The majoritarian view, as outlined by Prof Adrian Kay at a Bevan Foundation conference last year, believes that the party with the largest number of seats takes the prize. The Conservatives are arguing this strongly, and ‘majoritarianism’ is also dominant in a whole of commentaries too.

There is another approach however. The consensual approach, also outlined by Prof. Kay, looks for the common ground between parties. This ‘power-sharing’  approach has been adopted in Wales and Scotland.  Contrary to popular opinion, Kay found that the consensual approach offered both greater democratic accountability AND more stable government. 

The parties will do what the parties will do, but the constant presumption by commentators that there is only one route to coalition is simply wrong.

It was a complex result no doubt.  Labour held the notionally Conservative Vale of Clwyd and very nearly hung onto Cardiff North.  It lost other Conservative targets in Carmarthen West and the Vale of Glamorgan as expected, but held on to Gower, Delyn, Bridgend and Cardiff West which could have been reasonably expected to have fallen into Tory hands.

Why?  I’m wary of instant analysis so I’ll reserve my judgement.  But Labour should not be fooled into thinking that this was a good result.  Across the UK they achieved less than 30% of the popular vote – lower even than in 1983.

This is clearly not a strong platform to enter the Assembly elections.  Depending on the colour of the Government that is formed Labour looks out onto perilous territory.  The Liberal Democrats are in strong positions in Swansea West, Pontypridd, Newport East and Merthyr to steal away some Labour’s strongholds in 2011.  It is not inconceivable that the party will be left with a rump of seats.

After the last Assembly elections Labour did not heed the lessons of their near catastrophe.  Entering into coalition allowed them to avoid confronting the fragility of their position.  There’s a danger that the same will happen at Westminster.

It is time for Labour to lie down in a dark room and think through its future strategic direction under fresh leadership

The TV debates have formalised the trend towards focusing a party’s election campaign on their leader.  From now onwards when choosing a leader parties will be judging candidates even more so on their ‘character’ and ability to perform on camera.  Inevitable perhaps, but today’s proposal by David Cameron goes too far. 

The Conservatives are proposing to change the law to ensure that if the governing party changes their leader they’ll be forced to hold a general election within six months of the new Prime Minister taking office.

Far from shifting power back to Parliament from the Executive – as Mr Cameron has been insisting he would d0 – this move would concentrate even more power in the hands of the Prime Minister.

Surely in a Parliamentary system Prime Ministers emerge from the body of MPs.  Political parties widening the franchise have diluted that a bit, but nonetheless the precedents of Callaghan, Major and Brown taking over in mid-term has confirmed that we vote for MPs and parties, not simply for Leaders. 

If a PM loses the support of their MPs between elections then they give the keys of No 10 to someone else.  In that scenario a party low in the polls looking for a fresh direction would be held to ransom by a PM who had lost their way if they knew that they’d be forced to go to the polls in mid-term.  Cameron’s proposal will strengthen the hand of the incumbent – perhaps he’s thinking ahead to stymie David Davis?

This will not strengthen Parliament, this will weaken it.  In Opposition politicians always talk about making the Commons more effective at holding the Government into account, but as soon as they get a whiff of power they go off the idea. 

Change you can believe in?

‘Cobblers’ cries Iain Dale in return:

If the Tories lose this election to a Lib/Lab coalition, the first thing a new government would do is to introduce PR. Not just AV, but full STV. Clegg would demand it and Brown would have to agree. And if that happened the British people can look forward to a semi permanent left of centre government.

Similarly I’ve heard the view expressed on the left that David Cameron’s policy of cutting the number of MPs by 10% would result in redrawn constituency boundaries that would favour the Tories and rule out a Labour Government for a generation.

After the 1992 General Election anonymous Government Ministers were quoted as saying that it would have been better had they lost and let Neil Kinnock face the ERM meltdown. And detached observers are saying similar things about this election.

But despite the intense economic and social pressures that the next Government will face tribal instincts on both sides run so deep that they find it impossible to take such a detached view.

