So, the Conservatives and DUP have agreed a deal. Despite the two previous elections failing to secure a ‘strong and stable’ government, few saw this coming.

There’s a reason for that. Despite all evidence to the contrary, people are still locked in the mindset that these past few elections have just been anomalies. Not so.

What lies behind this shift is a much longer-term change in how people vote – away from party tribalism, class lines and who your grandparents voted for, to a more fluid situation which sees people’s voting choices changing over their lifetime. But there’s a contradiction.

Because first past the post is supposed to lead to lead to single-party government, any other outcome is treated with surprise.

And that means voters are given false pretences about walloping majorities – and no countenance for deals. Of course, the result then comes in, and – oh – they must make a deal after all.

Whilst proportional voting systems are criticised for creating small-but-powerful king-makers who strike deals behind closed doors, the picture is rather different when we look at places where some form of proportional voting is commonplace – we’re now getting the worst of both worlds: deals are having to be made, but based on skewed results (DUP won 10 MPs for under 300,000 votes, Greens won 1 MP for over 500,000).

Not only that, but they’re being made post-fact, with no transparency for the public. They are shut out of those ‘smoke-filled rooms’.

That’s not inevitable. Where power-sharing is the norm, the campaign is different, with open expectations and discussion about the partnerships that may arise. There is a maturity to it – members are involved, it’s a big part of TV debates, and out goes the shady veneer you get from panicked and shut-off brokering after polling day.

And it’s nothing new here, either. After years of power-sharing governments at Holyrood and Cardiff Bay (and of course built-in coalitions at Stormont), it’s odd to see such resistance at Westminster to the very idea. Labour (in 2015 and 2017) felt it had to reject the notion outright. That’s not a healthy approach or grown-up politics.

Voting guru John Curtice has long predicted there will be more parliaments where no party got more than half the seats – and indeed he was one of the few people un-shocked by the result on June 8th.

So the key question is: if we are to have more power-sharing, it’s surely better to arrive there via a system that fairly rewards parties with most support – and makes sure they are round the decision-making table – rather than one that creates bizarre electoral anomalies.

Like, for instance, the fact that 2017’s result came off the back of record tactical voting – one in five people opted for their second or even third-choice party. Is that the basis for healthy deal-making?

Despite that artificial two-party squeeze, voters have chosen not to hand over keys to No 10 to any one party. The deals which come out of the meat-grinder of First Past the Post are always going to be contested, skewed and favour geographically-condensed parties, rather than the under-represented (and geographically spread-out) Liberal Democrats, Greens or UKIP.

Working together shouldn’t be a dirty phrase. The trick is having those conversations in the open before elections – as happens in many developed democracies.

In an era of voter volatility and much more complex relations between social class, ethnicity, identity and party support, perhaps the parties should stop hoping the system will magically fall back to how it worked in the 1950s, and instead think about changing the system.

This piece was originally published in the Times

Some things can be done in a hurry, but forming a Government certainly shouldn’t be one of them. In our recent report, Working Together, we set out the guidelines for forming power-sharing arrangements based on the experience of successful coalition and minority governments in Scotland, Wales and across the world.

In 2010, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives attempted to plan five years of government activity in just five days of frantic back-room talks. If 2015 sees more power-sharing negotiations, will it be similarly rushed?

Back in 2007 Former Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan decided to play the long game in his negotiations with Plaid Cymru, taking a full two months to negotiate their coalition agreement. Negotiating the formation of a government is never going to be easy, and as Rhodri Morgan attests in our new report, it can be difficult and stressful. But investing effort at the start helps ensure that the next five years will be successful. Beyond the obvious gain of having a full plan for the coalition’s legislative agenda, taking your time leads to a more stable coalition to deliver it.

Like any relationship, the stability of a coalition rests on all the parties knowing what they’re getting into from the start. Internal disagreements can be nipped in the bud before they threaten the government’s stability, and ministers can be more open with where parties disagree with each other, as they have already agreed their programme of action.

As our report shows, it’s better to take your time to put together a solid plan for government, than risk years of inaction or instability because your plan ran out. You can read the full story behind Rhodri Morgan’s 2007 coalition in Chapter 1 of Working Together.

What is the best way for parties to share power? How can you make minority government work? And how do you negotiate a successful coalition?

These are some of the questions likely to be at the forefront of the party leaders’ minds over the next couple of months. As we near a General Election which is almost certain to produce a hung parliament, now is the perfect time to draw on politicians’ rich experience of power-sharing, both in the UK and across the world.

That’s why we’ve brought together a group of senior politicians to share their experience of working in coalition and minority government, in a new report entitled Working Together: lessons in how to share power.

