I would even go as far as to say that the ‘yes’ campaign should actually be the ‘no’ campaign. It should be a no to our broken system of politics that allows MPs to be elected on just 29% of the vote. This means that they can afford to ignore up to two-thirds of their constituents should they choose. And it should be ‘no’ to a system that collapsed in scandal a year ago.

In fact, there are only two arguments for First Past the Post that I can see. Firstly, that it produces clear outcomes. But it doesn’t. We have a hung parliament and the breakdown of class blocks of voting means that hung parliaments will become more common without a major class-voting realignment. And as Patrick Dunleavy of the LSE reported yesterday, the ‘Westminster model’ or majoritarian political systems are no longer producing clear outcomes. Again, this would appear to be something structural- we are becoming more pluralistic societies and majoritarian political systems sit uncomfortably with pluralism hence the breakdown of the ‘clear outcome’ argument.

The second argument that has ostensible merit is the ‘maverick politician’ argument. This asserts that AV will make elections anodyne as the system awards the most popular candidate who offends the fewest voters. This is a stronger argument than the ‘clear outcome’ argument but is by no means decisive. It has acquired added force by the ‘safety first’ approach of the Labour leadership contest. However, there are very few ‘maverick politicians’ in the current system. Where there is a successful one- Boris Johnson as Mayor of London- he was elected under AV. The force of personality can out in any electoral system- are there no maverick politicians in Australia? Of course there are.

So the ‘yes’ campaign should actually be- in major part- the ‘no to the First Past the Post’ campaign. It should get stuck into a system that allows incumbents to be reelected election after election with no real reason to engage with anyone other than their political base. It disenfranchises the majority. It is a recipe for static politics and resistance to change. All these elements together mean that many politicians had become so disconnected from voters that there were able to become serial expenses fiddlers. Its claimed advantages don’t stand. Without stability and decisiveness it’s a dud system.

Under no circumstances should the campaign be about the Coalition. There will be pro and anti Coalition forces on each side and that needs to be clearly articulated then the conversation should be about the damaging nature of First Past the Post.

The message is simple: be nice and lose. Fight fire with fire and be the anti establishment campaign and you may win. If you let the status quo become the anti-establishment force then that is negligent. It is a critical battle. The ‘yes’ campaign will need to be as ruthless as the ‘no’ campaign if not more so. This referendum is there to be won but it will need an incredibly robust campaign. Who will step up to the plate?

“Again, there is an insight from West Ham. Led by Thorne, West Ham in 1898 elected the first ‘Labour’ Council in Britain. The governing Labour Group included several unaligned Liberal/Radical members and embarked on a programme which involved enlarging the municipal workforce and bringing it directly under public control so as to improve pay, conditions and job security. By 1900 the Labour Council was no more. It was defeated by an alliance of Liberals and Conservatives, who, aghast at the distributive consequences of municipal socialism in action, united in opposition to the common enemy.

This pattern would be repeated. Across the twentieth century the tensions between Labour and Liberal have been most evident at the local level. This is partly because it was only in local government that the Liberals could wield power – and only when close to power are the instincts and prejudices of a political party revealed.

Labour councillors around the country have been telling us this for years about Liberal Democracy. Now, with the Coalition, we see the same dynamic at the national level.”

There is something I find worrying about this. It’s not the historical analysis per se- McClymont’s credentials on the historical front are impeccable. It’s more the implications that are drawn in the final sentence above. There are two concerns I have: firstly, Labour has worked perfectly respectably with Liberal Democrats in devolved Parliaments and Assemblies as well as on constitutional reform in the early years of the New Labour Government. To allow ourselves to fall into a mindset that Liberal Democrats will always revert to classical or Manchester liberal orthodoxy will mean that fruitful opportunities for dialogue and engagement may not be pursued which could be an error.

And secondly, we are now getting a better insight into the Liberal Democrats from voices such as Richard Grayson who is at the head of the Social Liberal Forum and has written a Compass pamphlet (which was summarised in the New Statesman last week.) His point is that the Liberal Democrats are under-factionalised. There is an ideologically social liberal minority and a similarly ideological ‘Orange book’ tendency- also a minority. In between, there is a non-ideological majority and where they swing depends very much on which of the ideological wings are in the ascendancy and circumstance.

