Support our Nation today - please donate here
Opinion

Labour’s plan to reform politics doesn’t go far enough – here’s what will really stop governments hoarding power

07 Dec 2022 5 minute read
Former prime minister Gordon Brown (left) and Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer. Picture by Jane Barlow / PA Wire

Jonathan Parker, Lecturer in Politics, University of Glasgow

In a major report for the Labour party, former prime minister Gordon Brown has proposed a number of reforms to address some of the UK’s glaring institutional problems. He recommends reforming the House of Lords, so that it is elected and far smaller than its current size, as well as major devolution across the UK. Yet evidence from political science suggests Labour leader Keir Starmer needs to go much further to bring about the real change in the power and standards of central government he claims to want.

The key scholar here is Dutch-American political scientist Arend Lijphart, who divides democracies into two categories. Those characterised by the concentration of power in single-party governments are “majoritarian” and those built around power-sharing are “consensus” democracies.

The UK is a key example of a majoritarian system. It features a first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, single-party cabinets, massive concentration of power in the national government and an uncodified constitution which is very easy to change. These elements are arguably at the root of many of the UK’s recent problems.

Most European nations – including Germany, Sweden and Belgium – slot into the consensus category. They use proportional representation for elections and have coalition cabinets. Most also generally feature lots of devolution to different regions of the state. They have codified constitutions which are difficult to amend and often powerful upper houses to check the executive.

Proportional representation is arguably the most important element here. Giving parties seats in proportion to their share of the vote generally leads to more parties being represented in parliaments. That, in turn, makes power-sharing arrangements between parties and full-blown coalition governments more common.

Brown’s report steps toward this in some respects. He proposes greater decentralisation, and more consultation with devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it makes no mention about proportional representation and the reformed upper house it suggests contains no extra powers to check governments.

The House of Commons – and the massively powerful governments it provides – would remain largely unchanged under Brown’s reforms. To really unlock the power of institutional change so that it ensures the government delivers for the British public, Labour needs a much bolder embrace of consensus democracy.

A broken system

The British experience has clearly displayed the pitfalls of majoritarianism compared to a consensus system, especially since 2016. Abuses of power of the kind seen under Conservative governments since 2019 are made much easier by majoritarianism, because there are so few checks and balances imposed on government ministers.

Had the Conservatives been in a coalition government with another party, Boris Johnson would arguably have found it far harder to get away with his lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street. Rishi Sunak would have faced significant opposition to his politically expedient but otherwise questionable decision to appoint Suella Braverman as home secretary mere days after she was forced to resign from the very same post for failing to comply with ministerial rules.

Nor would Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-budget have been possible under a coalition government. Such a drastic policy change simply couldn’t be made midterm with no consultation. Coalition governments are typically sources of stability. Parties tend to stick to agreements made at the start of the term and play by the rules.

Party leadership changes have significantly less impact on government policy here. Evidence shows that coalitions are at least no worse performers on economic policy than single-party governments. They are, however, much less prone to destabilising policy shifts.

Aside from coalition governments, checks on ministerial abuses and incompetence could be strengthened with a codified constitution and a powerful upper house. Introducing proportional representation would allow more politicians from other parties to enter parliament, likely raising the calibre of MPs because party loyalty alone could no longer be relied upon to keep an MP in their job if they were under-performing. Such a system could also be expected to increase the number of women and minorities in parliament.

Bold Labour

Proportional voting would make space for people unwilling to work through the two main parties to win a seat. Safe seats would become a thing of the past. All this would bring policymaking closer to voter preferences.

Such reforms would also reduce polarisation, which has grown significantly in the UK in recent years. The UK has a very confrontational political climate because of the winner-takes-all nature of its institutions. Stronger incentives for parties to cooperate with each other would be extremely useful in changing this.

Majoritarian systems incentivise focusing on “wedge” issues which divide voters, and appealing only to specific groups of loyal or swing voters. In a consensus system, parties must engage in more long-term national planning.

Policy made under a consensus system is more likely to take into account diverse parts of the country, and last much longer. Consensus democracies almost always have much lower levels of inequality than majoritarian systems like the UK or US.

