The two party system

The two party system which prevails in the UK and the US, no doubt among other places, has its points. It has served us reasonably well over the last hundred years, with a short break for coalition during the second word war.

But when it comes to making hard choices it sometimes seems to come to the wrong answer. 

Suppose we have two parties A and B, each divided into two wings, A1 & A2 and B1 & B2. And a decision about something which is both important and difficult. We suppose that, in broad terms, there are three possible decisions, D1, D2 and D3. D2 being rather middle of the road, D1 and D3 being rather extreme.

It so happens that the A1 wing of party A is very keen on D1 and that the B2 wing of party B is very keen on D3.

Party A is in power. Keeping the party together is very important, so although there is a majority for D2, the party leadership goes for some mixture of D1 & D2 which the whole party will go for, will vote for. Which it presents to the country as the decision.

Party B has no power but it still has to have a party position, so the party leadership goes for some mixture of D2 & D3. Which it presents to the country as its position. And votes against whatever party A come to on principle - which means that the leadership of Party A really does need to hang onto its A1 wing.

So what we get is the mixture of D1 & D2 despite there being a big majority in parliament as a whole for D2. Despite there being a big majority in the country as a whole for D2. Which might well turn out to have been the right answer.

All of which can clearly be a problem at times. Last year over Brexit and possibly this year over coronavirus. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. Any more than there is to getting the balance of power right between the two chambers - the Senate and the House of Representatives - of the US Congress.