A week is a long time in politics (II): The Government of England is destroyed

For those who believe political hyperbole is new, that quotation is Wellington, after the Reform act of 1832, which grew the franchise from 11% to about 14% of the country. Which, in my more reactionary moments, I also tend to view as the mortal wound to the constitution, after the grievous harm of the unlawful removal of the King in 1689 (after all, that's what real Tories think). We'll pass over where Lords reform sits in this schema as more important matters are at hand.

However, the historical perspective is important here. We have (and should continue to) evolve our constitutional arrangements. But we're becoming bad at constitutional reform in the UK (and the 'UK' part is an example of one of the things we get wrong a lot). While we have traditionally avoided the excesses of the French (best joke here) by making small changes infrequently, we now seem to fudge and fiddle on a frequent basis, leaving it in a compex mess. There is now a real prospect of the venerable and successful system we have for parliament being replaced by fantastical variants of PR. My father-in-law and I have been having a long debate on this over the last few weeks, which has tempered my objections in many cases, but fundamentally I reject this and I reject the premise on which the debate is bring conducted. Here's why (in short):

Firstly, we should be clear about what we're trying to achieve by an election. Ultimately we're seeking to ensure an effective government in the interests of the people. I would argue that's enough, but others will insist we're also trying to have one that reflects the wishes of the people. These are not the same thing, but let's allow both to stand. Banging on about 'democracy' is a sham. No democracy works perfectly, we are engaged in assessing which imperfect system is best for the country.

Secondly, the discussion needs focussing. Everyone wants some kind of reform, even if it just to regularise the population-bias against the Tory held seats or to solve some of the mess that the botched devolution settlement has created. But, as the only game in town is the Liberal party (I am ignoring Gordon's insultingly obvious last minute conversion to AV, which the liberals don't want), we should discuss that. It's not that easy to find the specifics on the LD website, their manifesto says they will introduce 'fair votes', which later you find means multi-member constituency STV. I'm familiar with this. It's not a bad system, though highly complex, and assuming you have large enough consitituencies, you get a roughly proportional legislature. It's still a bad outcome.

1) It's complex and disenfranchising at a local level

• Methodologically, it is really complicated. When you're reallocating third preferences against fourth preferences at values of 0.04 of the vote (and these matter; I got elected on them once), this is not going to make sense to people. And I think any argument for more democracy that involves a system people don't understand is morally flawed.
• It undermines local accountability. For example, I went to my local husting last week; interesting, but long: there were 7 candidates. In a 5 member constituency, there would be up to five times that. Each major party would put up five, though the small parties wouldn't. I'm not going to care about these people; I'm going to find it hard to have a personal stake in them unless they really fuck it up. I'll just vote on party lines in an essentially random preference list. So it's a fig leaf; the results will be the same as lists, except there is no real way to determine who is the senior party member.

2) It creates all the problems of PR at national level:

• Under PR, the appearance of democracy is pretty illusory. The government in a PR scenario commands no 'majority of votes cast' as it's supporters argue, but rather an invisible political fudge with no loyalty to bind the government together. Those in favour argue that a coalition will represent the blend of policies that appeal to most people, but there is no real evidence that this will be the case. Currently, despite most people voting for parties opposed to PR, the price of Liberal support will be PR - doesn't sound 'democratic' to me.
• Similarly, given the limited shifts in the vote, this more 'democratic' solution pushes us towards stagnation. PR leads to a more remote and possibly unchanging governing class. In Austria, voting simply didn't matter for fifty years as the same parties were always in power, just with slightly different allocations of portfolios. Eventually they got so fed up with this that they elected a Nazi. In the UK, every post-war election would mean that the Liberals held the balance of power between the Tories and Labour. No wonder they support it; it's no reason we all should.

3) It encourages further fragmentation and looniness

• On the other hand, the altrnative is worse. When PR doesn't lead to stable grand coalitions, it collapses into a miasma of competing and shifting alliances. This is a bad outcome. It's important that individuals and parties can be challenged on their record. It is right that we know that Labour's senior politicians in the 1990s were maddo unilateralists; it is an appropriate challenge to the the Tories that they do defend their attitude to homosexuality in the past. I've lost track of the French right wing parties since the Gaullists, and Italian parties change with each election.
• And when parties fragment, they go mad, and PR gives the mad ones power. Israel has spent a while in hock to Shas, who are mad and corrupt, because they held the balance of power. In the UK, in 2005, you'd have had 13 UKIP MPs, and 4 BNP. Actually you might have more, as the penalties in the system do stop people voting for them. I'm discomforted by the thought of the Liberals as kingmakers, I'm horrified by most of the others (and that includes Plaid, who are so moronic they think it is a legitimate policy to have a maximum wage, but not for Welsh entrepeneurs).

4) Finally, first past the post works

• It is right that the most popular person in your area represents you; it is right that collections of those people govern. If the 'progressive alliance' feels very strongly about it, they can not run in clashing marginals. This is real politics, not petty squabbling (the same goes for UKIP). If they cannot agree whether to run a candidate in Basildon, they aren't going to be able to agree an education policy.
• We need decisive, stable government. FPTP gives us that; most PR systems don't do this well. Italy is usually a basket case, Belgium takes four or five months to form a government each time, the Netherlands government has just fallen 18 months ahead of time. Some work, but because they aren't really PR: France has a directly elected President, Spain has tiny constituencies. Germany alone is good, and they operate a stable, two alliance system that looks very much two-party government to me.
• Finally, don't believe the hype. This election is an anomaly, not the harbinger of a new model for politics. It's a very exciting anomaly arising from the Liberals effectively triangulating to hold right-wingers in the south and pick up lefties in the North. It cannot stand and it won't in the long term - there simply isn't enough consistency within the party.

Ultimately, all constitutional reform will struggle to deliver what everyone wants. They start with people talking about legitimacy, and end with piecemeal political calculation. Change should be long considered, and rarely implemented. Constant tinkering distracts from the main business of politics. And that makes for bad government.