IF THE TORIES GOVERN PROPERLY...:

General Election 2010: Even if talks fail, Cameron has read the public mood correctly: In trying to achieve a Lib-Con alliance, David Cameron he has shown that the Conservatives are not a closed sect of the self-seeking (Matthew d'Ancona, 08 May 2010, Daily Telegraph)

Two weeks ago, I argued that, after the election, some form of agreement between David Cameron and Nick Clegg might be “the worst option available – apart from all the others”. What was then hypothesis is now rough-edged reality. The Tory leader’s statement at St Stephen’s Club in Westminster on Friday, making “a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats” was one of his finest performances, delivered with the confidence of a prime minister and the honesty of a politician unafraid to absorb the message sent to him by the electorate. A man of Cameron’s background and talent is used to praise. The true test is how he deals with its withdrawal; or – as in this election result – partial endorsement that is hedged with qualifications and doubts.

Nor is it true that Cameron and his circle were amazed by this result. They had always known, and had always said, that to leap from the party’s position after the 2005 election (209 seats, using the redrawn boundaries) to a majority of one (326 seats) was a forbidding challenge. They knew that they might have to govern without a majority. Naturally, therefore, the possibility of talks with the Lib Dems lurked beneath many remarks and conversations – though not always publicly or obviously. George Osborne has long been an advocate of intelligent co‑operation with the third party where possible. Ten days before the election, I appeared on the BBC’s Campaign Show, interviewing Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary. We asked this senior Tory four times to rule out electoral reform at Westminster and he stuck religiously to the line that the Tories “oppose proportional representation”.

If this sounds like a trivial distinction, it isn’t. Properly understood, “proportional representation” means what it says: members of the legislature are drawn from party lists in strict proportion to the number of votes cast. But between this and first-past-the-post, there is a great spectrum of options, including the Alternative Vote system (a preferential method now favoured by Labour, where each MP has to secure 50 per cent of the local vote to get elected, using first, second, third preferences to identify that candidate) and AV-plus (recommended by Roy Jenkins’s Commission in 1998: like the Alternative Vote system, with top-up members being drawn from party lists).

Most of these systems retain, to a greater or lesser extent, the all-important constituency link between MP and voter. Personally, I still prefer first-past-the-post. But it is worth noting the under-acknowledged diversity and diverse impacts of the voting systems that will be at the heart of the talks between Tories and Lib Dems. Mr Hunt’s evasiveness in our interview was significant. In practice, some Tories will find that they cannot countenance anything other than the status quo. But others will discover attractions in some of the alternative systems once they are reassured that the constituency link is retained. Not all electoral reform is the same, and should not be treated as a homogeneous threat.

At any rate: only the smallest minds are scared of debate.

...there will soon be only two parties anyway.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 9, 2010 7:10 AM