The current opinion polls beggar belief. Never underestimate the common sense of the public it is often said. And though I can understand the desire for a ‘balanced’ Parliament, I can’t help but feel that what’s about to hit is us going to be so destabilising that a stable Government is essential to withstand it.

Of course, as coalitions in the National Assembly demonstrate, stability is not always synonymous with one party rule. Stable Governments can be forged from cross-party co-operation. But whether they’ll have the authority to re-write the rules of the game is yet to be determined.

Former Welsh Labour Press Officer Owain Jones criticises his party for putting too much responsibility on the shoulders of Rhodri Morgan.  He argues that just as Plaid Cymru established a talented leadership team from the across the party, so Labour should share the burden:

The Labour Party, as much as any organisation, can be caught up in the cult of the individual, and its component parts rarely pause to consider what they might do to contribute to good leadership. Responsibility for change needs to be pushed out to where it can most profitably flourish.

But the central control that was essential in achieving the discipline that helped Labour into Government, has now stymied its ability to develop as a party.  Owain Jones is right to stress the need for a culture of self-criticism to develop within the Labour Party, but the defensive tone evident in parts of his essay illustrate there is a long way to go before the party creates an environment which encourages ‘critical friendship’.

His experience as a party official inevitably colurs his analysis, but he makes strong points:

There is no doubt that in many seats lacklustre, tired and unimaginative local campaigns, as much the responsibility of local representatives as members, have become too common. These electoral runs are no more than displacement activity. Local parties are too reliant on a slimline party staff. In turn, perhaps our Welsh party HQ should do more to push the real work out to where it belongs – in the field. This is a difficult reality to face but a redefinition of the role of the party bureaucracy is needed. It ought to be a hub of innovation and ideas, not a centralised institution of control.

It is hard to disagree with his analysis.  After 12 years in office Labour has lost its hunger for power.  The difficult choices of Government allied with a deliberate strategy of triangulation has alienated many the Party has taken for granted.  Furthermore Labour has long lost any culture of empowerment.  Disagreement with the ‘line’ decided upon by a very small group at the centre has long been seen as ‘unhelpful’.  Perhaps that is inevitable in modern politics?

His most pointed message is aimed at the Unions.  “Vested interest [sic] is a powerful and stifling force”, he writes:

Trade unions are rarely criticised by Labour politicians in Wales. And yet, despite recent record employment and favourable legislation, they have continued to lose members and failed to sufficiently modernise. While union officials undoubtedly work hard for the causes they represent, they too must change.

He is right to warn putative leadership candidates of the dangers of cosying up to interest groups. But with a shrinking and dispersed membership and an internal electoral system which embeds the influence of ‘vested interests’, where else are the candidates to turn?

To my mind, Labour’s biggest problem is that too many in the party have not adopted to the realities of post-devolution competitive politics.  The Labour Party is no longer the dominating force in Welsh politics.  That is an unpalatable truth for those who have grown up with their party having a powerful sense of ownership of the nation’s politics.

Labour’s domination is over.  And though it is heresy to say it, I think that is a good thing.

It is in Welsh Labour’s long-term interests to face up to this stark reality and start coming to terms with the new Wales it has helped create.

Though I don’t agree with all parts of his analysis Owain Jones’ essay shows that there is a younger generation within Labour that ‘get it’.  Maybe the changing of the guard that will accompany Rhodri Morgan’s retirement will allow that generation a stronger voice. 

I remain to be convinced.

Witnessing how the Afghan people have to struggle and risk their lives in order to be able to cast a vote should shame those of us who take our right to vote for granted, and worst of all, choose not to vote. It’s the same people who are always vocal when things go wrong, and then if they ever do decide to vote, go for an extreme option in reaction or protest to something.

So how do we tackle voter apathy? Personally, I think the duty lies in schools. Better political education is needed, which would show just how important it is to participate in politics and also to explain the different levels of government and what they mean to an individual. For example, showing the extreme lengths that women or the people in Afghanistan have been willing to go to just to cast a vote should have an impact, if presented properly.

It seems ironic that on one hand, the UK government is fighting for the Afghan people to have the right to vote and yet doing little to fight voter apathy here…