Lib Dem spike or not, it’s time to prepare for a post-majoritarian politics

The Labour movement column

By Anthony Painter /@anthonypainter

What is the point of the Liberal Democrats? That’s the battle cry of Labour and Conservative activists up and down the country. There may even be the odd Liberal Democrat activist who asks the same thing, but that’s just being mischievous.

Elections are good news for the Liberal Democrats. For one month every four to five years they are able to command part of the national conversation. So, instead of being gritty, local campaigners dependent on the resources of activism from place to place have a platform and, to a certain extent, a spotlight.

Away from the battlefield, just occasionally one of their spokespeople breaks free of the cage of silence in which they are imprisoned. Vince Cable is the obvious example who has used the financial crisis to set the political agenda. In the main, though, they are the Independent of politics: you only really turn to them if there’s nothing in the Guardian or The Times. But if the two main parties don’t raise their game then voters may start to take a peek at the third party.

So far in this long election campaign we’ve seen too much petty politicking – over MPs’ tweets and errors made in the placing of decimal points. This is ephemera. It’s background noise. Like a dog whistle in reverse, it will eventually put off the voters in droves.

There are bigger issues. And many of these are being fluffed also. It was absolutely flabbergasting to see the party leaders trying to score political points off each other over the issue of social care during Prime Ministers’ Question Time last week. How can such a critical long-term issue be reduced to political fist-fighting?

Sure, the Tories were completely dumb with their “Labour’s death tax” ad, straight out of the Karl Rove Republican play book. “It was him that started it, miss” is unlikely to impress anyone, however. Surely the right response was quiet disdain alongside mapping out a way of building a consensus over time. Labour got there by the weekend, and credit to Andy Burnham for doing so.

If all this is going to be way the election goes, then the no voting party and so-called ‘other parties’ will be licking their lips. Already, the two main parties combined are receiving 10% of the vote less than they were at the time of the 1992 general election. At this point, it is difficult to see this election reversing that trend. At what point does ‘two party’ politics become unviable and anti-democratic? Well, when the two main parties barely secure two-thirds of the vote on a sixty percent turnout, then we can’t be far off that point.

So this is where the Liberal Democrats come in. My previous (main) objection to proportional representation (as opposed to electoral reform) was that government formation becomes an elite bargain unless kingmaker parties are open and transparent about which coalition they would join. If they are clear then the flaws of proportional representation diminish.

Credit to the Liberals Democrats for stating that they do not intend to go into any coalition. Instead, they will fight for their defined priorities from the backbenches – political reform, educational investment, changes to the tax system, and a recovery and investment focused economic policy.

That is clear and now at least voters know what they are voting for when they vote Liberal Democrat. It also makes good strategy.

The received wisdom is that they will get squeezed in the event of a close election. Firstly, the received wisdom is wrong. In 1992, their support rose during the election campaign by about 3 points over the last month. Secondly, if they rise above the fray – most particularly in the leaders’ debates – and speak with a clarity of purpose, there is no reason that they couldn’t get the boost that they traditionally get again. This time around they start off at around the 20% mark. Hold their strategic position and perform well and 22-23% should be within reach – a post-1983 high for them. Ironically, from that position they could fail to gain seats, or even lose some seats.

If they do manage to expand their parliamentary base then there is an even greater chance that we will be in hung parliament territory. In which case things get more complicated.

Can there be any clearer indication that the British state is outmoded than the fact that in order to understand what happens in that eventuality the Cabinet Secretary has to reach for ‘secret’ memos from 1974? Why can’t we know what happens given a hung parliament scenario? Surely, the Cabinet Secretary should publish clear, consumable guidance explaining the mechanism?

In such a scenario, it would be an interesting dress rehearsal for a post majoritarian politics. It is becoming increasingly clear that British politics is suffering from legitimacy issues. There would be many deals done in any hung parliament. Let’s hope that one of those deals is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats to fundamentally change politics for good.