« | Home | »

Not Democracy


Well that was a downer.

It’s a good thing that the Labour party didn’t suffer a generational wipe-out of the sort which seemed possible a couple of months ago. But the prospect of real structural change seems remote today, as the parties jostle and try to find a way of stitching up the Lib Dems with a referendum on electoral reform that they are sure to lose. It’s a paradox of our shitty system that the disappointing Lib Dem share of seats (on an increased share of the vote) ends up with them having more power than they’ve had in many decades.

As for that system:

Labour in 2005: 35.2 per cent, 355 seats, majority of 66.
Tories in 2010: 36.2 per cent, about 308 seats, minority of 34.

The Tories have done a full point better than Labour did in 2005 but the difference in the outcome is about 100 seats worse. Speaking as a lifelong non-Tory, this seems indefensible to me and I don’t understand why they don’t make more of a fuss about it. And now they’ll all go off somewhere and stich up a deal, with aides murmuring into mobiles while the party leaders keep going on adrenaline, caffeine, and the knowledge that the bond markets will want an arrangement in place by Monday. So much for our our decisive, bracingly unfair first-past-the post system. Whatever democracy is supposed to feel like, it’s not like this.

Comments on “Not Democracy”

  1. alex says:

    Don’t feel sorry for the Tories, but for Liberal Democrats plus ‘others’. They have 35% of the vote against Conservatives 36%. But seats won are 85 and 306 respectively.

    • alex says:

      If you analyse the percentage of seats won against votes received, you can see why the Tories don’t feel miffed, in fact they have made considerable progress this time:
      1997: Lab 1.47, Con 0.82, Others 0.70, Lib 0.42
      2001: Lab 1.55, Con 0.79, Others 0.45, Lib 0.43
      2005: Lab 1.49, Con 0.91, Others 0.69, Lib 0.41
      2010: Lab 1.37, Con 1.30, Others 0.40, Lib 0.38
      (Data: Wikipedia; Calculation: me)

  2. A.J.P. Crown says:

    John Lanchester, do you know Cameron & Clegg? I thought Cameron’s speech offering the Libs a deal didn’t sound very positive, but then I second guessed that he was being more effusive to Clegg on the telephone and perhaps the announcement was meant to sound convincing to the right-wing of his own party. How is he going to be able to form a government without being nice to the Libdems? But what do I know.

  3. Nick Clegg is in favour of moving towards proportional representation or in other words more towards the Dutch electoral system. Dutch parliamentary history is one endless succession of hung parliaments. For a long time, this fact didn’t pose any problem at all. Parties simply arranged themselves into a coalition, often consisting of two or three parties.
    The Dutch equivalent of the Lib Dems is D66 (Democrats 1966). I am not a supporter of D66 but I do like the limited constituency model this party advocates. They aim to bring the politicians closer to the man in the street.
    From: Arnold Jansen op de Haar’s blog: How Dutch is Nick Clegg?

    • Badger says:

      I can’t see what is wrong with importing the French system for National Assembly (legislative) elections to bring our much-needed electoral reform… except, of course, that it couldn’t be sold in this country as “French”. It maintains the constituency link, but the second round run-off between the two best placed candidates (assuming a candidate doesn’t get 50% or more of votes in the first round) means voters make a positive choice of their representative at Westminster. Comments?

    • A.J.P. Crown says:

      There is nothing particularly Dutch about PR, most democratic countries use it nowadays. Here is the Wikipedia list of countries that use it “at a national level”.

      If the Dutch have problematic hung parliaments it’s not an inherent consequence of PR. We have PR in Norway, we always have coalitions, it takes a couple of days to sort out the make up of the government, it’s NO PROBLEM.

      Britain has a hung parliament already. What’s PR got to do with it?

  4. IanGFraser says:

    Indefensible if you’re counting noses. But FPTP counts communities. However vain an ideal that may sound, it makes sense this time — the Tories have the most noses, but no big cities. Without the cities (or Scotland) they’re not representative enough…unless, like all those other democracies, you count people as though they were only individual preferences. There IS such a thing as society?

  5. A.J.P. Crown says:

    And another thing: why do they have to wear ties that are red blue and orange? Why not hats?

  6. Camus123 says:

    It sounds as if you could have made a small pile by betting on a hung parliament with those results. I don’t bet because even thinking about it automatically leads to a loss. The concensus seems to be that Clegg is Little Red Riding Hood outside Grandma’s cottage. If he falls for that Commission on reform offer, he deserves to get swallowed up by the big bad wolf. Enjoyed your comments, John – and your work on the financial crisis – could you help us all out by explaining what’s going to happen next?

  7. ober says:

    Yes, our electoral system is a scandal. More scandalous still is that there are so many Labour politicians who identify themselves as “progressive” yet did nothing about it when they had the chance. now the chance is gone: there is no prospect of a viable reforming Lib-Lab-other coalition on current parliamentary arithmetic.

    It would be good if the opposition parties could work together to try and agree a reform agenda. LRB, could you do an article on the Scottish Constitutional Convention and all the work that went into producing a consensus on devolution? Maybe there are some lessons there.

  8. al loomis says:

    of course it’s not democracy, it’s parliamentary monarchy, you never noticed?

    the establishment of every western society loves to talk about democracy, on the view that people like you will imagine this is as good as it gets.

    democracy is better, if switzerland is any guide, but i suspect you have to grow up in a mountain village to make it work.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement