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 A renewed push to change our outdated and unfair voting system could be one unlikely byproduct of the UKIP surge.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.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On the important issues, Louise Casey all too often has little to say

Far from moving the debate on, this new report on integration adds little to the report I commissioned in 2001. 

For 15 years, “numerous government reports on community cohesion and integration have not been implemented with enough force or consistency” concludes Louise Casey’s review of  integration.  The government’s lukewarm response suggests their effort will be as “diluted and muddled” as all the rest.

There’s a deeper reason why governments shy away from the measures that are needed. The report's wealth of data sets out a stark if sometimes contestable picture of a divided society.  But no amount of data can really bring the lives of our fellow citizens to life. As the Brexit vote underlined, this is now a nation divided by class, geography, education, wealth, opportunity and race. Those divisions colour the way we live our lives, the way we see problems in society, the relations we have with others, and our political choices. The report, like many before it, stops short of setting out that reality. It’s easier to pretend that most of us pretty much agree on most things; but just few people don’t agree and they must be the problem. Predictably, much of the early coverage has focussed on the Muslim community and new migrants. If only it were so easy.

According to Casey “in this country, we take poverty, social exclusion, social justice and social mobility seriously” and we do it “across political divides”. Apparently “creating a fair, just society where everyone can prosper and get on” is a cornerstone of British values. Yet for page after page the report chronicles the serial failure of this benign consensus to tackle educational under-performance, and economic and racial disadvantage. If we all agree, how come we haven't done anything about it?

These problems are not certainly easy to solve, but more lip service is paid to tackling them than effort. The practical material issues documented here need addressing, but punches are pulled when hard answers are needed. Given the dramatic impact of mass migration on cohesion, is integration possible while current rates of immigration persist? Can we find the political will to tackle poverty and disadvantage when those who might benefit from the effort are divided against each other by suspicion, race, geography and values? After all, rather than progressive policies producing a cohesive society, social unity is the precondition for the introduction of progressive policies.

We don't actually actually agree on what our “fundamental values” mean in practice. We can all sign up to democracy and the rule of law, but as soon as those are put into practice – see the court case on Article 50 – we are divided. When judges are popularly seen as “enemies of the people” and a vote in an elected parliament as a threat to democracy, in what sense are law and democracy fundamental?

Casey usefully highlights how treating homeless families equally, irrespective of ethnicity and length of residence can create the perception that minorities are being favoured over long standing residents. Our differing views on what is “just” and how “fairness” are defined can tear us apart. Is it fair to favour the newcomer over the indigenous? Is it just to put length of time on the waiting list above housing need? We often don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of other points of view, let alone try to find common ground.

The continual invocation of Britain and British values lends an air of unreality to the report.  Most people in England include British in their identity, but Englishness and English interests are of growing importance. In a worrying development, some areas of England  may be polarising between a white Englishness and an ethnic minority Britishness. Integration won't happen without a shared national story that combines a unifying national identity with the acceptance that we all have more than one identity that matters to us. Ignoring the reality of complex and multiple identities closes off one essential way forward.

None of this means that the criticism of some reactionary and occasionally dangerous ideas and practices in the Muslim community should be ignored and not confronted. But in a country where the established church opposes homosexual relationships and praise for Vladimir Putin's Russia is now mainstream politics it is hard to believe that all our problems can be reduced to the behaviour of a minority of a minority community.

John Denham was a Labour MP from 1992 to 2015, and a Secretary of State 2007 to 2010. He is Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University