Will You Take Me To The Ball? Political Indecision In The UK Shows How MPs Can Waltz

The indecisive result from last week's General Election in the UK put into sharp focus what happens when the rhetoric of adversarial politics as practised in many of the Westminster-based parliamentary systems comes face to face with an electorate that is not polarised. The UK does not have a history of coalition politics at the national level, in contrast to experiences in many of its European neighbours. Much of that is a reflection of the first-past-the-post system as well as the skewed outcomes that come from the allocation of constituencies. In short, voting shares do not result in similar allocation of seats and therefore the claims on power. It has been a while since any UK government had an actual majority of votes. Many European countries get coalitions because their proportional voting systems recognize that overall majorities are not often the result for which people vote and therefore combining to make a majority is more a logical outcome needed to get governments formed. Whether the coalitions make sense in terms of political leanings and policy agendas is another issue.

In the UK, the mad electoral system has just about run its course, where a hung Parliament seemed likely for a long time before the voting, and turned out to be the outcome. Conservatives gained 306 seats of a possible 650 [see BBC report on results] (47% of total seats, with 36% of the vote). Labour had 258 seats (40% of seats, with 29% of votes). The Liberal Democrats got a measly 57 seats (9% of total, with 23% of votes). Other parties gained 28 seats (4 1/2% of total, with 12% of votes). That shows as clearly as you need that the system does not give people what they vote for.

It is interesting to watch the process of 'king making', with the Liberal Democrat party getting the 3rd highest share of votes and now meeting its suitors. First, its negotiating team went to the tent of the party with the largest vote share (Conservatives, right of centre)), but with whom the Lib Dems (a centre-left party) have fewer 'natural' policy overlaps. Then, yesterday, with PM Gordon Brown's promise to remove himself from leadership opening the way for formal negotiations with the Lib Dems, they naturally went to sit in the Labour (left of centre) tent, where they will have more policy overlaps. For the Lib Dems, the real test should be electoral reform, as this should give them a more assured political future if they have some variant of proportional representation which would translate their strong vote into Parliamentary power. But, electoral reform was not a major issue during the election, which was dominated by economic issues and immigration. The sweetener for the Lib Dems that the Tories have now offered is a promised referendum so that the people can decide.

Whether those who voted for the separate parties will be happy with any coalition formed is another issue that has to be dealt with by each party and there are some poisoned chalice situations waiting to be met. One also has to think that 'stable government', if there is a Labour-Lib Dem pact, will depend on the support of other small parties. It will be a muddle to get this all stitched up quickly, and speed is not really the thing that is important politically, despite lots of media and financial market pressures to do a deal quickly.

For the Caribbean, the thought that comes to mind is whether we have been served well with the Westminster-style system and local politicians' efforts to polarise voters, even though in many of the region's English-speaking countries the differences are not poles apart. Trinidad's election is now running, and for fun, I have been playing with the idea of how the lack of any overall majority there may play out. It's worth watching the UK dance for both style and substance and lessons that it may offer.