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 A renewed push to change our outdated and unfair voting system could be one unlikely byproduct of the UKIP surge.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

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.