The Government is planning a referendum on AV next May- good. This poses a series of strategic/ tactical questions.
The honourable thing for Labour to do- given that it was in its manifesto- would be to support the referendum legislation. It seems obvious that Labour should support it. Surely it won’t do the dishonourable thing and abstain? If it did then it would fail to secure its desired objective- creating discord in the Coalition to the degree that it falls apart. The legislation will pass anyway and Labour will look shoddy. There is a tactical temptation here but it makes neither tactical nor strategic sense ultimately. Better to get enthusiastically behind the legislation
That is, unless the legislation sets in motion the process by which the number of constituencies is cut by 10%- which would be a shoddy thing for the Coalition to do. Then Labour would be absolutely right to consider opposition. If the Liberal Democrats are serious about electoral reform they will ensure that the two issues are not combined in legislation. While the 10% cut may bribe wavering Tory MPs to back the legislation, they will quite merrily oppose the ‘Yes’ vote nonetheless, and Labour’s enthusiasm for a positive outcome will be greatly dimmed. That would be a Liberal Democrat strategic error and its about time they used their leverage for something given they didn’t bother with the Budget.
Labour should remove any vestige of dilemma for the Liberal Democrats by saying they will back the referendum legislation and enforce that with a three-line whip- as a manifesto commitment- as long as it is a pure vote on a referendum for AV and nothing else.
Which then creates Labour’s second strategic/ tactical dilemma. To back the ‘yes’ campaign or not? And again, there is a tactical temptation here. The new Leader could just say what their preference is and then sit back and let the referendum take its course. That would increase the chances of defeat and that would leave the Liberal Democrats with very little by way of gain from their Coalition agreement. It would also kill electoral reform for a generation which, if you really do favour electoral reform, is really rather stupid.
Or the new Leader could enthusiastically put their personal and organisational support behind the ‘yes’ campaign (assuming that’s the position the candidate favours which is a 50% probability or so on a numbers based calculation!) This is the clever strategic choice on four counts:
- It shows that Labour is able to step out of an oppositionalist mindset.
- It is an opportunity to cooperate with Liberal Democrats on a common cause which is an important consideration if we are genuinely entering a more pluralistic period of politics.
- It means that Labour will share some of the credit for securing a ‘yes’ vote.
- And though this is the least of the considerations, but the Guardian has calculated the 2010 election outcome under AV: Con 281, Lab 262, LD 79. We would be in a very different political world potentially had that been the outcome.
Oh, and one more thing, it is the right thing to do. No MP should be elected with shares of 29% of the vote- as Simon Wright MP was in Norwich South.If you only need to win the support of 30% or so voters then the temptation is to narrowly target on them. That is bad politics- we need wider engagement with all rather than narrow targeting and AV promotes that.
And one final, final thing, a while ago Chris Cook of the FT suggested that any MP on the TV/ radio etc should have to declare their majority at the beginning of any interview on the subject of electoral reform. Yes, I mean you, Daniel Kawczynski, 15% majority. Hmmm, could that be a member of the House of Commons ‘elite’ protecting his privileged status? I think so. It is an elite issue- it’s about a group of comfortable MPs protecting their job security. Electoral success should be earned not granted as some sort of sinecure- sorry Daniel.
So the sensible Labour choice is clear- back the referendum on AV, and strongly support a ‘yes’ vote. Already, both Ed Miliband and David Miliband have indicated that is what they would do. In so doing, they have clearly demonstrated that they get both the strategy and sensible reformist arguments for Labour backing political change.
July 2nd, 2010 at 12:54
Hmm – I sense a bit of a contradiction in two of your points here. For AV to improve Labour’s standing it would rest on the Lib Dem vote transferring more to Labour than Tory candidates. But that would actually make a lot of safeish Labour seats in the north even safer rather than less so.
If course, there is every chance that the logic of coalition will end up with with Labour getting disproportionally fewer rather than more seats as LD and Tory voters transfer to each other. But even then the same would apply – it would make lots of safeish Tory seats even safer, rather than less so.
