Labour must not play politics with the electoral reform referendum

To say “No” like the Tories would be unforgivable cynicism.

By James Macintyre Published 08 June 2010 12:57

What with Jack Straw already beginning to make negative noises about Nick Clegg's political reform package, an ugly rumour is making the rounds in Westminster. The idea is being floated by some conservative Labourites that the opposition could join with the Tories in opposing the introduction of the Alternative Vote system (not proportional, but better than no change) in a referendum later in this parliament.

The move would be justified by some other element of the package, and result in the Lib Dems' dream of change dying a death. The coalition, so the theory goes, would then be in real trouble.

All very nice and well, but -- and you do not have to be a supporter of the coalition to believe this, far from it -- this is precisely the sort of opportunism that Labour has rightly accused the Tories of showing in opposition over the years. Just as David Cameron would be deeply wrong to allow the national Union to be undermined for party advantage, so Labour would be wrong to try to create cracks in the coalition by pursuing conservative policies.

After all, there are loads of real cracks to be found in what remains a fairly principle-free alliance.

This matters when it comes to the Labour leadership contest, too. The winning candidate must put pluralism and progressive politics above narrow, tribal party interest. Indeed, the only way for Labour to take on this coalition properly is for it to outflank the Con-Libs by becoming the true party of electoral, constitutional and political reform. Which means that a far smarter move than saying "No" would be to skip to backing true proportional representation.

Tags: Labour leadership

More from James Macintyre

8 comments

Tue, 2010-06-08 13:21 — Tom (not verified)

And saying yes to proper proportional representation means saying yes to STV.

Killing AV won't make the issue of electoral reform go away, it will just make the choice clearer.

Tue, 2010-06-08 13:29 — writeoff (not verified)

Could they really be that daft? The only winners, on every count, would be the Tories. AV gives progressives a fighting chance at the next election, worry about PR after that. If Labour go back on a(nother) referendum promise the Tories will have a field day and Labour would deserve a caning.

Tue, 2010-06-08 13:30 — John (not verified)

Sorry, to be clear - a political party shouldn't play politics with a public vote on a change to the political system?

Deeply naive, this attempt to sell a system that would entrench the majority of the regressive coalition as progressive!

Tue, 2010-06-08 13:41 — Laheed (not verified)

I think Jack Straw was only trying to make it clear that it will not be acceptable for the Government to cloud the waters on any proposed AV Referendum Bill, with add-on constitutional 'reforms.'

You are right though. It'd be sickening to see Labour members vote against AV to maintain FPTP. You and the magazine in general are right to take a very firm stance on this.

Tue, 2010-06-08 13:59 — Caroline (not verified)

I had to go off and read up on Jack Straw's supposed negativity on electoral reform. I found nothing in anything I read so suggest that he is advocating any stitch up with Tories over a refendum on AV. Rather that he is teasing apart the components of this "most radical" package since the Great Reform Act of 1832, which includes a reduction in the number of constituencies and a stitching together of voters to give an MP a greater number to represent, whilst ignoring the geography of the remotest and most isolated parts of the country. A quick trip over the LibDem voice blog site will reveal the discussions of the Cleggites on how best to gerrymander such changes to remove safe Labour and Conservative seats.
As a Labour voter, I would support a referendum on AV, but would prefer it to be a wider and more informed choice that was offered to the public. I would also want to have any proposals for reduction in constituencies fully explored and preferably the subject of public scrutiny - not parliament. It seems perfectly appropriate therefore for the opposition to highlight concerns about this aspect and strip away the hyperbole of this "Great Reform" being proposed.
It's also quite important to remember that during the LibDem/Conservative negotiations, many Conservative MPs, some of whom are now ministers, stated publicly that as far as they were concerned, electoral reform (meaning in this context the LibDem dream of a change in the voting system) was not an issue which people that they spoke to "on the door step" were concerned about.
The way I see it, ahead of any referendum on voting reform, the public need to be fully and independently "educated" as to what the benefits/disbenefits of all of the options outlined in the Jenkins report. The ballot should reflect the choice of change or no change, and then offering a choice of FPTP, AV or an other system. The parties must decide whether they will as a party recommend and campaign for a change and if so which change, or against any change. And then in the delivery of any necessary legislation, all MPs should vote free from the party whip and with an eye on the public mood in their constituency.
Now that would be a change.

Tue, 2010-06-08 14:21 — Natacha Kennedy (not verified)

The most obvious thing to do to destabilise the ConDems would be to propose ammendments to the referendum bill which include proper PR. The LDs would then either have to vote against PR, their main political demand, or join with Labour and other parties and support its inclusion and thus split the coalition. This would be an almost impossible situation for Clegg and Cameron to deal with and it might just bring down the governmemt...