Comments on: The Westminster system of government

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:39:55 +0000

Adrian Kidney: minority and coalition governments are indeed possible under FPTP. The point I make is that FPTP facilitates but does not guarantee single-party government. Much depends on the nature of the society itself. We have occasionally had minority or coalition governments in this country, but they have been the exception and not the rule. There are rivalries between constituency and list members in Scotland and Wales: it is this experience that influences some MPs from Scotland and Wales to be opposed to any election of members of the second chamber. The problem with AV is that it can be more disproportionate than FPTP, especially if there is a notable swing against one party. It has been estimated, for example, that had AV been employed in the UK, the Labour Party would have won even more seats in 1997 than they won under FPTP.

By: Adrian Kidney

Adrian Kidney — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:22:49 +0000

Lord Norton, regarding your comments on AV+ and FPTP: I agree with what you say, but then it still has to be said that FPTP is greatly disproportional and minority and coalition governments are still possible; they’re a factor of parliamentary systems, not of electoral systems. Canada has FPTP and yet currently has a minority Conservative administration.

Would you say there are examples of constituency/List rivalries in the parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Germany?

What would you say of simply Alternative Vote, like Australia uses for House of Representatives elections?

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:03:23 +0000

David Ellis: Your response is founded on a false premise. It is not possible to equate state governments in the USA to county councils in this country. The closest equivalent to a state government would be devolved government in Scotland, but even it lacks the full tax-raising powers of a state government. Major powers that are vested in state governments in the USA reside in the UK in national government. And the USA also has some powerful county and city administrations. Apart from the mayor of Greater London, the UK has nothing to compare with the mayors of the major urban areas in the USA. Issues that constituents in the USA would take to a council member or state legislator are taken in the UK to the local MP.

By: David Ellis

David Ellis — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:44:56 +0000

Adrian Kidney March 6, 2009 at 12:33 pm

I wasn’t ignoring the State legislatures. I was concentrating on the central government numbers. It would be possible to equate the State governments to our County Councils – the numbers would be roughly equal. It is true that the States are further subdivided into Counties themselves, but these tend not to have their own governmental bodies, rather having operating boards of much reduced size when compared to our Borough Councils (Harnett County, North Carolina has five Commissioners, Test Valley Borough Council has 24+ Councillors, for example). There are also City Councils, but they too are very slim bodies (Raleigh, NC has a Council of eight, for example). And there are local councils in much the way we have Parish Councils, where the numbers are of the same order.

The net is that below the level of central government the numbers may in fact still indicate a worse overhead in the UK but can be ignored for the primary point of my post.

And if inclusion of the devolved assemblies in this country is taken into account, then the ratio worsens still further.

But this would be a distraction from my essential point, that our primary legislature is way over-resourced. I believe we could trim it down by 80% and not suffer any detriment. I posted my point because I would like to hear arguments to the contrary.

By: Croft

Croft — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:02:39 +0000

A search in Amazon for Philip Norton produces a whole slew of your books though delightfully also includes: “Short Fuse: The Global Anthology of New Fusion Poetry with CD by Philip Norton”

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:39:42 +0000

Troika21: There is no absence of good books on UK politics and government. It depends how much you want in-depth, essentially academic, works or good broad introductions. It is a bit difficult for me to offer objective advice, as I am someone who often pens or contributes to such works! Having declared my interest, let me immodestly recommend ‘Politics UK’ by Bill Jones, Dennis Kavanagh, Mick Moran and myself; the 6th edition was published in 2007 by Pearson/Longman. (For overseas readers, perhaps I could mention that I am working on a new edition of my US-published book, ‘The British Polity’.) Hope that helps answer what I thought was an excellent question.

Croft: On the Leader of the Opposition, I was utilising it in a formal sense (in essence, capital letters, rather than leader of the opposition). David Ellis: Adrian Kidney has offered the response I would have provided. The federal Congress has limited powers because of the powers reserved to the states. Each state has its own legislature (and in 49 of the 50 states two chammbers). The UK is a unitary state, with ultimate power residing at Westminster. There are also reasons of history why the two chambers are so large: neither, incidentally, is anyway near the size that it has been in the past.

On the wider issue of adversary politics, I would not recognise the claims made by stephenpaterson for coalition governments after 1974. Adversary politics were a very marked feature of the 1974-79, as was disarray in Labour’s ranks, and the Lib/Lab Pact was hardly a great success and in part was ended for the reason that post-election coalitions are not a good thing: that is, they are largely unaccountable, especially if the parties fight the next election as independent entities. Many of the claims made for coalitions don’t add up to much. If party A gains 40% of the votes and party B gets 20% and the two parties decide to form a coalition after the election, how much support do they have? Some claim they have the support of 60% of the electorate. Sorry, they have the definitive support of 0% of the electorate, as not one elector voted at the election for A+B. Who voted definitively for a Labour/Plaid Cmyru coalition in Wales? No one.

As for the Alternative Vote Plus recommended by the Jenkins Commission, and supported by stephenpaterson, I should declare an interest. I penned the Conservative response to the Commission’s report, explaining why we should retain the present electoral system. The Alternative Vote Plus is a bit of a pig’s breakfast: in essense, it recommends a system with the potential to be far more disproportional than the existing system and then, recognising that, recommends some ‘top-up’ members, who would then compete with constituency MPs to speak for a particular area. I could go on, but you get the drift…

On the wider issues, I think I had better respond to demand and do a post shortly on the merits and demerits of the Westminster system.

By: Adrian Kidney

Adrian Kidney — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:33:19 +0000

David Ellis,

The United States federal government has less than half that number, but you’re ignoring the presence of thousands more legislators in 50 federal states.

By: Croft

Croft — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:38:52 +0000

stephenpaterson: I’m absolutely sure you are right in saying people vote to punish government for decisions they hate but rarely vote to reward parties for actions taken of which they approve. The public is not known for being grateful.

(At least according to the excellent ukpollingreport Clwyd West has an even smaller notional majority of 111!)

By: David Ellis

David Ellis — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:49:09 +0000

I would like to know why the UK needs the massive overhead of 1378 rulers (Lords + Commons) when the US gets by with less than half that number and yet has five times the population, a ratio one eleventh the size of ours.

By: stephenpaterson

stephenpaterson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:05:59 +0000

Ladytizzy – I rather suspect the smoking ban would be the new offence most remembered, and I’m sure the majority approve of it, but I do not think the numbers who would be persuaded to vote Labour as a result of it would be great. Amongst inconvenienced smokers, on the other hand, the proportion who change their vote may be considerable. A favourite conversation among the smokers freezing outside my local pub here in the constituency of Clwyd West (Con maj over Lab 133) is between those who want to enlist the sevices of a local artist to create the Gordon Brown dartboard and the Harriet Harman urinal, and those who want to produce the Gordon Brown urinal and the Harriet Harman dartboard. Ladies among both sides argue passionately for a unisex loo. Meanwhile, small Plastocine models of Jacqui Smith continue to circulate, together with cigarette lighters and sets of pins.

Croft – yes, I did carefully limit my expression with “certain” committees. The Policing and Crime Bill scrutiny committee, I’m afraid, illustrated your point very well. Their Lordships have that joy to come…