Labour faces a pluralistic political landscape where hung parliaments may become far more frequent if not the norm- especially if the next election is fought under AV. If it allows itself to fall into ‘they are all untrustworthy classical liberals really’ trap then it may fail to develop what could be a fruitful dialogue with Liberal Democrat elements who are broadly centre-left-liberal in their political philosophy.

And if you need any evidence of this then it is worth reading the Grayson pamphlet. Just take his perspective on poltical economy for instance:

“In developing new ideas which go beyond the latest manifesto, social liberals could be arguing for a new political economy, which puts issues of power in the workplace and the ownership of assets back on to the political agenda in the way that the Liberal Party once did.”

And what would be holding Labour back from joining in that discussion? It certainly feels like a more constructive discussion that a constant sticking to the ‘don’t challenge the market’ guns. I’d rather be looking at the power of the individual in the workplace and the market than just accepting economic orthodoxy and trying to make the best of a bad job. Sadiq Khan MP makes this point ably on Labour Uncut in his rebuttal to John Woodcock’s defence of labour market flexibility of last week. And if there are social liberals who wish to engage in that discussion also then great.

“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.”

Foolhardily, that is exactly what the Liberal Democrats allowed to happen. The legislation- if it passes- will now pass with a 10% cut in the number of MPs. This was a mistake on two counts. Firstly and most importantly, it will reduce democratic engagement and scrutiny. The major reason that I like AV-based electoral reform is that it increases engagement between parties and the electorate (if you have to persuade more than 50% to vote for you instead of 29% you will engage more.) If you cut the number of MPs then representatives will have to choose- to a greater extent than they do already- between good local engagement and sound executive scrutiny. This is bad.

Let me be crystal clear. This is a different argument to equalisation of constituency sizes. That is fine in principle as long as you make sure you absolutely maximise registration.

Secondly, it diminishes Labour support and commitment to electoral reform and it feels nobbled by the legislation. This may be a mixture of perception and reality but it is the case. It’s not scientific but see this straw poll for an illustration. To win the referendum, the Liberal Democrats need Labour. It has a vote-harvesting machine which is a valuable thing. One reason the Liberal Democrats only got 23% in the election is that their machine is significantly weaker. In supporting this 10% cut in MPs, the Liberal Democrats have tried the patience of Labour.

The only argument in favour of a 10% cut in constituencies is financial and that argument is very weak. Is it really worth risking harm to democracy for a total saving of £12million? Of course, for more equal constituency sizes to keep pace with population change then you will need to have more regular boundary reviews- every five years say at a cost of £15million+ a time so you start to lose the financial gains very quickly. But surely it is perverse for parties who claim to believe in improving democracy to fire cost arguments at this issue? It is very dangerous to start framing arguments in this way. Value for money discussions are fine but once you start chopping away chunks of democratic representation to save cash then you are in very dicey territory indeed. That is where this coalition finds itself.

But it’s not about the cash really (which makes the framing even more irresponsible.) It’s about correcting the Labour bias in the electoral system which is why Labour is shrieking in opposition- a poisonous package according to John Prescott. But the academic evidence is extremely mixed about whether this will particularly harm Labour- its vote is very well distributed even at 29%. So there may not be a huge amount to worry about on this front; the attempted gerrymander- which it is- may fail. If it does all the Coalition will have achieved by it is to harm democratic engagement and accountability- good work great reformers!

But from Labour’s point of view, that element of the legislative package will, in all likelihood pass whatever I’m afraid. It is AV that is up for grabs. Labour has the opportunity to show that it can embrace reform and pluralistic politics. It can show that it is not stuck in the past; a defensive party unable to confront the future. And it is the right thing to do from the perspective of democratic accountability.

The Coalition has made a huge mistake with its decision to cut the number of constituencies. It is arbitrary, dangerous and destructive. Unfortunately, Labour will be unable to stop it. So it must make its arguments as best it can but then show an absolute commitment and determination to salvage electoral reform and democratic renewal from the wreckage.

