The Tory plan for a permanent majority gathers pace

Boundary changes, Scottish independence and party funding reform could prevent Labour ever winning a

Labour strategists have long warned of a nightmare scenario in which the party would likely never govern again. First, the coalition's proposed boundary changes are approved, depriving Labour of an estimated 25 seats (the Conservatives would have won 13 fewer seats at the last election and the Lib Dems would have won seven fewer).

Second, Alex Salmond holds a referendum on independence and Scotland votes Yes. Of the 59 Westminster seats in Scotland that automatically would be lost, 41 are Labour-held but just one is Conservative-held. Finally, the Tories and the Lib Dems introduce a cap on party donations, depriving Labour of much of its trade-union funding and bankrupting the party.

Labour is consigned to permanent opposition and a new age of Tory hegemony is born.

So far this strategy, masterminded by George Osborne, is proceeding remarkably well (Osborne doesn't support Scottish independence but he will have done the parliamentary arithmetic). The new constituency boundaries are likely to be approved by 2013 and the Alternative Vote, which would have made the formation of a "progressive alliance" more likely, has been rejected by an overwhelming majority.

Meanwhile, an independent Scotland is more likely now than at any other point in the 304-year history of the Union. There is no doubt that David Cameron is being sincere when he vows to defend the United Kingdom with "every fibre in my body", but not everyone in his party takes the same view. A 2009 ConservativeHome poll of 144 party candidates found that 46 per cent would not be "uncomfortable about Scotland becoming independent".

Never assume

To many Tories, an independent England – economically liberal, fiscally conservative, Eurosceptic, Atlanticist – is an attractive prospect. The Conservatives have not held more than one seat in Scotland for the past 19 years – there is little political incentive to preserve the Union.

As Michael Portillo told Andrew Neil on This Week in 2006: "From the point of political advantage, the Conservatives have a better chance of being in government if Scotland is not part of the affair. You are continuing to assume the Union is sacrosanct. That is not an assumption I make any more."

The third plank of this strategy – party funding reform – is about to return to the agenda. As today's Observer reports, the Tories and the Lib Dems are advancing plans to impose a cap of £50,000 on political donations. The paper notes:

An analysis of funding conducted since David Cameron became Tory leader shows Labour would have been deprived of 85 per cent of its income since 2005 if the limit had been in place. This is because the vast majority of its funds have come from hefty union donations well above the £50,000 level.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, would have forfeited just 50 per cent of their income, as the party receives a higher proportion of its income from wealthy individuals who tend to give sums below the proposed £50,000 cap.

As I've pointed out before, Labour is now remarkably dependent on the unions for its funding. Back in 1994, when Tony Blair became Labour leader, trade unions accounted for just a third of the party's annual income. They now account for more than 60 per cent.

In the last quarter, private donations accounted for just £59,503 (2 per cent) of Labour's £2,777,519 income. Just two individuals donated to the party, one of whom was Alastair Campbell. By contrast, union donations accounted for 90 per cent of all funding.

I'm a strong supporter of the trade-union link, but it's unhealthy for a progressive political party to be so dependent on a few sources of income. Labour must broaden its funding base as a matter of urgency.

But the wider challenge is clear. If history is not to record Gordon Brown as the last Labour prime minister, the party must show as much ruthlessness, cunning and ingenuity as the Tories.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Supreme Court Article 50 winner demands white paper on Brexit

The Supreme Court ruled Parliament must be consulted before triggering Article 50. Grahame Pigney, of the People's Challenge, plans to build on the victory. 

A crowd-funded campaign that has forced the government to consult Parliament on Article 50 is now calling for a white paper on Brexit.

The People's Challenge worked alongside Gina Miller and other interested parties to force the government to back down over its plan to trigger Article 50 without prior parliamentary approval. 

On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled 8-3 that the government must first be authorised by an act of Parliament.

Grahame Pigney, the founder of the campaign, said: "It is absolutely great we have now got Parliament back in control, rather than decisions taken in some secret room in Whitehall.

"If this had been overturned it would have taken us back to 1687, before the Bill of Rights."

Pigney, whose campaign has raised more than £100,000, is now plannign a second campaign. He said: "The first step should be for a white paper to be brought before Parliament for debate." The demand has also been made by the Exiting the European Union select committee

The "Second People's Challenge" aims to pool legal knowledge with like-minded campaigners and protect MPs "against bullying and populist rhetoric". 

The white paper should state "what the Brexit objectives are, how (factually) they would benefit the UK, and what must happen if they are not achieved". 

The campaign will also aim to fund a Europe-facing charm offensive, with "a major effort" to ensure politicians in EU countries understand that public opinion is "not universally in favour of ‘Brexit at any price’".

Pigney, like Miller, has always maintained that he is motivated by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, rather than a bid to stop Brexit per se.

In an interview with The Staggers, he said: "One of the things that has characterised this government is they want to keep everything secret.”

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.