The report offers personal insights from British and overseas politicians on how to negotiate and manage power-sharing arrangements. There are contributions from:

• Former whip and junior minister Jenny Willott giving candid insights into her experience of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Westminster coalition
• Rhodri Morgan, former First Minister of Wales, sharing his recollections of negotiating with Plaid Cymru and how to deal with the internal party politics of coalition
• Andrew Burns, leader of Edinburgh City Council, on his experiences leading Scotland’s only Labour/SNP coalition council
• Former Treasury special adviser Julia Goldsworthy on the machinery of government and how to make coalition work in Whitehall
• Former First Minister of Scotland Lord Jack McConnell discussing his time in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, demonstrating that coalition can be long-lasting and achieve real policy change
• Former New Zealand Labour minister and ERS Deputy Chief Executive Darren Hughes on the different ways in which minority government can be made to work

There are also important contributions from abroad, including former Irish minister Ruairi Quinn, former Prime Minister of Lower Saxony David McAllister, and Professor Dennis Pilon of Canada.

Working Together offers five key lessons for party leaders in May:

1. For coalition to work, there needs to be a common sense of purpose – clear aims and a united vision for what the parties want to achieve together
2. It takes time to negotiate. Deciding how to govern a country is not something that should be rushed. And sometimes, the longer it takes, the better the outcomes
3. Parties need to sign off on any power-sharing arrangement if it is going to achieve legitimacy. This can take the form of special conferences or other means of gaining party members’ assent
4. Power-sharing comes in numerous forms. Each nation can develop models of coalition or minority government which fit with their own political culture
5. Coalitions aren’t easy. They need constant dialogue, good personal relationships between protagonists and mechanisms for resolving disputes if they are going to work

People’s wishes have changed. In a poll by ComRes of the 40 most marginal Conservative-Labour constituencies (ie. the areas where the traditional two-party battle ought to be fiercest), we found that:

• 78% believe the Opposition should work with the government on issues they agree on (against just 9% who support the opposite)
• 54% believe Parliament works best when no party is too dominant so that cross-party agreement is needed to pass laws (against just 28% who support the opposite)

People want to see multiple parties competing for their votes, and then working together when they get to Westminster. Our new report offers tips and guidance on how to do just that.

Of course, the fact our broken voting system tries to cram people’s varied wishes into a two-party framework can make the whole process of power-sharing seem far from transparent. If parties were able to negotiate based on the real wishes of voters and not the disproportionate results of First Past the Post, then coalition and minority government would have the legitimacy it needs. We badly need to get rid of our outdated electoral system.

But in the meantime, let’s make sure parties are ready to work together after 7th May.

Read the full report here

And why not sign up for updates?

When it comes to forming a coalition, is it better to get your party on side before committing, or to take the plunge without consultation?

The Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has recently said that Tory MPs will be given a role in any new coalition agreement after this May’s election. This decision has no doubt been influenced by experience of coalition over the last five years. Time and time again, Conservative backbenchers have been able to cite the lack of consultation over power-sharing as reason to rebel.

The Liberal Democrats did it differently: they had a ‘triple lock’ mechanism when going into coalition in 2010. This mechanism ensured that for the party to enter government it had to get the approval of the parliamentary party and the Federal Executive (the party’s governing body, mostly elected by members). If 75% of both groups did not vote in favour, a special conference of members had also to be convened. In 2010 this hurdle was easily reached, but the party held a conference anyway.

The triple lock mechanism had notable effects on the party in coalition. Firstly, it legitimised the coalition agreement within the party. It became more difficult to argue that the agreement was simply the whim of an unrepresentative leadership when the whole party had acceded to it. This helped to bind the party together and helps explain why, despite many predicting otherwise, it has not fallen into infighting or mass defection.

Secondly, the triple lock appeared to help the Liberal Democrats in the 2010 negotiations, giving the leadership a reference point for what was and wasn’t a red line. “The membership won’t support that under any circumstances,” they were able to say. The triple lock hardened their negotiating position.

In comparison the Conservative Party held no vote, and hence was not bound into coalition in the same way. Backbenchers became rapidly rebellious, with some openly voicing distrust and dislike of their coalition partners.

When it comes to securing legitimacy for coalition-forming, international comparisons suggest the Liberal Democrat approach is more on trend. Historically the view tended to be that the parties which survived coalition best were those whose leaders made all the decisions on behalf of their party. This top-down process would supposedly stop parties being held hostage by unreasonable backbenchers and members. This would also slow down the process of government formation, it was argued.

Trends are now moving in the opposite direction. Before the 2013 German election the Social Democrats (SPD) changed their party rules so that their whole membership would have the right to vote on whether to enter coalition. The change in rules was said to help the SPD in negotiations, particularly with achieving the core SPD demand of a minimum wage.

In India, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) exploded into life in Delhi in 2013 running on an anti-corruption platform. When the Delhi State election saw a hung parliament and the AAP was asked to form an administration, they launched public consultations which included the ability for members of the public to have their say online and via SMS, in addition to public meetings.

The AAP’s strategy was to get their own voters’ assent for joining the government. Although the AAP government would prove to be very short-lived (it resigned after 49 days after other parties refused to back their key anti-corruption legislation), this exercise in wider consultancy on coalition may prove to be where the longer trend takes us.

We’ve got a report coming out soon about coalitions and power-sharing. Sign up for updates so you don’t miss it!