This is the time of year for tales of phantasmagorical terror. The Telegraph this weekend features an especially chilling scenario: namely, Ed Miliband and Zack Polanski standing on the steps of Number 10 as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

But that’s just one of the extraordinary possibilities that British voters are now faced with. In ascending order of likelihood, the paper goes on to list six outcomes for the next general election. Least likely is a Conservative majority, which is judged all but “impossible”. That’s followed by the “very unlikely” possibility of a Labour majority. Next up is a “national government” involving Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories (“unlikely”). Alternatively, Labour could form a progressive coalition with two or more Left-of-centre parties (“possible”). A Reform majority is also rated “possible”, but the most “likely” outcome, the Telegraph argues, is a Right-wing coalition of Reform UK and the Conservatives.

This analysis arguably underestimates the probability of a Con-Lib-Lab national government. It also underplays the permutations of the “progressive” option, as a Lib-Lab government would be a very different beast from one relying on a substantial number of Scottish National Party or Green MPs. For instance, the SNP could force a second referendum on Scottish independence, while a Lab-Green coalition would mean shifts to the Left across several areas of policy.

Whether Polanski would get the deputy PM position would depend on the numerical balance between Labour and Green MPs, plus those of any other coalition party. At the very least, he’d demand the Energy and Environment briefs, meaning there’d be no course corrections to Miliband’s least sustainable Net Zero policies. And though a Labour prime minister would be insane to surrender the Treasury or the Home Office to Green control, he or she would have to soften Labour’s already weak stance on borrowing and immigration. For a Lab-Green pact to work at all, Polanski would have to be willing to back down on defence issues such as nuclear disarmament (though the fine print of his party’s policy — “begin the process”, “no first use” — already allows for some wiggle room).

Labour’s biggest problem would be selling a coalition with the Greens to moderate voters. Even if Polanski could be persuaded to tone down his more radical rhetoric, there’s no guarantee that he would remain Green leader if he became Mr Compromise, given that his party holds automatic leadership elections every two years. Much easier, then, for Labour to shut down all talk of a coalition before election day and only entertain the possibility once voters have had their say.

British politics as we’ve known it since the Second World War is over. Every general election from 1945 to 2024 boiled down to Tory versus Labour, with various smaller protest vote options for those unwilling to make the main choice. It was a limited electoral menu, but at least voters got to decide which of the two main parties ran the country.

Now, British politics is non-binary, with multiple parties and even more possible government configurations. That sounds like more choice, but it won’t be — not if governments are effectively chosen in secret negotiations by senior politicians.

This isn’t an argument for electoral reform, because proportional representation doesn’t change the fact that voters are asked to choose between parties and not the various coalitions that could now emerge after their votes are counted. It’s not a different electoral system Britain needs, but instead full disclosure from each party leader about which other parties they’re willing to govern with and what compromises they’re willing to make. Without that information, voters will be left in the dark with limited influence over the process of government formation.

And that’s not even the worst-case scenario. Though cutting out the voters may give party leaders more control over the composition of the next government, it could also allow malign actors to influence the outcome by completely undemocratic means — for instance, through the threat of violent disorder on the streets, or the orchestration of instability on the money markets, or by the exertion of diplomatic pressure by foreign powers.

Much better to conduct the coming era of coalition politics out in the open, both during and well ahead of general election campaigns. There is, of course, a glamour to high-stakes negotiations behind closed doors. Indeed, that’s what a certain kind of politician lives for. They should just be mindful of what else might lurk in a smoke-filled room.

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---