I for one am looking forward to next May. Not just because the Royal Wedding will be over and the public's attention will drift back from the bread and circuses our masters have been kind enough to provide. No, I'm looking forward to the electoral reform referendum.
"Oh really Roger? I didn't have you down as a Liberal Democrat", I hear you say. Well, I'm not. I did vote for them in 2010, but that partly motivated by a desire to kick out the last government (no matter what succeeded them) and partly down to the fact that the local Lib Dem was the only candidate who seemed to give a toss whether he won Bradford East, on the basis of how visible he was before and during the campaign.
For me, the so-called benefits of first past the post are faults:
1. The "strong government" the winner-takes-all arrangement usually provides for eliminates any meaningful distinction between executive and legislative arms of the state.
2. The "local connection" discrete geographical constituencies provide for between MPs and the population is something that makes very little difference outside politics textbooks.
I suppose that the electoral system need not necessarily lead to these outcomes. It's the party system that makes this inevitable.
In the UK, we have a handful of highly centralised, highly disciplined parties. They are supposed to be broad churches – they need to be, if they are to command the mass support they aspire to. In fact, they are not in any meaningful sense. Witness Labour's ritual bloodletting at the sign of any disagreement between a minister and the leader on even the most trivial of matters in government.
The media treats "loyalty" and "disloyalty", "unity" and "disunity" within political parties as things that matter. They do, but only to the extent that politics in the UK is really a question of Kremlinology – who's up and who's down. When an MP can be kicked out of his party for saying that tax should go down, or a candidate disowned for saying Gordon Brown is the worst prime minister ever, you know there's something wrong with our democracy in practice.
First past the post and the party system combine to maintain a status quo – it is nearly impossible to win a seat in Parliament without the backing of one of the big parties; and it's impossible to get the backing of a big party without toeing the leadership's line. Independent minded people like Tony Benn are relics of a bygone age who would never get selected today.
The professionalisation of party political machines is something that has really accelerated in the past 20 years. Back in the 1990s, party political broadcasts had at least a bumbling, incompetent charm to suggest at least that human beings were responsible for them. Remember, for example, John Major being driven around Brixton saying "It's still there! It's still there!" of his childhood home.
As a brief digression, it's hard to believe – isn't it? – that John Major was prime minister for seven years, when Thatcher was only in power for ten. I think of his premiership like the ending of "Return of the King": all the action's over, you're waiting for it to end, but it just carries on and on and on.
Following from Clinton's Democrats in the US (at varying rates) our parties transformed themselves into election-winning and power-retaining machines. Labour did it first, and trounced everyone else for 10 years. But the professionalization that maintained a degree of direct democratic leverage in the decentralised USA has turned the centralised UK into an oligarchy.
Anyway, on to the point. A unique combination of factors has led to a coalition government in the UK. One member of that coalition has demanded a referendum on electoral reform as a condition.
The simple fact of the coalition is evidence that there is another way of running this country than elective dictatorship. The government consisting of members of two parties means that disagreement is inevitable, and that two views on a particular policy existing within the government need not inevitably lead to the human sacrifice of the weaker.
I think it's great that Vince Cable can survive disagreeing with his Tory partners over, say, immigration. By the same token, I think it's sickening that he can turn around and claim that the Lib Dems' pre-election pledge on university tuition was "not binding". It's true, but come on Vince! You're invoking the arrogance of past governments and the notion that election mandates a party to do what the hell it likes by putting it that way. Make the case that you had to compromise and that this is the price of doing business.
The second reason for which I hope the coalition continues is that it will drive the parties to split. No one voted for this government – Tories don't like it, and Lib Dems don't like it.
If a change in the electoral system breaks the local monopolies of the parties, why should the antagonistic wings of parties stick together? Why should right-wingers not have a Conservative Party they agree with completely? Why should left-wingers have to vote for a Lib Dem or Labour Party that supports policies they oppose? Why should people whose views are libertarian (like me) have to vote for one of three social authoritarians – or effectively spoil their ballot by voting for a no-hoper? Why should a government that has run out of steam and that can't command any loyalty be able to stay in power until the next election?
The options on offer for this electoral reform referendum are indeed a bit rubbish, and don't go far enough for my liking. Hopefully, the uncomfortable experience of coalition living will encourage everyone that – once that referendum is won – they should go further still.
The coalition is important because it shows that the rule of centralised parties that exclude the public, eliminate diversity of opinion and reduce democratic involvement to a choice between three unsatisfactory options is not inevitable. The 2010 election produced a freak result that provides an almost unique opportunity to break that oligarchy – and the referendum is the first step.
I just hope that the coalition can be recognised as having a significance that is separate from the significance of "The Cuts". I'm worried that's all it will be remembered for.
The commemorative mug pictured is available here for you to treasure.
