How We Can Improve Democracy In The UK: Coalitions
The United Kingdom, like many nations that have adopted its parliamentary model, suffers from a persistent political schism. Our two-party system, previously dominated by the Conservatives and Labour, creates cycles of opposition rather than cooperation. When power changes hands, policies often swing dramatically, and each side spends as much energy undoing its predecessor’s work as it does governing.
Unlike Spain, where political identities remain deeply tied to the legacy of Franco’s regime and party loyalties are almost hereditary, the UK does not bear such rigid historical divisions. This flexibility is one of our national strengths. Yet even with our more moderate temperament, we still see government treated as a pendulum rather than a stable institution. Each administration feels entitled to reshape the country entirely in its own image, rather than stewarding it steadily forward.
When I consider the nature of how parties sway in and out of office, I observe how Government is not treated like a body that should be sturdy, steady, and long-lasting. The 2024 general election provides a striking example of this imbalance. Labour secured a decisive majority in Parliament with 411 seats, yet only received around 33.7% of the national vote. In other words, two-thirds of the electorate voted for other parties, yet one party now holds the power to govern alone. This exposes a flaw in how our system translates votes into representation. A more democratic approach would consider the percentage of the national vote when determining governance or coalition requirements, ensuring that the government truly reflects the majority will of the people.
Part of this instability stems from how our voting system handles coalitions. Recent coverage of the Caerphilly by-election illustrates the problem. Plaid Cymru won 47% of the vote (a plurality, not a majority) while Reform UK received 36%, Labour 11%, and the Conservatives 2%. Under current rules, Plaid Cymru can choose to form a coalition with whichever party it prefers. In practice, this likely means joining Labour, whose platform aligns more closely with Plaid’s.
This freedom of choice, I would argue, undermines the spirit of democracy. When no party wins over 50% of the vote, it seems only fair that the winner should be required to form a coalition with the second-most popular party. After all, the winning party has secured a proportional majority, not an absolute one, and therefore does not speak for the majority of voters.
Allowing parties to choose their coalition partners entrenches ideological divides. Left-leaning parties band together and right-leaning ones do the same, leaving a large portion of the electorate unrepresented. The result is polarisation and a constant oscillation between extremes. A mandatory coalition with the second-most popular party would instead compel collaboration across divides, ensuring that governance reflects the collective will of the public rather than partisan preference.
Parliament should be a space of steady, principled debate, not a theatre for shouting and blame. Yet too often, the House of Commons resembles a stage for partisan performance rather than a forum for reasoned discussion. If we are to improve the quality of our democracy, we must change not only how we elect our leaders, but how those leaders are required to cooperate.
Democracy should not reward division. It should demand unity; or at least, understanding. Reforming our coalition rules could be a small but meaningful step toward that goal.
Sources
Caerphilly by-election results