing of the NHS, a large-scale welfare state, council housing, mass-nationalisation and more. Yet what is forgotten is it was also the first majority Labour government we ever had. Labour had been providing Prime Ministers since 1922, but they had never had a majority of seats in the Commons, they had always been sent to Downing Street only through the support of the Liberal Party. By the 1951 election 96.8% of ballots cast were cast for Labour, the Conservatives, or their allies. The Liberals were only able to win a meagre six seats. The electorate had essentially become divided down class lines. If you were working class you voted Labour, if you were middle class, you voted Conservative. The Liberals were the party you could fit in a taxi, their only seats were in Cornwall, central Wales and Northern Scotland where they won seats off the back of nonconformist religious sects and localist stances.

Then came the 1960s. The 60s heralded a cultural revolution. Old loyalties were broken, new cultural standards blossomed; cynicism of elites came to the fore. In the 1964 election the headline was that Labour's Harold Wilson had become Prime Minister, but in the quiet background was the fact that the Liberals had gone from 6 seats on 5.9% of the vote to 9 seats on 11.2%. More than 1/10^th of the British public had voted Liberal and rejected the two party duopoly. More was to come. New national identities were found. Suddenly there was less talk of 'Britishness' and more talk of being Welsh, or Scottish. In 1966 Plaid Cymru won the Carmarthen by-election in a shock victory, winning their first ever MP. In 1967 the SNP won the Labour safe seat of Hamilton in a by-election as well. This followed high scores in by-elections and local elections for nationalists in both countries.

The moment for third parties was supposed to be 1974. Predictions suggested that the Liberals could get as many as 50-70 seats. In the end February 1974 heralded a hung parliament. In terms of popular vote both parties got less than 40%, a first. The Liberals more than doubled their vote and their seats, but this took them to only 14. The SNP reached a new high of 7, and Plaid went from 0 in 1970 to 2. Unfortunately the tiny liberals were too small to behave as a coalition partner to either party, and a new election was called. The October 1974 election gave Labour a tiny majority, but the Liberals lost only 1% of the vote, and 1 seat. The SNP and Plaid Cymru actually performed better than in February getting 11 seats (the SNP's best ever showing) and 3 seats respectively. The third parties were not going away. Labour's reducing majority resulted the need to seek Liberal, and then Nationalist support to remain in power, this combined with the trial of Jeremy Thorpe, the Liberal leader, for the supposed attempted murder of his gay lover damaged the third parties performance in 1979, as Thatcher swept to party. Yet Labour's ensuing lurch to the left resulted in a split. The new Social Democratic Party allied with the Liberals, and the new SDP-Liberal Alliance polled incredibly, at times over 50%, but the economy improved, and the Fawklands boosted Thatcher's public image. Nonetheless the Alliance secured 25.4% of the vote and 23 seats, the best result ever for a third party. When they lost 2.8% of the vote and a seat in 1987 the two parties merged to form the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats quickly lost support. The 1989 European election was a particular low point, where they won only 6% of the vote. Nonetheless this did not represent the end of third parties as the Green Party won their best ever popular support, at 15%. Under Paddy Ashdown though, they recovered enough to lose only 2 seats on 17.8% of the vote in 1992. They actually lost votes in 1997, but the Lib Dems almost doubled their seats thanks to tactical voting by Labour supporters. They would continue to gain seats and votes until 2005, where they won the most seats of any third party since the 1920s, and along with other third parties, pushed Labour and the Conservatives down to less than 70% of the vote between them for the first time ever.

Much talk surrounds whether Liberal Democrat or other third party voters come from Labour or the Conservatives. In reality they don't come from anywhere. Since the 1960s there has been a large portion of the electorate that has been alienated from both parties. This portion has fluctuated up and down, but it exists and it is sizeable. What this election has done is to demonstrate just how big that portion of the electorate may be. Whatever happens on Thursday, nothing will the same ever again, and the reason is that these people can no longer be ignored. Third parties matter more than ever, they are increasingly seen as a legitimate place to vote. If the electoral system continues it will become increasingly difficult to secure majorities because there is an increasing bank of seats which will be secured by third parties. Parties therefore need to secure more seats than the main opposition AND the third parties, and the thing about the results of the Lib Dems and their predecessors the Liberals is that it is VERY difficult to unseat them when they get a seat. Even when the Liberals do worse than in a previous election, they have, at worst, lost 1 or 2 seats. Politics has fragmented, this is the reality now. An eventual change in the electoral system is now inevitable, not because the Lib Dems want it, but because First Past the Post has ceased to reflect the way the British people vote. In fact in many ways, it ceased to represent them decades ago.

