General election results 2015

[Richard Barrett]

who's to say (...) that wider representation won't produce better government?

Plenty of countries of course manage with constant coalition government at least as well as the UK does, Germany being a prime example (also of a federal structure more highly devolved than the UK's). But what is actually meant by "better government"? Doesn't that come down in the end to a government which best addresses the needs and aspirations of the largest possible proportion of the population, with special attention for those made vulnerable by illness, disability, age and so on? In which case the maximum possible degree of representation would be something to aim for.

[Demetrius]

Plenty of countries of course manage with constant coalition government at least as well as the UK does, Germany being a prime example (also of a federal structure more highly devolved than the UK's). But what is actually meant by "better government"? Doesn't that come down in the end to a government which best addresses the needs and aspirations of the largest possible proportion of the population, with special attention for those made vulnerable by illness, disability, age and so on? In which case the maximum possible degree of representation would be something to aim for.

And if you look to Germany you will realize that some of these characteristics are not necessarily all that brilliant - the federal structure is a royal pain when it comes to education; Germans also tend to not understand that they have direct representation of their local interest within the Bundestag and in most cases accept that the party line supersedes any personal conviction (of the representative) or the interests of his direct constituents.

As for coalitions, the liberal-conservative one in Great Britain fared almost exactly like the one in Germany (the smaller partner collapsing, the other gaining in seats to about 50 %); interesting parallel development considering that the politics of the countries are at least partially at odds. Remarkably, in Germany the smaller party used to press its agenda through quite reliably. The FDP managed to play the big parties successfully against each other between 1969 and 1998. After that, the Greens changed the SPD as much as governing changed the Greens. But the more parties evolved (in Germany, we went from 3 contenders to the current 6) the less influence the smaller partner seems to enjoy. SPD, FDP and SPD under Merkel did and don't fare well, simply because Merkel always has other options; the big party can now play the smaller ones against each other. An example for more parties making for a "stronger" government (which by no means means a "better" one).

[ahinton]

But what is actually meant by "better government"? Doesn't that come down in the end to a government which best addresses the needs and aspirations of the largest possible proportion of the population, with special attention for those made vulnerable by illness, disability, age and so on? In which case the maximum possible degree of representation would be something to aim for.

Yes. One problem with achieving this in practice, however is not mere coalition itself but (a) the possible change at election time from one coalition to another quite different one and (b) the fact of there being several parties whose individual success at election time might vary enormously, thereby once again affecting the political landscape and, as a consequence, the ways in whch and the extent to which those laudable aspirations can be turned into actuality (one has only to consider in the recent General Election, for example, SNP's success in terms of both votes and seats, UKIP's and the Greens' success in terms of votes but not seats and the slide into near oblivion of the LibDems - a party that was, after all, in coalition for five years - in terms of votes and seats). The very rise in the number of parties might itself suggest that tapping into that resource of "the needs and aspirations of the larget possible proportion of the population..." might be helping to create, among other things, a new divisiveness that makes that ever more difficult.

[Richard Barrett]

An example for more parties making for a "stronger" government (which by no means means a "better" one).

Indeed. I certainly wasn't trying to make out that what happens in Germany is "better", just that the coalition structure doesn't make it noticeably "worse".

[jean]

...One problem with achieving [good government]this in practice, however is not mere coalition itself but (a) the possible change at election time from one coalition to another quite different one...

But is this any more of a problem with coalitions than it is supposed to be with alternating parties:

...the lurching from one extreme to another...

Though I would argue that it's a very long time since that has happened, what with the Tories moving ever further rightwards and Labour closing the gap in the hope of picking up the disaffected on what remains of the left of the party.

The very rise in the number of parties might itself suggest that tapping into that resource of "the needs and aspirations of the larget possible proportion of the population..." might be helping to create, among other things, a new divisiveness that makes that ever more difficult.

Why do you think it's creating 'divisiveness' rather than reflecting what's already there?

[ahinton]

But is this any more of a problem with coalitions than it is supposed to be with alternating parties:

No; I mentioned this merely because coalitions of themselves cannot be guaranteed - or even reasonably expected - to make matters better just because they are coalitions.

Why do you think it's creating 'divisiveness' rather than reflecting what's already there?

You have a point there, as I would interpret the two as broadly synonymous, perhaps I might better have said that it reflects - but perhaps also encourages and exacerbates - such divisiveness.

[clive heath]

"Isn't the very fact of that individualism forced upon the electorate by Thatcher and her henchpersons ......" from ahinton.
Being a stranger to the political basement now happily, it seems, elevated for the purposes of election entrail examination, I wonder whether this sort of idea is common currency on this board and accepted by one and all. Not that I want to challenge it.

[ahinton]

"Isn't the very fact of that individualism forced upon the electorate by Thatcher and her henchpersons ......" from ahinton.
Being a stranger to the political basement now happily, it seems, elevated for the purposes of election entrail examination, I wonder whether this sort of idea is common currency on this board and accepted by one and all. Not that I want to challenge it.

I don't know, but it's certainly the view of some; my own view is that it represented a case of a pendulum swinging from too far in one direction arguably to too far in the other and also perhaps too rapidly, for what that may or may not be worth.

[Demetrius]

"Isn't the very fact of that individualism forced upon the electorate by Thatcher and her henchpersons ......" from ahinton.
Being a stranger to the political basement now happily, it seems, elevated for the purposes of election entrail examination, I wonder whether this sort of idea is common currency on this board and accepted by one and all. Not that I want to challenge it.

Following some of the political and social debates, I highly doubt that any one idea is accepted here by one and all. More like hotly contested no matter what its about :D

[Padraig]

Following some of the political and social debates, I highly doubt that any one idea is accepted here by one and all. More like hotly contested no matter what its about :D

Whatever.

[ahinton]

Whatever.

Whatever what? I confess that I do not understand what might lie behind your response to Demetrius...

[jean]

Read Demetrius' post again, and you might understand.

[StephenO]

But how is that "wider representation" - and of whom and what - likely to be achieved? Isn't the very fact of that individualism forced upon the electorate by Thatcher and her henchpersons and the far more recent divisiveness arising from the gradual disintegration of what was broadly two-party politics likely to undermine any possibility of "wider representation" of anyone? Even arguments over which might be the most just and fair electoral system, however possibly intelligent and persuasive in and of themselves, won't cut much ice in practical terms if too many people are persuaded to support too many parties and, in so doing, seek to espouse too many contrasting sets of agendas...

True, although all the parties are coalitions in themselves with a wide diversity of views between the Tory right and the Tory left and, equally if not more so, between the Labour left and the Labour right. Each party contains a broad range of traditions, including the Lib Dems where economic liberalism sits side by side with social liberalism and social democracy.

[ahinton]

Read Demetrius' post again, and you might understand.

I did - and I don't.

[James Wonnacott]

"Isn't the very fact of that individualism forced upon the electorate by Thatcher and her henchpersons ......" from ahinton.
Being a stranger to the political basement now happily, it seems, elevated for the purposes of election entrail examination, I wonder whether this sort of idea is common currency on this board and accepted by one and all. Not that I want to challenge it.

It's certainly dominant, there are one or two of us with other opinions but we get shot down as soon as we raise our heads above the parapet.