Filter By

AV: The Only Option for 21st Century Conservatives?

Building Conservative Parliamentary Majorities in the 21st Century is going to be a lot harder. Alan Riley discusses why the Tories may need electoral reform to prosper.

The Conservative and Unionist Party is one of the last victims of the Cold War. Conservative dominance of 20th Century politics revolved around the internal threats from socialism and trade union power and external threats from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the USSR that great dominating political majority has come apart. There is a strong argument for the Conservative Party to consider whether in fact an Alternative Vote system may permit the Party to revive part of that great political majority via second preferences on an AV list. In any event, Conservatives should recognise the true scale of the difficulty in delivering an overall Parliamentary majority in the 21st Century.

David Cameron achieved a stunning election result on May 6th by gaining an additional 80 parliamentary seats. No Conservative leader has gained so many seats in a single election since the landslide of 1931. However, the gainsayers will respond that no overall Parliamentary majority resulted and that the Conservative Party only obtained 36% of the votes cast. By contrast the more optimistic recognise the scale of David Cameron's achievement and they now assume that the in the next election its just one more heave to an overall majority.

Both are wrong. The scale of the task of delivering a Conservative overall Parliamentary majority, and repeated Conservative majorities in the 21st Century is enormous. As such the current coalition masks the strategic weakness of the position of the Conservative Party.

Too many Conservative commentators look back to the glory days of Baroness Thatcher and assume that all is required is a return to the eternal Thatcherite verities of sound money, low taxes, a strong defence, tough on Europe and tough on immigration to deliver a substantial Parliamentary majority. This recipe did not work in 1997, 2001 and 2005, and only the more progressive message of David Cameron in 2010 delivered substantial gains, which despite being considerable left the Conservatives still short of an overall majority.

Why though will it be so difficult to obtain substantial Conservative majorities in 21st Century Britain, when it appeared relatively easy to do so in the 20th Century? Last century only Austen Chamberlain was leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party without becoming Prime Minister. In the 21st Century so far the Conservatives have gone through three leaders, none of whom ended up Prime Minister - William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard.

Why is it so difficult for the Conservatives? Part of the answer is familiar. The Labour Party, particularly in the 1980s became very left wing, handing the right and a large part of the centre of British politics to the Conservatives. However, to focus on Michael Foot and his 1983 Manifesto, ‘the longest suicide note in history' is to miss the broader point. To fully understand the Conservatives strategic weakness it is necessary to understand why they were so dominant in the 20th Century. It is not just the last 18 year period of Conservative rule when the Party was dominant but the whole century. In the 20th Century the Conservatives were either in office on their own or dominant in a coalition for 70 years.

Conservative dominance in the 20th Century stemmed from the upheavals of the First World War and the forging by Baldwin of a powerful coalition of interests in response to those upheavals. Faced with the rise of a powerful and seemingly leftist Labour Party at home, increasing trade union power and the potential for internal subversion (extensively documented in Professor Christopher Andrew's recent history of MI5, The Defence of the Realm) the Conservative leadership set about pulling a great political coalition together. The prospect of grave threats to property rights, public order, liberal capitalist democratic values as well as to both Established and dissenting Churches permitted the Conservatives to pull together most of the upper and middle class and a significant proportion of the working class.

Having seen the Edwardian social order collapse at home; almost all the thrones of Europe pulled down on the continent and revolution in Russia, a large part of the British people were ready to support Conservative Party in defence of what they saw as their common historic values, to maintain liberty under the law, fend off socialism and maintain our ancient institutions. The increasing external threats first from Nazi Germany and later from the Soviet Union significantly reinforced that political coalition. Internally Labour leftism, nationalisation, high taxation and gross state interference in the economy, together with overbearing trade union power reinforced support for the Conservative Party post war.

At different times and in different ways the Conservative Party benefited from superb political leadership which permitted it maximise the substantial degree of support available to it. Baldwin, Butler and Thatcher, all three very different politicians, but all three superbly adept for their time at shaping the available support into a dominating political force. However, the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the collapse of the USSR two years later in December 1991 fatally undermined that great 20th Century Conservative political coalition.

With socialism and communism losing all relevance as political ideology and the apparent triumph of the market the threat to property rights, democratic values and capitalism from the Labour Party drained away. This process was reinforced by the Labour Party's increasing willingness to treat with capitalism. Externally, as the Iron Curtain lifted and the Soviet tank armies returned home for the first time since the 1860s there was no significant military European threat to the independence of the United Kingdom as a sovereign state.

In this new world the great Conservative political coalition of the 20th Century was extremely difficult to keep together. It is noticeable that the last Conservative majority government that was elected in April 1992, was elected only four months after the fall of the USSR, when the historic memory of those internal and external threats helped keep a large part of that coalition together.