I would also highly recommend reading Sunny Hundal on this earlier today.

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.

1. PR

What an amazing demonstration today with special congratulations to Pam Giddy of Power 2010 who has set up the Take Back Parliament campaign. I’ve signed.

This keeps the issue of PR and political reform very much at the centre of political discussion as political coalition/ pact talks are ongoing.

The Parliamentary arithmetic isn’t there to deliver PR or a referendum on PR. The Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats all currently favour three very different voting systems. The Tories favour the status quo, Labour favour the Alternative Vote, and the Liberal Democrats are in favour of the Single Transferable Vote system of PR. If Gordon Brown offers a referendum on PR he can’t get it through Parliament anyway so it’s worthless (at least a quarter of the Parliamentary Labour Party are implacably opposed.)

So keep the issue on the agenda- that is why today was so important. Then the task is: (i) To convince the Labour party to back full PR rather than just AV; and (ii) To build support within the Conservative party.

PR will come- but getting there needs some painstaking coalition building and popular support and that will take some time. We aren’t there yet. But sign up to the petition, write to your MP, get your friends involved, keep it going!

2. Government

I’m just going to reiterate my first observation from yesterday- the Conservatives will be in Government. There was an election. Look at the result if you don’t believe me. It is likely to be a ‘confidence and supply‘ model where the Liberal Democrats support specifically agreed legislation and allow the Tories to get a Queen’s Speech and Budget passed.

It seems amazing that Nick Clegg would form a coalition with the Conservatives without any substantive agreement on electoral reform (referendum on PR in other words….) David Cameron won’t and can’t agree to that. To form a coalition in these circumstances could break apart the Liberal Democratic party.

But there is another scenario….that Liberal Democrats do enter a coalition but without an insistence on electoral reform. In so doing, they take the gamble that they will be seen as responsible and reasonable and that holds their party and their support together. With all the talk of ‘stable government’ in the ‘national interest’ this seems to be a possibility….and a big gamble.

One further point, the Liberal Democrats have conducted themselves with dignity and statesmanship over the last two days. It’s a good advert for PR. That needs to be said.

3. National Government or new election?

Less commented in the last 24 hours is the fact that the Conservatives may not get to choose the date of the next election. The next 9 months is relatively easy in terms of what needs to happen with the deficit but then gets very tough. Will the Liberal Democrats want to be seen propping up a Government that is cutting public spending in a very politically unpopular way? It is an alliance/ coalition that is very unstable and becomes more unstable over time.

How much stomach will the Liberal Democrats have for taking the political hit for Conservative spending decisions?

And there are other unforeseens. Just take what is happening in global bond markets. What if what is happening to Greece does spread to our shores? What happens then? What if there is a fundamental disagreement about how to deal with that? Public expenditure would have to cut but how and by how much? The scope for fissure is enormous.

And you have to wonder, in these circumstances, whether David Marquand’s insistence that a ‘grand coalition’ might be necessary is astute. The choice within 12 months might be for a National Government or another election.

So the economy moves centre stage. More specifically, debt moves centre stage. It was already moving clearly into view as a result of the IFS report yesterday into the deficit reduction plans of the major parties. It concluded that by 2014-15 Labour will have to find an additional £45.8billion of cuts, the Liberal Democrats would have to find an additional £34.4billion, and the Conservatives will still need to find an additional £52.5billion. This latter figure marks a fiscal tightening to a degree not achieved since the Second World War.

And then there’s Greece…..

As luck would have it, the leaders’ debate tomorrow is on the economy. It really depends on how things develop today but if Germany digs its heals in- and remember they have regional elections themselves a week on Sunday and the German public is against helping out the Greek economy- then that debate could be in context of major financial turbulence. The response of the major parties in the next 36 hours will be critical to outcome of this election.

