Labour could outflank the Lib Dems on electoral reform

The next Labour leader needs to be bold about PR.

Today's Queen's Speech, outlining the 18-month legislative programme of Britain's first coalition government since the Second World War, is likely to include a promise of a referendum on voting reform as part of the proposed parliamentary reform bill.

Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem colleagues in the coalition cabinet will be spinning the referendum pledge as a great victory for the party. But, of course, the referendum will be on the Alternative Vote (AV), and not on a fully proportional system, which the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for since time immemorial (and to which they were committed in their own manifesto). Plus, their Conservative allies in government are free to campaign against AV during the referendum campaign.

So -- surprise, surprise! -- Nick Clegg has been reaching out to his scorned lover, the Labour Party, as he begins his personal campaign to convince the electorate of the need for electoral reform. Here is the Deputy Prime Minister on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday morning:

No one should be surprised that, as a Liberal Democrat, I passionately believe that our electoral system at the moment doesn't work and it can be made fairer, so that people's views are more prom-- . . . you know, are better reflected in the House of Commons. That's of course what we'll campaign on. And yes I will be reaching out to people from other parties -- not just the Conservative Party but the Labour Party as well -- saying if you believe in a different kind of politics, when it comes to a referendum, let's all join together to try and argue the case for change.

The Labour Party has two options. Either it can junk its own manifesto commitment to the Alternative Vote, in an act of petulance, and join the Tories in campaigning against change, thereby embarrassing, isolating and "punishing" the Lib Dems for their alliance with the Conservatives. This might be the preferred strategy of an instinctive first-past-the-poster like Ed Balls.

Or it can be much bolder than it has been in the past, ditch its tribalism and conservatism on electoral reform, and (belatedly) push for out-and-out proportional representation, in the form of AV+ (as recommended by Roy Jenkins back in 1998). At a stroke, Labour would seize the constitutional high ground, attract disillusioned Lib Dem voters into the fold, outflank Clegg, Huhne et al, and exacerbate tensions inside the Con-Dem coalition.

This is the view of the former home secretary Alan Johnson (why are you not standing, Alan??), writing in Sunday's Observer:

The new government is committed to a referendum on a new voting system. It will contain two options -- the current first-past-the-post system and the Alternative Vote. It will be the first time in the history of our democracy that its citizens will have a say in how their votes are translated into political power.

What possible argument can there be against adding the recommendation of the Independent Commission on the Voting System, AV+, as a third option? It retains the constituency link, extends voter choice and is broadly proportional.

Johnson adds: "I will certainly be making the case within my own party to submit legislative amendments to that effect."

Brothers Miliband -- are you listening to AJ? Please do so. You, your party and your country have much to gain.

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.

Getty
Show Hide image

We still have time to change our minds on Brexit

The British people will soon find they have been misled. 

On the radio on 29 March 2017, another "independence day" for rejoicing Brexiteers, former SNP leader Alex Salmond and former Ukip leader Nigel Farage battled hard over the ramifications of Brexit. Here are two people who could be responsible for the break-up of the United Kingdom. Farage said it was a day we were getting our country back.

Yet let alone getting our country back, we could be losing our country. And what is so frustrating is that not only have we always had our country by being part of the European Union, but we have had the best of both worlds.

It is Philip Hammond who said: “We cannot cherry pick, we cannot have our cake and eat it too”. The irony is that we have had our cake and eaten it, too.

We are not in Schengen, we are not in the euro and we make the laws that affect our daily lives in Westminster – not in Europe – be it our taxes, be it our planning laws, be it business rates, be it tax credits, be it benefits or welfare, be it healthcare. We measure our roads in miles because we choose to and we pour our beer in pints because we choose to. We have not been part of any move towards further integration and an EU super-state, let alone the EU army.

Since the formation of the EU, Britain has had the highest cumulative GDP growth of any country in the EU – 62 per cent, compared with Germany at 35 per cent. We have done well out of being part of the EU. What we have embarked on in the form of Brexit is utter folly.

The triggering of Article 50 now is a self-imposed deadline by the Prime Minister for purely political reasons. She wants to fix the two-year process to end by March 2019 well in time to go into the election in 2020, with the negotiations completed.

There is nothing more or less to this timing. People need to wake up to this. Why else would she trigger Article 50 before the French and German elections, when we know Europe’s attention will be elsewhere?

We are going to waste six months of those two years, all because Prime Minister Theresa May hopes the negotiations are complete before her term comes to an end. I can guarantee that the British people will soon become aware of this plot. The Emperor has no clothes.

Reading through the letter that has been delivered to the EU and listening to the Prime Minister’s statement in Parliament today amounted to reading and listening to pure platitudes and, quite frankly, hot air. It recalls the meaningless phrase, "Brexit means Brexit".

What the letter and the statement very clearly outlined is how complex the negotiations are going to be over the next two years. In fact, they admit that it is unlikely that they are going to be able to conclude negotiations within the two-year period set aside.

That is not the only way in which the British people have been misled. The Conservative party manifesto clearly stated that staying in the single market was a priority. Now the Prime Minister has very clearly stated in her Lancaster House speech, and in Parliament on 29 March that we are not going to be staying in the single market.

Had the British people been told this by the Leave campaign, I can guarantee many people would not have voted to leave.

Had British businesses been consulted, British businesses unanimously – small, medium and large – would have said they appreciate and benefit from the single market, the free movement of goods and services, the movement of people, the three million people from the EU that work in the UK, who we need. We have an unemployment rate of under 5 per cent – what would we do without these 3m people?

Furthermore, this country is one of the leaders in the world in financial services, which benefits from being able to operate freely in the European Union and our businesses benefit from that as a result. We benefit from exporting, tariff-free, to every EU country. That is now in jeopardy as well.

The Prime Minister’s letter to the EU talks with bravado about our demands for a fair negotiation, when we in Britain are in the very weakest position to negotiate. We are just one country up against 27 countries, the European Commission and the European Council and the European Parliament. India, the US and the rest of the world do not want us to leave the European Union.

The Prime Minister’s letter of notice already talks of transitional deals beyond the two years. No country, no business and no economy likes uncertainty for such a prolonged period. This letter not just prolongs but accentuates the uncertainty that the UK is going to face in the coming years.

Britain is one of the three largest recipients of inward investment in the world and our economy depends on inward investment. Since the referendum, the pound has fallen 20 per cent. That is a clear signal from the world, saying, "We do not like this uncertainty and we do not like Brexit."

Though the Prime Minister said there is it no turning back, if we come to our senses we will not leave the EU. Article 50 is revocable. At any time from today we can decide we want to stay on.

That is for the benefit of the British economy, for keeping the United Kingdom "United", and for Europe as a whole – let alone the global economy.

Lord Bilimoria is the founder and chairman of Cobra Beer, Chancellor of the University of Birmingham and the founding Chairman of the UK-India Business Council.