Since 1992 that coalition has continued to unravel as parts of the old coalition have felt the country is secure enough to go off and vote for the Greens, the Liberal Democrats or UKIP. One way to underline this point is to ask the question: Would UKIP really have obtained 1 million votes on May 6th if there were 2000 Soviet tanks within 450 miles of the Channel ports?

If this thesis is correct, the forces that provided the basis for the great Conservative leaders of the 20th to forge a dominant political coalition no longer exist.

This is not to say new powerful Conservative majority cannot be built. But it has to be recognised that obtaining a parliamentary majority for the Conservative Party in the 21st Century is a much more difficult task under the first past the post system than it was in the 20th Century.

If the Conservatives are to dominate the political landscape of the 21st Century, new coalitions will have to be forged but also serious consideration should also be given to whether first past the post is the best electoral system for the Conservatives to build the new political majorities they need.

As Phillip Blond pointed out in his detailed and careful analysis of the Alternative Vote system and AV plus on this site in May, AV systems provide a basis for the Conservatives to win back a significant number of those lost post cold war voters. For instance under AV the Conservatives would be likely to win the second preference votes of most UKIP voters, a large slice of the Liberal Democrat vote and a surprisingly large number of green voters. AV may well be one of the pillars of 21st Century Conservative political success.

By contrast without the unique and threatening 20th Century forces which could corral such a large part of the electorate direct into Tory ranks it is open to question whether first past the post does the Conservatives much favour in the 21st Century.

This is not to say that the Conservative Party can never win a majority, but under First past the post it is much, much more difficult to deliver it was in the 20th Century.

Comments on: AV: The Only Option for 21st Century Conservatives?

Gravatar John Kenneth Galbraith 04 January 2012
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man"s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

Reply
Gravatar Poetrybysean 23 June 2010
I agree with the observation that a British public seeing itself truly under threat from an external threat voted in Tory leaders in the 20th century. The strikes and blackouts of 70's Britain would also appear to gifted Thatcher power in the same way financial chaos in 2007/8 saw Labour lose out again. We are told today too that Nick Clegg was fully behind the Thatcher-style austerity measurements unleashed in the last budget. Could it be, in this late stage of modern, post World War British politics, that the Labour and Conservative parties are simply taking on more experiential baggage as history unfolds? Eventually the stick in the mud voters of this island are taking more chances, wanting to give those who have done the dirty on them fewer times as chance. I think it's true in Scotland, where the SNP is still a force. So minorities could be set to become brokers, something UK politics always feared. A shake-up of this kind is better than no change at all, in my opinion. Echoing the expenses scandals, it all serves to keep our leaders on their toes. No bad thing, surely?

Also alluded to was the Tory party's collapse one election after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The death of socialism was predicated on capitalism's new-found ability to manage boom and bust. New Labour, in my opinion left the 'business' of making money to the private sector while they have created a latterday make-believe socialist monster of public sector bureaucracy and small-minded surveillance East Germany would have applauded. I can only hope the Lib dems inject a conscience into any Tory attempt to build on this, and that the British voters continue to upset the scales, the more injustices are applied.
Reply
Gravatar Dr Kevin Law 16 June 2010
interesting article

i dont mean to sound glib but there is a much easier way of establishing conservative dominance in government.

ditch scotland as part of the union.

there are few tory mps there but many labour and lib-dems

of course the conservatives would have to get over the '...and unionist..' bit of their title - but if a tory leader was to be ruthless - then you will have almost a permanent inbuilt tory majority in the england and wales.

will it happen - doubt it - cant see the tory party allowing it. but it would solve the tory's problems at one stroke
Reply
Gravatar Harry Hayfield 15 June 2010
I had been led to believe (by data compiled since 1983) that the Conservatives would suffer under Alternative Vote (to the extent of losing 20 seats if the last election had been done under AV). Has there been data released showing that in 2010 this trend was reversed?
Reply
Gravatar John T 08 June 2010
Your analysis overlooks some basic changes that have taken place in the UK - particularly the collapse of the deferential society and the declining place of the Anglican Church - which were major pillars of conservative dominance. Ultimately free market capitalism and conservatism are uneasy bedfellows. Capital is at once a creative and a destructive force - it undermines hierarchy, which was the basis of the old order.
Reply
Gravatar Rupert Thompson 08 June 2010
Hmmm... Relying on AV seems a bit risky. Surely the best, and certainly safest, tactic would be to engineer another cold war.
Reply
Gravatar Allison Ogden-Newton 08 June 2010
Facinating article. I agree and would like to add that the one theme touched on but not developed, though central to your argument, is that the UK is progressive by nature. Electoral success will therefore come to the party who most closely represents that agenda. Whilst issues such as Europe, immigration and low taxation rates continue to be of interest to the electorate they need to be seen for what they are, the tough measures delt out by necessity by a party whose central philosophy is one of progress, equity and above all in support of natural justice.
Reply
Gravatar Tim Roll-Pickering 15 June 2010
I don't agree that the UK is inherently "progressive". To most voters "progressive" is a nice word but fairly meaningless in terms of clearly defining a portion of politics. Study after study has shown voters regard the Lib Dems as a centrist party, willing to work with either of the other two (which has been a long running theme of the party's message, albeit more explicit in the Alliance era) rather than as part of some greater political family. (Similarly I think the voters see the Greens as an environmentalist party, and for that matter UKIP as a Eurosceptic party.)
Reply
Gravatar It doesn't add up... 08 June 2010
You place far too much emphasis on the role of the Soviet Union, while ignoring the changes that are taking place elsewhere. Radical Islam is a much more practical threat than Communism in so many ways, and one that has engaged our forces in several hot wars (Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan) as well as wars by proxy ever since Mussadeq. Careless immigration control risks that the war becomes insurgency on our home turf, which was never a risk in the Soviet era. Europe now looks to be in danger of falling apart: the risk of revolution and secession is high and parallels the period ahead of the French Revolution. In the mean time our economic freedoms are being usurped by EU regulation and competition from BRIC for resources as well as markets. We find ourselves drifting apart from former staunch ally USA. The foreign affairs landscape has rarely been more threatening. That will enhance support for parties that are right of centre.

