12th January 2023
Another day, another news report about the government not being able to get support from its own backbenchers for its legislative programme:
Another big Tory rebellion brewing. Sunak folded on the last two (onshore wind and planning). Rebels already up to almost 40 MPs. Exclusive from @charleshymas. https://t.co/02FHg69R13
— Ben Riley-Smith (@benrileysmith) January 12, 2023
This is becoming a regular event.
The stuff of the politics of the governing party at the moment is pretty much U-turns and rebellions.
This is a governing party that was elected with a majority of 80.
Indeed, the governing party forced through Brexit in 2019-20 so as to to gain this party majority.
And this governing party has done almost nothing substantial with this nominal majority.
For despite the majority on paper, this is a government in constant negotiation with its own backbenchers.
If we drop the formalities, this is a coalition government, between the warring factions of the governing party.
And this has been the case since it was elected.
If we then look back before 2019 we also can see coalition governments: the 2010-15 formal coalition and the 2017-19 informal deal between the governing party and the Democratic Unionist Party.
Indeed, other than between 2015-17, an argument can be made that we have had, either formally or in effect, coalition government almost continuously since 2010.
Of course, this may seem counter-intuitive.
Coalitions are often seen as nice cuddly things, allowing centrists and environmental and regional parties to have disproportionate influence.
And one of the stock arguments for proportional representation is that we would have the benefit of more coalitions.
But we have had coalitions anyway.
We have just had, from a small-l liberal perspective, the wrong sort of coalitions.
But when a government cannot carry its own business without continual compromises and retreats caused by competing factions then there is perhaps no other good word for what we have.
For what we do not have is a party-based government able to implement a manifesto programme.
Indeed, other than in 2015-17, it is difficult to remember when we last had one.
**
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
My late father was a political journalist, and one of his firm beliefs was that all governments are unnatural coalitions because it is impossible to get enough MPs who think alike on all major issues.
A two-party, fptp electoral system will inevitably result in “broad church” parties or in more honest terms, splintered parties – see US for another example.
In a sensible PR system the splinters would form their own parties and the electorate would know what they are voting for.
Yes, key point
Exactly. In countries which have “formal” coalitions governments, they agree their programme following the elections with the smaller parties extracting concessions but following this, they are bound by cabinet solidarity to implement what was agreed.
of course like in all governments, there will be robust internal discussions & arbitrage but, unless they leave the coalition, the parties have to abide by the negotiated terms.
I personally also support the “block system” in place in some Scandinavian countries where all parties have to declare before the elections which other parties they would be prepared to form a coalition with. It is more transparent and has proved remarkably stable leading to two blocks of different parties with different programmes but the same sensibility of either “liberals” or “conservatives”.
The current situation is a completely unstable coalition where the government is continuously subject to blackmail by a minority. It is truly ” a coalition of chaos”.
Let’s clarify all this and introduce some degree of PR as exists in Scotland and Wales. It would lead to a complete recomposition of the electoral landscape and far more honesty.
At least arguably, and probably more than arguably, any substantial political party is a coalition of different political interests that align enough to make permanent cooperation worthwhile.
But it is remarkable that so many of that inevitable internal conflicts in the present governing party – with its substantial majority – have been resolved so publicly and not in private to reach an agreed majority position as might more usually be expected.
One observation made during the House Speaker debacle was governing requires the ability to achieve your political agenda and successfully pass legislation.
The GOP, despite commanding a nominal majority, showed they were incapable of governing, and the concessions granted by McCarthy have baked that in.
In power, but not in government.
Could you not say that the 2015-17 government was also a coalition.
It’s just that it was (initially) better held together by the promise of the referendum.
Indeed you could argue that all governments are coalitions.
Some are intra-party coalitions and others are both intra-party and extra-party.
With the argument above, first past the post still leads to coalitions they are just more likely to be intra-party and not very representative of the voters.
The advantage of proportional representation is that it is, well, more representative and would lead to more representative coalitions.
I agree, except with the idea that coalitions are often good, and therefore PR is better than FPTP. If you don’t like those with the balance of power when there is a coalition they can nevertheless stay as king maker immune to criticism, because each larger rival faction needs them. As you have explained we have coalition now under FPTP but it would be even more common under PR
The balance of power only applies when there are two big parties which are each putting their own interests before those of the country. The kingmakers would have no power if the two big parties formed a coalition with each other.
This is why we must minimise the power of parties by using STV and not FPTP or some other form of PR.
But probably not as awful as the situation we have now with the ERG loons apparently running things.
With formal coalitions and PR, minority parties that overplay their cards are likely to pay the price at the next general election.
Apart from wartime, and the recent aberration following the banking crash, coalitions in UK have always existed within parties, not between them. This is in contrast to most other European parliaments.
Because of the right-wing coup, you are watching the collapse of the coalition within the Tory Party. Despite appearances, the Labour Party coalition is probably just as vulnerable to collapse if/when the left wing tendency starts to prevail. Somewhere along the line, someone in politics will twig, and form the new centre ground party! Meanwhile UK will lurch from crisis to crisis, as the economy steadily declines.
I’d argue we have had coalitions almost all my life:
Maggie and the “wets”
Major and the “b*stards”
Tony and Gordon
Gordon and Tony
Etc etc
It’s time we were more honest about the fact that this country is not split into 2 homogeneous camps…..
I think that the final two sentences point the way to the merits of proportional representation and formal coalition governments.
At the moment we have a governing party with a death wish and which was elected without the majority support of electors who voted. Little wonder it’s such a shambles.
On the other hand PR often leads to coalition governments founded on intensive post-election discussion, detailed agreements and considerable stability. What we have at present is knee jerk reaction government.
I’m not claiming that PR would lead to instant improvement in the quality of our government. All involved might need some practice to get used to it. Nick Clegg would no doubt help our politicians with this from the lessons he learned from his 2010 experience.
Indeed Labour and the Conservatives are both “broad churches”, with a lot of overlap in the centre. What is happening now is that our manifestly multi-party electorate is voting more and more for other parties (Greens, UKIP/Brexit/Reform, regional parties). As a result the major parties are having to cater to their extremist wings (Corbynistas, UKIP/ERG) because there are alternatives that can soak up enough votes under FPTP to keep them from getting a majority.
The Kippered Tory 2019 win shows how uniting around the most extreme position just leads to an ungovernable party on other issues.
The main problem for small-l liberals and centrists is that the left does not have a unifying idea to coalesce around. That is a luxury “enjoyed” by the right, à la Brexit.
This is not surprising as it is the classic dynamic that can lead to fascists taking over. IMHO the best analysis showing this is Robert Paxton in his 5 Stages of Fascism.
The Kippered Tories are into Stage 4 (Arrival in Power) and if Labour fails to support Proportional Representation then the danger is that the Tories get back in in 2029 or whenever to finish the job.
As the saying goes: Brace, Brace
Duty and decorum have dissolved.
“Think not what your country can do for you, but…”
…. “what you can do for the Tory party”
“For what we do not have is a party-based government able to implement a manifesto programme.
Indeed, other than in 2015-17, it is difficult to remember when we last had one.”
And that was the one that precipitated the current I Can’t Believe It’s Not A Coalition by uncorking the Brexit bottle.
PR based coalitions should at least give us governments based on a majority of voters’ wishes. Only the 2010-15 coalition gave us that. Since 2017, the coalitions have been based on right wing factions elected by a minority.
Even then the policies of the 2010-15 coalition were skewed to the right due to FPTP.
If the distribution of seats had more closely matched the popular vote (Con: 10,703,754, Lab: 8,609,527, LibDem: 6,836,824) then the Liberal Democrats would have had much more negotiating power with the Conservatives.
They may even have attempted to form a coalition with Labour initially, because there was more overlap.
And this is why I don’t get it when people complain that government is unaccountable to Parliament and that we therefore need some sort of written constitution. On numerous occasions in the last few years, mainly concerning Brexit, a government with a sizeable majority has nevertheless been scuppered.
By the way, can we talk about this amendment? It’s boneheadedly illiberal and misguided, and I can’t believe Labour are supporting it. Actually, can’t it? I suppose I can.
We have factionalism and court intrigues. Seen from countries (Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.), where a coalition is the norm in government, this is not a coalition, or even a form of coalition.
I think I disagree with you on this one, David. You say that there is no word other than “coalition” to describe the present impasse in government, but that does not seem to me a good reason on its own to use it. All parties, and probably all large pressure groups, are going to be alliances of people with similar but different aims, and “coalition” is a word normally restricted to a formal arrangement between two distinct and normally opposing political parties in which both parties contribute members to the government (as in 2010-2015). Let’s keep it that way. To illustrate this, the Lib-Lab pact of the late 1970s was NOT a coalition, and you yourself have just pointed out that the understanding between the Tories and the DUP was just that, an arrangement but not a coalition. So I think you are stretching the application of this word so far that it is almost becoming meaningless.