UK election outcome

The United Kingdom recently saw a change in government. It has seen an unprecedented formal coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. It is quite amazing they have been able to form this coalition considering that the two parties disagree ideologically on many different issues. One of the early government policies has been a civil liberties policy, including the scrapping of Labour's plans for a national ID card. I agree with the general thrust of this new government’s civil libertarian policies. One Conservative policy I do not agree with that the Liberal Democrats were reluctantly forced to agree to as part of the coalition agreement is the redrawing of every House of Commons seat in the whole country. The Tories want the Commons shrunk to under 600 members. I do not agree with this shrinkage when in fact the Commons has had over 600 members since at least 1950. This policy may be a ploy by the Tories to redraw constituencies to favour the Tories more than the current boundaries, which are said to favour Labour. Hence how Labour got 35% of the votes in 2005 and 55% of the seats and how in 2005 Labour had fewer votes in England than the Tories but way more seats in England than the Tories. A purported reason to reduce the number of constituencies is to save money. But given that the Tories and Liberal Democrats have agreed to a fix term five year parliament, any such saving of money would not kick in until 2015. Nevertheless, hopefully with the Liberal Democrats as part of the government they will keep a check on the Tories so that they do not gerrymander the constituencies in the Tories favour too much. Furthermore, hopefully the Liberal Democrats will keep a check on the Tories more ideological agenda, if and where such ideological agenda exists.

Majority governments and fixed election dates

In majority governments, maintaining the confidence of the legislature is ridiculously easy. In minority governments, maintaining the confidence of the legislature is often quite hard by contrast. Newly elected governments have the constitutionally given right to govern for 5 years with no new election so long as the government can maintain the confidence of the legislature. The problem with this is that governments that become extremely unpopular who happen to be majority governments are able to keep governing long past their prime. No matter how unpopular a government is, it can continue governing for 5 years. Even if the government drops down to a 10% approval rating after its first 3 months in office and stays at that level for the next 4 years and 9 months, the incredibly unpopular government gets to continue governing for the remaining 4 years and 9 months no matter how much the population absolutely despises the government. That is why Bob Rae was able to be Premier of Ontario for such a very long time. Ontario’s population absolutely despised Rae’s government, but Rae had a majority government and therefore was able to continue governing regardless of how much everyone in Ontario despised his government. The Rae government hit rock bottom in terms of popularity once it’s 1991 budget was released and remained at that rock bottom for the remaining 4 years of their term. Following the 1991 Ontario budget, the Ontario public absolutely despised the Rae government but there was nothing that could be done to remove the Rae government from power for the next 4 years.

Another good example of this is the Mulroney government. The 1988-1993 Mulroney government became very unpopular by 1990 and stayed that way for Mulroney’s remaining 3 years in office. Yet because Mulroney had a majority government he was able to stay in power even though the public absolutely despised his government. This was true even after he lost several MPs to the newly formed Bloc Quebecois. Although Mulroney’s majority shrunk substantially throughout his second term in office, it never became a minority government and so there was no way to force an early election and vote the hated government out.


I support the concept of fixed election dates every 4 years because this prevents governments that are very unpopular from governing for 5 years just to cling to power as long as possible before facing the inevitable defeat. Fixing elections every 4 years allows for governments who are in the popularity lows of Rae and Mulroney to be voted out sooner than would be possible otherwise. The problem with fixed election dates in Canada now is that they are statutory in nature. So if an unpopular government were to inherit a fixed election date law from a previous government, and if said unpopular government was already at a 10% approval rating, and if said unpopular government wanted to cling to power as long as possible, it could simply repeal the fixed election date law and remain in power for the full 5 years before finally being wiped out of office.


The Rae government’s legislature was months away from expiring when Rae called the 1995 election. Rae could have remained Premier for a few more months and could have stayed in the Premier’s office until about November before being wiped out. But he must have seen a sliver of opportunity to call the election for June, as though such a time would prevent his party from being completely wiped out. If the election had been held in 1993, the NDP would likely have lost official party status it was so unpopular during the middle of Rae’s term. Instead, what small amount of support there was for the NDP had managed to recover by June 1995 and that’s probably why Rae called the election then. Rae probably saw that time as the best possible opportunity his party had of not being completely and totally wiped out. However, at no time following the 1991 Ontario budget could an election have been held with the NDP winning the election – that’s how unpopular the 1991 budget made the NDP and there was no turning back and from that point on. Rae never had a chance to win a second term in office.