A much bolder offering from Labour – at the moment likely to form the next government – would have multiple benefits. Aside from improvements to governance, there are gains to be had in terms of the quality of democracy, and potentially strategic advantages for Labour too. But the party would need to embrace this opportunity in a way it failed to do last time it was in government.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Support our Nation today

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cathy Jones
Cathy Jones
1 month ago

The very fact that it is called “The United Kingdom” prevents any real reform, you can’t reform or fix or restructure a house whose foundations were rotten from the start. You just can’t.

The UK is already over, the Supreme Court Ruling helped finalise that, now it’s just a case of how long it takes to disintegrate.

You can NEVER be equal to a king and if you cannot be equal as all are then you can never say you are anything other than a subject to the one with the magic hat.

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Cathy Jones

A “subject” of a monarch could in certain cases be viewed as slavery!

Riki
Riki
1 month ago
Reply to  Cathy Jones

In reality its real name is the United Kingdom’s! But they lose the plural S on purpose to make people forget it’s a union made up of two Legally unified countries and a Forced unification. Think about it…we know NI can’t be a part of The UK or British as it’s named on its own! That means we are led to believe that UK and Britain are made up of the same countries! Then why two names for the same entity? The reason is that the UK is only in fact England and Scotland, and the term Britain gets thrown… Read more »

Dr Keith W Darlington
Dr Keith W Darlington
1 month ago

The author rightly recognises the need for a change from the First Past the Post (FPTP) system. More than 85% of Labour members want to change this system, but Starmer rejected the change because Labour has also been a beneficiary of this dysfunctional duopoly in the past. For example, Blair s first victory in 1997 gave him a lower vote share than Johnson had in 2019 but he was rewarded with a landslide majority of 179 seats – more than twice that of Johnson – who had an 88-seat majority. In 2001, Blair had fewer votes than Kinnock had in… Read more »

Hywel
Hywel
1 month ago

It’s a “boys club” – those in charge don’t want FPTP to change. Neither side. You’d have facilitators in both parties working together to keep the status quo, along with the support of those with vested interests working in a ‘coalition’ to make sure it isn’t threatened.

Gareth
Gareth
1 month ago

Yet another independant report on how badly we are served, not only by how we are governed but also the electoral system, and again it is pointed out, how we could improve all of the above, but it seems that those in a position to change all this, from Sunak, Starmer, and even Drakeford, are happy to tell us how well off we are by being part of the broken system, and by marking the smallest of changes we will be even better off, whilst maintaining the same basics. Seems like those in power do not want change, so we… Read more »

Arwyn
Arwyn
1 month ago

Bingo. This has eloquently put into words the gnawing contradiction I couldn’t quite put my finger on. The Labour Party presents itself as a progressive force for change, yet I constantly find myself disappointed by it. My expectations are so high and so often I feel let down by people I should, in theory, share considerable common ground. I get it now. The membership might want PR and espouse other progressive policies but the leadership centralises power and control. It also pursues political power in the UK on a majoritarian basis. When I’ve argued in the past that Labour plays… Read more »

Dr Keith Darlington
Dr Keith Darlington
1 month ago
Reply to  Arwyn

Well said. Fully agree.

Y Cymro
Y Cymro
1 month ago

I wouldn’t trust a word Unionist Gordon Brown or Keir Starmer says about devolving power. I’ve seen their minimalistic aspiration for Wales on Labour’s website. Again power hungry UK Labour with their promises & pledge prioritise England who will get the three lionshare of investment & infrastructure build. Scotland & Northern Ireland are favoured regarding further devolution, and Wales as usual last in the devolution pecking order even though it’s stated Labour wants to end this unequal centralised Britain but opts to continue the patronising Unionist treatment of Wales by throwing us constitutional crumbs and weaponizing Welsh poverty. Today it’s… Read more »

Steve Woods
Steve Woods
1 month ago

Well done to the author for recognising that the major problems with the so-called UK reside in its uncodified constitution and the extremely unfair FPTP voting system.

I don’t expect either of those to be tack;led for decades as the Labour Party – like the Tories – have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Viewed against that background, reform of the House of ‘Lords’ is mere tinkering with constitutional arrangements.

Our Supporters

All information provided to Nation.Cymru will be handled sensitively and within the boundaries of the Data Protection Act 2018.