02.07.10
It was a long election night. As a reflection of general bewilderment I wrote on my Facebook status at 7.00am that "had I gone to sleep at 10.05, and woken up now I would have just as clear an idea of what’s going on…". It was not only my sleep-deprived and caffeine-ridden brain that led to confusion and chaos. The electorate provided us with a cacophony of disparate voices to which the politicians would have to dance, or at least try to put a tune. Fragmented and perverse results ruled. The famed election night "swingometer" was about as useful as a ball of string. In Wales, Merthyr swung by a massive 17% to the Lib Dems; for Plaid Cymru the main shock was a 10.6% swing to the Lib Dems in Ceredigion. By contrast, Montgomeryshire fell to the Conservatives on a 13% swing from the Lib Dems.
In the swingometer’s heyday in the 1950s, a national UK swing was precisely that. Regional variation was small, and support tended to swing proportionately as "one nation" from one side to another across Britain, at a time when the two main parties held over 90% of the vote. Since then, regional variation has become more and more of an issue.
What can this tell us? Is there a clear narrative that can be read, or do we end with Paddy Ashdown’s words "The people have spoken but we don’t know what they’ve said"? And what does this fragmented picture tell us about the voting system we use to get an outcome?
The Conservatives gained 36% of the vote – not a clear mandate to govern by majority. Between them, the Conservatives and Lib Dems gained 59% of the vote. This gives the coalition a clearer mandate for government than Tony Blair had in 2005 with 37% of the vote, which gained him a majority of 66 (again an indication of the wilful vagaries of our voting system).
The noises from the coalition have been good. The need for fixed parliaments has been acknowledged – although it should clearly be put in line with the election cycles of other institutions and fixed at four years rather than five. The idea of fixed term parliaments removes the Prime Minister's power to call an election on the day of his/her choosing. This is vital for the stability of coalition government, as it means that it is not subject to party interest and the vagaries and variation of polls. This is why we have such a provision in the Welsh Assembly, and in the Scottish Parliament.
The principle of needing a supermajority to dissolve Parliament is commendable, although the 55% required seems to have been thought of — rather short-sightedly — with the current Parliamentary numbers in mind. It is understandable that a Prime Minister would not want to relinquish his ability to dissolve parliament only to hand the power to his coalition partner. In the Welsh Assembly, as in Scotland, the threshold required is two-thirds in order to hold an "extraordinary" Assembly election outside the fixed four year term.
Away from the headline outcomes, there are clear regional variations. The Welsh political map as it stands remains a deep red. However, Labour gained 65% of the seats in Wales with 36% of the vote. While the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has 11 MPs in Wales between them, projections suggest that under a proportional system the two parties would have gained around 10 seats each. This means that in terms of personnel Wales is underrepresented within the coalition at the heart of Westminster.
As well as from Wales, the overwhelming number of Labour MPs come from the North of England and Scotland, while the South East is true blue. Small spots of yellow are to be found everywhere. This means that some regions are better represented in government, and so encourages the view that parts of the UK are dominated by others. This spectre was raised in reverse during the process of drawing out the ill-fated "Rainbow Coalition" — as it would have meant the domination of Britain by "the North" and "the Celts". The current situation, however, brings a government dominated geographically by the South-East where the Conservatives’ vote was 49%.
Local results, as noted, were volatile, and exceptions proved the norm. It is at this level of giving the voter greater choice in their constituency that the case for the Alternative Vote (AV) can be made, where preferential voting lessens the need for tactical voting as the voter can rank the candidates 1,2,3 and so can go for their favoured candidates knowing that their second choices may come into play.
The MPs cherish the single-member constituency, seeing themselves as the sole representative of their patch. However, the First-Past-the-Post system allows a candidate to win, even though he/she may be the least favoured candidate of the majority of the people. Under AV, the same constituency boundaries apply, and one politician is elected per constituency; however the candidate must reach the threshold of 50%. If no single candidate reaches this, the second preference votes of the least popular candidate are redistributed to the other candidates. This process continues until there is a winner who has received 50% of the votes. This means that MPs will be able to claim with more justification that they truly represent their area.
In eliminating tactical voting it would also have the advantage of showing which party voters really support – in the current system parties’ support is squeezed as where there are only two likely winners, supporters of other parties, quite rationally, lend their vote to their least-worst option. For example, Plaid Cymru’s claim to be "squeezed" in this fashion in UK elections could be tested and measured with the introduction of AV, rather than remain hidden.
AV as a move to preferential voting would be a vital change for local constituency politics, and would greatly increase voters' control of their own constitutencies and the accountability of local MPs. It does not, however, always make a huge difference to representation at the regional or UK level. While generally less disproportionate than FPTP – our projections of the 2010 elections suggest that the Conservatives would have gained 281 seats, Labour 262, Lib Dems 79 and others 35 – it is not a proportional system.
However, it represents an important change, and would open the door for further reform. A move to preferential voting would make the move to a proportional system where MPs are voted in larger constituencies of 3-5 members by the Single Transferable Vote less of a leap. Alternatively, the policy proposal of reducing the number of MPs would open the space for a top-up list of regional list members, as we have in the National Assembly. Both these moves would address the lack of proportionality and fairness in the present system and the regional imbalances in representation. In the meantime, voting for the Alternative Vote as a modest but important change is vital so that the grossly unfair system we currently have does not stagger on in perpetuity.
The idea of Recall elections is also one that has gained currency. Of course, the power this gives voters depends on the details of when and under what circumstances a recall election can be triggered and how it can be claimed that an MP is "corrupt". The merits and flaws of Recall have not been debated fully. If it was put in place under FPTP it would seem perverse that an MP who gained, say, 35% of the vote initially, could then be kicked out in a by-election where they retained or increased their vote. Under AV, that MP would have been elected by 50% +1 of the vote, and could therefore be kicked out if another candidate gained the same result in the by-election — the MP would have been kicked out by the majority, just as he had been elected by majority. Supporters of Recall should therefore support AV as a logical extension of their position.
The vital proposal for a House of Lords elected through the proportional system of STV would ameliorate remaining imbalances in the House of Commons under AV, and would make for fair representation in the second chamber for all the parties from all the nations and regions of the UK. Critics of reform cite the fact that the Lords have been effective in scrutinising and balancing the excesses of the Labour Government’s legislation, passed through the House of Commons by its artificial majorities. What these critics fail to acknowledge is that the reason the second chamber has been successful in this way is precisely because it is that thing which those selfsame critics decry in the Commons: a hung parliament. This has made its governance and scrutiny far more effective.
However, its lack of a democratic mandate is a huge deficiency, a throwback to aristocratic government which remains the hallmark of our system. Its election by appointment encourages the perpetuation of a political class, it makes for a more supine House of Commons as loyal service is rewarded by entry into the Lords, and in the end it closes out other voices at a time when we need debate beyond the narrow confines of the Westminster village. Therefore the proposal for STV in the Lords would be a truly vital reform. Nick Clegg has promised that the committee looking into its implementation will not just produce a report to gather dust in some dark corner of the labyrinthine corridors behind the portcullis of Westminster. It remains to be seen how sharp this committee’s teeth will be at a time when we need lions not lambs in the process of reform.
So, as the dust settles, many of the outcomes of this fascinating election remain opaque and chaotic. It is perhaps best not to impose a single narrative upon it, but rather to address the ways in which we can recalibrate the system to be able to cope with and balance its contradictions and cacophony of voices. For that to happen, it is less a "new politics" than a new political system that is required.
Owain ap Gareth