Senior Lib Dems are muttering about being "unconstitutional". Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Lib Dems must resist succumbing to the voting system by only supporting the party with most seats

Don't play by First Past the Post's rules.

It should be the dream scenario for any smaller party with ambitions for government. Of the two parties likely to form a government, neither has the support to get a majority in the Commons; furthermore, one seems set to win most seats, the other most votes. It’s a recipe for tough negotiations with both in order to deliver the biggest slice of your own manifesto you possibly can.

Yet rumours are circulating that “senior Lib Dems” are questioning if we could put Ed Miliband into No 10 if he fails to be the biggest party in the Commons – on the grounds that it could be "unconstitutional". This is very wrong-headed thinking – and here’s why.

The SNP are going to do very well in this election – good luck to them, they’ve fought a brilliant campaign led by a politically astute and hugely popular leader. Something of a rarity all round in 2015.

But our daft electoral system means the SNP seat count is likely to hugely over-deliver in relation to their share of the vote. Current polling indicates they could have around 8 per cent of the Commons seats on 4 per cent of the popular UK vote.

That’s not the SNP’s fault. They supported a Yes vote in the AV referendum and the party is a long-standing supporter of the Single Transferable Vote system. But it does mean they’ll hugely benefit from the election being run on a First Post the Post (FPTP) system.

Nor is it Ed Miliband’s fault – who also campaigned for a Yes vote and the abolition of FPTP in 2011. But it’s he who will suffer, as SNP MPs replace mostly Labour MPs in the next parliament.

If the blame can be laid at anyone’s door, it’s the Tories and David Cameron – who campaigned vigorously to maintain the status quo, and of course to defeat the Lib Dems' longstanding desire for a fairer voting system to replace FPTP in British politics.

What an irony it would be then if the Liberal Democrats were to reward that behaviour, by excluding from power the leader with the most popular mandate among voters, on the grounds that the ludicrous FPTP system had thrown up a different result.

Ironically, thanks to FPTP, polls indicate that after the election, the Lib Dems will have around half the number of MPs as the SNP on double the share of the popular vote. It’s more likely that the SNP will hold the whip hand. But if we do have a say, let’s not use the pretence of constitutional niceties to defy the popular vote.

And we must not forget, while we don’t agree with the SNP on much, voting reform is a common goal shared by Nicola Sturgeon – and Ed Miliband. Ponder that while considering who to hand the keys of No 10 to.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.