The Tories' UKIP problem shows why they should have supported AV

Those now calling for a Tory-UKIP pact should consider how AV could have prevented a divided right.

Even before the votes have been counted, the idea of a Tory-UKIP pact is already gathering pace. Daniel Hannan has called for a Canada-style 'Unite The Right' initiative, while Nigel Farage himself has reminded us that he's willing to consider running joint candidates, with David Cameron the only obstacle. If Conservative losses exceed the 310 forecast by Rallings and Thrasher (the deserved subject of a leader in today's Guardian) and if UKIP perform as well as predicted, expect Tory MPs to start pushing the idea on Friday morning. 

The reason is obvious. In the 1980s, it was the formation of the SDP and the consequent split in the left-wing vote that allowed Thatcher to win successive landslide victories. In 2015, a divided right could bring Ed Miliband to power. At the last general election, there were 21 seats in which the UKIP vote exceeded the Labour majority (one shouldn't make the error of assuming that all UKIP voters would automatically defect to the Tories, but many would), a number that is likely to significantly increase next time round. 

It's worth noting, then, that the Conservatives missed a good opportunity to reduce, if not eliminate, their UKIP problem when they chose to oppose the Alternative Vote in the 2011 referendum (as Lib Dem blogger Mark Thompson has previously argued on The Staggers). The introduction of AV would aid the party by allowing it to win the second preferences of the fifth of Tory voters who have defected to UKIP since 2010 (again, one shouldn't assume that all would vote Conservative, but many would). 

When I put this point to Conservatives, they reasonably reply that they opposed AV on principle; self-interest did not enter into it. But those now advocating some form of pact or tactical voting (as Toby Young does here) are certainly making partisan calculations. 

Of course, even if the Conservatives had campaigned in favour of AV, the voters still might have backed first-past-the-post (although it's worth remembering how decisive Cameron's intervention was). But as they mourn the loss of hundreds of councillors tomorrow, the Tories should take a moment to consider how different their position would now be if Clegg and co. had won the day in 2011. 

David Cameron gives a speech opposing the Alternative Vote at the Royal United Services Institute building on February 18, 2011. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

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