Why the electoral system in Britain is broken and how to fix it

In the beginning, the Labour Party went barking mad. Then the Conservatives got sleazy. One party in power alone, and the dangerous ideology that it implements, has caused untold damage to the nation, and now many people are reluctant to allow either of them to govern alone. Where do we go next?

The Labour Party of the sixties and seventies was full of paranoid militants and fist-pumping demagogues that were able, at the drop of a foreman's hat, to hold the country to ransom with one-out-all-out strikes and hard-cheese speeches if they didn't get their way. People saw through it all and Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party won by a thumping landslide. Even my left-leaning father voted Tory in 1979. Due to their utter profligacy, Labour had left the country in a serious financial crisis. They were also being held to ransom by firebrand union members who had seen to it that the electric regularly went off and the shops weren't fully supplied if they didn't get their way. With Labour unelectable, the Tories just ran roughshod over those they could bully and cajole (the unions, Northerners, Scots and the poor among others) and alienated whole swaths of the electorate that they didn't care about. Sometimes this was for the good of the nation (hence the swift but ruthless reduction in the national debt) but often the upshot was the sale of another government enterprise for a fraction of its asking price to a friend of a friend of the minister responsible, who also got a cut somewhere along the line.

The swivel-eyed lunacy of the left kept them out of power for 18 years, until the back-stabbing sleaze of the Major administration made Labour understand that by rebranding itself, it could win once more. Tony Blair realised socialism was a dirty word, but people wanted to throw out the Tories, and they voted for New Labour in their droves. Sworn capitalists, bankers, even right-leaning newspapers gave their blessing to the new set-up. The country went into a deep euphoric trance brought on by spin doctors' magic touches and Tony Blair's messianic speeches, which made the nation realise that at last they had a leader they could say was punching above the country's weight abroad and redressing the balance at home. The trance was so deep, Blair even got re-elected despite a highly unpopular war in the Middle East.

...However...

...However...

What we didn't realise, on that day when Blair gave up Number 10 saying, "it is over, goodbye," was that he had handed over the keys to the nation to Gordon Brown on the eve of a financial meltdown and a global recession that would have far-reaching consequences for some time to come, probably a generation. It didn't have to be like that. Other countries, like Canada, Germany and Australia, avoided it. He was, quite frankly, spending his way into people's affection. Buying popularity. The most narcissistic and deluded Prime Minister of a Western democracy there has ever been decided to bail out when the money dried up. Nice.

And in stepped Gordon Brown, the last Prime Minister of a one-party government we will have for a very long time. It wasn't his fault. This was Blair's ultimate revenge for his great rival: leave him to pick up the pieces; let him take the hit. And so he did. Officially voted the single-worst PM in living memory (after Callaghan and Heath that's quite some doing), Brown made sure Labour was to lose the 2010 election by being indecisive, dithering and looking gloomy even when he was smiling. He had no real policies, just improvised "ideas" from the many think tanks New Labour employed at the taxpayer's expense.

And finally in May 2010 the electorate decided there was another way. Out went old confrontational politics, in came consensual politics. The Con-LibDem coalition that formed held together pretty well for the full 5 years, and I think, according to the polls, David Cameron and his two-party government didn't do badly, getting the UK out of some pretty tricky situations. But during the last 5 years, several things happened that have transformed the landscape of UK politics forever:

a. the Scottish referendum mobilised a whole nation, and despite the failure to secure their own nation state, the SNP is poised to win nearly all the seats in Scotland. Labour made themselves toxic in the country by siding with the hated Tories in the referendum debate. I fail to grasp why the Scots should think this, because it's only on this one opinion, which was demonstrated by all the parties except the Greens. I'm sure Labour and the Tories think trees are green and the sun is bright: it doesn't mean you have to hate one party because they agree with your enemy.

b. This has caused other parties to seize their moment. Plaid Cymru in Wales, the Greens in England and UKIP have cajoled their way into mainstream politics to such an extent, that they found themselves sharing a stage with the Big Three (well, the Big Two and the little coalition partner) during the recent leaders' debates. The smaller parties proved themselves worthy of being there too. To such an extent, in fact, that in some polls even the Greens are ahead of the Lib Dems.

c. Labour and the Lib Dems have lost credibility - the former due to Scotland and the last time they were in power, the latter over broken promises to cancel tuition fees. This has let the others in. The majority of party swingers are Lib Dems to the Tories or UKIP and Labour voters to the SNP, Plaid Cymru or UKIP.

