What we’ve learned from Mandelson’s memoir

Which Lib Dems would have made it into Gordon Brown’s cabinet and why Tony Blair was unambiguously o

The "news" that Nick Clegg demanded Gordon Brown's head as the price of a Lab-Lib coalition will come as a surprise to almost no one, though it's the first time we've had this story confirmed by one of the negotiators.

But the Times's serialisation of Peter Mandelson's memoir The Third Man (an important test case for the paywall) still contains much of note. Top of the list is the revelation that Tony Blair was unambiguously opposed to a deal between the two parties.

According to Mandelson, Blair said: "There will be an outcry if we stay on . . . There's going to be another election, and we'll be smashed if we don't make the right judgements." He later warned that it would be a "constitutional outrage" for Labour to remain in office. Perhaps it's not surprising that Blair, who won three consecutive elections, was unsympathetic to calls for his party to cling on to power.

We also learn that Mandelson, an exceptionally perceptive politician, was one of the few Labour figures to recognise the significance of David Cameron's "big, comprehensive offer" to the Lib Dems:

I was almost alone in our ranks in being impressed. Gordon and his team told me they felt it was a mistaken show of weakness, given that the Tories had won the largest number of seats. To me, it sounded like the new politics. In the past, I had felt that Cameron was not bold enough about changing his party. But now he was acting boldly, and if he pulled off a deal with the Lib Dems the alliance would offer him a renewed prospect of delivering a changed perception of his party.

The growing evidence that Cameron views the coalition not as an alliance of convenience, but as a vehicle to realign British politics, suggests that this interpretation was right.

In a helpful bit of PR, it was also Mandelson who ordered Brown to stop referring to Nick Clegg's party as the "Liberals". "If you're serious perhaps you should stop calling them the Liberals and get their name right," he said.

Finally, we learn which Lib Dems would have made it into Brown's new cabinet. Mandelson writes: "He envisaged Nick being in charge of constitutional reform, Chris Huhne at Energy, David Laws at Culture, Media and Sport, and Paddy Ashdown as Defence Secretary." Vince Cable would have been given "an economic portfolio".

One of the ironies of all this is that it was Brown, in the early, hopeful days of his premiership, who first invited Lib Dems to join the cabinet.

Subscription offer: Get 12 issues for just £12 PLUS a free copy of "The Idea of Justice" by Amartya Sen.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Britain's shrinking democracy

10 million people - more than voted for Labour in May - will be excluded from the new electoral roll.

Despite all the warnings the government is determined to press ahead with its decision to close the existing electoral roll on December 1. This red letter day in British politics is no cause for celebration. As the Smith Institute’s latest report on the switch to the new system of voter registration shows, we are about to dramatically shrink our democracy.  As many as 10 million people are likely to vanish from the electoral register for ever – equal to 20 per cent of the total electorate and greater than Labour’s entire vote in the 2015 general election. 

Anyone who has not transferred over to the new individual electoral registration system by next Tuesday will be “dropped off” the register. The independent Electoral Commission, mindful of how the loss of voters will play out in forthcoming elections, say they need at least another year to ensure the new accuracy and completeness of the registers.

Nearly half a million voters (mostly the young and those in private rented homes) will disappear from the London register. According to a recent HeraldScotland survey around 100,000 residents in Glasgow may also be left off the new system. The picture is likely to be much the same in other cities, especially in places where there’s greater mobility and concentrations of students.

These depleted registers across the UK will impact more on marginal Labour seats, especially  where turnout is already low. Conversely, they will benefit Tories in future local, Euro and general elections. As the Smith Institute report observers, Conservative voters tend to be older, home owners and less transient – and therefore more likely to appear on the electoral register.

The government continues to ignore the prospect of skewed election results owing to an incomplete electoral registers. The attitude of some Tory MPs hardly helping. For example, Eleanor Laing MP (the former shadow minister for justice) told the BBC that “if a young person cannot organize the filling in of a form that registers them to vote, they don’t deserve the right to vote”.  Leaving aside such glib remarks, what we do know is the new registers will tend to favour MPs whose support is found in more affluent rural and semi-rural areas which have stable populations.  

Even more worrying, the forthcoming changes to MPs constituencies (under the Boundary Review) will be based on the new electoral register. The new parliamentary constituencies will be based not on the voting population, but on an inaccurate and incomplete register. As Institute’s report argues, these changes are likely to unjustly benefit UKIP and the Conservative party.

That’s not to say that the voter registration system doesn’t need reforming.  It clearly does. Indeed, every evidence-based analysis of electoral registers over the last 20 years shows that both accuracy and completeness are declining – the two features of any electoral register that make it credible or not. But, the job must be done properly.  Casually leaving 10m voters off the electoral resister hardly suggests every effort has been made.

The legitimacy of our democratic system rests on ensuring that everyone can exercise their right to vote. This is a task which shouldn’t brook complacency or compromise.  We should be aiming for maximum voter registration, not settling for a system where one in five drop off the register.