Edit: This graph proves my point rather effectively I think.

Electoral Reform: The rules of the game effect the way in which we play

With the expenses scandal and talk of a hung parliament there is increasingly talk of electoral reform these days. The House of Commons passed a bill promising a referendum on the Alternative Vote on Tuesday, and with a potential hung parliament looming the Lib Dems may have unprecedented power in the next parliament allowing them to push their desire for constitutional reform (specifically for the Single Transferable Vote electoral system).

Basically in AV we would all still live in single member constituencies but we would rank candidates rather than simply voting for just one. Candidates would be elected if they get more than 50% of the vote, if they do not the candidates with the least votes would be eliminated and their votes redistributed until one candidate comes out on top. STV would work rather similarly but the constituencies would be larger (say the size of a county) and multi-member in nature (Ireland, which uses the system, has 3-6 members of parliament per constituency) and therefore the system would probably be proportional in nature.

In order to be helpful in the debate several folk have decided to take a look at what the potential outcomes of electoral reform would be. The BBC for example, has attempted to simulate the last few elections under AV whereas Denis Mollison, a Professor of Mathematics at Heriot-Watt University has attempted to create a suggested constituency map for a STV Britain (the map is worth giving a look as in some instances it better represents people's identities better than current boundaries. For example I, a denizen of Weymouth in Dorset, would be in the 'Dorset' constituency rather than the somewhat sillier 'Dorset South'. It also cuts the number of MPs from nigh 650 to 513, satisfying another desire of reformers). Mollison attempts to simulate the 2005 election. For comparisons sakes here are the 2005 election results and their simulated results according to Mollison and the BBC.

Party	Labour	Tories	Lib Dem
Vote Percentage	36.2%	33.2%	22.6%
Actual Seat Percentage	56.8%	31.5%	9.9%
Simulated AV Percentage (BBC)	60%	27.2%	10.8%
Simulated STV Percentage (Mollison)	39.5%	34.9%	23.2%

Note: Figures are expressed as a percentage of BRITISH votes and seats rather than United Kingdom seats and votes as Mollison did not simulate Northern Irish seats.

However these simulated figures miss a very important point. The institutional rules in effect in British politics effect the way in which we vote. One in five people tactically vote, theoretically under STV and AV there is no need for this. What's more electoral reform will no doubt result in a proliferation of new parties with newfound power and possibilities. Simulating election results under different systems is not practical.

However what we can do is look at a country who went through a similar electoral reform, and fortunately there is one. In 1996 New Zealand switched from First Past The Post to the Additional Member System, a type of proportional representation. At the 1993 election four parties won representation (and two of those held only two seats). At the 1996 election this had become six parties, some of which were genuinely powerful. The rules had changed, and so did the way in which New Zealanders voted as a result.

If voters did not feel they had to tactically vote how many would have voted Lib Dem in 2005? Would more vote Green? UKIP? BNP? Would new parties form? (Say a libertarian party, or an 'Old Labour' socialist party?) Would more independents be elected? The point is that we cannot even begin to predict elections under different electoral systems until the systems are implemented. Elections are like a game, and the electoral system is like the rules of the game. Changing the rules of the game changes the strategies of different players, sometimes in unexpected ways. For example the assumption is that voters will rank candidates sincerely, but in Australia parties regularly make deals and recommend other parties to their electorates for their other preferences. For example in the 1950s a party broke away from the Australian Labor Party called the Democratic Labor Party. The DLP was composed primarily of anti-communist Catholics, who felt that ALP had drifted too far to the left. For twenty years the DLP told its voters to preference Australia's right-wing party, the Liberals, keeping them in power, in an attempt to force the ALP to move closer to the centre. The DLP never won any seats itself in the Australian House of Representatives, but its preferences were enough to keep the ALP out of power. Some electoral reformers dismiss AV as a minor change to the status quo, vaguely worth bothering debating, but if minor parties use it right it could lead to a sea change in the behavior of political parties in Britain.