The challenge for the Conservatives is to pin debt levels on Labour ‘profligacy’. For Labour, it will need to make the argument that failure to support the UK economy would have led to greater debts and economic crisis ultimately with all that would have entailed for jobs, people’s homes, and businesses. It is more difficult for the Liberal Democrats to make their mark and so this could be the moment the Liberal Democrat bubble begins to deflate. If the Greek situation is not resolved this could be, after everything, about to become an ‘it’s the economy stupid’ election. Ownership over the dominant narrative over the next few hours is essential. What I will say, is that the odds on Gordon Brown ‘winning’ the final debate have significantly shortened. He’s good in a crisis. And he’s good on the economy.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats continue to make gains in the seat predictor. Interestingly, the Conservatives are down by 8, Labour is up 4 as are the Liberal Democrats. This leaves the Conservatives 27 seats short of a majority compared with 19 yesterday. Interesting.

However, John Curtice has projected what the result would be based on current polls under an Alternative Vote system. One note of caution: his results do depend on a universal swing calculator so they import all the deficiencies of that (his ‘probable’ outcome in terms of seats based on current polls is too strong a description for me.) But let’s run with the forecast for now (it won’t be as bad as that in my opinion.) Could we really argue for a system that hits one party disproportionately badly and in an unfair way?

This calculation will have to be done after the election given the massive shortcomings of current seat by seat projections. Nonetheless, if an outcome such as John Curtice suggests was the result then AV is dead on arrival.

Anyway, onto tmg.co.uk’s (weighted) seat predictor. Liberal Democrats continued to make gains in support and seats yesterday. Labour are -2 on yesterday and the Lib Dems are +2- Conservatives are 19 seats short of a majority,

It has the following elements:

- Members elected on an AV+ basis using the old European constituencies with a regional top up.
- Elections would be every five years and coincide with European elections.
- No member of the new House of Lords can be a member of the government. If they join the Government they would have to resign their seat.
- A minimum age of 40.
- Parties would commit to selecting candidates on the basis of expertise and to reflect the diversity of the UK.

Why make these changes?

“By having a different source of authority – and timing – this new House of Lords would strengthen Parliament and make it more pluralistic. Adding in electoral reform of the House of Commons – the alternative vote – and the opening out of political parties through the introduction of primaries then the centrifugal nature of our political system begins to be reversed. There would be more counterweight in the system.

Wouldn’t this make social and economic reform more difficult? At times, perhaps, but it would also improve the quality of legislation as Governments would have to operate by consensus. It would also embed institutions that had broad consent beyond the lifetime of a Parliament or a Government. Pluralism, long-termism, consensus, and diversity could be locked into our democratic system.”

Which brings me nicely on to David Cameron’s absolutely barmy intention to introduce a UK Sovereignty Bill (it didn’t really bring me nicely on to this but whatever….) There are two possibilities for the Bill:

- It is meaningless. Therefore it achieves nothing but may simply make the UK look silly. Parliament is already sovereign- we can leave the EU at any time.
- It is meaningful. In which case, we are leaving the European Union. European law supercedes UK law. Any UK law passed which suggests otherwise is incompatible with EU treaties and, therefore, we would have to leave. Potty.

Fraser Nelson writes:

“Mr Cameron’s proposed Sovereignty Bill — declaring the primacy of English law over the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg — will also be meaningless unless it includes the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.”

Er, that is not meaningless I’m afraid. That would mean that the UK is leaving the EU. Quite meaningful, I would say. I’d be interested to hear whether Fraser Nelson has got confirmation that is what the legislation would contain. If it does, then Cameron is committing to the UK going it alone.

Don’t take my word for it. Here is Kenneth Clarke describing such legislation as: “fundamentally incompatible with EU membership.”

All this lets the eurosceptic genie out of the bottle. He is placing himself in a position of fundamental and ongoing conflict with the EU. Where does that end up? It ends up in only one place: a referendum on leaving the EU as he won’t get his own way. Playing with fire Mr Cameron.

Post script: The BBC adds a bit more colour to the story. Pierre Lallouche is simply saying what others are thinking.

