British attitudes towards coalition government

[najaB]

I was reading an explainer on the Scottish electoral system (Voting systems in Scotland), and in explaining both the Alternate Member System (AMS) which is used for the regional seats in the Scottish Parliament elections and the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) which is used for local elections they list advantages and disadvantages. For both of them they list the potential for coalition governments as a disadvantage:

• Coalitions more likely: Coalition or a minority government becomes more likely. This can slow down political decision-making. It can also give more power to smaller parties if the larger party in government depends on their support.

• Coalitions more likely: As most parties gain representation under STV usually councils are run by a several parties together in a coalition which can make decision making harder.

To my mind, neither of these "disadvantages" actually are negatives. Smaller parties having a voice seems like a good thing, and having to achieve some level of consensus in order to enact policies seems like it should lead to much more moderate outcomes. Most of our European cousins seem to do reasonably well with coalition governments - yes they occasionally collapse - but it's not like we haven't gone through more than our fair share of governments in recent years.

What are everyone else's opinions about coalition governments and the fact that they are a more likely outcome with alternative voting systems than in first past the post (FPTP) voting systems?

 

[Harpo]

In a lifetime of never voting Tory (still scarred by Thatcher) I was fairly happy with the Lib-Con coalition under Cameron. In that arrangement it reined in the Tories but the Lib Dems appeared to sell their souls for a few ministerial cars - Clegg famously sold out students on tuition fees having previously declared it a ‘red line’.

 

[brad465]

The need for parties to collaborate has to be the best selling point of PR voting. Yes there is the fact it is more representative, but a lot of the divide and rule problem with our society today stems from parties having to deliberately pick fights and annoy certain groups in order to have absolute power.

 

[JonathanH]

In that arrangement it reined in the Tories but the Lib Dems appeared to sell their souls for a few ministerial cars - Clegg famously sold out students on tuition fees having previously declared it a ‘red line’.

One of those things that parts of the electorate simply don't understand. The Liberal Democrats got punished unfairly for things that weren't really in their control. You could also say that the Conservatives reined in the Liberal Democrat policies.

The need for parties to collaborate has to be the best selling point of PR voting.

Maybe, but you end up with supporters of the minority partner criticising that party for not getting all of its policies through.

 

[Sorcerer]

It all depends on what goals you're trying to achieve. If you want things to get done quickly then naturally you will support first-past-the-post voting because more often than not it delivers a single-party rule. The only problem is this will only satisfy you when your team wins. But if your goal is a government of consensus and compromise then you'll gravitate towards proportional representation even if it means more coalition governments.

People often cite concerns about fringe parties gaining power in coalitions but I don't think FPTP prevents that. Because the two main parties need to act as a big tent in order to win power there's no safeguards to stop the more hardline sorts taking power, and 2019's election with Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn leading the campaigns demonstrated this perfectly. If anything coalitions keep extreme parties in check because they're forced to moderate.

 

[The exile]

Maybe, but you end up with supporters of the minority partner criticising that party for not getting all of its policies through.

Not once coalitions become the norm. It will take a lot to overcome the “system” though - so much of the British system (legal, political etc ) is set up to be adversarial. I only win if you lose…

 

[JonathanH]

Not once coalitions become the norm. It will take a lot to overcome the “system” though - so much of the British system (legal, political etc ) is set up to be adversarial. I only win if you lose…

It isn't just that. Manifestos aren't written around which policies are sacrosanct and which can be sacrificed in coalition. It perhaps shouldn't be forgotten that the large parties have traditionally effectively been coalitions of different views.

 

[najaB]

Manifestos aren't written around which policies are sacrosanct and which can be sacrificed in coalition.

If anything, other than foundational tenets (such as the SNP supporting Scottish independence), I think we're best served by treating all manifesto promises as nothing more than vague suggestions which may not survive the gentlest of political breezes.

 

[The exile]

It isn't just that. Manifestos aren't written around which policies are sacrosanct and which can be sacrificed in coalition. It perhaps shouldn't be forgotten that the large parties have traditionally effectively been coalitions of different views.

But that’s part of “that”! Even the use of the word “sacrificed” is telling!

 

[GusB]

I don't see any downsides to coalitions, but then again I'm quite used to it. In the Scottish Parliament we've essentially had two coalition governments, the first being the LibLab pact that governed in the first two terms, and the second being the short-lived SNP/Green arrangement in the last term. The rest of the time it was largely minority government that relied on co-operation fron other parties

My local council has been a coalition of sorts for years and the sky hasn't fallen in yet.

 

[Tetchytyke]

People think of the Tory-LibDem coalition when we talk of coalitions. But we’ve had two Conservative governments in the last 30 years which have been propped by the unionists in Northern Ireland, with the effect that the DUP of all people ended up as king makers. Instead of stable government we had the tail wagging the dog.

This is the risk with any sort of coalition-style voting system, we’ve seen it in Israel and in the Netherlands where the far right ends up propping up the centre-right coalition and the damage this does. You could just as easily see it where a hard-left party ends up propping a centre-left coalition. But then you also have the example of Ireland where the two main parties, typically in opposition to each other, formed a coalition to prevent Sinn Fein taking power.

But I genuinely think the benefits of coalition outweigh the negatives.

We can’t keep having situations where one political party has a huge majority on a small vote share. 60% of people who voted didn’t vote for Labour in 2024. No wonder Starmer isn’t winning any popularity contests, two thirds of the electorate wanted someone else.

 

[Harpo]

I note that none of the five options in this vote exceeds 50%. How will the winner be decided? Is that something we need to vote on?