Will a Labour leadership candidate follow Alan Johnson’s example?
An opportunity in PR emerges in this narrow contest.
By James Macintyre Published 13 June 2010 14:53As Mehdi Hasan pointed out earlier on this blog, the most interesting story in today's papers is the claim that Alan Johnson, the reform-minded former home secretary, is considering quitting the front bench in order to campaign for proportional representation. As Mehdi also pointed out, this marks a fresh contrast with the Labour leadership candidates, not one of whom -- depressingly for electoral reformers -- backs PR.
That there is agreement between the five pretenders on the matter presents an opportunity for one to take a stand. Andy Burnham has indicated that he is coming round to the Alternative Vote, having issued a tribal message to the NS hustings last week. It shows that candidates can change their minds.
Rumour has it that at least one of the more realistic candidates is considering breaking ranks and following Johnson on PR. Johnson is backing David Miliband, who would boost his pluralist credentials by sticking his neck out. After all, a key to this leadership election is showing you can win over those floating voters who voted Lib Dem and did not want to crown David Cameron.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

















4 comments
AV plus, not proposed by the Govt. in its reforms, would allow a certain ammount of proportionality, whilst retaining constituency links, and would have the side effect of possibly denying central party power.
What worries me is the proposed reduction in Mps. We have a rising population, and with less candidates the central machines would have far too much chance to parachute the usual suspects into power.
They'd be silly not to if Labour is ever going to form a Govt again.
Yes to fewer MPs maybe 525, and an increase in their salary, but lets have boundaries drawn to create more marginal seats. And a 2nd Chamber of just 250 members.
Good on Andy for coming out for AV which really is the best of both worlds: if you are still firmly opposed to PR then just choose 1 candidate. Simple.
AV is simple to understand. Other systems involve calculations in back rooms and the electorate do not like calcultions in back rooms.
PR is all very well in principle, but I really do not want the party hierarchy to have total control of determining the party lists... Mandelson-types would have even more power to ignore the membership.
Sue,
if you had the Single Transferable Vote, as opposed to a party list system, you could select different candidates within parties and obtain a proportional election result.
Post new comment