Could UKIP revive the debate over electoral reform?

If the party performs well in 2015 but fails to win a seat, our voting system will be questioned again.

This morning's papers make happy reading for Nigel Farage. A ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror puts UKIP in third place on 14 per cent, a rise of six points since last month and the party's highest-ever rating with that pollster. An Opinium poll for the Observer also has UKIP in third place on 14 per cent, although the regular YouGov survey for the Sunday Times puts the party's support at a more modest eight per cent.

We'll hear much this morning about how UKIP is now Britain's "third party" but the reality remains that it'll be lucky to win a single seat in 2015. Unlike the Green Party, which saw Caroline Lucas elected in 2010, it has no significant base in local government and lacks the activist power required to win a Westminster constituency.

It does, however, appear likely that UKIP will improve significantly on the 3.1 per cent of the vote it attracted at the last general election, if by far less than the polls currently suggest. The party is likely to perform strongly in the 2014 European elections and, on a low turnout, could even top the contest. But unlike in those elections, where the proportional voting system means the party stands to win as many as 20 seats (it won 13 last time round), the first-past-the-post system will almost certainly deny it a seat in parliament. With this in mind, it's worth asking whether the rise of UKIP could revive the dormant debate over electoral reform. The party supports the introduction of proportional representation and campaigned in favour of the Alternative Vote in the 2011 referendum.

One can already picture the headlines should UKIP end up with nothing to show for its increased support. "Democratic outrage as UKIP secures five per cent of the vote but wins no seats". A renewed push to change our outdated and unfair voting system could be one unlikely byproduct of the UKIP surge.

UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496