You are here:   Constitutional Affairs > Don't Rig The System In Favour Of Coalitions
 

As might have been expected, supporters of a continental constitution for the UK were quick off the mark to proclaim the success of the 2010-2015 coalition government. While the latter has indeed lasted a full term, it has proved awkward for the Conservatives in the coalition to come clean about their frustrations and the shortcomings of this form of administration. Parliamentary arithmetic may make a further multi-party administration inevitable, but it would be a mistake to suppose that this is an ideal form of government or that constitutional rules should be altered to make it the new normal.

In constitutional matters, the disadvantages of coalition have been highlighted in the handling of the issues of European union and of human rights. As background to policy regarding the EU, the coalition conducted an extensive review, government department by government department, of the “balance of competences” between the UK and the EU. The exercise was admirably staffed by officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in other ministries. The fact that it was largely supervised by a Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a professor of international relations with a lifelong commitment to European union, meant that the concerns of Eurosceptics were inadequately addressed.

Concerning human rights, the Liberal Democrats blocked the Conservative Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, to the point where he was obliged to present his proposals in October 2014 about future UK relations with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg as a Conservative party document and not as a governmental one. This meant that legal experts within the civil service were not involved in providing technical advice.

There are several lessons learned, some of them urgent.

1. The experience of coalition government in 2010-2015 shows that coalitions may sometimes be inevitable, but should be avoided whenever possible.

2. David Cameron should regard with deep scepticism, and should not feel pressured or bound by the reformist view, emanating again from the UCL Constitution Unit and the Institute for Government, that he has any explicit or implied duty to remain in Downing Street as head of a caretaker government following a hung election while formal coalition talks between various political parties proceed. He is equally entitled to continue as Prime Minister until defeated in the House of Commons or to tender his resignation to the monarch immediately. Advice to the contrary from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee or from the Cabinet Secretary would be invalid and without constitutional status.

3. The Prime Minister should consider seriously the option of remaining in office following a hung election in a single-party minority administration. He should also consider the temporary option of a grand coalition with Labour, since it is the two main parties which have the greatest interest in preserving the system of alternating one-party administrations.

4. Both in the short term and in the future, defenders of the Westminster Model must be more serious and far better organised in criticising the nostrums of what might be called “coalitionism”.

5. The quality of electoral administration is in need of drastic improvement.

6. If the vital democratic role of political parties and the Westminster Model is to be safeguarded, party leaders must pay far greater attention to recruiting and communicating with members. Party decline is not inevitable,  but chronic neglect of the grass roots by career politicians reliant on large donations and on publicly-funded patronage positions must end if parties are to prosper. 

 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.