The problem now is that the parties and their leaders really don't have a clue how to operate in these new conditions. Miliband and Cameron are refusing to talk about the deals they would do with any coalition partners; Miliband has said emphatically that he would rather the Tories got back in than be part of an SNP-Labour coalition in any shape or form. How many of us really believe that? He was stupid to say it, because he will be held accountable after Thursday, if the mathematics mean it is the only option. Cameron is tight-lipped about his party's future, just like Miliband, and dodges any question about coalition. These two are the living embodiment of a country experiencing the death throes of two-party politics. People's allegiances have changed, much like their shopping habits. No longer do we go to the same shop for the product we want; we look around for a better deal, and at the moment, we think the better deal is a combination of parties, to keep checks on the bigger ones.

What is likely to happen after 7th May is anyone's guess, but I would hope that whoever is there will be grown-up enough to fix the electoral system. These are two scenarios:

1. All parties' leaders choose their brightest minds who are to remain impartial and non-partisan, to discuss how to implement a better and more representative chamber, maybe where you get the same percentage of MPs as the electorate voted for you. It is ludicrous that the Greens, if they get 7% of the votes, might still only get one MP.

Problem: although the Lib Dems, UKIP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens would benefit from this, the SNP, Tories and Labour, crucially the three biggest parties, would not. A fudge would most certainly happen that would please nobody and further alienate an already tetchy electorate.

2. I would favour keeping the constituencies but having a two-round election, where the two candidates in a constituency with the most votes would go through to a second round the week after, thus guaranteeing MPs garnered more than 50% of the votes in their chosen constituencies, but keeping them on their very best behaviour as they may very well not make it to (or through) the second round. This way, we keep the tried-and-tested constituency set-up, which assures MPs remain attached to their electorate, and at the same time ward off that most undemocratic and elitist list system favoured by some countries that should know better. Although proportional representation assures correct apportioning of seats, it distances party grandees from their voters as they know they're top of the lists and thus don't need to do any campaigning at all. They can just hire some party stooges to hand out balloons to passers-by at supermarket car parks. So I would be loath to unleash such a badly thought-out system on such an engaged and active electorate.

Problem: I can already see most politicians being fervent opponents, as this system means their electorate, instead of voting for whom they want, would possibly vote for the other candidate in a sort of "anyone but that lot" exercise. Tactical voting on a whole new level. However, if an incumbent MP has done a good job, most people would put party politics aside and vote with their heads. I know Tory supporters who vote for their current Lib Dem MP because he's been very good for their town.

Considering the looming hung parliament and the unfathomable mathematical hangover it is likely to create, it would not surprise me if the Tories and Labour went into some kind of German-style Grand Coalition just to keep their two wannabe sister parties, UKIP and the SNP respectively, out of government. I doubt it, but it is an interesting scenario. Could you imagine the stunned looks on the faces of the ruling coalition backbenchers, when some wealthy, landed Eton/Oxbridge alumnus with no chin and an accent that could cut glass is reluctantly siding with a tieless, comprehensive school-leaver wielding a thick regional brogue and bus driving and a stint at a supermarket checkout featuring heavily on his CV? Angus Robertson of the SNP would be the Leader of the Opposition. It wouldn't last long... but long enough to cause Scotland to chip itself off. Who outside Scotland remembers The Vow any longer?

Lastly, if big-party politicians want any credibility, they need to stop treating the electorate as idiots. If they are to do deals with other parties, they need to say so, so that the electorate can make up its mind better. This whole campaign has been about nothing but ignoring the vast elephant in the room that is the next coalition. I, for one, am not scared of the SNP; far from it. Considering the efficiency and straighforwardness of the Scottish government, I think the Westminster parties are scared the SNP will come in and sweep up too many of the little comforts the established parties took for granted. Complacency has no place in British politics any more, and I think a dose of SNP in government will do the country good. Leave the SNP out, and they risk Scotland breaking off altogether.

