Vote for Change? Cameron is the anti-change candidate

Conservatives scupper a referendum on electoral reform.

My colleagues James Macintyre and Jon Bernstein have already blogged on the new report from the Electoral Reform Society, highlighting how the "election is already over in most of the country", given the preponderance of so-called safe seats in our antiquated, disproportional and majoritarian first-past-the-post voting system.

But I thought I'd highlight how the Tories, the party campaigning on a slogan of "Time for a Change", succeeded last night in blocking any meaningful and democratic change to our broken electoral and political system in the dying days of this discredited parliament.

From the Guardian:

In one of the first casualties of the so-called wash-up, the government was forced to abandon its proposal to introduce a referendum on the Alternative Vote system for electing MPs in October.

The Tories rejected a Labour compromise that would have introduced a sunset clause so the referendum would have to be triggered by an incoming government for the referendum to be activated.

The Tories, so keen to hold a referendum on European treaties, won't allow the British public the opportunity to decide how to choose our elected representatives. So much for "devolving" power and "trusting" the citizens of this great nation.

Here is Willie Sullivan, head of the pro-plebiscite Vote for a Change campaign:

In Wash Up and armed with a veto not granted them by any voter, the Conservatives have killed reform of the voting system and reform of the House of Lords. Cameron's message is clear. And it isn't change.

It is ridiculous the government has backed down. But it's a scandal that Conservatives have been so willing to sacrifice constitutional reform to further their own prejudices. This scorched-earth policy reveals a party that is simply too scared to leave the verdict on first-past-the-post to the British people.

Oppose political reform. Defend the status quo. Deny voters a vote. This is the modern Conservative Party, under the "modernising" David Cameron. And, to borrow a phrase from across the pond, this is not change we can believe in.


Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.