Electoral reform in this manner is a good thing because it increases popular sovereignty. Proportional representation is a bad thing for the same reason. It actually diminishes popular sovereignty as it hands power to political elites who distribute the spoils in accordance with an elite bargaining game. Danny Alexander of the Lib Dems laments that the current system is ‘unfair.’ Yes, from the perspective of his party- self-interest always weighs heavily in this debate- it is. But fairness to the Liberal Democrats or the Greens or UKIP or the BNP is not the overriding concern. Popular sovereignty is.

What the expenses scandal has shown is that there is dangerous distance between MPs and their constituents and this is partly caused by the excessive stability of first past the post. If you lose, it is because your party has lost. It is very rarely because of your performance as an MP. This is unacceptable. If AV facilitates more independence amongst MPs then even better. That would be one of the means of increasing the independence of Parliament and holding the executive to account. All these things are a thoroughly good idea. So let’s not have a discussion Prime Minister- these things have been debated in infinite detail. Let’s get on with it for goodness sake.

Now, you’ll notice the BNP creeping into this post above. There is a misconception that electoral reform means that the BNP will find their way into Parliament. I would be surprised if they could get into Parliament needing more than 50 per cent of the vote in any single constituency. In fact, I would say that the safeguards against BNP representation are even greater in AV than in the current system. It is very important to differentiate AV and PR in this debate.

But there is a broader issue here. Yes, the BNP wouldn’t have 2 MEPs if there had not been a system of PR in these European elections. But they wouldn’t had the Labour vote not collapsed either- both staying at home and going to a whole host of other parties. That is a bigger issue which I’ve addressed in my LabourList column which I’ll link to later.

So, AV yes. PR no. And AV will keep the BNP at bay.

First, identify the worst offenders in the expenses scandal and signal a clear end to their parliamentary careers. Second, find a mechanism to re-engage voters in the political process.

So far so good, it had me in thrall. Then it veered wildly off towards advocating proportional representation. This seems to me to completely miss the point. Do PR systems have a better chance of responding to the interests of the voters? My instinct says not. In fact, they can remove power from the voters and hand it to parties. If you know that in a given multi-member seat you are going to get one out of three seats, say, then you can just parachute in a party insider. They are elected. Job done, you’ve got your chunk of support and you’ve got your favoured candidate. Where has there been any real voter engagement? What is forcing that MP to build a deep relationship with those voters? How is that better from the current system?

Moreover, there is no need for representatives to reach beyond their base. Politics could become ossified. Personally, I do favour voting reform but proportionality is just one consideration and not actually the most important one. For me, clarity, directness, and opportunity for change are far more important. For this reason, I have begun to favour the Alternative Vote which meets these criteria and forces representatives to engage with a broader range of viewpoints and voters than is currently the case. It could even create a greater spirit of independence amongst MPs as a result which is welcome.

The opposite could be true with a PR system other than at a national coalition-building level with is about elite bargaining rather than direct engagement of voters in the political process.

No, I think the calls for PR in terms of answering this particular political crisis- a chasm between voters and those who represent them- miss the point. I am happy to be convinced but it has the feel of a red herring. As I argued in my LabourList column earlier this week the direct measures that are now needed are: open primaries with strictly limited expenditure, a greater separation of the executive and parliament, a different culture of engagement with voters, and, yes, some electoral reform but only insofar as it puts MPs under greater not less democratic scrutiny. There is also a discussion to be had about party funding but I’m not in favour of state funding which seems to be off the table now- rightly.

One final point, the most spectacular democratic revival we have seen recently is across the Atlantic Ocean. It was in a first past the post system with primaries. It was spontaneous and happened as a result of the inspiration of a small number of people rather than ponderous, worthy and often self-serving discussion of constitutional reform. Obama ’08 was a hostile takeover of the Democratic party and the American political process. Who is ready to do the same in Britain?

Post script: I found David Cameron’s performance on The Andrew Marr Show this morning excruciatingly embarrassing. The Tories are clearly spooked by UKIP and they were the real target of his comments. Change? I didn’t hear a single thing that suggested that he grasps the current situation. He is at sea.

Post script 2: Sunder Katwala makes the case for electoral reform over at Next Left. I suspect that he would go further than my suggestions above. Electoral reform, yes, but proportional representation- especially multi-member constituencies- a no for me.