Would a “No” on AV keep the Lib Dems in the coalition?

If the Alternative Vote system is rejected in May’s referendum, it could mean greater unity for the

If the Alternative Vote system is rejected in May’s referendum, it could mean greater unity for the coalition, rather than the predicted schism.

In assessing the future unity of the coalition, much of the focus has been on how the Lib Dems in particular would react to the big political events of the parliamentary term so far: the Strategic Defence Review, the Spending Review, Lord Browne's review of higher education funding, and next May's referendum on voting reform.

The assumption has been that, if under pressure from party grass roots and sour public opinion – over their previous pledge not to raise university tuition fees, for instance – in the face of reversed coalition policy, at least some Lib Dems could rebel, or even walk away from the coalition altogether.

The Alternative Vote referendum, expected to take place in May along with proposed changes to constituency boundaries, was reportedly the price Nick Clegg asked for his party's membership of the coalition, back in May.

It is an issue of paramount importance to the party at all levels, thus a "No" result would be a great blow to Lib Dems in government, prompting speculation and, in turn, denials that the party would "walk away" from the coalition if the public rejected AV. If the Tories do indeed actively campaign against reform, it would undoubtedly be a problematic situation.

But Nick Boles, the Conservative MP for Grantham and Stamford, who made a small splash a while back by writing a book calling for an electoral pact between the Tories and the Lib Dems in 2015, has now suggested in an interview that a "Yes" on AV would make the Lib Dems more likely to walk away from the coalition, while a "No" would leave them with no choice other than to stay the course. Boles said, in an interview with the website Yoosk:

If they were to win the referendum and AV were to be brought in, you could imagine a lot of Liberal Democrats saying, "Right, we got what we came for, now we'll withdraw from the coalition and make ourselves an independent voice again on the presumption that in a future election we'll do better than under first-past-the-post." So actually, if anything, they're more likely to leave if they win the referendum. If they lose the referendum, the only thing left to them is the persuade the British people that coalitions are a good thing, and to do that they have to stick with it until 2015.

This point was also made back in July by Peter Oborne (highlighted here by my colleague Jon Bernstein). Given that the Lib Dems seem, so far, to be holding on despite the storm surrounding tuition fees and spending cuts, commentators, including Boles, are agreed that the referendum will be a watershed for the coalition.

Whether a "Yes" on AV will prompt the Lib Dems to take their chances as an independent party remains to be seen. However, it is worth noting that, according to the Guardian's arithmetic at the time, had the last election been conducted under AV, the Lib Dems could have expected a further 20 seats only.

Whatever happens in May, they aren't out of coalition territory just yet.

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.