Something is rotten in the state of Russia

I have been a few times to Russia and found the place to be a mix of glory and hopelessness. People would moan about their circumstances on the one hand but on the other find happiness in far more interesting pastimes than we have here. With Russians you can talk about everything. They are intelligent, educated (mostly) and very welcoming people. But they just have one main flaw. They never question their leadership, even when that dipsomaniac Yeltsin was there. The foreign policy of Russia was holy to them - their politicians blindly revered and their actions always cheered. Russians will not see anything wrong in their government's recent behaviour towards Estonia, Ukraine or Georgia. They are, after all, Mother Russia, the centre of the earth and the only real country that matters. The Soviet Union might be dead, but the territories around it are still claimed by its people, especially those living there.

Stalin had a policy to keep the USSR together forever. One strand of that policy was to deport people to different parts of the USSR in an effort to bind the people to each other. There were Georgians in Siberia, Kazaks in Lithuania and Armenians in Moscow. But in the late 20th century and even more so now, it has made the ethnic groups more polarised than ever. What is the most striking point about it all is that most Russians do not bother to learn the language of the sovereign state they now find themselves in. A sizeable population of Russians can be found in the Baltic states, and they argue for the reconstitution of those independent nations to Russia, or the establishment of Russian as an official language.

Another strand of Stalin's policy was to make the manufacture of products more intra-national. So as soon as the USSR broke up, it became almost impossible even to build a television set there. The screen might be manufactured in Tadjikistan, the knobs and connections in Latvia, the internal parts in Uzbekistan and the frame in Novosibirsk before being put together in an assembly unit in Kaluga.

This blind-leading-the blind (or leading-the-blinded) attitude has caused untold ethnic problems in the Russian mindset, to the extent that they seem to blame Western Europe, NATO and the US for their isolation today. It has never occurred to them that in fact the EU has been trying to bring them closer, that NATO wants co-operation and the US would like to make Russia a main trading partner. Nor does it occur to them that they could have a far bigger and better say in world politics if they would stop acting so hurt by surrounding countries' alignment to the EU and similar bodies.

To cry wolf over Georgia was one thing. To then do it to Ukraine smacked of sour grapes, but Estonia, a fully paid-up member of the EU, was childish and spiteful. All over the repositioning of a Soviet war memorial. Estonia does not want to be reminded of its oppressed past. Its people are forward-thinking and independent-minded. But now the Russians are getting on a major EU, NATO, UN and Commonwealth country, Britain. The repercussions are enormous. I hope nothing too dramatic comes of the latest Russian toy-throwing rant, and I don't think it will. Everyone has too much to lose, but serious consequences could follow. Russia may have put its reliability as a provider of energy back ten years. Countries will think twice before importing gas, preferring to go to a less volatile supplier. Would Korea stop supplying cars to your country if its government was upset by something your leader did? Or even said?

As for the British government, it used to be quite resolute on these matters under Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher and back. Since then there has been a half-hearted response to diplomacy. But in this case you get the feeling that someone is going to stand up to the belligerence. Gordon Brown seems like the type of PM who won't take fools lightly. And David Miliband is a straight-talking Foreign Minister with a great deal of substance and resolve. Listening to him on BBC this weekend he never avoided a question with long-winded rhetoric, the tradition of the past. The Gordon Brown government has shown itself to be inspirational, capable and no-nonsense. I cannot see it rolling over to get its tummy tickled. And with the Germans suffering a similar incident this week, Russia has the ball in its court. However the Germans don't want to rock the boat because they're in too deeply with Russia already. France, meanwhile, has stuck its neck out and told them a thing or two about etiquette. Vive la France!

Furthermore, the Russians have delayed their reaction already 36 hours (at the time of writing) since a UK newspaper revealed that Mr Berezovsky was victim of an attempted assassination in the last few weeks. Boy, they must be feeling a little bruised...

And what will this response be? Either the Russians will totally close off their embassy in London which will mean it will be hard for UK nationals to go there and vice-versa, or they are right now going around all the Russian companies telling them to pull out of the UK or they will be classed as traitors.

UPDATE THURSDAY 19th JULY:
So the Russians' response is to expel four British diplomats... Come on Vlad, show us your nasty side - you know you want to ;-)