The English Electoral System.

IT has been customary in recent times to dwell only on the flaws of the English electoral system, and with good reason. When patriots see their country hampered by governors proving consistently unpatriotic it is natural to begin to reflect on reform of the system. Some method, such as the continent of Europe has innovated, that should provide for a number of seats commensurable with vote share, would seem in theory to populate a more representative parliament and therefore government. Unfortunately the inevitable reality of such a system is negative. Firstly the English system is underappreciated in its local application. Each elected Member of Parliament is firstly and principally the member for his constituency, and that always has been the basis of English democracy from the earliest times; a democracy which has proved of immeasurable benefit to the world in its example. This should be realised, that whatsoever party a Right Honourable Member should be affiliated with, it is his or her utmost and abiding responsibility to serve his or her constituency. The affiliated party is nothing, it is an incident, and should prove no more influential in fact or form than the particular colour of one's iris. Of course, in recent times this has not been the case. Woe to recent times therefore, that should not mean it cannot become the case.

   Now this excellent and peculiar local representation of the English system cannot be replicated in the continental systems because, by their nature, they are not dependent upon local eligibility. Let us speculate an example, suppose the Christian Democrats win 50% of the vote, suppose the Christian Socialists win 25% of the vote, the Christian Greenfingers win 12.5%, and the rest is attained by other parties. Well and good. Now the various victorious candidates have to be apportioned in the House of Commons on an arbitrary basis, not representing their local and historic constituencies but representing an uncertain proportion. Such a system effectively eliminates the very heart of traditional English democracy.

   But this is not even the most grievous flaw with such proposed systems. In my view the most grievous flaw, evinced as a flaw in many of the parliaments employing them, is in the blunted governments and oppositions formed by those methods. In the previous example I provided a clear majority for the sake of argument but the reality of these systems is that, by their nature, there is seldom such a majority attained. Perhaps this may be shown by the real figures of the last General Election in Great Britain, which are as follows: 

 

Conservative Party, 365 Seats, 43.6% of the vote;

Labour Party, 202 Seats, 32.1% of the vote;

Scotch National Party, 48 Seats, 3.9% of the vote;

Liberal Democrat Party, 11 Seats, 11.6% of the vote;

Other Parties, 23 Seats, 8.8% of the vote.

   The most obvious observation to be made of these figures is of course the peculiar merit of our system in granting enhanced power to areas of traditional and historic importance, as in the case of Scotland, a party with barely four per cent of the national vote is accorded eight per cent of the seats. Naturally this could not be the case in an ordinary system of proportional representation. But more than that, it is very evident that a great virtue of our English system is to heavily weight its results, so that actual power is imbued into the elected parties. By the most rudimentary calculation of pure proportional representation the following is approximately what the last election would have looked like:

Conservative Party, 279 Seats, 43.6% of the vote;

Labour Party, 208 Seats, 32.1% of the vote;

Scotch National Party, 26 Seats, 3.9% of the vote;

Liberal Democrat Party, 71 Seats, 11.6% of the vote.

Other Parties, 66 Seats, 8.8% of the vote.

 

   There would have been no majority government (as the House is comprised of 650 seats), therefore a minority government would have had to have been formed, or a coalition government. Some might prefer this state of affairs but I do not. I think government should mean government; the ship of state must have a tiller and a captain. Half the ship may want to go back to Portsmouth and the other half make way for Tahiti, and the English system provides an answer one way or the other, but the continental system leads to continual debate and bickering till the tiller is snapped in the scuffle and the ship drifts about like merest lumber.

   Yet even should such a government be preferred there is another bad effect on the nature of opposition. Frankly I often think the rôle of His Majesty's Opposition is the more important of the two in the House, as it is the Opposition which is tasked with ensuring an adequate standard of debate and scrutiny of a government. It is the Opposition that ensures the democracy, otherwise we have but a ceremonially elected regime. Therefore it is a serious flaw for an electoral system to blunt the claws of the opposition's power, and that is precisely the consequence of the continental systems. They tend to have round houses of debate. Sir Winston Churchill was scathing of the round innovation in parliaments, and I think justly. In his speech given on St. George's Day he talks of St. George's approaching the dragon by modern methods.

   'St. George would arrive in Cappadocia, accompanied not by a horse, but by a secretariat. He would be armed not with a lance, but with several flexible formulas. He would, of course, be welcomed by the local branch of the League of Nations Union. He would propose a conference with the dragon—a Round Table Conference, no doubt—that would be more convenient for the dragon’s tail.'

   He also spoke of the strange but undoubted power of the English parliament's House of Commons design, inherited from the original parliament which was a chapel:

   'Its shape should be oblong and not semi-circular. Here is a very potent factor in our political life. The semi-circular assembly, which appeals to political theorists, enables every individual or every group to move round the centre, adopting various shades of pink according as the weather changes. I am a convinced supporter of the party system in preference to the group system. I have seen many earnest and ardent Parliaments destroyed by the group system. The party system is much favoured by the oblong form of Chamber. It is easy for an individual to move through those insensible gradations from Left to Right but the act of crossing the Floor is one which requires serious consideration. I am well informed on this matter, for I have accomplished that difficult process, not only once but twice. Logic is a poor guide compared with custom. Logic which has created in so many countries semi-circular assemblies which have buildings which give to every Member, not only a seat to sit in but often a desk to write at, with a lid to bang, has proved fatal to Parliamentary Government as we know it here in its home and in the land of its birth.'

   Now I will conclude with some remarks as to the present political situation in England. Firstly, I believe that it is vital there should be restored a spirit of independence to all Right Honourable Members, be they avowedly independent or no. The parties are parties, that is all. They function as instruments of organisation and simplification, so that analysts know their left from their right. Of course, the whips provide a degree of stability, but fundamentally the English parliament is a parliament of representative interests. In the eighteenth-century, arguably the most glorious period of all for our parliament, the party system was entirely informal and really only functioned as a means of discerning one fellow from another, 'Oh, he's with Fox, ah! he's with Pitt!' Certainly, governments should be formed, but debate never cease. Secondly, I believe Prime Minister's Questions should be abolished as a worthless farce, an ugly parade of yelping and hallooing. The time spent in preparation of this pantomime could be put towards the kinds of untelevised and supremely rhetorical debates of old, such as when Pitt the Younger debated the Slave Trade question all night until dawn streamed blood red through the windows and, with one of that great man's supreme flashes of inspiration, he quoted Virgil, 'Nosque ubi primus equis Oriens adflavit anhelis, Illic sera rubens accendit lumina Vesper.' 'When early Dawn breathes on us with panting steeds, There crimson Evening is kindling her late light.' Which stroke of pure genius Pitt's mortal foe and opposite, Charles James Fox, vociferously praised. That is parliamentary debate.