« | 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

    • fbkun on Justice for Théo: Polls show that more than half of French police(wo)men vote for the Front National. Quelle surprise...
    • jcscott on The Deep State: How we get rid of Trump is at least as important as whether we get rid of him. The best would be a progressive landslide election in 2020 repudiating ...
    • Oliver Miles on Shambles in Court: A very difficult problem, almost insoluble. Many people are quite unaware of it and just assume that if there is an interpreter there is no problem. I...
    • michael bosley on Arguing with Strangers: Meanwhile, in the UK, cuts in sexual health services are being made by stealth, with hardly any public/political debate. As a report by the Advis...
    • Mat Snow on Not So Innocent: Agreed. But I suspect that when Trump does meet Putin, such pressing issues as international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking and ot...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement