Can someone explain the British election system to me?

Stronger government.

Stronger in what sense? That they don't need to start pleading to the voters every four years?

Well, mainly because if you hold a general election and end up with a very slim parliamentary majority (which leaves you at the mercy of your party's rebels) or needing a formal coalition with a small part who can also hold you to ransom, then it is good to have the option of calling another election soon afterwards, to get a bigger mandate. Coalitions and wafer-thin majorities lead to weak governments, though some would see that as more democratic, yes. There's a balance to be struck, really.

It's a continuum. Or not.

They can call for elections early, but there's a point at which they are forced to call them as well.

Oh yeah, in case it wasn't clear, sitting governments don't just eventually call elections because they think it would be nice to give someone else a chance. There is a five-year limit.

Well, mainly because if you hold a general election and end up with a very slim parliamentary majority (which leaves you at the mercy of your party's rebels) or needing a formal coalition with a small part who can also hold you to ransom, then it is good to have the option of calling another election soon afterwards, to get a bigger mandate. Coalitions and wafer-thin majorities lead to weak governments, though some would see that as more democratic, yes. There's a balance to be struck, really.

But this is only true if there are two very strong parties, whereas other parties are weak - in countries like Finland where there are three or more big parties you almost always have to form coalitions, but they will usually have a strong majority too. Is the British election system essentially built for a two-party system?

Yes.

British system is just a lot of convention, tradition that has developed rather than a consciously designed system.

I thought that in the parlamentary system, the minority party's role isn't to torpedo the majority's agenda or initiatives, but rather to frame the opposition viewpoint in order to convince voters to vote for the minority party in the next election. But if that's right, how does it square with Alba's description of a narrow majority party needing to form coalitions in order to advance their agenda?

But there had to be some justification given to the election law when it was written, right? When did the law come into power?

(x-post)

How elections work is the result of lots of bits of legislation, I'm not sure when the 5 year term or anything dates from.

ogmor otm, it's not really planned.

I thought that in the parlamentary system, the minority party's role isn't to torpedo the majority's agenda or initiatives, but rather to frame the opposition viewpoint in order to convince voters to vote for the minority party in the next election. But if that's right, how does it square with Alba's description of a narrow majority party needing to form coalitions in order to advance their agenda?

-- Daniel, Esq., Monday, October 8, 2007 8:19 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

the party system evolved well before the advent of mass suffrage. the parties were/are competing groups within the economically dominant class. sometimes ideology came into it, but not often; for convenience they were whigs and tories.

within the era of mass politics, the slim majority the liberals held in the 1910s almost brought us to civil war over the irish question.

in countries like Finland where there are three or more big parties you almost always have to form coalitions, but they will usually have a strong majority too.

a coalition can't really have a strong majority.

How elections work is the result of lots of bits of legislation, I'm not sure when the 5 year term or anything dates from.

The five-year term comes from the 1911 Parliament Act; before then, since the eighteenth century, the maximum term was seven years. Before then it was three years, which derived from a Civil War-era law stating that Parliament must meet for at least one session every three years, to prevent the King trying to rule absolutely without summoning Parliament

the party system evolved well before the advent of mass suffrage. the parties were/are competing groups within the economically dominant class.

ok we've officially gone back to this. for finnish readers: the labour party hinted very strongly it would hold an election and put in play numerous things to make that obvious. this provoked major policy announcements from the conservatives who needed to secure their base + marginals to head off an election. this apparently worked -- these new policies were popular with opinion poll respondents -- and the election was cancelled. and then labour announced those same policies in a budget speech that was to have been the 'official' start of the abortive election. it's bullshit.

Or canny political manouvering...You choose.

The party of canny political manouvering. Now there's a vision we can all get behind.

Labour Party RIP. Heaven needed a Conservative Party for Social Workers.

The fact that a government can choose the time of it's election is certainly an advantage, but it's important to remember that governments can be forced to hold a general election under the British system. If a vote of no confidence is called, and the government is defeated, that would usually call for a general election. The vote on the Queen's speech is one such vote, and any supply bill that is defeated is considered as forcing the government to resign.

The advantage of this system is that we don't get stuck with hugely unpopular lame-duck administrations biding their time until the end of their term. In theory, anyway.

it's bullshit.

Actually it's a bit more complicated than that. First if all it wasn't the Labour Party. The Labour Party doesn't announce an election, the government has to do that. The two are not the same, otherwise you would have had a left wing government for that last ten years, except that we wouldn't because the electorate wouldn;t have voted for one! Nothing was said officially at the conference (for instance) by anyone (least of all Brown) to suggest there was going to be an election, although undoubtedly there was behind the scene activity in case there was an election. The media blew a few things out of proportion and Cameron played it up but basically had nothing to lose by saying things like "Come on Brown - let's go". And let's face it he and his band of merry men have been calling for an election since Brown took over. He can;t then complain if Brown thinks about it (aloud or not). Of course he can complian because no-one will call him on it.

As for the who stole whose policies (and this is obviously not directly related to the question) the government has been saying they were going to look at Inheritance Tax and non-domiciled tax payers (or non-tax payers) for a while. I can't remember any other policy announcements during the conservative conference, were there any of substance?

So, yes it is bullshit up to a point, but it also bullshit to think that any prime minister looking at dodgy polls, with various things simmering under the surface is going to call an election when he doesn't need to. I haven't heard any journalist challenge Cameron on this point nor have I heard him come out in favour of fixed terms because he knows that when his turn comes he can use this system to his advantage.

Labour Party RIP. Heaven needed a Conservative Party for Social Workers.

-- Noodle Vague, Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:35 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

so otm it hurts.

Nothing was said officially at the conference (for instance) by anyone (least of all Brown) to suggest there was going to be an election, although undoubtedly there was behind the scene activity in case there was an election. The media blew a few things out of proportion

no way. this isn't how the politics/media nexus works. these days going on the andrew marr show counts as "official". after all, the defence secretary did not know about the troop reduction brown announced from iraq during the tory conference till it was on the news.

after all, the defence secretary did not know about the troop reduction brown announced from iraq during the tory conference till it was on the news.

He knew of the troop reduction, he didn't know it would be announced before parliament was sitting.

I see three possibilities:

i) Labour were always planning on announcing a reform to IHT (i.e. what they're claiming)
ii) Labour weren't planning this and are simply panicking.
iii) They want to kill the issue now, a few years away from a general election (a la Blair with the EU referendum).

I see option three as the most likely at this stage.

he didn't know the details of the reduction, i read.

xpost

option i) is bullshit -- they've addressed and rejected the issue before, as recently as last week iirc.

^^^ Yes, I concur.

No, that's wrong, they said that the tory plans didn't add up - hardly the same thing as rejecting it.

no way. this isn't how the politics/media nexus works. these days going on the andrew marr show counts as "official".
Hardly. This politics/media nexus of which you talk is not homogeneous.

he didn't know the details of the reduction, i read.
oh come on, when did you start believing what you read?

well, casting our minds back:

Osborne 'to cut inheritance tax'
Shadow chancellor George Osborne will outline plans to cut inheritance tax and stamp duty at the Tory conference.

Well that's the tory vote secured.. oh wai.

-- Mark G, Monday, October 1, 2007 9:50 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Link

strangely reminiscent of the last labour budget.

so, indeed, a tory policy.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, October 1, 2007 10:01 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Link

there were indeed hints of this in the last labour budget, AS I SAID!!!!1!!

but you'd have to be on the payroll to claim yesterday's thing wasn't a blatant swipe. the "adding up" defence is pretty weak -- both sides are fudging the figures according to the economics woman on newsnight. and figures can be made to add up -- this is how we sustain increases in health spending year on year.

even then the point is principle. is the labour party really about a tax break for people who inherit half a million quid?

the politics/media nexus in westminster is pretty homogenous, i think. sure there are factions, as there are in any community, but even still.

I'm going to my annual bash in the heart of the politics/media nexus next month, so I'll let you know.

Of course this is all BS - I'm not really pretending otherwise, but I also think it's more than that. Politics is hard and slagging off politicians is really easy. Of course yesterdays thing was a swipe, but so what? Put yourself in their shoes. What would anyone here do differently? I am genuinely interested to know.

On the issue of whether IT is a good thing or not - well i think there are other threads for that.

Poor old Tuomas - asks a sensible question - gets me bickering like an old fart!

Incidentally Tuomas if you want I can send you this book that was on my "give to Oxfam" pile if you're really interested! It's pretty good.

This whole episode has just been profoundly depressing.

So basically the ruling party can call for the parliamentary election whenever they want to?

yes. This is basically the same in Ireland, though our President can refuse a dissolution if they feel that someone else could form a majority in Parliament.

Isn't this kinda undemocratic, giving the party in power an unfair advantage?

yes.... although it gives you the opportunity to fuck up. I have heard that a lot of leaders wish they did not have this power, but cannot bring themselves to renounce it.

How is/was this system justified?

The logic of the Westminster system is that the House of Commons is dissolved when there is no government with the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is able to call an election because, implicitly, he could get his guys to vote through a motion of no confidence in the governmnet.

It is seen as a good idea for the HoC to be dissolvable (dissoluble?) so that you don't get protracted periods where there is no government with a majority. This fear might be exagerated... it is a very long time since the UK had a government without a majority, and the experience in some other countries suggests that the lack of a single party majority (or even a majority for the government coalition) is not the nightmare people in the UK sometimes think it would be.

Coalitions and wafer-thin majorities lead to weak governments, though some would see that as more democratic, yes.

it is not empirically the case that coalitions and wafer-thin majorities always lead to weak governments. Sometimes they do (or coincide with weak government, which is not the same thing), and sometimes they do not.

Examples of when they do not? I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm genuinely interested.

Things like this are only depressing if you expect anything at all from politicians.

But what's wrong with stealing other parties policies? Party X comes up with an idea, it looks like the public like it, so Party Y adopts it to. That's good isn't it?

xpsot, Nazi Germany.

it is a very long time since the UK had a government without a majority

It hasn't necessarily been that long since a government had a minority. Callaghan had a minority government, when he was forced to form a coalition with the liberals - though that only became a minority after by-election defeats.

As for coalitions the governments of national unity during the wars are examples of strong coalitions, though I suppose that's a very special circumstance.

Examples of when they do not? I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm genuinely interested.

bear in mind that most countries have coalition governments all the time. Germany is a good example of a country that since the war has always had two party coalitions, and has probably been one of the most successful countries in Europe, with a political system of rock solid stability. I don't know too much about Dutch politics, but my impression is that they are not chaotic, yet governments always comprise several parties.

My own country has had at least two parties in government for the last ten years, sometimes without a parliamentary majority. While governments here have been rubbish in many ways, you could not describe them as weak.

Dowd - the Lib-Lab pact was 30 years ago.

Yeah, I guess the idea of 'long time' is fairly relative - if a week is a long time then 30yrs is an eternity. Nevertheless, I still think of 1979 as being 'modern', arguably the beginning of whatever parliamentary era we are currently in.

Didn't Major have a minority government in his final days? I know when he scraped through in 1992 he had a overall majority of about 21, and then over the next five years several Tories choked on oranges (or whatever) and it eventually vanished. I think he was propped up by the Ulster Unionists at the very end. Or maybe this was because some Eurosceptic rebels were expelled.

I think his lowest overall majority was 1. I do remember him relying on Unionist votes a few times though.

Was the Labour-Liberals coalition in Scotland weak? This is a non-rhetorical question... I never really followed the politics of the devolved governments that closely.

In the final days of the Callaghan government, didn't they have to rely on wheeling a barely-conscious and terminally ill MP through the voting lobby at one point?

The Labour/Liberal executives in Scotland weren't particularly weak; but then, they were threatened more by the Labour Party's internal problems (and Edinburgh City Council's abominable paving) than by any effective opposition.

the experience in some other countries suggests that the lack of a single party majority (or even a majority for the government coalition) is not the nightmare people in the UK sometimes think it would be.

-- The Real Dirty Vicar, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:22 (8 hours ago) Link

yeah, seems to work in, uh, italy. not. germany is a bit of special case. or they both are, having had their systems rigged by the US in the late forties...

coalition government is undemocratic, it just leads to carve-ups and nightmarish backstairs intrigues.

With sexy results!

(sorry - writing "with sexy results!" just seemed right for some reason)

xxpost-I tend to agree with you on the whole, but I'm curious: what makes Germany a special case and in what sense did the US rig the system?

german communist party was declared illegal. i think there was likely more going on -- there certainly was in italy, where the communists had been a big part of the resistance. i think it was the 1948 elections where the US directly funded the centrist parties.

the US connection is west germany was occupied by the US and the UK. and france, cheekily.

Ah, I can see how outlawing fringe parties makes Germany a special case. But you're going to have to spell out for me how the allies designing (or rigging, if you prefer) the political system invalidates it as an example of coalitions forming effective goverments.

In the final days of the Callaghan government, didn't they have to rely on wheeling a barely-conscious and terminally ill MP through the voting lobby at one point?

If I remember correctly (and I probably don't - I'm basing this on a dimly remembered radio programme) one of Callaghan's MPs was ill (maybe on the point of dying?) and because it was such a close vote they were trying everything in their power to get every vote out. It proved impossible in this case, so Labour relied on a constitutional convention which was that if one of your MPs was sick in a vital vote, one of the opposition MPs would abstain in turn. The Tories refused to do this, and won by one vote.

Of course, I might be misremembering this, in which case the Tories didn't do this terrible thing. But they did plenty of others, so fuck them.

xpost

oh i dunno if there is or isn't a connection there. germany in the twenties, with no american involvement, had large numbers of small parties that went in for temporary alliances... and look how that turned out.

i think britain has a very different version of democracy than european countries just coz the historical circumstances of their evolution are very different. there isn't a 'progressive' theory behind british democracy, it isn't even meant to be the legacy of the revolution (as in france or the US) or an emanation of the national will (germany, italy).

i'm probably hardwired, then, but i just don't see how coalition governments make any sense. they seem far *less* democratic than the winner-takes-all version. but maybe the two types of democracy are converging in britain.

i was saying labour had become domesticated to the point where it's fair to say the top of the party was simply a faction within the ruling class just as the tories are. tony blair could easily have worked for either party. which is very old fashioned -- but maybe also very modern, insofar as it's the result of the need to appeal to voters in marginal seats and capture the 'centre ground'.

That convention is called "pairing", dowd.

In 1977, Labour lost a vote on Redundancy Rebates Bill was lost by one, because Callaghan was unwell and absent and no pair had been arranged. I think it may have been more of a cock-up than a Tory cheat, but I may be wrong.

In the previous year, a supposedly paired Labour MP broke his pair to vote on a bill to nationalise aviation and shipbuilding industries, allowing the government to win by one vote. Some Labour MPs started singing The Red Flag and an incensed Michael Heseltine famously jumped up, grabbed the speaker's mace and started waving it at them.

Yeah, pairing - ta! It was killing me trying to remember that. I wonder how long it will be until we hear the Red Flag in parliament - it seems unimaginable now.

i'll show you a pair

Press commentators called her a "babe" and "pneumatic" after her first Commons statement as Home Secretary, which was about the failed car bombings.

I remember being so confused by 'pneumatic' when I read Brave New World as a kid. It's a good word, people should use it more often.

I remember finding that confusing too!

But what's wrong with stealing other parties policies? Party X comes up with an idea, it looks like the public like it, so Party Y adopts it to. That's good isn't it?

No, because the public can have a fickle affection, based on a sound bite, for absolutely crap policies.

It's no way to decide policy. We'll have hanging back next.

(sorry if you were being ironic)

FWIW there was much discussion of the identical Canadian system (and a proposed change we're voting on today in Ontario) here: Rolling Ontario provincial election thread 2007

I have a certain perverse affection for the British parliamentary system just because it is so silly and quaint and because we loved our Imperial masters so much that we chose to import it wholesale. (I seriously love that parliamentary debate is structured like a high school debating tournament. Your job is to make the strongest argument for your whole team's side, chosen by your leaders. And if you're in opposition, your job is to argue against the government on every point.) I still hope against hope that MMP passes.

The thing is, on paper, the US system is far more democratic (though not as good as some European systems), give or take that whole electoral college thing. But for whatever reason (I'll blame campaign financing and concentration of media influence), the only available options have become two parties with relatively slight ideological differences between them. So in practice it's probably less democratic.

To quote: What we need in this here nation/is proportional representation/if you don't start being much nicer/FACE IN A MEAT SLICER FACE IN A MEAT SLICER

yeah, seems to work in, uh, italy. not. germany is a bit of special case.

it's always with the Italy and Israel when people shite on about the horrors of coalition government, conveniently forgetting all the other functional countries that have it.

coalition government is undemocratic, it just leads to carve-ups and nightmarish backstairs intrigues.

or maybe it is more democratic, because a wider range of views is represented in government, and no party with less than a majority of the vote can run the country without having to refer to everyone else.

The thing is, on paper, the US system is far more democratic (though not as good as some European systems), give or take that whole electoral college thing.

I reckon the two big constitutional problems with the US system is that it is presidential rather than parliamentary, and that it does not have proportional representation. I reckon these two factors are big drivers of the way politics has developed, although social factors were probably also significant.

on reflection, I apologise for using the phrase "shite on", as it lowers the tone of this discussion.

I wouldn't necessarily say the US system is more democratic, it is certainly more representational. Elected officials are much more beholden to their constituents/donors/patrons than in the UK. In a way we have the worst of both worls, a system that is weakly democratic and weakly representative.

If a vote of no confidence is called, and the government is defeated, that would usually call for a general election.

Yes; this is what happened to March '79 after neither devolution referendum went the government's way. One vote decided it then, I think.

One of the things that is funny about the UK constitution is that as it is all unwritten there are loads of grey areas where anything could happen. So - if the prime minister lost a confidence vote, then what normally happens is an election is called, but it could maybe happen that some other person (or the outgoing prime minister) could form a new government with a new parliamentary majority. I do not know if this has ever happenned... maybe with Ramsey MacDonald or back in the 19th century. The Irish parliament is very much modelled on Westminster, and it has only happened here once.

Ramsey MacDonald, what a great advert for coalition governments he was

if the prime minister lost a confidence vote, then what normally happens is an election is called, but it could maybe happen that some other person (or the outgoing prime minister) could form a new government with a new parliamentary majority.

This happened in Ontario in 1985.

or maybe it is more democratic, because a wider range of views is represented in government, and no party with less than a majority of the vote can run the country without having to refer to everyone else.

-- The Real Dirty Vicar, Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:24 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

that doesn't sound like a recipe for success. how do you make decisions on that basis?

The same way as within a one party government. People talk about things and reach an agreement. Sometimes they make good decisions, sometimes bad ones.

that's not how things work in a one-party government, though. for better or for worse they try to implement a set of coherent policies. harder to do that when they way you get things done is through basically power-brokering. it's a bit like that under a one-party system too, but even still.

eh... single parties are full of people who disagree about things. To at least some extent, the policies of a single-party government are the product of disagreements and compromises between these people. Do you seriously think that during the Blair premiership he simply did whatever he wanted, without ever considering the views of Gordon Brown or other people in his party?

as a meta point, the recurring "ooh, coaliton governments are weird" mindset is endearingly anglocentric.

well, a bit, yeah! wasn't exactly cabinet government. but even then at least there's supposed to be *some* basic points of agreement within a party. i mean, that's sort of the foundation of the party system, elections, manifestos, that sort of thing. if you vote for people on the basis that 'hey, once we get in, we'll talk it out with our political opponents and see what happens', it's not very democratic.

as a meta point, the recurring "ooh, coaliton totalitarian/catholic governments are weird" mindset is endearingly anglocentric.

Do you seriously think that during the Blair premiership he simply did whatever he wanted, without ever considering the views of Gordon Brown or other people in his party?

Debatable. But Gordon Blair but certainly did what he wanted during Blair's premiership!

Oops. Gordon Brown I mean!

i see what you did there

I didn't mean to do it, your honour

Just so I'm clear here - it is MORE democratic for a manifesto supported by 36% of the voting population to be implemented than for two parties, with a combined support of over 50% of the voting population, to work out a compromise platform as a basis for government. Yes?

Yes.

why just two parties? if all the parties got together and divvied out tasks, shit, they'd have 100% support.

One big party with 100% support! Hooray!

xpost

Yes.
Meanwhile - on Earth - coalition governments that include all parties are on the rare side, for obvious reasons.

world without political parties

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/World-without-lawyers.gif/200px-World-without-lawyers.gif

for better or for worse they try to implement a set of coherent policies.

I'm not totally sure why this is necessarily a good thing.

The Idealistic Pragmatist, is obsessed with electoral reform issues and makes these arguments for pro rep, with a bit of a Cdn focus:

On majority govts, stability, and the Israel/Italy examples.
a general FAQ
general reasons to support