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
Show Hide image

Here's what Theresa May could say to save the Brexit talks

The best option would be to invent a time machine, but unfortunately that's not on the table. 

One of my favourite types of joke is the logical impossibility: a statement that seems plausible but, on closer examination, is simply impossible and contradictory. “If you break both legs, don’t come running to me” is one. The most famous concerns a hapless tourist popping into a pub to ask for directions to London, or Manchester, or Belfast or wherever. “Well,” the barman replies, “I wouldn’t have started from here.”

That’s the trouble, too, with assessing what the government should do next in its approach to the Brexit talks: I wouldn’t have started from here.

I wouldn’t have started from a transient Leave campaign that offered a series of promises that can’t be reconciled with one another, but that’s the nature of a referendum in which the government isn’t supporting the change proposition. It’s always in the interest of the change proposition to be at best flexible and at worst outright disregarding of the truth.

Britain would be better off if it were leaving the European Union after a vote in which a pro-Brexit government had already had to prepare a white paper and an exit strategy before seeking popular consent. Now the government is tasked with negotiating the terms of Britain’s exit from the European Union with a mandate that is contradictory and unclear. (Take immigration. It’s clear that a majority of people who voted to leave want control over Britain’s borders. But it’s also clear that a minority did not and if you take that minority away, there’s no majority for a Leave vote.

Does that then mean that the “democratic” option is a Brexit that prioritises minimising economic harm at the cost of continuing free movement of people? That option might command more support than the 52 per cent that Leave got but it also runs roughshod over the concerns that really drove Britain’s Leave vote.

You wouldn’t, having had a referendum in inauspicious circumstances, have a government that neglected to make a big and genuinely generous offer on the rights of the three million citizens of the European Union currently living in the United Kingdom.

In fact the government would have immediately done all it could to show that it wanted to approach exit in a constructive and co-operative manner. Why? Because the more difficult it looks like the departing nation is going to be, the greater the incentive the remaining nations of the European Union have to insist that you leave via Article 50. Why? Because the Article 50 process is designed to reduce the leverage of the departing state through its strict timetable. Its architect, British diplomat John Kerr, envisaged it being used after an increasingly authoritarian state on the bloc’s eastern periphery found its voting rights suspended and quit “in high dudgeon”.

The strict timeframe also hurts the European Union, as it increases the chances of an unsatisfactory or incomplete deal. The only incentive to use it is if the departing nation is going to behave in a unconstructive way.

Then if you were going to have to exit via the Article 50 process, you’d wait until the elections in France and Germany were over, and restructure Whitehall and the rest of the British state so it was fit to face the challenges of Brexit. And you wouldn’t behave so shabbily towards the heads of the devolved administrations that Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP and Carwyn Jones of the Welsh Labour Party have not become political allies.

So having neglected to do all of that, it’s hard to say: here’s what Theresa May should say in Florence, short of inventing time travel and starting the whole process again from scratch.

What she could do, though, is show flexibility on the question of British contributions to the European budget after we leave, and present a serious solution to the problem of how you ensure that the rights of three million EU citizens living in Britain have a legal backdrop that can’t simply be unpicked by 325 MPs in the House of Commons, and show some engagement in the question of what happens to the Irish border after Brexit.

There are solutions to all of these problems – but the trouble is that all of them are unacceptable to at least part of the Conservative Party. A reminder that, as far as the trouble with Brexit goes, Theresa May is the name of the monster – not the doctor. 

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.