And, in fact, there will be safe seats under any electoral system – even more so in proportional systems than constituency-based ones. So I’m not sure that you can impugn MPs in safe seats who attack AV.
Surely the logic is the opposite? It will be people like Emily Thornberry, Paul Blomfield, Ian Murray, Diana Johnson and the like in Lab-Lib marginals (and under the second scenario those in Lab-Con marginals with the LDs in third) who will lose their seats under AV.
Also, Cleggeron has already announced that the constituency reduction and AV will be brought forward in the same Bill and that the coalition effectively regards them as two sides of the same coin in terms of a new electoral system.
I’m inclined to think that perhaps Labour should offer an amendment on a three-option referendum but deleting the boundary review (or with an alternative) and force the Lib Dems to vote against that.
July 5th, 2010 at 16:56
Anthony is right. For Labour to abstain on this- would be very bad.
THe end result of distribution of seats, and advantage given by electoral reform- is not the issue. I know that realistically it is the issue for politicians- but electoral reform is supposed to be about making politics ‘fairer’(yes I hear you laugh, since when did any of these lot give a real toss about fair…)
If advantage given to a particular party is the issue a party are concentrating on, it becomes v clear to voters that this is not about making the system more representative.
Labour objecting to AV shows a party of self interest, and in this climate that is hardly going to mark them out as any different from the coalition.
THis was in Labour’s manifesto, and they should support it as such.
July 5th, 2010 at 16:57
Sorry first bit of that didn’t make sense- but had child on knee trying to put strawberry in ear.
July 6th, 2010 at 09:47
“That is, unless the legislation sets in motion the process by which the number of constituencies is cut by 10%- which would be a shoddy thing for the Coalition to do.”
I’d be interested to hear why cutting the number of MPs is “a shoddy thing to do.” Why are more MPs automatically a good thing?
TW
July 6th, 2010 at 09:55
TW. It is not ‘more’ MPs. It is the amount of MPs we have. If you cut them you save little but lose democratic engagement- they will have to increasingly choose between engaging with constituents and effectively scrutinising the executive/ legislation. This situation will get worse as population increases….
And, quite frankly, it’s not up to me to explain why not cut. It’s up to those who want to cut the number to explain why. If the reason is to save £12million then that is facile in the extreme. (the boundary review that will be caused as a result will cost more than that by itself. The AV referendum will cost £80million.)
But we all know that is not the real reason……
July 6th, 2010 at 13:23
AP
Thank you for your reply.
“If you cut them you save little but lose democratic engagement..” A fair point. I think I probably agree with you on this.
“It’s not up to me to explain why not cut.” I can’t agree with that however. If you think it’s cutting the number of seats is a bad thing you have to explain why. Otherwise your arguments go by default, and that’s just the way of the world.
“But we all know that is not the real reason……”
Why not tell us the real reason? If you believe the motive is preferential reduction of Labour seats (and I suspect it will hurt Lib Dems in Scotland too), why not say so? Of course doing so begs the question: what is the government’s actual justification for the process?
They say that each constituency should have the same number of voters. And this is perfectly reasonable. I find it hard to see why in some seats a vote is worth less (in the sense it is a smaller proportion of the total electorate) than in others. I suppose you could argue that Wales and Scotland need to be over represented to prevent the decisions of the British Parliament being essentially the decisons of the English MPs. That point is arguablely less strong since devolution.
“If the reason is to save £12 million then that is facile in the extreme. (the boundary review that will be caused as a result will cost more than that by itself. The AV referendum will cost £80million.”)
This is a classic falicy. Essentially you are saying, we are spending lots of money anyway, so we might as well not save what we can save. Also the boundary review is a one off cost, while the saving (presumably) is year on year – aren’t boundary reviews meant to happen fairly regualarly anyway? I don’t know when the next one would have been due. If the reduction in number of MPs is 50, that puts the anual cost of an MP at about £240,000 presumably per annum,and the judgment that needs to be nade is, is the extra engagement of MPs worth paying for.
As for the cost of the AV referendum, you do argue in your orignal post that supporting the government on this point is the right thing to do…..