Yesterday, I was asked to help someone with their mathematics homework as there was one question that they were stuck on.  I looked at it, thought about it, but was stumped.  Although potential solutions kept nagging at the back of my mind, they couldn’t break through until it dawned on me that I had made a mistaken assumption about the rules laid down in the question.  I’m not generally one for breaking rules, but I do like to challenge assumptions – especially my own.  It was difficult to challenge my assumption because it felt like breaking the rules.  Having the courage to do so turned out to be liberating:  a simple and elegant solution quickly emerged.

During the election campaign, I worried about the possible consequences of tactical voting.  These worries were based on the assumption that the most that tactical voting could achieve would be to limit the size of the Conservative majority to that which it had when the election was called.  This assumption turned out to be false:  I never seriously considered that the Conservative Party could lose their overall majority.  Had I considered the possibility of a hung parliament, I would probably have worried about the implications of that too.  However, on waking up the morning after, bleary-eyed as I was, I saw this unexpected result as a glorious opportunity to do government differently.  I had voted with hope and found that I woke up with hope.

As per convention, Theresa May has remained Prime Minister throughout the election campaign and is now attempting to carry on as Prime Minister in our tradition of authoritarian democracy by doing a deal with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party.  How long she can carry on as Prime Minister remains to be seen, but we should prepare for the moment when a vacancy emerges for Prime Minister by challenging our assumptions about how Prime Ministers are appointed.

The Prime Minister of the UK is not directly elected.  By convention, the monarch appoints as Prime Minister someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.  This Prime Minister is then invited to form a government.  Normally, the political parties are ranked according to the number of our MPs who belong to each of them and the leader of the largest party is then appointed as Prime Minister.  The assumption being made is that the leader of the largest party is the person best able to command the confidence of the House of Commons.  I would like to challenge this assumption.  The leader of the largest party may be able to order the obedience of the largest number of our MPs, but that is not the same as being able to command the confidence of the House of Commons as a whole.  It only makes sense if we view our MPs as a TV election-night graphic:  discrete, homogeneous, colour-coded clusters that can only be manipulated in blocks.  This is another assumption that needs challenging.

We assume that many of our identities exist as sets of discrete options when they are actually continuous spectra.  Political identity is one such example.  Political identity is an expression of opinion.  Since every person is unique and therefore has a unique set of opinions, political identity must exist as a continuous spectrum.  Trying to divide a continuous spectrum into discrete blocks applies a distorting filter to our view of political identity.  If we have the courage to challenge our assumptions about political identity and remove the distorting filter of political parties then, when we look at the House of Commons, we simply see 650 people from across the continuous spectrum of political views who we have chosen to represent us.  Suddenly, it is entirely possible that one of their number could command the confidence of a majority.  The difficulties of forming a government from the hung parliament melt away.  Simple and elegant solutions emerge.

The first stage is to identify someone who can command the confidence of the House of the Commons for the monarch to appoint as Prime Minister.  Since we are too accustomed to the distorting filter of political parties, it seems unlikely that the leader of either of the two largest parties could command the confidence of the House of Commons as a whole.  They are probably the least qualified candidates.  A new approach is needed.  We can’t just ignore the political parties because we are all too accustomed to them.  It will take time for us to see clearly without their filter.  I do, however, have some ideas that might help in the short term:

• Suggest that the monarch appoints Caroline Lucas as Prime Minister. The Green Party has long talked about doing politics in a different, more collaborative manner so she should be well placed to show her parliamentary colleagues the way.  In addition, as the only MP from the Green Party, she would not have to deal with any factional difficulties in her parliamentary party.  Finally, I rather like the symbolism of turning the usual assumption upside down and offering the top job to the smallest party.  High office is an opportunity to serve, not a prize to be won.
• Alternatively, invite the MPs belonging to the largest party to select someone for the monarch to appoint as Prime Minister. However, they would not be allowed to select a member of their own party.
• The Egyptian Coptic Church elects its new Pope by selecting two candidates and then asking a child to choose one at random. Our MPs could select two or three candidates who would be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons and one could then be chosen at random.

This new Prime Minister would then be invited to form a government, just as they are now.  Because they have not gained their post through a political victory, the Prime Minister would not be constrained to handing out jobs to the political allies who had helped them to secure their own position.  Whilst aiming for a reasonable balance across the political spectrum, the driving force should be finding the best people for the jobs.  With a government that is representative of the political spectrum, there would be no need for political whipping.  MPs would be free to vote as directed by their consciences to represent their constituents.  Legislation brought forward by the government would, therefore, have to be built on consensus.  It would truly be government by the people, for the people.

Challenging our assumptions about political identity and the appointment of our Prime Minister is difficult because it feels like breaking the rules.  Having the courage to do so would be truly liberating for us all.  Without having to break the rules by going to all the trouble of introducing electoral reform, it could give us the strong and stable leadership we need to change Britain’s future by bringing us together as a confident and caring country that works for the many, not the few.  The system isn’t broken:  we just need to use it in the way in which it was designed to work.

I have a name for my proposal:  liberal democracy.