Conversation

UK May 6th – A Collaborative Hung Parliament?

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

The UK General Election due to be held on 6th May has created a lot of speculation that the outcome could result in the situation of a ‘hung’ Parliament. A hung Parliament occurs when no individual party has overall control and is therefore in a situation where, in order to govern, one party needs to collaborate with one or more other parties. Depending on the final outcome, the number of votes required for to reach overall control (326) can vary and therefore it’s difficult to predict in advance which parties will need to collaborate. If the result is particularly close with two large parties and a number of smaller groups then the decisions about who will lead the main coalition groups can alternate rapidly as deals are discussed, agreed, accepted and broken.

The challenge that the parties face is that for the next four weeks of campaigning they will spend their time arguing and attacking the policies of each other. These activities, without doubt, are as far away from collaborative approaches as they can be and act directly against the journey through the changes needed to form a collaborative arrangement.

What does Collaborating mean?

Collaboration is more than just agreeing to work together, in business relationships tend to start transactionally and through the transaction trust is built, Co-operating businesses helping each other to achieve each others goals, perhaps sharing aspects of what they do to help customers but remaining focused on their own goals and visions. Collaborating businesses share a common goal and both change their stance and operating models in order to work closely ad effectively to deliver. It’s much more than a ‘pact’ or written agreement, and needs deep trust and tolerance.

So, seeking collaboration with others starts with a recognition, by both, of the need to change, Consciousness of what is needed. If Parliament is indeed ‘hung’ then that consciousness will hit home very rapidly on the evening and early morning of 6th / 7th May. Immediately the parties will move into a conversational mode, discussing possibilities and options. They’ll express lines in the sand; things which cannot be given away and things which must change for the other party in the conversation, there are multiple conversations and individuals seeking to get to know each other better quickly. Relationships will be broken and formed in the blink of an eye. All of this will take place, at least superficially, in the public gaze.

As the parties move towards agreement quick agreement to co-operate on some areas will be found. It’s unlikely that they’ll get beyond this before a deal is actually struck, the press and the people won’t stand for the months off negotiation than can take place. The 2007 – 2008 Belgian Government formation was a 156 day negotiation in this phase with constitutional reform as a key sticking point, some saw the split of the French Speaking and Dutch speaking regions of the country. Trust was hard to find in those negotiations which were often bitter and acrimonious.

Even if agreement is reached, at this stage whatever arrangements are reached won’t be collaborative, they’ll be indicative, and the parties will feel, in the true art of British compromise, that neither side is content with the outcome. Increased or decreased taxation; different forms of taxation; Power for the regions; Independence for Scotland and Wales; the opportunity to change the emphasis in education or healthcare; the approach in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan; the differences in importance of child poverty against cancer care; all these are likely to figure in any agreement. They will be battered out in agreements between groups where one or other side agrees that in order for the bigger picture (“to get me into No.10”) people will be prepared to forego key elements on which they have campaigned.

There’s the important point, key elements on which they have campaigned, on which their votes were cast and won, foregone for the sake of power. That’s the area where people fear a hung Parliament in that it leads to the end result being different from the promises made beforehand, yet surveys repeatedly show that none of us believe those promises anyway.

If a hung Parliament is to succeed, the parties have to build stronger relationship, to understand each other’s needs and desires, and both need to change their goals and aims to a new, shared common goal where collaboration can really and truly take effect. In fact the people, overall, are likely to be better served by a collaborative hung parliament where the majority of views for a majority of voters can, must, be taken into account. When businesses collaborate they do so, often, only to achieve this.

When that happens, the Government starts working efficiently and effectively, delivering its shared promise and getting the results that it sought. If that shared promise is aligned to the views that were expressed in the ballot box, then it’s possible that a shared, common collaborative Government becomes Cohesive and works effectively for the British people. My estimate is that with the best will in the world that can take between 18 months and 2 years to fully realise; almost 40% of the next Parliament, if it were to survive to a full term.

Some of the key things that you can see appearing in a coalition, collaborative, arrangement that probably would never happen were there a clear one party overall majority include:

• Taxation changes.
• Electoral reform.
• Constitutional change.
• Reform of the legislative and executive branches of Government.

These are already being mooted, but not championed, and that’s something I interpret as a recognition in the largest parties not to burn all the bridges just n case.

Some things, however, are unlikely to change regardless of the party in power, at the overall level at least (although the detail is inevitably going to be different) and those include for example, protecting the service provision in health and education.

If the collaborative parliament, a true coalition, works, if the relationships blossom and bloom and collaboration delivers a result, the end change may be that the coalition parties agree that they would be better placed to enter the next election as one party rather than two, and it’s possible to see mergers taking place between parties of similar views in order to achieve a more rounded presentation to the people of Britain in a future election.

Can’t happen?

When the Social Democrats split from the Labour Party the Liberals immediately became concious of the voice they were not serving in their political territory, over a few years they conversed and then co-operated in constituencies and on policy development. IN one election after another at local and national level they increasingly stopped competing and started collaborating. ultimately they achieved a truly cohesive union in the merger that formed the Liberal Democrats.

Conclusion?

It is possible that we may have to find ways to support our MP’s working collaboratively with parties of a different political hue, they’ll find it very hard after weeks of negative campaigning to build trust and find the common ground. For us, the people they serve, they need to.

Related articles by Zemanta

• It’s an open race in GB – but open and shut in NI? (sluggerotoole.com)
• Election fever brings hope, change … and a whole host of other cliches, too | Simon Hoggart’s election (guardian.co.uk)
• Gordon Brown offers reform of Lords and overhaul of voting system (guardian.co.uk)
• Scotland, general election battleground again | Gerry Hassan (guardian.co.uk)

{ 3 comments }