Just because it’s normal doesn’t mean it’s good

Smoke fill rooms should be opposed on more than just health grounds

OVER on Click On Wales Jon Osmond commits a category error:

“coalition politics are normal just about everywhere else in Europe, where elections are fought in two halves – first the campaign in the run-up to polling day, and then the talks to achieve a consensus that take place afterwards.”

It is government formation, not elections, that tend to be a two-stage process in much of Europe. In the UK, by contrast, we have grown used to the former flowing – apparently automatically – from the latter. This is destined to change even if the system of election does not. Defenders of First-Past-The-Post may claim otherwise, but hung Parliaments are likely to be a far more common feature in a world where the two main parties no longer command an overwhelming share of the vote between them. Last Thursday’s outcome was not a freak occurrence, but part of a trend.

FPTP advocates are, however, right to express unease at the spectre of secretive post-election bartering, in which parties’ manifestos serve as very poor guides to the eventual government’s programme. Wales’s example of how this offends a natural sense of justice is illustrative; in 2007 only 20% of voters voted for a party committed to holding a referendum on upgrading the Assembly’s legislative powers, yet that is now a central plank of the Welsh Government’s programme. At the Westminster level, over 10 million people voted last week for a Conservative Party categorical in its opposition to any reform of the voting system. Last night, William Hague pledged a referendum on just that.

If Westminster’s electoral system stays in place, or moves only to the majoritarian AV system, there will be little impetus to do anything about this, since single-party administrations will remain a decent possibility for some elections. But if we move to a proportional system, or if a move to a fully proportional system takes place in Wales, we need also to change the culture of campaigning. Parties that campaign for outright victory in the near-certainty that it cannot be attained, only to immediately trade away key elements of their electoral proposition are guilty of deceiving the voters just as much as those who make unrealistic commitments.

There are two ways around this problem. The first is pre-election acknowledgment of post-election co-operation. The ideal would be pre-election pacts or accords, something that does happen elsewhere, but a more realistic aspiration would be a clearer delineation of manifesto “red lines” and negotiable elements. The alternative is far more open post-election negotiations. Evolving drafts of coalition accords should be published at each stage, and as part of formalised discussions, some of which could even be held in plenary.

The obstacle in both cases is not the voters. Most people would surely be receptive to the idea that a party will aspire to certain things and die in the ditch for others. Similarly, I suspect voters would respond positively to a more transparent series of post-election negotiations. No, the problem is the parties’ members, for whom certain policy objectives are articles of faith, and antagonism toward their opponents overwhelms much reason and pragmatism.  There is no simple answer to this, but solutions must be attempted if coalitions are to be the norm. Post-election backroom stitch-ups may be common in other parts of the world, but it does not mean we must meekly accept them as part of a new political culture.