One example of recency bias is to believe the United Kingdom can only have a two-party system, rather than multiple parties both within parliament and out. Our political culture is so dominated by this assumption that it is difficult to see how our politics can be conducted in any other way.
Two-party dominance, however, has not always been a feature of British politics. Before the extensions of the franchise at the end of the 1800s and the start of the 1900s, parliament hardly had any formal party structure. There were party labels, but there was also significant fluidity: Canningites here, Peelites there, and Whigs all over the place.
And as the franchise was extended, the United Kingdom had frequent coalitions. The Conservatives were in frequent coalition with the Liberal Unionists from 1886 until 1905, and there were national coalitions from 1916 to 1922 and from 1929 to 1945. Even in the postwar period there have been pacts, understandings and coalitions—in the late 1970s and after 2010.
The classic model of a two-party adversarial system only accords with about three-fifths of the last 140 years. And in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there has never really been any lasting two-party system at all.
The parliamentary system of the United Kingdom adapts quite easily to coalition multi-party politics. National governments got the UK to the end of both world wars, and a parliament where the government had no overall control ensured the United Kingdom did not leave the European Union without an exit agreement.
There have, on the other hand, been more unhappy experiences. The 1945 general election Labour victory was an emphatic rejection of the interwar national governments, and the coalition government of 2010-2015 inflicted austerity on an already fragile post-credit crunch economy. Coalitions and multi-party governments are not necessarily good, but they are not unusual.
What reinforces two-party dominance is, of course, our electoral system. This first-past-the-post system generally enables two larger parties to win a disproportionately large number of seats compared to their national vote shares. It is not, however, an absolute barrier to the emergence of a new party, as the emergence of the Labour party in the early 20th century showed.
But what happened was the Labour party replaced the Liberal party as the main rival to the now fused Conservative and (Liberal) Unionist party. What the electoral system generally has prevented is more than two major political parties spread across the United Kingdom.
The first-past-the-post system benefitted the major parties, but it also suited the structure and nature of political parties of the time. Before the growth of the internet generally and social media in particular, national political parties were useful devices for organising candidates and campaigns, disseminating information and mobilising voters.
Political parties were more than mere brands, they were machines. The first-past-the-post system suited the two major political parties, and the party organisations in turn suited the electoral system.
Now, however, political parties are not so important as instruments, though they are still important as labels. If national political parties did not already exist, they would not be invented in their current form as a response to the politics of today, as opposed to being a response to the politics of the post-1867 era. Centralised structures are not necessary for organisation, communication or mobilisation.
The consequence of this may be that the hitherto major parties, Conservative and Labour—both of which are polling badly—may no longer see inherent merit in the first-past-the-post system. Indeed, the system which allowed them to thrive may hinder them, with voters switching to other parties in individual constituency contests.
For just as political parties are not fixed for all time, nor is any electoral system. What suited political parties once upon a time can change. And the single-member constituency system which served many purposes is not an inherent fixture. Before the extensions of the franchise, some counties and boroughs happily returned more than one member of parliament, and some even happier university graduate voters had more than one vote.
If the United Kingdom shifts again from two-party dominance and towards coalition government, that will not be any great constitutional shock. If we change our electoral system then that too will not be any constitutional revolution. What would be more unusual is if our constitutional arrangements do not adapt to political change.
