New Labour is gone, and now those who have succeeded it are talking about “New Politics”. And some are talking about the “seats” and the “votes” and the “mandate”.
But what are these “New Politics” and do the “seats” and the “votes” really matter?
To answer these questions, we shall use some pretty pictures and some maths, made easy thanks to ThePie.
The present electoral system is based on seat count. The seats being electoral districts (constituencies) which elect a Member of Parliament to represent the people of the area in the House of Commons. The political party that gets the most seats in an elections forms the Government. And to have a clear working majority in the House of Commons, so that they can pass whatever laws they might propose, the winning party needs over 50% of the seats.
The problem with the General Elections 2010 was that no party has attained such clear majority, as can be seen from the table below:
| UK Elections 2010 by Number of Seats | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The 3 Main Parties and The Rest | |||||
| No. | Color | Party | Number of Seats | Percent of Total |
| 1 | Conservatives | 306 | 47.08% | ||
| 2 | Labour | 258 | 39.69% | ||
| 3 | LibDem | 57 | 8.77% | ||
| 4 | The Rest | 28 | 4.31% | ||
| 5 | Unaccounted | 1 | 0.15% | ||
| Total: | 650 | 100.00% | |||
This “hung parliament” problem has been resolved by he Conservative and the Liberal Democrats (LibDems) forming a coalition government, which gave that government a clear majority of 55.85% as per the table below:
| UK Elections 2010 by Number of Seats | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Con-Lib Coalition, Labour and The Rest | |||||
 | No. | Color | Party | Number of Seats | Percent of Total |
| 1 | Con-Lib | 363 | 55.85% | ||
| 2 | Labour | 258 | 39.69% | ||
| 3 | The Rest | 28 | 4.31% | ||
| 4 | Unaccounted | 1 | 0.15% | ||
| Total: | 650 | 100.00% | |||
It is also clear from the above tables, that the Parliament is dominated by the three main parties, with all the other parties (The Rest) having less than 5% of the parliamentary seats.
If, however, to look not at the number of seats won from the 650 seats, but at the number of votes cast, then the picture is different, as per the table below:
| UK Elections 2010 by Votes Cast | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Three Main Parties and The Rest | |||||
 | No. | Color | Party | Number of Votes | Percent of Total |
| 1 | Conservatives | 10,706,647 | 36.11% | ||
| 2 | Labour | 8,604,358 | 29.02% | ||
| 3 | LibDem | 6,827,938 | 23.03% | ||
| 4 | The Rest | 3,514,695 | 11.85% | ||
| Total: | 29,653,638 | 100.00% | |||
Here “The Rest” is the number of voters who did not vote for any of the three main parties, but voted for a small party or an independent candidate. And here the percentages of the Conservative and the Labour votes are less then their percentages of the seats, but the percentages of LibDems and of The Rest are much higher than their percentages of the seats.
Again no party has over 50% of the votes cast, but a Conservative‐LibDem coalition would have had an almost 60% of the votes cast, as per the table below:
| UK Elections 2010 by Votes Cast | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Con-Lib Coalition and the Rest | |||||
 | No. | Color | Party | Number of Votes | Percent of Total |
| 1 | Con-Lib | 17,534,585 | 59.13% | ||
| 2 | The Rest | 12,119,053 | 40.87% | ||
| Total: | 29,653,638 | 100.00% | |||
Thus, if the voting system were changed from the current one to one based on the number of votes cast, the overall result would still be the same, although the smaller parties would have a greater representation in the House of Commons.
But what about the “Mandate”? What proportion of those eligible to vote have given their vote to the winning party?
