Far from having any claim to insight into the British political system I consider myself an ordinary punter trying to make a responsible choice as I cast my vote in these extraordinary times. And having cast my vote on Thursday I am on tenterhooks (as, it seems, are the markets) as talks between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties take place to see if they can reach some kind of power-sharing agreement following our election.

It seems to me that there are two major questions on the agenda. One of these is the question of reform of the UK electoral system, a key aspiration of the Liberal Democrat Party – Britain’s third main party. Last time the Liberal Democrats had the chance to enter into a power-sharing arrangement (back in the 70s) they gave away the possibility of electoral reform in order to form a coalition government. Some commentators are suggesting that they are unlikely to let such a rare opportunity go past again. No matter what the outcome is from these post-electoral negotiations the government of the day will have to address another key question and decide how to manage Britain’s ailing economy.

I do wonder how these two questions are related. George Osborne, for example, Shadow Chancellor for the Conservative Party, made a speech in October 2009 in which he asked the electorate to accept the need for austerity. Michael Portillo, writing yesterday for the Daily Telegraph newspaper, suggested that this speech clearly frightened voters. It strikes me that the need to nurture the British economy back to good health was the unspoken “elephant in the room” in the recent televised debates between the three main party leaders. I wonder whether, under a representative system, it might have been more likely that all three leaders would have named this economic need. Is it possible that, under some kind of representative system (rather than our current “first past the post”) the question up for discussion amongst our politicians would not be whether or not we need to manage the economy right now but how?

It’s interesting to note that commentators (including Tim Montgomerie, writing for the ConservativeHome website and Lord Tebbit, former Conservative Party Chairman) have highlighted the need for a more collaborative approach within the Conservative Party. There is a mood of discontent amongst Conservative politicians that the party failed to win an overall majority in the election and some are pointing to Cameron’s failure to collaborate with colleagues in the party except for his tight inner circle. If nothing else, this lack of collaboration means that party members can easily point at Cameron and say “it’s your fault”. Gordon Brown has also been highlighted as someone who lacks skills in collaboration. Right now his hold on the leadership of the Labour Party is looking increasingly tenuous.

At the same time, there are concerns about the implications of power sharing. One immediate concern is that the time it is likely to take to form some kind of collaborative government may have significant effects on the markets. Commentators have also been voicing wider concerns, pointing to especially Germany’s system in which it can take months to form a government and Italy’s system in which corruption is put down to the governmental system. And that’s before you pick up the current edition of the New Scientist, the cover of which focuses on the maths, claiming: The Maths of Democracy: Why Fairness is Impossible.

So, as we await the outcome of last week’s election, I find myself pondering the potential benefits of far greater collaboration right the way across our political system. At the same time, I am acutely aware that successful collaboration takes a mindset that is not commonly visible in our Houses of Parliament. And I recognise that this in turn raises questions about the culture of our political system and about the wider culture it reflects. Perhaps this is an idea to explore on another day.