We are as indebted as we were after we dispatched Napoleon in relative terms. Labour have shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy in managing the public finances yet again, although they retain a core vote through their client state who believe that money grows in welfare cheques. As it starts to become clear just how destructive their policies have been, it is Labour who will become unelectable.

AV is a distraction that will cause pandering to minority parties. It will make the continued existence of UKIP essential to Tories, so that it can act as a safe repository for protest votes that can be hoovered up on second preference. We already have the unseemly sight of Labour politicians pandering to BNP voters, who would be in a position to decide rather more seats under AV: more people would be prepared to vote BNP first knowing that their second votes would also count.

The reality is that the threats we face are such that we need government with broad support, as we did in the 1930s and during WW II. It is my opinion that Cameron actually engineered coalition in preference to seeking to govern alone - which he could have achieved starting from 42% in the polls only 6 months before the election campaign. I think it is arguable that he should have gone for a clear majority, and then aimed for an anyone-but-Labour coalition later to push through the spending cuts and international realignments we will need from a position of greater strength, and once Labour's folly had been more fully exposed.

In short, I don't buy your thesis at all.
Reply
Gravatar paperwisdom.co.uk/coursework 11 December 2011
The Chancellor made the best of a very bad job. He focused the opening of his Statement on the only good feature of the British economy – low interest rates – and presented this as a triumph of government policy rather than a forced response to depression.

http://www.paperwisdom.co.uk/coursework
Reply
Gravatar Keith 15 June 2010
"It doesn't add up..." says:

"AV is a distraction that will cause pandering to minority parties. It will make the continued existence of UKIP essential to Tories, so that it can act as a safe repository for protest votes that can be hoovered up on second preference. We already have the unseemly sight of Labour politicians pandering to BNP voters, who would be in a position to decide rather more seats under AV: more people would be prepared to vote BNP first knowing that their second votes would also count."

You appear to confuse the influence of the _voters_ with the influence of the _parties_. Parties cannot dictate to people who might prefer their candidates who they must pick as their second, third, fourth etc. preference. As a trivial example, over the last decade I've tended to float between the Tories and Lib Dems. If the Lib Dems were to turn around and say I should cast my second preference for Labour or the Greens - on the basis that I'd give the Lib Dems my first preference vote - I'd tell them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine. It could even cause me to reconsider my first preference. I'm sure I can't be alone. As such, it is rather doubtful that minor parties would gain influence as a result of AV. If anything, given that 50% 1 (notwithstanding pedantry about exhausted ballots) is a fairly high bar even for the third party in most seats, it could well have the opposite effect: could Caroline Lucas have won Brighton Pavilion under such a system? I rather doubt it.
Reply
Gravatar George Kendall 15 June 2010
AV is probably the system least likely to return a BNP MP. To get elected, they'd need 50% of voters to give them a preference. In my opinion, that's very unlikely.

Under the present system, I can see the BNP getting 25-30% of the vote in a seat. In three or four-way marginals, it is possible to get an MP elected with that sort of vote.
Reply
Gravatar Ooops 08 June 2010
I know it's not your central point but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to think that Saddam Hussein was a radical Islamist. Wow.
Reply

Join the discussion Have opinions on this matter? Why not get involved and comment on this below.

Become a Member Joining ResPublica give you an exclusive amount of features. Gain early access to ResPublica events, contribute to topics and much more.

Detailed Summary

Date Published
08 June 2010

Categories
AV
electoral reform
Welfare and Public Services

About The Authors

Professor Alan Riley

Professor Alan Riley is one of the leading competition law scholars in the United Kingdom. He chairs the Competit...