William Wallace writes: The chaos of single-party government

Conservative HQ has briefed the media that it plans to attack other parties in the next election campaign for offering 'a coalition of chaos' instead of the 'strong and stable' single-party government the UK has benefitted from since 2015. Liberal Democrats should be rubbishing this fantasy.

In the past seven years we have suffered two early elections and three prime ministers - with a fourth now coming into office. We have had four Chancellors of the Exchequer, five foreign and business secretaries, and six cabinet ministers for education - seven if we include Michele Donovan's two-day term. Junior ministers have turned over at an even faster rate, many moving on after less than a year without time to learn their jobs. Rapid shifts of policy, inconsistent announcements on priorities, officials having to start again briefing new ministers often arriving without any relevant expertise about their responsibilities: chaotic government by any definition.

We can expect another round of ministerial churn in the coming week. In 2019, what's more, 21 MPs were suspended from the Parliamentary Party. Only 10 had the whip restored; two former chancellors and two other former cabinet ministers were among those expelled from the party. Ken Clarke remarked that the party that expelled him was no longer Conservative; 'it's the Brexit Party, rebadged.'

At a Liberal Democrat Business Network gathering last week people were telling me how they longed for the stability that a coalition government might offer after the twists and turns, factional plotting, and inconsistent ministerial directives they have suffered since 2015. We are likely to face more infighting after the embittered leadership contest we have seen this summer, which will make it even harder for the Conservatives to present themselves as a model of stability at the next election, and easier for us to make the case for institutional change to give Britain better government.

We will need to have a short-list of immediate political and constitutional changes to present to whoever emerges as the largest party. A reduction in the number of government posts would alter the balance of the House of Commons;140 MPs now hold government appointments that require them to toe the line on every vote. Statutory status for political regulators would limit patronage and corrupt practices - Liz Truss has said she doesn't need an Adviser of Ministerial Interests, and the Elections Act has crippled the independence of the Electoral Commission. Revival of local democracy, with real devolution of powers to local authorities, and a transformation of the Lords into a chamber representative or the nations and regions of the UK, would take longer - but could be launched by any new government. And a change in the parliamentary voting system, to give voters more choice in who represents them and make MPs less dependent on central party whips.

Two recent developments have made it more difficult to dismiss the case for electoral change. The special Congressional election in Alaska last week took place on a 'ranked choice' system, in which several candidates from both parties competed and the winner emerged with a majority of votes. Even in the USA, First-Past-The-Post is cracking. At Westminster, the Conservatives have just changed one part of our voting system through legislation - removing the supplementary vote for elected mayors, since second preferences have tended to go to non-Conservative candidates too often. If they can bend our voting rules as easily as that, it will be harder for them to demand a referendum before any further changes. There's no need to lose ourselves in nerdish arguments about different systems. The Scots and Irish systems are in operation, are easy to understand, and work well.

Of course, it's still likely that the Labour leadership will resist any such change. They have watched social democratic parties on the continent fall apart as voters' interests and expectations change. Both our divided establishment parties are held together by FPTP; both would splinter if the voting system were more open. The question of how we persuade Labour to take the creation of a more open democracy seriously, rather than hope to exclude others when public disillusion outbalances the inbuilt advantages it gives the Conservatives, is one that I have no answer to so far.

William Wallace writes: The chaos of single-party government (libdemvoice.org)

* William Wallace has fought five parliamentary elections in Manchester and West Yorkshire. He is a former president of the Yorkshire regional Liberal Democrats.