To answer that question one needs to look not at the number of seats won from the 650 seats, not at the number of votes cast, but at the total number of eligible voters. And, then again, the picture is different, as per the table below:
| UK Elections 2010 by Number of Eligible Voters | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Three Main Parties and The Rest | |||||
 | No. | Color | Party | Number of Electors | Percent of Total |
| 1 | The Rest | 19,412,860 | 42.62% | ||
| 2 | Conservatives | 10,706,647 | 23.50% | ||
| 3 | Labour | 8,604,358 | 18.89% | ||
| 4 | LibDem | 6,827,038 | 14.99% | ||
| Total: | 45,550,903 | 100.00% | |||
Here “The Rest” is the number of voters who did not vote for any of the three main parties, and either voted for a small party, or an independent candidate, or did not vote at all. And the percentage of “The Rest” is nearly double that of the winning party and more than double that of either of the other two parties.
And, if to include into “The Rest” all those who did not vote for the winning party, then it it will be clear that the winning party “mandate” constitutes less than 24% of the electorate, as per the table below:
| UK Elections 2010 by Number of Eligible Voters | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Winner Party and The Rest | |||||
 | No. | Color | Party | Number of Electors | Percent of Total |
| 1 | The Rest | 34,844,256 | 76.50% | ||
| 2 | Conservatives | 10,706,647 | 23.50% | ||
| Total: | 45,550,903 | 100.00% | |||
And, even the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition (Con‐Lib) has the mandate of a mere 38.49% of the total electorate, as per the table below:
| UK Elections 2010 by Number of Eligible Voters | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Con-Lib Coalition and the Rest | |||||
 | No. | Color | Party | Number of Electors | Percent of Total |
| 1 | The Rest | 28,017,218 | 61.51% | ||
| 2 | Con-Lib | 17,533,685 | 38.49% | ||
| Total: | 45,550,903 | 100.00% | |||
But, does it all matter?
Do the competence and integrity of a government depend on the number of votes cast?
In 1997 Tony Blair's New Labour won the elections with a clear majority of 63.43% of the seats. The result of his governance is a National Debt that will take generations to repay, wars without reason and clear purpose, and the public trust in government at its lowest.
This loss of public trust in politicians is not limited to the politicians of Tony Blair's New Labour. It applies to all politicians. And this is why those who replaced New Labour are talking about “New Politics”.
But what are they offering?
They are proposing to repeal some of the unpopular Blair laws. They are looking for ways of reducing the National Debt. And they are right in doing so. But this is nothing “new”. All newly elected governments repeal unpopular laws introduced by their predecessors. And any government would have to look for ways of reducing the National Debt. But all this will not be enough to restore the public trust in the Institution of Government.
To restore the trust it is not enough to put right some of the Blair wrongs. It is necessary to establish procedures which will prevent such wrongs being done in the future.
It is now common knowledge that Blair and his associates used the 9/11 hysteria to justify their own abuses of power. But why did the main opposition parties fail to stop these abuses at the time when they were happening? Why the Blair/Brown governments were allowed to run up a debt without knowledge of when, how, and by whom it will be repaid?
Was it due to the opposition parties failing to use the appropriate procedures and constitutional devices to prevent such abuses of power? Or was it because there are no such procedures or constitutional devices in existence?
They are proposing some constitutional reforms, like changing the electoral system. But had such changes been introduced, they would not have prevented the abuses of power or the derelictions of duty like those committed by the Blair/Brown governments.
What is needed is a permanent system of independent audit and control of all government decisions at every level. So that no government decision be made without a formal statement of valid reasons, so that no government action at any level be justified by a mere “opinion”, but be based on logical reasoning following from clearly stated assumptions and verified facts.
In the past there was a presumption that those elected to govern the country are honest, honorable, wise, mature people of sound judgement who would naturally follow such procedures. But Honesty has been replaced with Public Relations (spin), Honor with Brazenness, Wisdom with Tendency to Pull a Fast One, and Maturity with Teenage Longing for Admiration and Public Applause. And, as the Blair/Brown epoch has clearly proved, the old presumptions can no longer be relied upon. And this is why the need for formal validation of government decisions, so that abuses of power be prevented or, if not prevented, then corrected when they occur, not years, or decades, after their occurrence, when a new government is voted in.
And, if such procedures are not introduced, then after 6, 12, 18 years there will be another “democratic regime change”, and talks about “New New Politics” — the by now familiar “Democratic Cycle”.